Posted on 01/27/2011 4:03:33 PM PST by decimon
Modern humans may have emerged from Africa up to 50,000 years earlier than previously thought, a study suggests.
Researchers have uncovered stone tools in the Arabian peninsula that they say were made by modern humans about 125,000 years ago.
The tools were unearthed at the site of Jebel Faya in the United Arab Emirates, a team reports in the journal Science.
The results are controversial: genetic data strongly points to an exodus from Africa 60,000-70,000 years ago.
Simon Armitage, from Royal Holloway, University of London, Hans-Peter Uerpmann, from the University of Tuebingen, Germany, and colleagues, uncovered 125,000-year-old stone tools at Jebel Faya which resemble those found in East Africa at roughly the same time period.
The authors of the study say the people who made the tools were newcomers in the area with origins on the other side of the Red Sea.
The researchers were able to date the tools using a light-based technique, which tells scientists when the stone artefacts were buried.
>
Multiple migrations?
>
(Excerpt) Read more at bbc.co.uk ...
Are there another molecule that get passed on hereditary that only you know about?
“Oppenheimer when asked if his was the first ever detonation of of a nuclear bomb, he said. ‘Yes, in modern times’.”
As in India?
A Sicilian has less genetic distance between himself and a Japanese person than either has with a Thai person.
You want to lump Japanese people and Thai together, but that is not based upon any objective standard, but upon superficial similarities.
If you want to go 3 races they would be...
1) New Guinean/Australian
2) Asian/Caucasian
3) African
If you want to go further down the chart you can also get 5, and they would be....
1) New Guinean/Australian
2) African
3) Indians/Middle Eastern/European/etc
4) Korean/Japanese/Siberian/American-Indian/etc
5) Thai/Polynesian/Philippine/etc
There are distinct differences, that is not at all under debate; just how you can possibly get three, and where you would put New Guinean/Australians?
“Michael Cremo’s “Forbidden Archeology” should be required reading. “
___________
ROFL
Few asylums even allow reading, less “required reading”.
To me it suggests that the genetic "bottleneck" theory related to the explosion of the Toba supervolcano in Indonesia may have validity. Genetic evidence suggests the world's entire human population was reduced to between 1,000 and 10,000 breeding pairs as a result of that calamity about 70,000 years ago. All humans alive today, the theory says, are descended from them. A great deal would depend on where those surviving breeders were located. Maybe they were the San descendants who migrated out of Africa.
Blubba flubba goo goo moo moo gerkin. That's what you just said.
I’m not lumping similar genes together as you say like Chinese and Thai. They’re mongoloid. Within each race, as your chart points out, there are differences. What I was intimating was there are only three distinct races and within those races are sub-races such as Chinese, Japanese, Korean, Thai, Lao, etc. But they’re all considered or classified as mongoloid.
I read several years ago that Caucasians and Mongoloids ((ncluding American Indians) all share a gene that indicates a common male ancestor that lived in Central Asia more than 30,000 years ago.
I’m wondering then where the division started. Somewhere there has to be a split of sorts. The two are so similarly different.
“Humans ‘left Africa much earlier’”...
A racist statement if I ever heard one. So, who lives there now?
Another very controversial study strongly suggests humans left Africa much later, sometime last Saturday afternoon.
The black/white/mongoloid breakdown is a very rough separation. Among blacks, look at variations of sub-Saharan people: the tall Watusi, the pygmies, the lighter-skinned Khoikhoi, the darker-skinned Bantu, the Somali -- there's a lot of variation there. Similarly among Caucasians you have the fair-skinned red haired Irish versus the dark-skinned people of India, and variations in between. Among mongoloids you have Japanese, Polynesian, American Indian, etc. From one way of looking at it, there are dozens or hundreds of races.
So would that out the so-called cradle of humanity in Africa to rest? It would seem that more probable. But then, it comes back to when modern humans formed. I don’t think that humans would want to go north to cool down.
The way I still see it though, there are sub-races within the three primary races. I understand that. My original contention was there were just the three races: Negroid, Caucasoid and Mongoloid. From them came all the others. It had to have started out at some time with those three distinct races.
Good Grief!!! The reference section at the bottom is enough to keep someone busy for years. I’m going back to my Michael Connelly book, Echo Park.
If it turns out to be true that the non-African races interbred with Neanderthals, then you would have a much greater genetic separation between the Africans and the rest.
‘Who’s to say they were human? ‘
If they manufactured tools beyond stone axes they were human.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.