Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Fossils from Morocco complicate the story of modern humans

nature.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 58 posts

Re: Fossils from Morocco complicate the story of modern humans

#41

Post by nikcheerla »

danieltillett wrote: post #36
rgrieselhuber wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you happen to have a good source handy on the growing acceptance of the Multi-Regional theory vs the Out of Africa theory? This is obviously a topic with political implications so looking for something that is accepted as a neutral source.

It is not a case of one or the other, they are both right. All non-Africans are a hybrid between Africans and Neanderthals or Africans/Neanderthals/Denisovans. You are right that this topic is politically sensitive - so sensitive that the data is basically ignored outside of science.

Why is it politically sensitive? I can't see any obvious political implications ...

Re: Fossils from Morocco complicate the story of modern humans

#42

Post by flukus »

kbenson wrote: post #23
micheljones wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm sorry, but that statement is very likely incorrect. 15kya was very soon after the last glacial maximum (24-18kya) and sea levels weren't significantly affected by then. The receding of the ice sheets started at cca 18kya, but was going slowly at first and only accelerated after 15kya. Most of middle east cultures draw the myth from Mesopotamian cultures, whose flood myth most likely refers to the flooding of the…

> Most of middle east cultures draw the myth from Mesopotamian cultures, whose flood myth most likely refers to the flooding of the Persian gulf I thought the GP was actually referring to this event. Do we have a time frame for that which negates that possibility, because otherwise I'm not sure how your evidence refutes rather than corroborates.

I thought they were referring to the black sea deluge (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Sea_deluge_hypothesis). Some quick googling didn't reveal much, do we know when the persian gulf flooded?

Re: Fossils from Morocco complicate the story of modern humans

#43

Post by micheljones »

pamqzl wrote: post #30
yuchi wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Citing that article: > “It suggests that Aboriginal oral traditions may have endured for up to 30,000 years, and lends further weight to the idea that some Aboriginal myths pertaining to gigantic animals may be authentic records of extinct megafauna” Wow ^ 2

I'm always extremely skeptical when someone suggests that oral traditions could possibly have survived for long periods of time. That's twelve hundred generations! Given what we know about the speed at which Chinese Whispers tend to drift, the idea that any story can last 1200 generations is an extraordinary claim that demands extraordinary proof. Hundreds of Aboriginal tribes had hundreds of contradictory myths on h…

Some tribes in north of Australia have verifiable myths about the geography of the lands that have been under the sea off the north of Australia for 6-8 thousand years at least (meaning, the description of the land features matches the sea floor geography).

Re: Fossils from Morocco complicate the story of modern humans

#44

Post by micheljones »

flukus wrote: post #42
kbenson wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Most of middle east cultures draw the myth from Mesopotamian cultures, whose flood myth most likely refers to the flooding of the Persian gulf I thought the GP was actually referring to this event. Do we have a time frame for that which negates that possibility, because otherwise I'm not sure how your evidence refutes rather than corroborates.

I thought they were referring to the black sea deluge ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Sea_deluge_hypothesis ). Some quick googling didn't reveal much, do we know when the persian gulf flooded?

No, I was not referring to the Black Sea deluge. That one is responsible for flood myths in Indo-European cultures (and also for the spread of the Indo-European cultures themselves), and it is more recent (6.5kya if I'm not mistaken).

The article I linked clearly states that it was a fertile land basin until 8kya. I decided to ignore kbenson's lack of reading comprehension hiding behind an attempt to insert himself as an arbiter through nitpicking about a thing he obviously knows nothing about, but I see he's not the only one refusing to read the article, so I'll restate my point:

My point of contention is the 15kya date. By 15kya the receding of ice age ice caps has barely started, so 15kya the ocean levels were not affected in any major way. The major geography-changing ocean level rise came a few thousand years later.

The linked article clearly states the following: "Then, about 8,000 years ago, the land would have been swallowed up by the Indian Ocean, the review scientist said." and "The Gulf Oasis would have been a shallow inland basin exposed from about 75,000 years ago until 8,000 years ago, forming the southern tip of the Fertile Crescent, according to historical sea-level records."

Re: Fossils from Morocco complicate the story of modern humans

#45

Post by BurningFrog »

tombh wrote: post #11

Coincidently I've been reading and youtubing about human evolution recently. If anyone's interested here are some bullet point facts that may surprise other laymen. * In the last few years the Out Of Africa theory (modern humans originated solely in Africa) has received stiff competition from the Multi Regional theory. Namely that waves of human species have left Africa since we diverged from chimpanzees 4 million ye…

> We certainly bred with Neanderthals and Denisovans

Another way of looking at it is that we are the Neanderthals and Denisovans.

