[porkchops 4 mahound]

Some folks have long doubted the so called evidence for the out-of-Africa theory.

They argue that the greater age of finds in Africa are not proof of older populations. The finds are the results of the site specific, more favorable, geographical, and environmental, conditions, for finds to survive, and then to be found.

Hot and very dry conditions yield more surviving organic materials, and better, finds, than similar materials existing for the same, or some other span of time, in less favorable conditions, such as warm and wet.

The distribution of the finds possible world wide is going to favor the places where materials will survive best, and longest.

That means that the ancient populations distributions cannot be accurately tied to individual finds in a specific time context.

I'm not putting down the out-of-Africa model, I could just never get past the sample distribution time problem.

Even though the sample/data base for very ancient materials remains relatively thin, compared to more avaliable, more modern, populations, it is important to remember that this data base is now the largest and most detailed that has ever existed up till now in history.

Truth is all I seek, no matter where it leads.

I just doubt it leads out of Africa, at the moment.

[blam]

"Hot and very dry conditions yield more surviving organic materials, and better, finds, than similar materials existing for the same, or some other span of time, in less favorable conditions, such as warm and wet."

That's one of my complaints too.

The soil is so acidic around here that people buried in cemeteries in the mid-1800's are no longer there...there's nothing underground above their gravestones and the gravestones themselves are etched away to almost nothing. Not a good area to go looking for fossils here.