Image: Illustration by Sean Mccabe; Sources: Daniel Sambraus (human skull), Pascal Goetgheluck (Neandertal skull), Biophoto Associates (chromosomes) Photo Researchers, Inc.
In Brief
- Scientists trace the path of human migrations by using bones, artifacts and DNA. Ancient objects, however, are hard to find.
- DNA from contemporary humans can be compared to determine how long an indigenous population has lived in a region.
- The latest studies survey swathes of entire genomes and produce maps of human movements across much of the world. They also describe how people’s genes have adapted to changes in diet, climate and disease.
More In This Article
-
Infographic
Methods for Uncovering Genetic Traces of the Past
-
Infographic
Tracking Y Chromosomes Through Time
-
Infographic
Whole Genome Results
-
Infographic
Can You Spare Some DNA?
A development company controlled by Osama bin Laden’s half brother revealed last year that it wants to build a bridge that will span the Bab el Mandeb, the outlet of the Red Sea to the Indian Ocean. If this ambitious project is ever realized, the throngs of African pilgrims who traverse one of the longest bridges in the world on a journey to Mecca would pass hundreds of feet above the probable route of the most memorable journey in human history. Fifty or sixty thousand years ago a small band of Africans—a few hundred or even several thousand—crossed the strait in tiny boats, never to return.
The reason they left their homeland in eastern Africa is not completely understood. Perhaps the climate changed, or once abundant shellfish stocks vanished. But some things are fairly certain. Those first trekkers out of Africa brought with them the physical and behavioral traits—the large brains and the capacity for language—that characterize fully modern humans. From their bivouac on the Asian continent in what is now Yemen, they set out on a decamillennial journey that spanned continents and land bridges and reached all the way to Tierra del Fuego, at the bottom of South America.
Already a Digital subscriber? Sign-in Now
If your institution has site license access, enter here.
See what we're tweeting about
55 Comments
Add CommentDear Sirs, I liked the philogram, (page 44) but no conclusions? Judging by the modern distribution of the tribes mentioned, modern man infact began life in Southern Africa,(San people), migrated north through tropical Africa(pygmies), emerged on to the Sahel, (Bantu peoples), some penetrated to central Algeria; (Mozabite), then east along the Mediterrean shore into the Middle East, (Druze), there was a parting of the ways some west into Northern Italy, (Tuscans) and across to the Atlantic shore (Basques), who then penetrated up into North West and Eastern Europe. The other Branch made straight North onto the Russian steppe, (Adygei),then East into Central Asia, (Uygur), others into Afgahanistan and India. Descendents of the Uygur spread East , (Yakut etc.), some to Americas and others to SW. Pacific Rim, (Papua etc.). No mention of fact that North American Indians originated around the Baltic, cousins to most Europeans?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thispeterdunphy51@gmail.com
Dear Sirs, thank you for an interesting article, David
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this--
Edited by Peter Dunphy at 06/30/2008 5:10 AM
I am sorry, but man never started his life in Africa.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisA refutation:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMODERN HUMANS DID NOT START THEIR LIFE IN AFRICA.
Evidence points to early presence of humans in continents other than Africa. Even the present study, based on bones and DNA comparisons, did not consider all facts, especially facts derived from study of language origin or the testimony from oil reserves.
Bones
We should first of all notice that Egyptology reveals serious efforts in Africa as far as conservation of corpes is concerned. This explains why the fossil record in Africa can mislead modern interpreters.
It is also noteworthy that bones, though solid in appearance, have a spongelike structure. When exposed to variation of temparature over long time periods, the thousands of tiny holes in the bone structure can give way to the physical process of widening. Thus, bones used for study have been slightly, but steadily deformed over the ages.
DNA
To achieve a comprehensive study, DNA vertical comparison (DNA from people that lived in early years of human history and DNA from people that live today) should be completed by DNA horizontal comparison (DNA from contemporaries living in different climatic regions).
In that line of reasoning, it is interesting to notice that an individual from northern Europe can be genetically closer to an individual from west Africa than to another individual from northern Europe. DNA being a criteria at individuals level, cannot be used to explain the alleged evolution of species.
