Stone-Tipped Spears Half a Million Years Old!

[Willamena]

It seems stone tipped spears are half a million years old, dating back to a common ancestor of our species and Neanderthals. Source.

But are they sunstone tipped? That's the thing.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

But are they sunstone tipped? That's the thing.

Experimental testing is ongoing. But preliminary findings indicate "tipsy" rather than "tipped".

 

[Trimijopulos]

Does this mean there were no other migratory groups out of Africa? No. Neanderthals ancestors came from Africa, and it is likely others did also.

The Out-of-Africa hypothesis has to do exclusively with modern humans.
The fact that the human genus originated in Africa is generally accepted and acknowledged.
The human species, however, evolved in Africa, Europe and Asia independently.
The OoA maintains that modern humans were only those who left Africa and their descendants, and that is completely wrong. You wrote:

In fact, all lineages, other than sub-Saharan African, show traces of Neanderthal due to migration.

What does that mean? That those who migrated did not go back to Africa to spread the Neanderthal genome.
What does the OoA say?
Modern humans were only those who left Africa 70,000 years ago.
So, who are the ancestors of today’s s-S Africans?

Genetic evidence shows all "races" evolved from common homo sapien ancestors.

Yes. But not only from the African Archaic Homo sapiens.

Pigmentation and other identifiable features evolved among differing geographical groups after migration.

You better re-think that statement because what you actually mean is that the white race came out of the black race and there is no genetic or fossil evidence to support such claim.
Those who migrated from Africa 70,000 years ago reached Europe by 40,000 years ago and stayed there for good. These people belong to the white race and therefore it was only the white people who left Africa 70,000 ago. The melanin excuse is a fairy tale copied from the “frog into prince” one.

I don't think your interpretation of the Out of Africa Theory is supported by the Theory itself.

Let us listen to the theory itself:

[CHRISTOPHER STRINGER:] At the moment, I'm looking again at the whole question of a recent African origin for modern humans—the leading idea over the last 20 years. This argues that we had a recent African origin, that we came out of Africa, and that we replaced all of the other human forms that were outside of Africa.

What do you make of that? That the entire African population moved out?
Only the immigrants are considered modern humans the rest are thought to belong to the other human forms that the moderns replaced (meaning “exterminated” I guess).

He seems to think all homo sapiens left Africa.

On the contrary! I think that the white people were ejected from Africa (there is evidence for that) by the black people because the good white guys attempted to do to the black guys what they later did to the Neanderthals, but the black guys were not as naïve as the Neanderthals were.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

On the contrary! I think that the white people were ejected from Africa (there is evidence for that) by the black people because the good white guys attempted to do to the black guys what they later did to the Neanderthals, but the black guys were not as naïve as the Neanderthals were.

:biglaugh:

Present the evidence.

 

[tumbleweed41]

The human species, however, evolved in Africa, Europe and Asia independently.

I think it is time you presented independent peer reviewed studies from reputable anthropological and/or biological publications to back up your claim.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I think it is time you presented independent peer reviewed studies from reputable anthropological and/or biological publications to back up your claim.

I'd settle for anything that passes the giggle test.

 

[Trimijopulos]

:biglaugh:

Present the evidence.

As you very well know an anatomically modern human fossil is not considered a Homo sapiens sapiens fossil if it is not accompanied by the technology of the Hss. Archaic technology means archaic man!!

In south Africa there are sites (Howiesons Poort, Still Bay, Sibudu Cave) where modern technology tools were replaced by archaic technology tools meaning that the genius modern technology users were thrown away from those sites.
In Europe Neanderthals learned from Hss to make modern tools, so why not in Africa?
Moreover, the white race was technologically advanced and still is”

If you are an American you surely recognize this piece of art!

I think it is time you presented independent peer reviewed studies from reputable anthropological and/or biological publications to back up your claim.

“Race an Human Evolution” by Milford Wolpoff and Rachel Caspari

HarperCollins Canada, Limited, 27 Αυγ 1998 - 462 pages.

