"Revising the Story of the Dispersal of Modern Humans Across Eurasia"

[Skwim]

Another nail in the Noah-Flood story.

Most people are now familiar with the traditional "Out of Africa" model: modern humans evolved in Africa and then dispersed across Asia and reached Australia in a single wave about 60,000 years ago. However, technological advances in DNA analysis and other fossil identification techniques, as well as an emphasis on multidisciplinary research, are revising this story. Recent discoveries show that humans left Africa multiple times prior to 60,000 years ago, and that they interbred with other hominins in many locations across Eurasia.

(ka (kilo-annum) is a thousand years)​

A review of recent research on dispersals by early modern humans from Africa to Asia by researchers from the Max Planck Institute for the Science of Human History and the University of Hawai'i at Manoa confirms that the traditional view of a single dispersal of anatomically modern humans out of Africa around 60,000 years ago can no longer be seen as the full story. The analysis, published in the journal Science, reviews the plethora of new discoveries being reported from Asia over the past decade, which were made possible by technological advances and interdisciplinary collaborations, and shows that Homo sapiens reached distant parts of the Asian continent, as well as Near Oceania, much earlier than previously thought. Additionally, evidence that modern humans interbred with other hominins already present in Asia, such as Neanderthals and Denisovans, complicates the evolutionary history of our species.
source

.​

 

[shunyadragon]

Another nail in the Noah-Flood story.

Most people are now familiar with the traditional "Out of Africa" model: modern humans evolved in Africa and then dispersed across Asia and reached Australia in a single wave about 60,000 years ago. However, technological advances in DNA analysis and other fossil identification techniques, as well as an emphasis on multidisciplinary research, are revising this story. Recent discoveries show that humans left Africa multiple times prior to 60,000 years ago, and that they interbred with other hominins in many locations across Eurasia.

(ka (kilo-annum) is a thousand years)​

A review of recent research on dispersals by early modern humans from Africa to Asia by researchers from the Max Planck Institute for the Science of Human History and the University of Hawai'i at Manoa confirms that the traditional view of a single dispersal of anatomically modern humans out of Africa around 60,000 years ago can no longer be seen as the full story. The analysis, published in the journal Science, reviews the plethora of new discoveries being reported from Asia over the past decade, which were made possible by technological advances and interdisciplinary collaborations, and shows that Homo sapiens reached distant parts of the Asian continent, as well as Near Oceania, much earlier than previously thought. Additionally, evidence that modern humans interbred with other hominins already present in Asia, such as Neanderthals and Denisovans, complicates the evolutionary history of our species.
source

.​

As more genetic information becomes available the migration of humans out of Africa will likely change over time, but the present provides a good foundation for the different events.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It only makes sense. I do believe that the original concept of how the "native" peoples of the New World came to be is now also thought to be by more than one migration. There is no reason to think that there could only be one migration event.

Thanks for the post. Is there a link to the article?

 

[Skwim]

It only makes sense. I do believe that the original concept of how the "native" peoples of the New World came to be is now also thought to be by more than one migration. There is no reason to think that there could only be one migration event.

Thanks for the post. Is there a link to the article?

Click on the "source" right after the quote. Bottom left corner.

.

 

[Windwalker]

What does science really know anyway? I think it's much simpler to believe Noah's ark story as the true story of human dispersal. If science hasn't found the evidence to support that, that's because it hates God, and God is hiding it from them to make fools out of them in front of the true believers.

 

[shunyadragon]

What does science really know anyway? I think it's much simpler to believe Noah's ark story as the true story of human dispersal. If science hasn't found the evidence to support the, that's because it hates God.

. . . and tripping through the poppy fields, and smoking funny stuff with the fairies and puff the magic dragon.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Click on the "source" right after the quote. Bottom left corner.

.

Thank you, missed that. I am fighting massive Sun glare today. Normally we do not see the Sun at this time of the year.

 

[shunyadragon]

Thank you, missed that. I am fighting massive Sun glare today. Normally we do not see the Sun at this time of the year.

UFO?!?!!?