Language
Scholars studying origin of languages strongly point to the plains of Shinear (Middle East) as the common origin of human languages.
Oil reserves
It is known fact that crude oil is the product of compression and heating of ancient organic materials over extended time periods. Therefore, Asia coming first as far as oil reserves are concerned shows that most ancient presence of life can be traced in Asia.
To conclude, I claim human life started on earth when the planet was but one continent. Later on, the earth was basically divided in just 2 totally separated areas: the Americas and the rest (leaving aside isles). Movements from Africa to Asia, then to Europe have always been possible through continental ways. The American Indian found themselves on the other side when the earth was divided (see the historical account of the Bible in the Book of Genesis, chapter 10, verse 25). Thus, these are the only humans that could be naturally isolated.
To the article author - Back to the drawing/writing board. SOMEbody should have advised you NOT to mention bin Hiding! Are you so removed from daily life that you don't understand? You either need advisers or new ones.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTo First commenter - If you had any common sense at all, you wouldn't have brought the so-called 'good book' into it at all. Sheesh! If you want people who think to take you seriously, you'll want to leave out fairy tales.
Better study your geologcal time line.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisQuasimodo, I am yearning for nobody's consideration. I merely expect somebody to counter my points using logic, regardless of my source of inspiration.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisattenoj, I quit school long time ago. I am now an independent, free lance contributor. So if you think you understood the currently accepted genealogical time line well enough to defend it, I am ready to counter your line of reasoning.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWonderful Insights Fabrice LOTY
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAfrica is not the origin of the human species, the origin of the entire human species is in humanity's original common landmass; the Stem-Continent (Pangaea), in which, all the different continents on Earth today, were indeed different parts of the same whole, Africa included.-Aiya-Oba .
I think you are terribly confused about the time frames in which natural events ocurred. The idea that early man cavorted with the dinosaurs on the shores of the Tethys Sea died out about 100 years ago. The supercontinent Pangaea to which you are referring began to break up about 150 million years ago during the Jurassic period. The Jurassic, as you probably know, is most representative of the age of the great reptiles or dinosaurs. The only mammals (and humans are mammals) co-ocurring with the dinosaurs in the Jurassic were small shrew-like animals. Therefore, the breaking up of Pangaea has nothing to do with the spread of early humans since it would be another 170 million years at least before the earliest hominins would appear. Your "theory" has a major problem, then, with the timeframe in which it purports to occur.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWell, in a way, Fabrice is right; human life did start on Pangea, but remember back then we all had 4 legs and a furry tail....... and was quite actively avoiding all the dinosaurs by climbing up to the treetops.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhich brings me to why man "the runner" evolved; once we came down from the trees onto the savanna and had to stand to see over the grass, we found out that we could carry things with the two free appendages. But while the dinosaurs may have been gone, predators were still around, ans we were still prey...
So, whomever made it to the tree the fastest lived (natural selection), and as any certain tree could only hold so many, the proto-tribe had to split and find their own tree; and so our wandering as a species began.
Wonder why kids always make tree houses and throw sticks at other kids from on high? It's instinctual.
I started to concede him that point ; - ) but if we take that arguement to its logical conclusion, the origins of humans began early in the Precambrian with the development of simple one-celled bacteria 3800 million years ago. However, since the article deals with the diaspora of humans a couple of hundred thousand years ago and later, his notion of the American Indian finding himself on the "other" side after the Pangaean break up, is just laughable and I did.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBTW, I'd still like to throw sticks but the idea of a tazer lurks in my reptilian brain.
A reproduction of related material from the Opinion Page of San Fraqncisco Examiner. Sunday, August 25, 1991:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAdam, Eve, Africa and Life's Origins
Your story "Scientists hunt for father of humanity," (Aug. 18) is provocative and divisive. In the first place, biochemist Alam Wilson should be celebrated for openning up the debate on the nature of humanity's earliest ancestors.
However, I do not think the already complex search for human origin needs further complications, such as: which came first, the mother or the father of humanity?
Such an approach can only betray our trend-dependent interpretation of reality, because we are stuck on viewing the world through the genesis constucted in the Bible.As a result, we continue to alternate the order of creation of male and female in the original pair. Instead we should think in terms of the simultaneous origin of the two halves of the double-helical structure of the DNA, the originator of all forms of life on Earth, of whatever sex.
