+- Rogue-Nation Discussion Board (https://rogue-nation.com/mybb)
+-- Forum: History and Old Mystery (https://rogue-nation.com/mybb/forumdisplay.php?fid=109)
+--- Forum: World History (https://rogue-nation.com/mybb/forumdisplay.php?fid=111)
+--- Thread: Out of Africa and some of the latest findings (/showthread.php?tid=2502)
Out of Africa and some of the latest findings - 727Sky - 12-12-2024
Some interesting findings about human evolution
Quote:What if everything we thought we knew about human origins was wrong? For decades, the Out of Africa theory dominated our understanding of evolution, claiming that modern humans emerged from a single African population and spread across the globe. But groundbreaking discoveries and genetic research are rewriting history, revealing a far more complex and interconnected story. From the ancient Petralona skull to the mysterious 'Ubeidiya vertebra' found in Israel, fossils are challenging the timeline of human migration. And genetic studies now suggest that modern humans may have descended from multiple interconnected groups within Africa, rather than a single origin. Could the multiregional hypothesis, which argues for simultaneous evolution across continents with gene flow between populations, hold the real key to our past? Explore how new findings are unraveling the simplicity of the Out of Africa theory and revealing the intricate web of migrations, interactions, and evolutionary milestones that define humanity's story. Are we the product of a single cradle—or a global network of ancient communities?
RE: Out of Africa and some of the latest findings - Ninurta - 12-12-2024
I've never considered "out of Africa" to be a valid theory. It makes no sense, and appears to me to run counter to known science. If I had to pick a "cradle of birth" for the current crop of humans, I'd have to say the upper Levant, Eastern Turkey, or perhaps Central Asia or maybe the Balkans. That seems more likely to me to have been the source of the "humans" from which all the current hybrid species would have had to come from.
There seems to be no one "human" race left any more, no pure "humans". Europeans and Asians are human-neanderthal hybrids. Some east Asians, Pacific Islanders, Papuans, and Australian Aborigines are human-denisovan hybrids. Sub-Saharan Africans are hybrids of humans and some "mystery hominid", perhaps australopithecans, or "homo naledi", or maybe some as yet undiscovered hominid from sub-Saharan Africa.
This may be reflected in average IQ's. If Europeans are taken to have the average IQ of 100, then on average, Asians have an IQ of about 105, and sub-Saharan Africans have an average IQ of 85, whereas African Americans split the difference and have an average IQ of around 92. Now this does not mean that any one of these subspecies is "dumber" or "smarter" than any of the others, it is a reflection of the environments their ancestors developed in, and the ability to deal with those environments. It just happens to be geared towards European environments, because the scale was developed by Europeans.
If you take an average modern European, strip him naked and plunk him down in sub-Saharan Africa empty handed - having to start from scratch and make everything he needs from local materials in order to survive - he might last a week. That's not because he is objectively stupid, it's because he is not developed for that environment. The same goes for all the rest, when removed from their native environments and plunked down in the middle of an alien environment. No one is perfect, but some are better adapted for certain environments, and that shows in how they think.
Given that all of these "sub-species" perhaps of alleged "human" are hybridized with other hominids found in their respective localities, it makes more sense that the original "humans" had to emanate and radiate outwards from some more centralized location, rather than any one of those alleged "cradles" of origin.
In any event, no pure-blooded "humans" exist any more that are not admixed with some more local hominid variant. Them's just the facts.
Attempts to localize "humanity" to one cradle or another are abject displays of chauvinism geared towards one hybridized subspecies or another. "Out of Africa" is the chauvinism geared towards claiming that only sub-Saharan Africans are the "real" humans, and the rest are just hybrid offshoots. it's no better than claiming Europeans or Oceanians are the only "real" humans with the rest as hybridized offshoots. It's all just racial hubris trying to put one "race" ahead of the rest on the humanity scale. 100 years ago, it was the Europeans on top. "Out of Africa" is just an attempt to put the sub-Saharans in the lead for "humanity".
NONE of those are correct. We are ALL hybrids of one form or another, pulling in different directions depending on the ancestral stock we hybridized with.
There are no more "pure" humans..
ETA: All through "human" history, from pre-humans like australopithecus right on up through paleolithic hunters like Cro-Magnon, the human brain size increased with each new speciation event. Then, suddenly, about 5000 years ago concurrent with the development of "civilization", human brain size started decreasing again. I personally think that is because paleolithic hunters were the supreme "generalists" - they had to know, and be able to do, everything for themselves. As "civilization" developed, people became more specialist than generalist, therefore not needing those huge brains to hold all that knowledge. In a "civilization", you may need to know how to weave cloth, or raise sheep, or raise wheat, but you don't have to know EVERYTHING, because you've learned to trade your product for the products of other folks with their own specialized knowledge. Now that's jut my theory, but the underlying fact is that human brain sizes have been steadily decreasing for 5000 years, and that is just my way of explaining WHY.
.