The Neanderthals population is estimated at 70,000 at their peak. At 2% of 7 billion, we Neanderthals are now two thousand times more plentiful!

Re: Fossils from Morocco complicate the story of modern humans

#46

Post by kbenson »

micheljones wrote: post #44
flukus wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I thought they were referring to the black sea deluge ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Sea_deluge_hypothesis ). Some quick googling didn't reveal much, do we know when the persian gulf flooded?

No, I was not referring to the Black Sea deluge. That one is responsible for flood myths in Indo-European cultures (and also for the spread of the Indo-European cultures themselves), and it is more recent (6.5kya if I'm not mistaken). The article I linked clearly states that it was a fertile land basin until 8kya. I decided to ignore kbenson's lack of reading comprehension hiding behind an attempt to insert himself a…

> I decided to ignore kbenson's lack of reading comprehension hiding behind an attempt to insert himself as an arbiter through nitpicking about a thing he obviously knows nothing about

While I see how it's possible you could interpret me as trying to insert myself as and arbiter instead of expressing my own lack of knowledge and asking for clarification, it was fully your own choice to not only decide that was the interpretation you believed as fact, but to then broadcast that negative interpretation as fact to others. A little assumption of good faith goes a long way, and I don't think it's too much to ask for.

Re: Fossils from Morocco complicate the story of modern humans

#47

Post by aaron695 »

pamqzl wrote: post #30
yuchi wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Citing that article: > “It suggests that Aboriginal oral traditions may have endured for up to 30,000 years, and lends further weight to the idea that some Aboriginal myths pertaining to gigantic animals may be authentic records of extinct megafauna” Wow ^ 2

I'm always extremely skeptical when someone suggests that oral traditions could possibly have survived for long periods of time. That's twelve hundred generations! Given what we know about the speed at which Chinese Whispers tend to drift, the idea that any story can last 1200 generations is an extraordinary claim that demands extraordinary proof. Hundreds of Aboriginal tribes had hundreds of contradictory myths on h…

I wouldn't take it as 'extremely skeptical', it's fact that this is junk 'science'

We can look at story drift even in non primitive societies where they have writing and it's huge within generations.

Re: Fossils from Morocco complicate the story of modern humans

#48

Post by flukus »

micheljones wrote: post #43
pamqzl wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm always extremely skeptical when someone suggests that oral traditions could possibly have survived for long periods of time. That's twelve hundred generations! Given what we know about the speed at which Chinese Whispers tend to drift, the idea that any story can last 1200 generations is an extraordinary claim that demands extraordinary proof. Hundreds of Aboriginal tribes had hundreds of contradictory myths on h…

Some tribes in north of Australia have verifiable myths about the geography of the lands that have been under the sea off the north of Australia for 6-8 thousand years at least (meaning, the description of the land features matches the sea floor geography).

Has anyone quantified their myths properly? If not then they're just cherry picking.

Re: Fossils from Morocco complicate the story of modern humans

#49

Post by tombh »

rgrieselhuber wrote: post #33
tombh wrote: post #11

Coincidently I've been reading and youtubing about human evolution recently. If anyone's interested here are some bullet point facts that may surprise other laymen. * In the last few years the Out Of Africa theory (modern humans originated solely in Africa) has received stiff competition from the Multi Regional theory. Namely that waves of human species have left Africa since we diverged from chimpanzees 4 million ye…

Do you happen to have a good source handy on the growing acceptance of the Multi-Regional theory vs the Out of Africa theory? This is obviously a topic with political implications so looking for something that is accepted as a neutral source.

A lot of the Multi-regional stuff I learnt is from the University of California Youtube channel. There's a playlist here, it's quite big, but a lot of relevant videos are in there: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v0j77rODO3E&list=PL1B24EADC0...

Re: Fossils from Morocco complicate the story of modern humans

#50

Post by tombh »

nikcheerla wrote: post #41
danieltillett wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is not a case of one or the other, they are both right. All non-Africans are a hybrid between Africans and Neanderthals or Africans/Neanderthals/Denisovans. You are right that this topic is politically sensitive - so sensitive that the data is basically ignored outside of science.

Why is it politically sensitive? I can't see any obvious political implications ...

I'm not an expert, so just guessing, but I imagine it's something similar to the whole Arian stuff from the Nazis, ie: "look, our genes are more closely related to the most 'original' and 'pure' human lineage".
Post reply on HN