[flagged]
[flagged]
Study of 1M-year-old skull points to earlier origins of modern humans
141–150 of 186 posts
Re: Study of 1M-year-old skull points to earlier origins of modern humans
#142Earlier quoted context omitted.
Given what we now know about backmigration and intermixing (particularly with Denisovans), it's really not coherent to say any "out of" theory is the Truth. Sure, modern homo sapiens outside of Africa are all descendants of a founding group that left Africa, but they are also descendants of hominids who returned to Africa from elsewhere as well as local hominid populations that had left Africa far earlier (like Neand…
Out of Africa has meaningful consequences even if people mixed back in. For example our closest evolutionary cousins should barring evidence to the contrary also tend to hail from Africa as well. It’s that kind of reasoning that makes it important to try and be accurate here. Not a fact in isolation but everything else that it implies.
It's all a matter of how far back you look.
Re: Study of 1M-year-old skull points to earlier origins of modern humans
#143Earlier quoted context omitted.
Twelve of the paper's thirteen authors (all except Chris Stringer) are shown as working in China according to https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.ado9202 (click "Authors Info & Affiliations" near the top), and the research was funded by the National Natural Science Foundation of China.
someone call Joe McCarthy
To be clear I don't mean to imply anything about possible biases or ulterior motives or whatnot. I was merely responding to "the analytics were not made in China or by a Chinese researcher" (which seems factually incorrect, unless I misunderstood something).
Re: Study of 1M-year-old skull points to earlier origins of modern humans
#144[flagged]
[flagged]
you might well be right in most of this, but how do you get from OOA to "black Africans are more primitive"?
isn't the same nonsense debunked every time with "all living species are equally modern in that they share common ancestors, they didn't descend from one another"?
Re: Study of 1M-year-old skull points to earlier origins of modern humans
#145Earlier quoted context omitted.
Out of Africa has meaningful consequences even if people mixed back in. For example our closest evolutionary cousins should barring evidence to the contrary also tend to hail from Africa as well. It’s that kind of reasoning that makes it important to try and be accurate here. Not a fact in isolation but everything else that it implies.
It's all a matter of how far back you look.
The time period you look at also informs what you can extract from that analysis. So it’s not an arbitrary choice free from consequences.
Re: Study of 1M-year-old skull points to earlier origins of modern humans
#146[dead]
Re: Study of 1M-year-old skull points to earlier origins of modern humans
#147Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
you might well be right in most of this, but how do you get from OOA to "black Africans are more primitive"? isn't the same nonsense debunked every time with "all living species are equally modern in that they share common ancestors, they didn't descend from one another"?
Maybe I missed the mark, but the point is that just because China makes a claim does not mean it should be automatically dismissed because they have a supposed superiority complex. I mean there are many on this planet who have superiority complexes, and far more consequential and imposing ones at that...by far...but that does not mean we should/can just dismiss what comes out of China. Test it, challenge it in a truly scientific manner...sure...but don't just apply ones own superiority complex to project a superiority complex on others. What if they are correct and accurate in their claim?
It is simply not a fair, honest, or decent thing to do and often comes from a superiority complex itself that seems to be projected on others in direct correlation to the degree of intensity of the superiority complex.
Re: Study of 1M-year-old skull points to earlier origins of modern humans
#148[flagged]
[flagged]
> The interesting and exciting thing about China and Asia in general is that it does not suffer from the diabolical and evil brainwashing and psychological abuse that the whole "west" has been subjected to for many generations now, but especially post WWII.
Hold on a second, China and Asia in general don't suffer from diabolical and evil brainwashing and psychological abuse, since when?
China doesn't even acknowledge its own Historical events, and this has been a recurring pattern of diabolical and evil brainwashing and psychological abuse. Should we even address Russia goofy propaganda of mystical creatures?
Why should it be expected that everyone shouldn't be cautious of claims coming from a place where Historical revisionism is part of their culture?
Have you even checked the rates of fraudulent paper submissions?
Re: Study of 1M-year-old skull points to earlier origins of modern humans
#149I'm curious why humans evolved intelligence and chimpanzees, gorillas, orangutans did not.
A semi-serious tinfoiled answer:
Humans are a protected species, carefully raised and nurtured by higher organisms that are hundred thousand times larger than us (in terms of space and time). The earth and solar system is just a vivarium of galactic scale. Several "glass wall" mechanisms were placed to ensure we are separated from the rest of the universe, like the oort cloud.
Somewhere out there in the universe are humans living freely outside the glass wall.
Re: Study of 1M-year-old skull points to earlier origins of modern humans
#150[flagged]
[flagged]
do Americans think higher about Europe just because ancestors of many of them came from there? Not happening.
I agree with you on the Sinophobia, but interest in the British royal family/British history generally and interest in Irish heritage are extremely common among groups of Americans. Most British visitors to the US can attest to how their accent is interpreted and affects treatment, in a positive sense, too.