Christine Dell’Amore, National Geographic News, October 27, 2009
A creature that could fit in your hand has long been seen as the strongest evidence that humans and apes originated in Africa.
But now scientists say 50-million-year-old Algeripithecus was not an ape or human ancestor and was more like today’s lemurs, after all.
What’s more, a new study of the 3-ounce (85-gram) fossil species could add weight to the idea that our earliest ancestors arose not in Africa but in Asia.
Discovered in 1992 in what is now northern Africa, Algeripithecus is considered to be the oldest known ape ancestor on that continent.
But the new analysis suggests the creature belonged to another ancient primate group, the crown strepsirhines.
Crown strepsirhines, which are not in the human ancestry, gave rise to modern-day lemurs, galagos, and lorises.
Oldest Human Ancestors From Asia?
Asia is the only other known region where ape ancestors have been found. Whether apes arose there or in Africa is a “hotly contested issue” in the study of ancient primates, the study says.
The Africa theory rests heavily on Algeripithecus, now apparently exposed as a non-ape ancestor.
Other than Africa, Asia is the most logical ape-ancestor “birthplace,” study leader Rodolphe Tabuce, of France’s University of Montpellier, said in an email.
But evolutionary anthropologist Blythe Williams said “absence of evidence” is not enough to lend credence to an out-of-Asia theory.
{snip}
But she does agree that Tabuce and colleagues’ research weakens the case for an African origin.
Toothcomb Technicality
{snip}
Despite the new evidence, Algeripithecus is still a crucial figure in early primate evolution—but instead as one of the oldest known examples of a crown strepsirhine, the study says.
Duke’s Williams said the study’s findings are helpful for scientists tracing how apes became human.
{snip}
Original article
(Posted on October 30, 2009)
Comments
It has never been disproved that mankind occurred at about the same time in five different areas of the earth, each one a different race.
There’s quite a field of believers of this theory in the scientific community.
And the theory is not only as valid as any other, it’s probably the right one. It’s certainly the most logical one.
“But evolutionary anthropologist Blythe Williams said “absence of evidence” is not enough to lend credence to an out-of-Asia theory.”
Blythe Williams is exactly right. The “out of Africa” theory is a political - not a scientific - truth. It was put forth by politically motivated social activist academicians for the purpose of making acceptable the integration of the other races with those of the “Black” race. With the exception of the “guilty” White race, those of every race understand the political objective of the “out of Africa” theory.
Ronald
It’s all speculation. We just don’t know for certain. I believe most pre-human fossils found to date would fit comfortably in a college science lab. A good analogy would be to have a 500-piece jigsaw puzzle and only have 10 pieces. The “Out of Africa” theory has gained wide acceptance because, well, I think we all know the answer.
“It has never been disproved that mankind occurred at about the same time in five different areas …”
Ice, this isn’t how science works. It’s not up to anyone to disprove the hypothesis that Homo sapiens evolved separately in five different regions. It would be up to those who put forth such a hypothesis also to include evidence to support it.
“There’s quite a field of believers of this theory in the scientific community.”
No, there isn’t.
So far the best explanation - even with this latest discovery - is that Homo sapiens first appeared in Africa, and then migrated to other parts of the globe.
Ice,
“It has never been disproved that mankind occurred at about the same time in five different areas of the earth, each one a different race.”
It’s never been disproved that there flying pink elephants on Jupiter; does that mean there are flying pink elephants on Jupiter? The absence of disproof does not constitute proof.
The “theory” that humans evolved five different times, INDEPENDENTLY, on five different continents is so preposterous it merits no response.
I’d like to ask one of the AmRen true believers to explain to me how it is that the “Out of Africa” hypothesis offends your racialist view point. I like this site and I visit it daily because there are brave people on this site who dare speak the truth about race, behavior, crime, immigration, “diversity”, etc.
I can’t see how humans, a single species, could have evolved simultaneously from different species of pre-humans. Over time, different populations diverge, becoming different, not becoming similar. Even if two species look similar because they fill similar niches in similar environments, they can be very different genetically because they followed separate evolutionary paths. That’s why AmRen published that diagram several years ago, illustrating the genetic distance between the races.
The “out of Africa” theory is a political - not a scientific - truth. … those of every race understand the political objective of the “out of Africa” theory.
There seems to be a lot of impassioned opinion about this matter.
The implications of the “Out of Africa” theory, frankly, do not trouble me.