I disagree with the claim that all of "human history can be traced back to an African Eve" or ancestral female. Every part of the Earth, Africa included, is capable of spawning early human life, provided the necessary conditions are available.
The Earth itself, not Africa, is the native Land of evry human being on the planet. Africa is only the native land of a fraction of the entire spectrum of the human race, just as China is also an original birthplace of another fraction of the same spectrum.
We all have common origin in the fact that we are all of the same genetic species and chilgren of the same planet, but not necessarily from the same spot on Earth - a fact that accounts for humanity's diversity and racial differences, Anthony A, Aiya-Oba. San Francisco
Rubbish!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe theory of a single mother leads to some speculations. If she didn't have a male mate she was hermaphodite; if she did, so it was "Adam" who was born from an "Eve's" rib and not all the way around. In any case, being the sole female human, who gave birth to the first human baby, my theory that --- just like in Genesis of the saga of the Hebrew people --- mankind started with the first case of incest. In the case of the Hebrews unless Abel and Cain were also hermaphrodites, as one was killed by the other (probably, even, by Oedipian reasons) and there's no mention of a female baby in that saga, the survived son either had sexual intercourse with his mother or he himself had a baby of his own. What, in anyway, will bring us to the same starting point. Being a simple mortal I will not pretend to know more than scientists. However, if the theory of the African Eve stands as real I consider to be my right to suppose that, in these circumstances, there was no Adam at all and that actually the story of that famous saga concerning the serpent was real but that, in fact, considering the phallic aspect of a serpent's anatomic features this African Virgin Mary was possessed with the utmost degree of sexual fantasy. Therefore, it's my theory is that the first male human being was a serpent.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDid you even read the article koyaanisqatsi? The Eve described in this article does not represent the first human in existence. I can hardly even imagine where you are going with the rest of your post because it is pure nonsense.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHi JinnyDoDrop, thanks for your elevated understanding. -Aiya-Oba
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTHE REHABILITATION OF RADIOCARBON DATING
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDating methods using carbon-14 show human species to be younger than expected by evolutionists (6 000 years old). Concerning division of pangaea into various continents, it happened even later (4 000 years ago).
Some would claim the amount of carbon-14 found in ancient human remains is so low that it cannot ensure accurate dating. Still, radiocarbon dating is considered most accurate for youngest remains.
Moreover, evidence points to a 30% maximum difference between carbon-14 proportions found in all human organism remains. Therefore, the method is appropriate for determining global human age.
Furthermore, the 30% ratio shows more than 2/3 of the carbon-14 ever produced in upper atmosphere has not yet been disintegrated. It follows that the decay process started some 4 000 years ago. Therefore, cosmic rays could not strike Nitrogen before 2 000 BCE.
This fact endorses the Bible account in the Book of Genesis, mentioning waters above the expanse (atmosphere or firmament), a solid blue glassy sea made up of huge, congealed cloudy masses, compact enough to be supported by the atmosphere.
Nevertheless, 4 000 years ago, these floodgates of the heavens were released in order to deluge a wicked world, leading to subsequent dislocation of pangaea and surviving righteous human family being scattered over the surface of the earth.