Where do humans come from? How did they evolve? How did different races come into existence? The quest for modern human origins has both
fascinated and divided people for centuries. Theories of race and questions of whether humans can be categorized in different species have caused polarization and discord in the sciences throughout history, and theories currently in vogue may have as much to do with contemporary cultural politics as with science.Race and Human Evolution is a far-ranging account by leading researchers in the field that describes the latest scientific evidence and the conflicting theories about human evolution. Milford Wolpoff and Rachel Caspari describe the “Eve” or “Out-of-Africa” theory, which holds that all living people are the descendants of a single common ancestor (“Eve”) who began a new species of humanity in Africa some 200,000 years ago and whose progeny spread throughout the world, giving rise to the different human races. The authors show that the evidence of the fossil record and genetic data support “Multiregionalism,” which posits that for some two million years human populations have been entwined in a network of widespread peoples who evolved together because they met and interbred, giving the races today many ancestors, not a single common one.Race and Human Evolution shows how the debate over the “Eve” theory reflects a long history of theories about human origins and race that has been fraught with social and political implications. Race and human evolution have become tangled during some of the most important eras in our history: European colonizations, which sparked questions over the humanity of indigenous natives, and the slavery issue and whether Jefferson’s claims of humanity and quality for all people applied to slaves. While Darwinism, the discovery of Neanderthals, and Mendel’s genetic theories combined to give us modern paleoanthropology, the eugenics movement and even Nazism also sprang from these ideas.The debate now raging cannot free itself of this background. Certain to be controversial but also to illuminate an argument that has persisted for centuries and which persists in some of today’s most inflammatory social and political issues, Race and Human Evolutionprovides an authoritative account of the science and the scientists behind the controversy over the origin of humanity and its racial differences.

You may also visit the Amazon page.
«

 

[Mr Spinkles]

I'd settle for anything that passes the giggle test.

LOL ... out of frubals ...

 

[crossfire]

LOL ... out of frubals ...

I'll frubal him for you

 

[oldbadger]

I'll frubal him for you

I did as well.

 

[tumbleweed41]

“Race an Human Evolution” by Milford Wolpoff and Rachel Caspari

You may also visit the Amazon page.
«

Perhaps you didn't understand me.

I asked for independent peer reviewed studies from reputable anthropological and/or biological publications. Not a non-peer reviewed pop-science book.

 

[Trimijopulos]

Perhaps you didn't understand me.

I asked for independent peer reviewed studies from reputable anthropological and/or biological publications. Not a non-peer reviewed pop-science book.

The above extract you can find at the last line of the first page of an article regarding a scientific study on the Denisovans.
So much the diagram of figure 3 in page 6 as the diagram of figure 1 in page 3 show clearly that there is no direct relationship between Eurasians and Africans (Africans are not the ancestors of Eurasians). So the mystery remains: Who were those who left Africa 70,000 years ago?

There is also a 2012 article of a study entitled “A High-Coverage Genome Sequence from an Archaic Denisovan Individual” where it is made clear that Africans and Eurasians are separate lineages.

 

[tumbleweed41]

You might want to read that article through. It does not back up you assertions.

 

[Infinitum]

The Chinese did not come out of Africa. They are descendants of the Asian Homo erectus and according to OoA they are no modern humans because only the African immigrants are considered modern humans.

The Chinese being descended from a different branch of homo than the rest of the human population is a widely spread idea inside China, but refuted elsewhere.

 

[tumbleweed41]

The above extract you can find at the last line of the first page of an article ...