Within the anthropology community, however, there is a very serious debate between those pushing the “Out of Africa” theory and those pushing “multi-regionalism.”
The hypothesis behind “multi-regionalism” has often been distorted so as to make it sound ridiculous, but it is a legitimate take on the evidence by some very serious scientists.
5 — #10 wrote at 2:22 AM on October 31:
“It has never been disproved that mankind occurred at about the same time in five different areas of the earth, each one a different race.”
It’s never been disproved that there flying pink elephants on Jupiter; does that mean there are flying pink elephants on Jupiter? The absence of disproof does not constitute proof.
“The “theory” that humans evolved five different times, INDEPENDENTLY, on five different continents is so preposterous it merits no response.
I’d like to ask one of the AmRen true believers to explain to me how it is that the “Out of Africa” hypothesis offends your racialist view point. I like this site and I visit it daily because there are brave people on this site who dare speak the truth about race, behavior, crime, immigration, “diversity”, etc. “
> As a long time Amren poster, I would like to put in my “two cents.” (Sentences, I’ll try to be short).
Similarly, it has never been disproven that there is a God, or as one author puts it, a Flying Spaghetti Monster - as the true supernatural superior being. Lack of evidence does not prove the negative.
On the other hand, when we know that evolving species likely had many, rather than single occurences that produced life through various natural and biological bottlenecks, it is possible that life forms that led to humanoids arose more or less simultaneously in many places. The bottlenecks that occured seem to have ended up making today’s continent of Africa the place where the evidence of the first humanoids has survived. When we have things like ice ages and temperature changes to consider, it is not much of a surprise that most evidence is found in a region that did not have glaciers grinding everything into powder. Who knows how many times life forms moved long distances? We do know that after the last ice age, people who had to retreat with its advance, moved back as the ice receded.
But this does not aid in propeling anything of real meaning to us today where race is concerned. In this way, School Teacher is right.
As a side note, any religious person, at least one of the three main world religions that rely on the books of the Old Testament for their foundations - and who believe that human life and all life was created about 7,000 years ago in a day (creationists), must also concede that this God also created the races. Hence, God is a racist. While this may serve those who wish to enforce racial preservation, this has to represent a confounding challenge to most Christians and Muslims at least.
4 — Karl Ketzer wrote at 11:47 PM on October 30:
“Ice, this isn’t how science works. It’s not up to anyone to disprove the hypothesis that Homo sapiens evolved separately in five different regions. It would be up to those who put forth such a hypothesis also to include evidence to support it.”
Which they did, and I’m trying to remember the article that was on Amren…..I’m pretty sure it was Amren…. because we had a pretty thorough discussion on it at that time, and, while I wasn’t a complete advocate, nor am I now, the group promoting the theory had a pretty convincing argument, at least as far as I’m concerned, and that’s what counts with me. I don’t have time right now to look for the article, but I will later, and if this thread is still active then I’ll post the link.
However, the Out of Africa theory itself is constantly revealed to have many holes in it as this article tells us, so I wouldn’t advise anyone to hold on to it so overzealously, as we are well aware from the Dr. Watson episode the scientific community is a farce, tripping over each other to be politically correct. From reading the other posts on here it’s obvious that other posters realize that politics has injected itself heavily nowadays in the scientific world.
Regarding the other article I referred to, I do recall that there were two very vehement posters in the “out of Africa theory,” who were true believers, and they were adamant the concept of simultaneous evolutions of mankind in different locations was insupportable scientifically, but the out of Africa theory was NOT. Well, we can see from this article….and others…. that that isn’t true at all.
So far as your position that it is up to advocates to prove with supporting evidence their theories, I can only say that unless someone has a more convincing theory he not only has to have adequate support for it, he has to also reveal why other theories are not valid, at least in the eyes of most of us, the scientific community be damned.
“So far the best explanation - even with this latest discovery - is that Homo sapiens first appeared in Africa, and then migrated to other parts of the globe.”
Being the best explanation in your view, isn’t any different than my opinion that the simultaneous concept is valid is it? After all, I was just expressing an opinion, as you are, regardless of how much support each opinion has. I’m not educated specifically in that field, but have read extensively on the origins of man, and all I did was render an opinion, and nothing written on here since then has offered a convincing argument against it.
5 — #10 wrote at 2:22 AM on October 31:
“It has never been disproved that mankind occurred at about the same time in five different areas of the earth, each one a different race.”