I did. And I say that it's you who didn't understand it. What these scientists are saying is that mankind started from a single female (human). Concerning the development of my comments you still didn't understand it too. It was sheer joke. I suggest you to see a movie by Woody Allen called "Sleeper". Briefly, a guy was hybernated and woke up 200 years later to find himself in a world like Orwell's 1984 where there was a 'Master' like the Big Brother of the 1984 book. And there was a group of people who was fighting this dictator. Well, by the end they manage to cause his death by an explosion; all that remained from him was his nose. The regime want it to reconstruct the entire guy. And that's what's happening today with Science. Scientists find a decayed broken tooth of a man 1,000,000 years old (they say it's from a Homo [sexual] Sapiens) and someone --- who is specialized in the matter (anthropomorphic anthropologist) --- reconstruct his face on clay or on the computer. Not only that, they are even in condition to determine what was his height, his weight, his age, his marital status, his address, etc, at the moment he died (forensic anthropologists). Well... with all this carbon and DNA stuffs they can even tell you the color of his hair and if he was freckled.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisScientists receive a lot of money for their researches, so they have to come with some results from time to time otherwise those who fund them will fund them no more (and they'll got to look for job somewhere else). Here in Britain we have the TV news bulletins coming every week with something like... Professeur J. Smith from the University This or That and his team discovery that if you eat a whole peanut a day you have 80% less chance to get dandruff than those who eat only half a peanut, after a survey among 758 people in a study on volontiers aged between 18 and 65 years old males. I don't know your age and how much found of Science you are. But try to read a bit about its history and ask yourself why with all this phenomenon of the advance of technology and means and data we don't see the 'advent' of someone of the caliber of a Copernicus or an Einstein. Nowadays anybody can be a scientist. All you need is to be an IT freak. [SORRY SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN MAGASIN]
Dig it, dude?
I guess nobody could question my logic.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAiya-Oba got it very quickly.
attenoj? Quasimodo Bradley? jean novak?
Natedog?
gs_chandy??? danasti??? Dan M???
We can therefore consider my observations to be conclusive.
Sorry Fabrice. My reply was for Natedog; I clicked the reply link on his reply to my comments but it was edited after your observations. I take the opportunity to apologize everybody [you guys, the scientists and above all SciAm] for my derisive approach to the the article. The reason is that every time a scientist or a team of these very talented people [please, mind, this is not derision] come with this "certainties" that has been dominating Science since technology has created a few good tools that help them to do their researches. It's true that they are fantastic [the tools] and have really improved their 'laboratories'. I like Astronomy and it got on my nerves every time one of those people I somehow envy tells us with 'precision' what is or what happened billions of light-years from here and that ceased to exist since billions of years ago. Scientists of today are impregnated with this idea that they can know "with precision" everything. Whatever human Science may discover for sure is nothing compared to what man will never be able to fathom. The Universe is infinite and eternal. I'm deeply convinced that man will ever leave the boundaries of the Solar system let alone make a 'Star Trek' trip. Even if a very few individuals manage to travel to the Kuiper Belt in a spacecraft mankind will be extinguished exactly where it developed: in this miracle planet of ours that we are destroying [before we have time to create the conditions to flee it and find another place --- to destroy it too]. So, this is it, fellas. Our contemporary scientists are imbued with a very arrogant mentality. They are the by-product of the very techonological scientific education they received --- just like this gadget generation of today. We now think that we can know everything. I'd liked scientists used more thinking than data and 'computer models' in their jobs.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOnce again, forgive me you all. But that's the way I feel.
What an entertaining conversation this has been. koyaanisqatsi's remarks gave me a smile as they appeared to be the most sincere, less arrogant, and certainly most "human" of observations. Fabrice LOTY's first remarks had me very interested until the ridiculous references to the fairy tale known as the "Good Book" and the entire time line of things.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI personally think that this area of science is so much in its infancy stages that the generalizations and assumptions regarding human evolution on Earth are just that -- generalizations and assumptions.
Fabrice LOTY's arrogant statement that his observations are "conclusive" just demonstrates how infantile Bible thumpers realizations are when it comes to the complex world of science, anthropology, geology. etc. All things are relative, there are no absolutes -- but Fabrice believes he has the conclusive truth about planet Earth from primitive writings by ancient people who weren't even aware of such a thing as the genome. You'd think that the omnipotent creator would have mentioned such a thing in its magnum opus. There is no "science" in the Bible -- just read the absurd things "God" told those people about something as natural as menstruation.
Still, these observations made in the article about the human family are just as possible as Zakharia Sitchin's belief that modern humans are the result of ancient visitors who inserted their genomes into a less evolved humanoid in order to produce a slave race. For anyone to assume that in the next five years we as Earthlings will know with any certainty who we are or how we got here is to reach the height of arrogance and ignorance. We are just breaching the surface of understanding the billions of years of life on this complex and marvelous planet. If there are humans on Earth 500 years from now and they have access to this discussion, I'm sure that they will smile at the children of our time who thought they knew our origins in this era of scientific infancy.