From the linked article;
A model of population history
To understand the implications of the relationships observed among
the Denisova individual, the Neanderthals and present-day humans, we
fit the D statistics described in the previous sections to a parameterized
model of population history. The D statistics for the Denisova individual
differ in two important ways from those for the Neanderthal.
First, the Denisova individual shares fewer derived alleles with either the
French or Han Chinese populations than do the Neanderthals. Second,
the Denisova individual shares more derived alleles with the Papuans
than do the Neanderthals.We are able to fit the data with a model that
assumes the Denisovans are a sister group of Neanderthals with a
population divergence time of one-half to two-thirds of the time to
the common ancestor of Neanderthals and humans. After the divergence
of the Denisovans from Neanderthals, there was gene flow from
Neanderthals into the ancestors of all present-day non-Africans. Later
there was admixture between the Denisovans and the ancestors of
Melanesians that did not affect other non-African populations. This
model is illustrated in Fig. 3 and is described in detail in Supplementary
Information section 11.

 

[Trimijopulos]

You might want to read that article through. It does not back up you assertions.

Let us read the article:

Page 1: This revealed that Neanderthal DNA sequences and those of present-day humans share common ancestors on average about 800,000 years ago and that the population split of Neanderthal and modern human ancestors occurred 270,000–440,000 years ago.

Page 3:A possible explanation for the similar divergence of the Denisova individual and Neanderthals from present-day Africans is that they both descend from a common ancestral population that separated earlier from ancestors of present-day humans. Such a scenario would predict a closer relationship between the Denisova individual and Neanderthals than between either of them and present-day humans.
To test this prediction, we estimated the divergence between pairs of seven ancient and modern genomes (Denisova, Neanderthals, French, Han, Papuan, Yoruba and San), using an approach where we correct for error rates in each genome based on the assumption that each has the same number of true differences from chimpanzee (Supplementary Information section 6). The average divergence between Denisova and
Vindija Neanderthals is estimated to be 9.84% of the way to the chimpanzee–human ancestor; that is, less than the average 12.38% divergence of both from present-day Africans. Assuming 6.5 million years for human–chimpanzee divergence, this implies that DNA sequences of Neanderthals and the Denisova individual diverged on average 640,000 (6,500,000 x 9.84%= 639,600) years ago, and from present-day Africans 804,000 (6,500,000 x 12.38%= 804,700) years ago.

Now let us look at the diagram of figure 3 on page 6

Tv = divergence of both Neanderthals and Denisovans: 804,000 y.a.
TD= divergence of Denisovans: 640,000 y.a.
tAfr= divergence of Africans: 440,000 y.a.
……….divergence of Eurasians 270,000 y.a.

Both “Out-of-Africa” and “Multiregional” theories agree that the so-called Homo sapiens sapiens appeared at about 200,000 years ago in Africa, but it is obvious that they were not black Africans as they do not share the same gene pool with black Africans.

The Chinese being descended from a different branch of homo than the rest of the human population is a widely spread idea inside China, but refuted elsewhere.

That is to be expected. The Chinese have their own Homo erectus (from the Zhukudien cave) who exhibits sinodonty as the modern Chinese and the American Indians do but not people of the black and white races.

Sinodonty is a particular pattern of teeth common among Native Americans and some peoples in Asia, in particular the northern Han Chinese and some Japanese populations. The upper first two incisors are not aligned with the other teeth, but are rotated a few degrees inward and are shovel-shaped. The upper first premolar has one root (whereas the upper first premolar in Caucasians normally has two roots), and the lower first molar in Sinodonts has three roots (whereas it has two roots in Caucasians).

From the linked article;
A model of population history
After the divergence of the Denisovans from Neanderthals, there was gene flow from Neanderthals into the ancestors of all present-day non-Africans. Later there was admixture between the Denisovans and the ancestors of Melanesians that did not affect other non-African populations. This model is illustrated in Fig. 3

The gene flow from Neanderthals went only to the ancestors of all present-day non-Africans. That means that the gene flow went only to those who left Africa, never to go back there, and as a consequence the Africans were not contaminated by Neanderthal genome.
There were, therefore, people who were left behind in Africa when the Hss moved out. Those people are not considered modern humans by the OoA theory (they were not among the descendants of the famous Eve. )