“It’s never been disproved that there flying pink elephants on Jupiter; does that mean there are flying pink elephants on Jupiter? The absence of disproof does not constitute proof.”
Who said it did? Are you sure you understood what I wrote? Better read it again.
Your comparison is invalid. because my opinion isn’t anything similar to your absurd example.
“The “theory” that humans evolved five different times, INDEPENDENTLY, on five different continents is so preposterous it merits no response.”
If it merits “no response,” then why did you respond? And who mentioned “five different continents,” although that’s a concept worth looking into. I said five different areas.
“I’d like to ask one of the AmRen true believers to explain to me how it is that the “Out of Africa” hypothesis offends your racialist view point.”
What are you referring to? I don’t see even one single post that indicates that the poster is offended by the concept of the out of Africa position. When you point out “true believers” and a “racialist point of view,” regarding Amrenners, can you explain your overzealous, irrational support of the out of Africa theory? It is NOT a proven fact, you know, yet you treat it as if a failure to accept it as you do amounts to something similar to a lack of belief in something out of the Koran by a jihadist.
“I like this site and I visit it daily because there are brave people on this site who dare speak the truth about race, behavior, crime, immigration, “diversity”, etc.”
With all due respect, old boy, do you think I’m about to change my mind, because you seem to be implying that we’d better watch our step in disagreeing with one of your pet P.C. universal truths or you might not post anymore? That’s what it sounds like. Sorry, but I’ll continue to express my opinion even if it differs from anybody, and the tone of your future posts to me will be answered in a like manner. So far, I’ve been civil with you, in spite of your denigrations.
Incidentally, why not point out the error of my opinions instead of just calling them nonsense and pretending as if they’re on a par with pink elephants? You don’t, because you can’t.
Too, I just want to mention that I don’t see anyone on here “troubled” by the out-of-Africa concept, because I think everybody realizes acceptance of the theory in no way reflects a connection to blacks, if that’s why the charge is leveled.
Speaking for myself, I just can’t buy the out-of-Africa position.
My, my, my. I’m called a “true believer” among other denigrations, yet it is the true believers of the out of Africa theory that come across as being personally offended by a mere opinion in opposition to theirs.
Those that have issues with the out-of-Africa need to understand what the opposing theory is. It is called the multi-regional theory and there are some passionate supporters of this theory in the scientific community, but they are in the minority. The multi-regional theory holds that humans have migrated out of Africa multiple times and we know this is true because of the discovery of homo erectus remains outside of Africa that date back as far as 2 million years ago. The multi-regional theory suggests that these early humans that left Africa 2 million years ago evolved independently and that when the more recent homo sapien migrants left Africa 60 to 150 thousand years ago they encountered the older migrants and interbred with them. That is why have our racial differences. This theory has lost popularity as modern genetics has not shown outside lineage in our mitochondrial dna or Y chromosome, but new testing on the X chromosome has shown some support for the multi-regional theory.
A 2005 study on the X chromosome found genetic evidence of an archaic contribution to East Asian genome:
The human RRM2P4 pseudogene has a pattern of nucleotide polymorphism that is unlike any locus published to date. A gene tree constructed from a 2.4-kb fragment of the RRM2P4 locus sequenced in a sample of 41 worldwide humans clearly roots in East Asia and has a most-recent common ancestor approximately 2 Myr before present. The presence of this basal lineage exclusively in Asia results in higher nucleotide diversity among non-Africans than among Africans. A global survey of a single-nucleotide polymorphism that is diagnostic for the basal, Asian lineage in 570 individuals shows that it occurs at frequencies up to 53% in south China, whereas only one of 177 surveyed Africans carries this archaic lineage. We suggest that this ancient lineage is a remnant of introgressive hybridization between expanding anatomically modern humans emerging from Africa and archaic populations in Eurasia.
The idea that modern humans interbred with other human species has long been suggested because of similarities in physiology of Europeans with neanderthals and the continuity of traits in East Asians with Chinese homo erectus. As more genetic studies are done, it may be that the multi-regional theory, which still supports the out-of-Africa theory, may become the dominate theory in science.
I think that what would really rock the boat of liberals and those who are forcing integration and multiculturalism down our throats is if someday, the whole «Out of Africa» was disproved. And that a new theory arose, one claiming (with valid) evidence, that not only do races exist, among human beings, but that that Black people and Asian people are actually descended from different hominid species. That would hardly hit the whole «We Are One» movement, I think.