I liked the article from SciAm. For what I know the majority of scientists agree with the 'mitochondrial Eve' and 'out of Africa' theories. Only one twist: isn't it more appropriately to think of a clan of about 10000 people as the original Eve, instead of a single human beings?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnyone that truly appreciates the import of the philosophy of "the Big Bang theory," that explains the birth of our Universe from the Stem-Atom, can grasp the reason that Quantum-Big-Bang, is necessarily a cosmic property of origination of every unit of Spacetime-Continuum.-Aiya-Oba.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFabrice - it wasn't that no one questioned your logic, it was that there simply wasn't any. I will not waste my time "discussing" anything with you because you bring nothing to the table. Your remarks were just ludicrous. I have to wonder why your come to this website and strongly suspect you are one taco short of a combo platter.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI feel TJNewton brought something to the table.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisStill, instead of asking weather the Bible mentions the genome, he sarcastically assumes it does not. That not withstanding, the raw information is about knowing if the Bible mentions the genome.
I understand everybody cannot have the same insight on the Scriptures. But those endowed wit the specific kind of understanding should bring the multitude to similar understanding.
In the Bible book of Psalm, king David of old mentioned the genome in poetic terms.
13 For you yourself produced my kidneys;
You kept me screened off in the belly of my mother.
14 I shall laud you because in a fear-inspiring way I am wonderfully made.
Your works are wonderful,
As my soul is very well aware.
15 My bones were not hidden from you
When I was made in secret,
When I was woven in the lowest parts of the earth.
16 Your eyes saw even the embryo of me,
And in your book all its parts were down in writing,
As regards the days when they were formed
And there was not yet one among them.
In verse 16 David clearly mentions a book (modern terminology would say DNA) where all his parts were written down even before being formed. The marvelous genome program moved David to express gratitude for his bounteous Maker. So should we.
Ummm, Fabrice LOTY, I just have two comments to make about your post. 1) It's good to realize that you're not one of those Bible-thumpers who believe that it was not written by "God" but that it was written by men. That leads me to my next comment. 2) The human genome is NOT mentioned in the Bible. The reference you alluded to merely presents a very poetic amazement regarding the wonders of the human body. I am sure that the original Hebrew presented this wonderment in even more primitive terms than that developed after the King James' original English version. I'm not going to get into an argument about the Bible -- and trust me, I have more than a parochial knowledge of the Bible (what it says as well as the origins and history.) I'm not here to shoot down others' "dear beliefs" as Jung defined it. I'm merely stating that for you, or anyone else, at this juncture to declare that his/her's answers to human origins are "conclusive" at this stage of intellectual growth in human understanding, is simply put...pathetically arrogant and ignorant. As I said, there is no science in the Bible -- many aspects of it are ludicrous in the extreme. I would think that if the eternal creator wanted humans to benefit from this book there would be much more insight into this endeavor than the childish assumptions therein. I am an atheist but I would venture to guess that if there really is an omnipotent all-knowing creator, It would be mortified to think that there are those who believe that the "Good Book" was anything close to describing Its genius and intent. On the other hand, I think It would smile and be very proud of Einstein who so eloquently stated a scientific principle with 5 simple symbols -- E=MC2. Nothing in the Bible even comes close.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYeah, attenoj, I opened the door a crack for Fabrice LOTY, and I guess he burst right in with the mystical truth that only one with the gift could understand. That's the great thing about science. When a generalization. theory, or principle are recognized they become clearly defined so that they can be tested for validation. Not necessarily to be proven true, but rather to be proven false. It's easy to claim something to be true -- it's a whole different type to prove something as false. Unfortunately, history is rife with "god-fearing" men in power who unashamedly persecuted the best minds in Earth's histories because they *oh my!* proved to those men that they and their messages from "god" were wrong. Many believe we live in a modern age -- maybe its just me but, despite all of the fun toys and technology, it seems that there's way more primitive than modern in these 21st century days. If these days were modern, Fabrice LOTY's forte in conversation would be as the Lit teacher who specializes in ancient mythology...it's effects as a dominant on the collective unconscious. Kind of like the way Lit teachers discuss The Iliad. What's really disturbing in a serious way is that a lot of these jokers try to come off as "scientists." Is it any wonder why American kids rank so low in the arts of science? Primitive indeed.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"The human genome is NOT mentioned in the Bible. The reference you alluded to merely presents a very poetic amazement regarding the wonders of the human body."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt seems I should elaborate a little bit.
