[mastab]

To stop the other thread from going off topic. This isn't abiogenisis, it's anthropogenisis. Don't talk about the origin of life, talk about where, how, and when humans first appeared.

Emperor Stranger, on Jul 30 2009, 11:49 PM, said:

Fossil records prove that something lived. It does not prove that we originated in Africa and it certainly does not prove that we evolved from other creatures.

Sure it does. We can trace minor evolutionary steps in the fossil record from the oldest human remains in Africa to more simple apes. And fossils are just one of the many ways to prove evolution. If whales did not come from land mammals, please explain why early whale skeletons have been found with limbs for walking on them.

Quote

When you see a bone in the ground, you know it died. You don't know how,

In many cases you do. If it has a hole in its skull, it's safe to say that that might have had something to do with its death. This has nothing to do with evolution in general or evolution of humanity, though.

Quote

you don't know when,

Fossil layers. The deeper down something is, the older it is.

Quote

you don't even know if it had any children.

I believe you can figure that out, actually. But, again, how does finding out if Lucy had kids or not have anything to do with proving that she was an ancestor of humans?

[Emperor Stranger]

I am not about to get into this debate... again. Have fun.

[Germanic Republic]

Emperor Stranger, on Jul 31 2009, 02:34 AM, said:

I am not about to get into this debate... again. Have fun.

If you're not going to stand up for your views on a subject, don't comment on it.

[Erich Ludendorff]

Is this supposed to be about what Homo sapiens evolved from, or where they evolved? Are there people that don't believe Homo sapiens originated in Africa?

[Mongol Federation]

Erich Ludendorff, on Jul 31 2009, 07:39 AM, said:

Is this supposed to be about what Homo sapiens evolved from, or where they evolved? Are there people that don't believe Homo sapiens originated in Africa?

Really? Every creationist I've met agrees with an African origin. Historical and biblical sources place everything in Africa/Mesopotamia after all. Evolution has nothing to do with it.

Still, It doesn't surprise me some would still disagree.

[auto98]

New Inca Empire, on Jul 31 2009, 12:44 PM, said:

Really? Every creationist I've met agrees with an African origin. Historical and biblical sources place everything in Africa/Mesopotamia after all. Evolution has nothing to do with it.

Still, It doesn't surprise me some would still disagree.

There are arguments I have heard that claim Asia rather than Africa

[Lackistan]

Pretty sure we all came from a single, human/cylon ancestor, somewhere in Africa.

But in all seriousness, I am pretty sure consensus is human civilization came out of Mesopotamia. Not sure where the "first" Homo Sapien wass, though. Probably in that area.

[Israfeel]

Emperor Stranger, on Jul 31 2009, 03:34 AM, said:

I am not about to get into this debate... again. Have fun.

"I can't defend my views"

It was pretty clear you weren't even willing to discuss it in the other thread, and now that we have the opportunity to, it isn't convenient for you. Considering an internet thread doesn't really go anywhere nor does it call for you at any specific time, doesn't make much sense.

[edikroma]

Well, there are two major views on the topic.

The first is the Out of Africa hypothesis, which states that we had a single origin, in Africa. Through migration, we worked our way up and out into Europe, Asia, over a land bridge (or maybe even over water) to the Americas and Australia.

There is also the multiple origin hypothesis, which has us actually coming from several hominid species that evolved throughout the world, leading to our current species today.

I subscribe more to the single origin theory, though I really haven't ever cared enough to really sit down and go over both. We did do a little bit of Human Evolution in my Evolution course, but that class was so boring that I spent most of my time staring at my notes, doodling.

[Delta1212]

The problem with the multiple origin theory is that, while there were competing hominids that died out like Neanderthal man, had humans evolved more than once separately, we wouldn't be the same species and wouldn't be able to successfully interbreed. Unless of course a group of apes or proto-hominids spread across the world and then magically developed identical mutations, the chances of which are approximately zero. Despite the phenotypic variety you find in humans, our genotypic diversity is extremely low.

Would have been interesting to see what would have happened had we stayed isolated from one another for longer, though.

[Mongol Federation]

Delta1212, on Jul 31 2009, 10:54 AM, said:

The problem with the multiple origin theory is that, while there were competing hominids that died out like Neanderthal man, had humans evolved more than once separately, we wouldn't be the same species and wouldn't be able to successfully interbreed. Unless of course a group of apes or proto-hominids spread across the world and then magically developed identical mutations, the chances of which are approximately zero. Despite the phenotypic variety you find in humans, our genotypic diversity is extremely low.

Would have been interesting to see what would have happened had we stayed isolated from one another for longer, though.

Indeed. An interesting what if I have is what if Humans hadn't gone extinct in Briton after it became an island. Considering how islands tend to speed up evolution and to set it on some bizarre paths, they, had they survived, could have become an interesting sister species.