The different theories are all interesting, some have more merit than others. I hope that one day it can all be figured out. However, I’m more concerned with where man has ended up, meaning our present situation. For whites, it’s a mess. Time to let the other peoples continue evolving without our “aid”. That would be more natural, wouldn’t it?
I have no trouble with the out of Africa theory of human evolution. The human species started somewhere and at some time. We probably are second cousins to a chimp somewhere along the line.
I still don’t want my sister to marry a monkey even if we are related. The same goes for other races of man, I’m sure we are distantly related but the key word here is “distantly”. We share quite a bit of DNA with an alligator but I don’t want one in the family.
We became different races by making certain choices in the first place and I see no reason to undo thousands of years worth of selective breeding by my ancestors.
“It has never been disproved that mankind occurred at about the same time in five different areas of the earth, each one a different race…”
How come different races have no problems procreating…to the point where there is ABSOLUTELY NO difference in procreation rate intra-race and inter-race
7 — Anonymous wrote at 12:48 PM on October 31:
“The “out of Africa” theory is a political - not a scientific - truth. … those of every race understand the political objective of the “out of Africa” theory.”
“There seems to be a lot of impassioned opinion about this matter.
Anonymous.
True. But even though the continent of Africa is home to many races, in popular perception, the people of Africa are “Blacks”. Thus, the political proponents of the theory expect the public mind to embrace the “brotherhood” concept of all races because, after all, did not all races evolve from “Blacks”?
Not many object to the “out of Africa” theory in itself, despite the fact that the theory relies heavily on conjecture. But its just as logical to believe the original humans may have been African Whites, and for reasons unknown, the “stay behind” “Black” race devolved from an original founding White African human stock.
Ronald
“I believe most pre-human fossils found to date would fit comfortably in a college science lab. A good analogy would be to have a 500-piece jigsaw puzzle and only have 10 pieces”
There to date have been found ONLY about 40 specimens of Neanderthals, and almost all of those in a fragmentary state. You get a jaw here, a femur here, etc. NO ONE complete fully intact skeletal remains has been found? Or if has been found, only several exist totally intact? From such fragments conjecture and speculation can be made, but not hard facts established categorically?
Assistant Village Idiot had a couple of interesting entries on the origins of humankind just a few days ago. The original pool of humans may have been as small as 160 individuals. Interesting stuff.
Please take a look at http://assistantvillageidiot.blogspot.com/2009/10/founding-population.html http://assistantvillageidiot.blogspot.com/2009/10/location-location-location.html
But I will say that the “Out of Africa Theory” doesn’t bother me at all. Although it is currently used mostly to promote a dangerous “Global Oneness” agenda that bestows undue favor upon blacks, it could just as easily be interpreted to mean the opposite: that by being “The Original Man” (as some black nationalists claim), the African is also the LEAST EVOLVED man.
That by living in a warm, fertile, forgiving environment — where thinking-ahead and other cognitive skills were not needed — early humans who stayed in Africa had less incentive to develop and to evolve than those who left Africa for more hospitable climes. (As has been discussed on AmRen many times.) That those who left to go further north had to learn to plan ahead so as not to starve during the winters… while those less ambitious creatures who stayed near the equator could remain happy, naked, warm, and (barring droughts and natural disasters) well-fed year-round merely by plucking the low-hanging fruits off the trees and spearing the occasional lion.
Which, from what I can tell, Africans have been quite happy doing for thousands of years.
From a Race Realist/White Nationalist perspective, this all makes pretty good sense to me.
In other words, being the world’s “Original Man” is nothing to brag about. It is, in fact, an admission of black race’s primitiveness and lack of accomplishments compared not only to the white race, but to EVERY OTHER race.
“Out of Africa”? Why not? Indeed, the FURTHER out of Africa, the better!
16 Ronald: If the first anatomically modern humans evolved in Africa, then they would have been dark skinned, as dark skin gives protection from ultraviolet radiation. Naked Swedes wandering the savanna would have been toast.
19 Anon: Good post. The original Homo Sapiens was a prototype that required modification before it was ready to create civilization.
15 — Anonymous wrote at 12:19 PM on November 1:
How come different races have no problems procreating…to the point where there is ABSOLUTELY NO difference in procreation rate intra-race and inter-race.
Suppose YOU tell us. Is that the sum total of your argument?
14 — Daniel wrote at 12:18 PM on November 1:
“I still don’t want my sister to marry a monkey even if we are related. The same goes for other races of man, I’m sure we are distantly related but the key word here is “distantly”. We share quite a bit of DNA with an alligator but I don’t want one in the family.