Psalm 139:16 "Your eyes saw even the embryo of me, And in your book all its parts were down in writing, As regards the days when they were formed And there was not yet one among them."
There is explicit mention of a BOOK containing information about all the parts of the unborn child.
"As regards the days when they were formed": the said book contained information about the exact TIMING: the days the parts would be formed.
As a computerscientist, when I see mention of recorded information coupled with time sequence, I formally identify a program: the genome.
This is not wishful interpretation, it is thoughtful explanation of core information found in the Bible.
I can not believe this level of comment! We are talking science not mumbo. I am a devout catholic and have no problem with scientific time frames or the possibility that we all evolved from shrew like animals, infact my pet hamsters had the sort of violent canabalistic social relations often considered "human". I see no contradiction between well established scientific facts and my faith. We believe that all men descended from a common ancestor, so does science, science considers man to be a late comer in evolutionary terms, so does the bible. we were the last creatures to be created. The only diference is that we believe in a guiding creator and aethists don't. I am more than happy to leave it like that! Let us talk about facts and plausible theories.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPeter
Is there any cross-relation research going on between this field and linguistics? Should be interesting ...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIs there any cross-relation research going on between this field and linguistics?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisShould be interesting ...
Peter, I'm guessing that your comment was directed towards one of mine so I would like to respond. Firstly, I stated that I was not interested in arguing against "dear beliefs." I merely stated that there is no science in the Bible and if there is an all-knowing omnipotent creator, that that creator would probably be mortified in thinking that people would associate that archaic and primitive understanding of creation as anything close to describing Its genius and intent. Second, SOME scientists believe that we come from a common ancestor - that is a theory not yet proven. The research discussed in the article leads to some better understanding regarding this assumption but it has not provided conclusive evidence of this. As a matter of fact, the article points out a number of holes in the theory. Personally, I (as well as others in the fields of biology and geology) find it immensely bizarre that "modern" scientists can believe that there was just one single female who gave birth to the entire human species. Not enough space to present the arguments. The Earth is billions of years old. I am not so presumptuous to believe that humans as we know them today were the only intelligent species to have lived on Earth in those billions of years - so this still poses the question of whether or not humanoids were "created" last. This is my point. The Bible imposes this narrowly defined viewpoint of life on Earth and its origins that millions of people today still use it as a starting point for "science" -- it's no wonder why we are still locked into the same social, political, and scientific grapplings that we have been since it was put together under Constantine in 367 AD. It's my personal belief that humans of today are still in an infantile stage and that if we manage to survive as a species in 1000 years time, those of our future will look back on conversations such as these and smile at our baby steps in trying to understand who and what we really are. As a Catholic you should understand that skepticism about church doctrine is completely healthy as it was the Church itself that prosecuted forward thinkers and scientists for simply stating inconvenient facts that the hierarchy felt threatened the "infallibility" of the Bible, i.e. When it spoke of the sun staying his course at the prayer of Joshua, or the earth as being ever immovable. I don't care about religion. It's when it's used as "fact" that I get a sense of urgency to remind believers that it ain't necessarily so.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCheck this out folks, other genetic evidence showing common ancestry.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thiswww.youtube.com/watch?v=De-OkzTUDVA
www.youtube.com/watch?v=x-WAHpC0Ah0
koyaanisqatsi, you are in line for significant understanding for you have a system-free reasoning. Keep up! TJNewton, I would advise (if you wouldn't mind) you consider the fact that "cognitive" solely would hardly explain most important things. Peter, I am sorry to disturb a professional scientist, but I am really upset by the following statement: "The only difference is that we believe in a guiding creator and atheists don't. I am more than happy to leave it like that!" Logic being my cup of tea, let me wonder if being intellectually "more than happy" with one viewpoint as well as its logical negation is scientifically honorable. In any case, being socially tolerant is not the same as being intellectually permissive.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thispauladriaenssens, I am happy of you being interested by this epoch making topic. It would actually be interesting to decipher the limit between figurative and litteral meanings in ancient writings. This would prevent some "core-science professionals" from quickly dismissing ancient deep wisdom as "very poetic".