[Aeternos Astramora]

New Inca Empire, on Jul 31 2009, 10:25 AM, said:

Indeed. An interesting what if I have is what if Humans hadn't gone extinct in Briton after it became an island. Considering how islands tend to speed up evolution and to set it on some bizarre paths, they, had they survived, could have become an interesting sister species.

It probably would have been out competed or killed as soon as Homo Sapiens came to meet it. See Neanderthals.

[Mongol Federation]

Aeternos Astramora, on Jul 31 2009, 11:29 AM, said:

It probably would have been out competed or killed as soon as Homo Sapiens came to meet it. See Neanderthals.

They were H. Sapian Sapian, the same species as ourselves. That's not to say they may not have evolved to become weaker then ourselves but it's not as if they were starting from a form any less evolved then ourselves.

[Aeternos Astramora]

New Inca Empire, on Jul 31 2009, 10:43 AM, said:

They were H. Sapian Sapian, the same species as ourselves. That's not to say they may not have evolved to become weaker then ourselves but it's not as if they were starting from a form any less evolved then ourselves.

You said they would become a sister species, meaning they would be a separate species. A species confined to an island will not grow in population significantly until it spreads out off the island. If they went off the island, there would be some genetic mixing with the group still on mainland Europe, and you could expect them, upon seeing people coming from the island, to head over to the island themselves to complete the genetic mixing.

If they stayed on the island, the population would still be fairly small. Once it meets the far more numerous mainland species, it would probably be outcompeted or killed off by the far more numerous mainland species.

[Mongol Federation]

Aeternos Astramora, on Jul 31 2009, 12:21 PM, said:

You said they would become a sister species, meaning they would be a separate species. A species confined to an island will not grow in population significantly until it spreads out off the island. If they went off the island, there would be some genetic mixing with the group still on mainland Europe, and you could expect them, upon seeing people coming from the island, to head over to the island themselves to complete the genetic mixing.

If they stayed on the island, the population would still be fairly small. Once it meets the far more numerous mainland species, it would probably be outcompeted or killed off by the far more numerous mainland species.

We co-existed just fine with the Neanderthals. We didn't kill them off, deforestation did. As the humans on Briton were the same species as us, I expect that anything they would have evolved into would be able to survive along side us.

Alas the British population was too small and inbreeding did them in. Had more humans made it to Briton pre-islandfication, who knows?

[Aeternos Astramora]

New Inca Empire, on Jul 31 2009, 12:47 PM, said:

We co-existed just fine with the Neanderthals. We didn't kill them off, deforestation did.

http://en.wikipedia....hals#Extinction

Quote

As the humans on Briton were the same species as us, I expect that anything they would have evolved into would be able to survive along side us.

They were the same species as us. I thought the point of this was to assume they became a different species?

[Ricardo]

I love the old creationist tirade "well you can't know that"

[Emperor Stranger]

Germanic Republic, on Jul 31 2009, 07:29 AM, said:

If you're not going to stand up for your views on a subject, don't comment on it.

I can comment about it without getting into a debate about it, kthx.

Erich Ludendorff, on Jul 31 2009, 07:39 AM, said:

Is this supposed to be about what Homo sapiens evolved from, or where they evolved? Are there people that don't believe Homo sapiens originated in Africa?

Yes.

New Inca Empire, on Jul 31 2009, 07:44 AM, said:

Really? Every creationist I've met agrees with an African origin. Historical and biblical sources place everything in Africa/Mesopotamia after all. Evolution has nothing to do with it.

Still, It doesn't surprise me some would still disagree.

No. Well, maybe. You must not have found the right Creationist.

My personal belief is that before the flood, there was a super continent with most of the water under said continent. (Most, not all of the water.) Was there an Asia or Africa? No, there wasn't. (More information.)

[Gustave5436]

Emperor Stranger, on Jul 31 2009, 03:10 PM, said:

My personal belief is that before the flood, there was a super continent with most of the water under said continent. (Most, not all of the water.) Was there an Asia or Africa? No, there wasn't. (More information.)

I assume that means you reject the theory of plate tectonics?

edit: and the current geological understanding of the structure of the Earth in general (i.e. crust floating atop mantle; no room for an immense underground ocean which can spontaneously erupt onto the surface in its entirety).

This post has been edited by Gustave5436: 31 July 2009 - 06:45 PM

[Emperor Stranger]

Gustave5436, on Jul 31 2009, 08:43 PM, said:

I assume that means you reject the theory of plate tectonics?

edit: and the current geological understanding of the structure of the Earth in general (i.e. crust floating atop mantle; no room for an immense underground ocean which can spontaneously erupt onto the surface in its entirety).

I suppose that means that you ignored the video. In the Bible, it says "the fountains of the deep broke open", which explains where all the water from the flood came from, where the fault lines came from, and even where certain mountain ranges and such came from.