“We became different races by making certain choices in the first place and I see no reason to undo thousands of years worth of selective breeding by my ancestors.”
You’ve got it, friend. If the out of Africa theory is true, it’s nothing blacks should brag about, because all very strong indications are that blacks were left behind due to their backwardness.
They really never got beyond the hunter/gatherer stage until the white man arrived and would still be in the hunter/gatherer mode to this day were it not for whitey. I find the out of Africa theory hard to buy, because so much evidence keeps coming in revealing it isn’t valid.
For blacks to boast about coming from the “cradle of cililization,” I think shows their lack of intellect more than anything else, because geographical origin is not an accomplishment as they foolishly think.
Have you seen the Jesus figure on the web site of Reverend Wright’s church? It’s a black Jesus.
The poor Afro-centric fools are grasping at straws to try to revise anthropology and archeological facts to give them bragging rights to something, since they have nothing to offer besides fabrications.
I think it’s particularly humorous that they try to lay claim to building the pyramids, especially since Nubia was defeated in war by Egypt numerous times, and, on one occassion, 70,000 of them were taken captive and were placed in bondage.
They don’t seem to understand that, if they WERE successful in creating a mythical past of superior people, how can they explain their lack of success all over the world today? Revising history, religious and historical figures, would not improve their image today one iota. They still would need affirmative action to gain entry to schools and in grading and in getting jobs they’re not qualified for.
even though the continent of Africa is home to many races, in popular perception, the people of Africa are “Blacks”. Thus, the political proponents of the theory expect the public mind to embrace the “brotherhood” concept of all races because, after all, did not all races evolve from “Blacks”?the “stay behind” “Black” race devolved from an original founding White African human stock.
Only when our remote ancestors lost their fur, did the skin have to darken and ultimately grow black, in order to protect itself from the blazing, direct, tropical sun of Africa, and from skin cancer. Humans who had reached the far Northern Hemisphere (Europe, North Asia) where the sun’s rays are weak and slanting did not need to develop dark pigmentation. The farther north, the lighter the skin. That’s observable everywhere. It can’t be mere coincidence.
Some may point to the American Indians as quite dark, even those in the North, but they haven’t been on this continent that long a time compared to the populations of Europe, and they’ve moved around considerably, so they haven’t had the requisite time to evolve lighter skin. Probably the Eskimos are relatively new in their region as well; they would have to be, as it would have been covered with glaciers until quite recently.
Europe, a very fragmented land mass, once heavily forested and broken by extremely high mountain ranges such as the Pyrenees and Alps (which run east-west, blocking N-S migrations, but allowing E-W ones), and split into numerous islands and peninsulas, is far less conducive to easy migration than the open prairies and long navigable rivers of North America (which has mountains that run north-south, allowing N-S migration).
And most especially, North America is a good deal farther south and gets much more sun than misty, cloudy, dark, Northern Europe which is quite close to the Arctic Circle. Just look at a globe! The palm-lined Riviera is at the same latitude as Toronto! Milan is at the same parallel as Montreal! Almost all of Italy lies north of New York City. And London lies farther north than any part of the contiguous USA, while the British Isles are parallel with icy Hudson’s Bay; and Scandinavia is even more northern than that, with part of it inside the Arctic Circle. No wonder Europeans are fair compared to the rest of the world.
Even the existence of various skin shades in Africa itself would seem to be the result of migrations somewhere in the distant past. Some not so distant. But all are dark, and that can be no coincidence either. Human skin, upon losing its fur, had to darken to protect itself. But the original man probably had white skin. And it remained so when he moved north. Those who remained behind darkened with time as the sun turned their skin black. Those who left Africa remained as they originally were.
“But the original man probably had white skin. And it remained so when he moved north. Those who remained behind darkened with time”
And those who didn’t darken, died off, leaving the darker ones to procreate and survive. Melanoma would have culled each generation, leaving it a bit darker than the previous. This is what is happening in Australia today, where skin cancer is at epidemic rates. Fair whites from Europe - largely from the cool,misty British Isles — are being selected out of the gene pool. If you were to come back in 30,000 years, their descendents will be as black as present-day aborigines. But that won’t mean they started out black.
The point being missed: in the “not out of Africa theory”-all the different modern races evolved from different races of homo erectus. That would explain the similarity-but also the difference
