Fossil of a mandible bone found in the Tianyuan Cave, Zhoukoudian, in suburs of Beijing. [Xinhua]
Posted on 04/03/2007 6:52:39 AM PDT by TigerLikesRooster
WASHINGTON -- Chinese and US researchers have reported the finding of an approximately 40,000-year-old early modern human skeleton in China, indicating that the "Out of Africa" dispersal theory of modern humans may not be as simple as was previously thought.
|
|
The findings were published Monday on the online issue of the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
Hong Shang, from the Institute of Vertebrate Paleontology and Paleoanthropology, Chinese Academy of Sciences and Washington University, St. Louis, MO., and colleagues examined a skeleton recovered in 2003 from the Tianyuan Cave, Zhoukoudian, in suburb of Beijing, China.
The skeleton dates to 42,000 to 38,500 years ago, making it the oldest securely dated modern human skeleton in China, and one of the oldest modern human fossils in eastern Eurasia, according to the researchers.
The specimen is basically a modern human, but it does have a few archaic characteristics, particularly in the teeth and hand bones, Hong Shang told Xinhua.
Based on this finding, the researchers say it is unlikely that a simple eastward spread of modern humans from Africa occurred, especially because slightly younger skeletons have been found in eastern Eurasia with similar mixes of features.
The Tianyuan skeleton suggests a gene flow occurred from the west and south.
The researchers say the Tianyuan skeleton also provides data on many aspects of its biology and will be useful for reconstructing the transition from archaic to modern humans in eastern Eurasia.
Ping!
The Chinese really, really think of blacks as the scum of the earth subhumans. It’s no surprise that they would spend money on researchers to “prove” that they do not share a common ancestor with blacks.
Well, they are Zhonghua-centric. China is the center of the world. They feel they cannot be the outlying branch of a tree rooted in Africa. So it goes.
That is their agenda. On the other hand, I wonder if this new finding has any scientific legs.
Shades of University of Heidlburg, circa 1936
It goes way beyond that. They don't think whites are inferior. In the Chinese scheme of things, blacks are not only inferior, they are subhuman.
Perhaps, but on the flip side, the widespread acceptance as dogma that all humans spread from Africa is probably rooted in no small amount of black-contempt as well. Why does it strike so many people as obviously true? Well, clearly this is only speculation on my part, but it's probably because blacks are perceived by so many as being so primitive.
It's got nothing to do with being obvious, any more than any of the other scientific theories are obvious. What is obvious is that earth is flat and that Apollo rides across the sky daily in his flying chariot, creating dawn, noon and dusk. It took many hundreds of years of calculations (and thousands of years of unproductive speculation and myth) before it became clear that the earth was not only round, it revolved around the sun. The Out of Africa theory is no more obvious than Newton's laws of physics. It took a lot of research into the fossil record in order to determine that this was in fact the case. As to primitivity, that's just silly. Blacks aren't any more primitive than whites, yellows or browns. If they were more primitive, we wouldn't be able to interbreed, any more than lions are able to breed with house cats.
alas...
Skeleton Holds Key To Origin Of Man
The Telegraph (UK) | 4-3-2007 | Roger Highfield
Posted on 04/02/2007 10:09:39 PM EDT by blam
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1810947/posts
Find raises doubts on key theory of human evolution
The Scotsman | April 3, 2007 | JOHN VON RADOWITZ
Posted on 04/02/2007 10:10:57 PM EDT by DaveLoneRanger
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1810949/posts
Please FREEPMAIL me if you want on or off the
"Gods, Graves, Glyphs" PING list or GGG weekly digest
-- Archaeology/Anthropology/Ancient Cultures/Artifacts/Antiquities, etc.
Gods, Graves, Glyphs (alpha order)
First, the fossils. That information has since been confirmed by DNA studies.
Here is a good illustration of that data: Journey of Mankind.
So I've always understood, and accepted. But how do you square that with this finding? Do you think this finding is false? Based on what?
As to primitivity, that's just silly. Blacks aren't any more primitive than whites, yellows or browns. If they were more primitive, we wouldn't be able to interbreed, any more than lions are able to breed with house cats.
What good points you make. You are right! I see the light now. Blacks aren't more primitive, thanks for correcting me /sarcasm
But seriously, did I not make my point clear enough? I didn't say I think blacks are "primitive", I clearly said "blacks are perceived by so many as being so primitive". Why are you arguing with me on that? In post #3 you said essentially that all Chinese think of them this way. So you don't really disagree with me.
|
|
|
| GGG managers are SunkenCiv, StayAt HomeMother & Ernest_at_the_Beach | |
|
|
Just updating the GGG information, not sending a general distribution. |
|
|
|
|
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.