Europe was the birthplace of mankind, not Africa, scientists find

[Mormolyce]

What about them?

How can you catch a cold twice? You've already had it before, so your immune system already has already adapted to it.

- - - Updated - - -

This has been known to most people before hand, but good for letting the unwashed masses know.

It's false, just so you know. But don't let me hold you back from embarrassing yourself.

[Deleted]

To be honest, science will go it's own way about it. More interesting thing is, what will typical political 'alt-right' and typical 'far-left' side do? It's pretty obvious this will be ebraced by alt-right, but since left pretended to rely on science and whatnot so far, what will they do if this is confirmed true and they have to confront it with all minorities they seemed to 'support'?

[Khaza-R]

Seems inrelavent if homo sapiens originated in Africa or Europe.

The birthplace of humanity is the Middle East

[schwarzkopf]

Technically correct, given the majority of modern humankind is 'impure' via Neanderthal DNA where humans interbred.

So Africans (aka pure bred humans) are not technically modern human. Note, using 'modern human' colloquially, not scientifically - to mean the humans we are today.

However - as for the article's view that a vastly more searched area of the world found some new evidence compared to a much vaster and far less searched area - that's not proof, that's just a tiny bit of evidence in a swarm saying the opposite.

- - - Updated - - -

The birthplace of humanity is the Middle East

Technically no, the birthplace is the source - not where they grew up.

Born in Africa = birthplace.

[Khaza-R]

Technically no, the birthplace is the source - not where they grew up.

Born in Africa = birthplace.

A homo-sapien is just a species of animal. What makes someone human is a the collective knowledge we possess and learn as a whole. So my point stands

[xChurch]

Africa is where the primates came down from the tree's, humanoid species spread pretty far afterwards. Though Europe was mostly considered Neanderthal territory iirc.

[schwarzkopf]

A homo-sapien is just a species of animal. What makes someone human is a the collective knowledge we possess and learn as a whole.

So you are saying that humanity was only born yesterday.... that's very strange logic there

[Khaza-R]

So you are saying that humanity was only born yesterday.... that's very strange logic there

If you are dense I suppose

[xenogear3]

Doesn't surprise me.

When Obama was the president, all these "scientists" claimed Africa is the best.

Now Trump is the president, all these "scientists" change their minds.
So they can get more funding.

[purebalance]

1. Look at the name of the account.

2. Even if they're serious, you can't argue with religious dogma.

Unless it's his favorite one, he'll argue to the poster that religion is stupid and bad for society and holds back science, but I don't recall seeing any religion in that person's post so idk where you're pulling that bullcrap from.

[Deleted]

The geographical origin of hominins has absolutely fuck all to do with minorities, minority rights, or any other left wing social issue.

Noone ever knows what 'left wing' issues are.

[Techno-Druid]

Generally, non-scientific works use the outdated terminology. Anywhere the news article says "hominid," you should read "hominin."

- - - Updated - - -



[citation needed]

Hominin (Hominini) is mostly used to prefer to members of the genus Homo or any ancestral genus like Australopithecus that shares more genetically in common with modern humans.

Hominid is used to refer to all members of the Great Ape family (Hominidae).

[Techno-Druid]

Yeah, no shit. What was unclear about my post?

Generally, non-scientific works use the outdated terminology. Anywhere the news article says "hominid," you should read "hominin."

I interpreted your post as labeling 'hominid' as an outdated term. My mistake I guess.

[Noomz]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/2...ientists-find/



So um.. this is probably going to piss some people off. I'm genuinely surprised by this too though. It's interesting to see what scientists are still digging up. A lot of history books, specifically what kids are taught are going to have to be rewritten now to teach this. I would assume that most people know that early humans had their start in Africa but this does change a lot.

Fucking Telegraph bullshit, spreading misleading crap. THere are conflicting ideas of the origin of homo erectus and there may have been a multitude of different humanoids at one time. This information is so broken, so incomplete, that saying for definite that either Africa or this new Europe idea is 100% true, is a lie.
The Africa theory is our most solid one, so that's the one we go with. But as anythign with science, popular media and the regular person fucks that information up a thousand times over.
Not to mention that dating these humanoids is difficult and I laugh at the notion that they could pinpoint it down to 100,000's of years like that.

Even the original information states that this COULD be or MIGHT be or POSSIBLY is.
http://journals.plos.org/plosone/art...l.pone.0177127
But ofcourse, garbage "news" like Telegraph will completely distort that information to be sensationalist.

[Underverse]

Shifting some dates around doesn't really change the premise of the out of Africa theory. There needs to be a lot more evidence before that can be reasonably challenged.

[Kasierith]

As always XKCD is relevant

https://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/significant.png

By the researchers own statements, it is a developing theory, that when placed against decades of discoveries in Africa placing the origin of homo sapiens there most definitively requires further validation before any such conclusions can be made. This is just a news site spinning things out of proportion.

[Doctor Funkenstein]

This sounds more like an anomaly than blanket truth than humanity evolved in Europe instead of Africa. If their claims are not erroneous, I would think this is more of a rare anomaly.

It's far more like "hey guys, we found some early explorers or folks who got lost/excommunicated/swept away from their tribe" than it is "humans evolved in Europe, 100% FACTZ!!!" like the derpy OP is trying to claim they're saying.

[zhero]

Some people may not realize it, but it's kind of a thing in anthropology to find a few teeth or a skull or something and hastily make an outrageous claim. It's certainly not impossible, but neither dating nor interpretation of fossil remains are perfectly accurate in all situations, and a few teeth are not enough to do more than open a new line of inquiry. However, I think the title of the article overstates what they're claiming by talking about "the birthplace of mankind," as this is merely a proposed first hominin, not the site at which H. sapiens first emerged.

I mean, S. tchadensis, which is mentioned in the article, has a more complete set of discovered physical remains, including a skull, and it's still not accepted as the first hominin.

they didn't find a few teeth, they found two ape-like fossils with human-like teeth

[Fyersing]

I've always found it rather odd that academia holds a higher regard for the study and understanding of early evolution, as opposed to more recent and profoundly-important regional adaptations.

The explanation for why many of the regional types from W. Africa tend to be tall, lean and fast when compared against someone from, say, C. Europe is an infinitely more intriguing subject matter than which part of the world apes first learned to think outside the box.

[schwarzkopf]

If you are dense I suppose

I wouldn't go as far as saying you are dense, but it was strange logic:

Your argument:
1. Birth of humanity requires humanity
2. Humanity includes collective knowledge
3. Collective knowledge is up until yesterday
Therefore (according to you)
4. Birth of humanity was yesterday.