 

[Subduction Zone]

What does science really know anyway? I think it's much simpler to believe Noah's ark story as the true story of human dispersal. If science hasn't found the evidence to support that, that's because it hates God, and God is hiding it from them to make fools out of them in front of the true believers.

Too early to make that claim. After 6 months of rain that is how we feel sometimes. It does not rain much here in the way of inches. But it sure rains a lot when measured in time. It is amazing how little it can rain for how long.

 

[Windwalker]

. . . and tripping through the poppy fields, and smoking funny stuff with the fairies and puff the magic dragon.

Well, it does. It hates God and his little dog Toto too. Darwin is the Wicked Witch of the West. God turned him green.

 

[Skwim]

What does science really know anyway? I think it's much simpler to believe Noah's ark story as the true story of human dispersal.

Of course it is, which is one reason it remains so popular. Why bother sorting out the evidence and arguments when you can just ignore it all and go into unconditional acceptance mode.

If science hasn't found the evidence to support that, that's because it hates God, and God is hiding it from them to make fools out of them in front of the true believers.

You funny guy.


.

 

[England my lionheart]

Read this yesterday, really interesting
World - BBC News

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

What does science really know anyway? I think it's much simpler to believe Noah's ark story as the true story of human dispersal. If science hasn't found the evidence to support that, that's because it hates God, and God is hiding it from them to make fools out of them in front of the true believers.

So are you saying it's always better to believe the simple things, and ignore the complicated stuff? How on earth do you cope with a computer or smart phone then?

And science -- which does not "hate" god because science has found no "evidence for" god, isn't hiding anything at all. If you don't know what evidence science has presented, well, it's certainly not because science hasn't presented it, it's far more likely to because you won't -- or can't -- understand it.

 

[Windwalker]

So are you saying it's always better to believe the simple things, and ignore the complicated stuff?

I personally think at least 39% of the electorate believe such things.

How on earth do you cope with a computer or smart phone then?

It's a challenge. I look at them, pray a little, and then after much waiting upon the Lord, that still small voice tells me to go read the manual. Once I learn to read, I will.

And science -- which does not "hate" god because science has found no "evidence for" god, isn't hiding anything at all.

Oh course it hates God. The preacher said they're all atheists, and they hate God. They fake science to make the Bible look like it was written by primitives, whereas we know that they could see the future and knew science before science knew science. Since they came first, they're right.

If you don't know what evidence science has presented, well, it's certainly not because science hasn't presented it, it's far more likely to because you won't -- or can't -- understand it.

It's not that I can't, it's that I refuse. To challenge my thinking is too much for me to bear. I need to stand strong against so-called evidence, which is planted by the tempter to make us quit sending our tithe money to Answers in Genesis.

 

[atanu]

Another nail in the Noah-Flood story.

I do not think that Noah-Flood story represents a physical flood etc..

In Hindu tradition, there is a reference of a flood where a boy name Markandeya was saved. Markandeya's flood does not refer to drowning by water. It refers to drowning by ignorance, by temptations, and the subsequent regeneration (for some wise folks such as Markandeya) or complete desolation (for those who chose to remain fooled repeatedly by temptations).

​

 

[Ingledsva]

Thank you, missed that. I am fighting massive Sun glare today. Normally we do not see the Sun at this time of the year.

Same here. I'm in Alaska, it's almost Yule, and the temperature is in the high fifties.

*

 

[Subduction Zone]

Same here. I'm in Alaska, it's almost Yule, and the temperature is in the high fifties.

*

We are "cold" locally. It gets below freezing every night. There is a high pressure area that is taking all of our normal damp and relatively warm Hawaiian air and swirling it up into Alaska. I am betting it is cloudy and rainy where you live too right now. I grew up in Minnesota when it still got cold in the winter there. Back then cold did not start until 0. In fact my brother forgot. When the "Arctic blast" hit Minnesota a few years back and the temperatures got down to -20 I said "So what? It got that cold almost every year when we were growing up there." He did not believe me until he looked it up himself. When what used to be normal is headline news I know that global warming is real.