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFabrice LOTY -- I would argue that cognitive thinking is precisely the sole explanation for most "important" things. Cognitive is defined as "of or pertaining to the mental processes of perception, memory, judgment, and reasoning, as contrasted with emotional and volitional processes." The latter is controlled by the former. The decisions of war and peace, love and hate, greed and benevolence, etc. are all willed by individuals based on their cognitive realities. A philosophy professor of mine named, Sami Hawi, presented a well put analogy to cognitive thinking...he pointed out that each separate reality is individual to each person. When you and I look at something we would call the color "green", we should all realize that what is red in your vision may actually be blue in mine but because we both agree that it is "green" the color is defined as such. In other words, our shared reality is based on shared definitions since childhood. The beauty of science is that we can take individual realities and assumptions and test them in an empirical setting to determine which sets of reasonings are truly shared by natural and provable evidence -- thus providing a common definition that can be shared throughout a community without an undue influence of "emotional and volitional processes" like religion which is completely subjective to an individual's less cognitive state. In other words, we as humans can best serve each other by recognizing the cognitive realities that are provable in our world rather than embrace emotional and wishful thinking of a world no one truly knows exists. When we agree that solving the problem of hunger is an "important" thing, it is not hoping that a "god" will solve it, it the cognitive reality that humans must produce a better system of agriculture that feeds more people. That is what was done. We have far to go, because politics (mostly emotional and volitional) gets in the way, but I hope you understand the point. I will argue that it is not cognitve thinking that has put the world where it is, I would argue it is rather the emotional and volitional that put us where we are -- and religion is perhaps the biggest culprit of them all.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishahahaha, omg, you are soooooo funny! Where did you come up with this stuff? That's great! You are like the comedian of science! Please, tell us more, tell us more: where did the universe come from? How does the phoenix fit into all this? Did Egyptian scholars of old transport bones backward in time to confuse modern scientists? If I send a fiction book back in time, how long until it is known to be true? Questions like these beg your answers, as only you could answer them! Modern scientists probably just wouldn't get it...those dummies.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNew scientific finding supports common origin of our different Continents of today, as the Stem-Continent (Supercontinent/Pangaea. -Aiya-Oba.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAccording to University of Oklahoma geologist Gerily Soreghan:
"Three hundred million years ago, the region (Rocky Mountains of western Colorado) was part of the tropics. The continents then were assembled into the Supercontinent Pangaea."
Please find the full article:
Cold And Ice, Not Heat, Episodically Gripped Tropical Regions 300 Million Years Ago.(August 2008 issue of journal Geology), at ScienceDaily.com.
Because the half-life of carbon-14 is 5730 years carbon dating is only reliable about up to 60,000 years. Radiocarbon is less useful to date some recent sites. The technique usually cannot pinpoint the date of a site better than historic records.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this(Basic knowledge)
the answer for the question is in the holi book of Quran , read it and it will give you all th answers, till date not a single statement in it has been proven to be incorrect by modern science.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thiszahid imran
I'm wondering about the mention of people crossing the Bab el Mandeb "in small boats" 50-60,000 years ago. At this time the sea level was about 80 meters lower than it is now due to so much water being stored in the Ice Age glaciers. Is there really no passage across this area that would have been above sea level at this time?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNote that carbon dating does not work according to the same equations once the Industrial Revolution started. Ancient carbon (without C-14) started being burned in abundance, reducing the percentage of C-14 in the air. The percentage of C14 in the air and ingested by people became dependent on local conditions. Any dates measured by carbon dating from living matter of this time period will be much older than the actual age. This is why carbon dating is not used for recent dates.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe article found in these margins about how our gut bacteria (H. pylori) evolved along side us, and demonstrates human distribution patterns, reconciles this, 'Out of Africa' theory superbly. I suppose the only big question left is why anyone would give credence to those who refuse to wake up and smell the beer.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThat most would condemn a man to the death penalty based on a DNA fingerprint, and that some would consider freeing others when the substance of life didn't match the criminal, is astounding when you consider how many do not understand that DNA is the blueprint of all life, and it connects us to the clade of mammals known as Pan, as in apes. Yet there are still schools where this simple principle is not explained and the rubbish of the religionist is scattered everywhere.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thispauladriaenssens - I'm an old guy and I remember reading an article, in SA I believe, regarding comparative linguistics. As best I remember, the map showing the spread of humans across the globe based on linguistics was quite similar to the the DNA map.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisLove all the comments. The science is pretty well agreed that man died back to a very small group of people, 3,500 to 10,000 in the last 60,000 to 100,000 years. This makes us practicaly clones, samething has happened to Cheatas. So in humans there no such thing as race. In fact the whole of the people in India can be traced to 600 people who repopulated the place after the super volcano Tambo exploded 72,000 years ago and killed everything there. Europeans can be traced back to 8 women and 10 men about 30000 year ago. Australian Aboriginals arrived there about 50,000.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe interesting thing about them, if you hear their story of creation it does sound very similar to Genisis.
