21–30 of 36 posts
Please accept my critique to Smithsonian Mag made in good faith: never use the word 'mysterious' [a nod to the magical thinking] in a science context. Really looks like CNN-ish dark pattern. The URL slug has a better word choice: 7000-year-old-skeletons-from-the-green-sahara-reveal-a-previously-unknown-human-lineage-
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Animal husbandry did not start in Africa, though. It started in the fertile crescent and spread into Africa. This is very well attested in archaeological finds, and in the fact that the relevant animals were domesticated first there. The surprising news is that the spread of animal husbandry didn't seem to accompany the spread of human genes -- the subsistence strategy was adopted by learning, not by people moving. I…
But how does that prove there was no animal husbandry in Africa in the prior hundreds of thousands of years?
You don't have to prove something that doesn't exist. Find the evidence, and prove it does.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Animal husbandry did not start in Africa, though. It started in the fertile crescent and spread into Africa. This is very well attested in archaeological finds, and in the fact that the relevant animals were domesticated first there. The surprising news is that the spread of animal husbandry didn't seem to accompany the spread of human genes -- the subsistence strategy was adopted by learning, not by people moving. I…
But how does that prove there was no animal husbandry in Africa in the prior hundreds of thousands of years?
This evidence is found everywhere. But it's dateable, and you can find the oldest instances of it in the fertile crescent.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But how does that prove there was no animal husbandry in Africa in the prior hundreds of thousands of years?
Animal husbandry leaves behind a lot of evidence, starting from different distributions of animal ages and sexes found in bones in refuse pits, to genetic evidence of artificial selection. This evidence is found everywhere. But it's dateable, and you can find the oldest instances of it in the fertile crescent.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Animal husbandry leaves behind a lot of evidence, starting from different distributions of animal ages and sexes found in bones in refuse pits, to genetic evidence of artificial selection. This evidence is found everywhere. But it's dateable, and you can find the oldest instances of it in the fertile crescent.
Do you really need me to remind you that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Do you really need me to remind you that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence?
Maybe “burden of proof” is a phrase to get re-acquainted with? Why do you think an apparently unsubstantiated alternative should be considered despite the archeological record?
You cannot prove it didn’t happen, and I also don’t think it was that likely. Both can be true.