The bible is a good history book up to a point but I don't think it offers any better descrition than an other culturs descrition of the past.
The writer and scientist Stephen Ophenhimer has written some well researched books on both subjects, well worth reading.
Fabrice LOTY, thank you so much for that quote from the Bible. It sent shivers up my spine. We are not all Zombies. Too much science can make some people very boring.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisArguing on this site about evolution and creationism is fruitless. Creationists lack doubt, therefore lack reason. They may come to accept science someday, or live their lives in ignorance. They will not be convinced when they are being challenged to defend their views. They will learn when they choose to.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisdoes it or does it not ie. evolution , DNA , and so on show that modern man is more modern than other modern man.So when did this evolution process begin? can one positevily say without any prejudice that some species are evolved more than other species and if so which is the most evolved and which is the least?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisps this site is dormant - please let it evolve
does it or does it not ie. evolution , DNA , and so on show that modern man is more modern than other modern man.So when did this evolution process begin? can one positevily say without any prejudice that some species are evolved more than other species and if so which is the most evolved and which is the least?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisps this site is dormant - please let it evolve
so interesting for a simple mind to learn from scientists and logicians and philosophers. the whole was created by I AM THAT I AM, and gradually evolved,and is still continuing to evolve. the sq root of 1 is +1 as well as -1. that 'I am' was positive and at the same breath negative. so i do have positive= good as well as negative= not good ,both poles in me.coexisting.when we say Creation began with let there be light,apart from the expansive universe ,we here confine ourselves to the sun,with helium, and which gave the hydrogen, and may be vice versa.from these started to evolve all the elements and chains and life and so on EVOLVED to us. need there be conflict? science is the play of a mortal mind, like any other human probe to know the mystery of the stars while i spent under the skies in the no-moon nights. even after reading all the 51 comments, most of which was deep for me, yet fascinating, half know competing with little know......and illuminating a small part of my brain/mind....and admiring that al-mighty divine super energy that started the whole process for whatever reason known to itself. and all the proceeds ending omega recoiling back into the original alpha.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe locations of the Euphrates and Tigris are not in Africa. However, they could have dramatically shifted directions during the Noahic flood. --> So, we truly don't know where the Garden of Eden may have existed. Life beginning in Africa does NOT disprove the Bible.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe discussion of where life began for humans is a rather moot topic. If life began by evolution (which defies the Laws of Thermodynamics by assuming critters evolve into higher energy life forms...), then life as modern day humans could have possibly occurred at multiple locations in roughly the same time frame.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf life begins as the Bible says, which is the oldest(ligit) historical reference, then it would be at the Garden of Eden. But again, we don't know exactly where that could be b'c the Noahic flood would have dramatically altered Pangaea.
Either way, discoveries are always being made. New human remains will continue to be found on every continent. Many years from now, the origin may be viewed very differently. Both Egypt & China admit the original humans were within 3,000 - 5,000 B.C. Which, again, defies evolution...
As you all may argue the anthropology of man, man was derived from 3 dna roots. Shem, Ham, and Japheth.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this