Thread: Out of Africa: Hairy and bent OR hairless and erect?

I propose that if our most recent ancestor came out of Africa, he was hairy and with little bend in the waist as shown in the below image (second from left).

He was as hairy as any other great apes of the time. His vertebral column was not S-shaped as of us and had bend in waist.

The following anatomical information in Wikipedia is about us and not about our most recent ancestor who exited Africa 200K ago or 5million years ago.

WIKIPEDIA:

Anatomically the evolution of bipedalism has been accompanied by a large number of skeletal changes, not just to the legs and pelvis, but also to the vertebral column, feet and ankles, and skull. Perhaps the most significant changes are in the pelvic region, where the long downwards facing iliac blade was shortened and became wide as a requirement for keeping the center of gravity stable while walking. The shortening and narrowing of the pelvis evolved as a requirement for bipedality and had significant effects on the process of human birth which is much more difficult in modern humans than in other primates. The femur evolved into a slightly more angular position to move the center of gravity towards the geometric center of the body. The knee and ankle joints became increasingly robust to better support increased weight. Also in order to support the increased weight on each vertebra in the upright position the human vertebral column became S-shaped and the lumbar vertebrae became shorter and wider. In the feet the big toe moved into alignment with the other toes to help in forward locomotion. The arms and forearms shortened relative to the legs making it easier to run. The foramen magnum migrated under the skull and more anterior.

[Pic sourced from blog.enn[dot]com removed by Admin because it was giving Malware alert in some browsers]

We are different than other apes and the difference is in waist.
Before we came out of Africa, we had lost our hair and we were as erect as on today is false. I am ready for debate.
Please go ahead and make me look foolish.

Oldest human skeletons found are from Africa. They were fully erect and harless. There, refuted.

Originally Posted by uday yadav

We are different than other apes and the difference is in waist.
Before we came out of Africa, we had lost our hair and we were as erect as on today is false. I am ready for debate.
Please go ahead and make me look foolish.

Do you want to discuss if this is true?

Are you suggesting that as a sequence of evolution? There is no evidence for it. And plenty of evidence against.

Originally Posted by KALSTER

Are you suggesting that as a sequence of evolution? There is no evidence for it. And plenty of evidence against.

What to make of it?

A plenty of evidence against what?

Originally Posted by Mother/father

Do you want to discuss if this is true?

There remain many problems unanswered, when out of Africa idea is accepted. That is why it cannot be true.

Originally Posted by uday yadav

There remain many problems unanswered, when out of Africa idea is accepted. That is why it cannot be true.

There is no part of this statement that makes sense.

We are different than other apes and the difference is in waist.
Before we came out of Africa, we had lost our hair and we were as erect as on today is false. I am ready for debate.
Please go ahead and make me look foolish.

Look again.

Look again at just the head and shoulders. No further.

What can you see that is different about where the head and skull meet?

Can't see anything? Well, look again at the human, from this angle the spine is aligned almost with the centrepoint of the base of the skull. It is pretty well exactly in a vertical line, either with the ear and hinge of the jaw or parallel to it, but vertical nonetheless. If you stand, straighten and relax your shoulders then do that physiotherapist exercise thing where you pretend the top of your skull is suspended by a puppet string (helps to straighten the spine and distribute weight properly) you could get a friend to do pretty well exactly that with a ruler.

Look at all the others. The spine/brainstem enters the skull behind and at varying angles to the ears or the jaw.

There are other differences, in the feet and ankles for starters. Why should we treat the waist and pelvis alignment as more important than the spine and skull alignment?

For a start, I take mtDNA study.

Mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) is passed from mother to child and mutates quickly compared to other genes. This helps to mark evolutionary changes in humans over relatively short time span.

Allan Wilson was a pioneer in the use of molecular approaches to understand evolutionary change and reconstruct phylogenies and a contributor to the study of human evolution. He believed by comparing differences in the mtDNA , it was possible to estimate the time, and the place, modern humans first evolved.

He and his team compared mtDNA in people of different racial backgrounds across the earth.

His discovery is,’ human mtDNA is genetically much less diverse than chimpanzee mtDNA.’

His conclusions are

1) Modern human races had diverged recently from a single population.

2) All modern humans evolved from one 'lucky mother' in Africa about 150,000 years ago.

I am studying the first conclusion but at present I request your attention to his second conclusion. Is it the only conclusion that can be derived from his mtDNA study?

I think this conclusion has arrived in the absence of and due to difficulties in search for 150,000 years old fossils across the globe. Hence this cannot be a conclusion but merely a speculation until the search for human fossils across the globe is done and checked correctly.

In ‘Descent of Man’, Charles Darwin mentioned,’.... in each great region of the world the living mammals are closely related to the extinct species of the same region.’

Based on Darwin’s observation, it can be assumed safely that in each great region of the world, about 150K years ago, all human mothers underwent same evolutionary changes of becoming modern woman that reflects today in study of mtDNA of people of different racial backgrounds.

Out of them, only "Lucky mother" from Africa presented her fossils for mtDNA study.

Originally Posted by adelady

Why should we treat the waist and pelvis alignment as more important than the spine and skull alignment?

Not more important but as important.

Spine and skull alignment precedes waist and pelvis alignment. Waist and pelvis alignment removed the little bent and made him modern erect human.

Originally Posted by uday yadav

For a start, I take mtDNA study.

How does anything in this post support what you claim in any way at all?

Originally Posted by uday yadav

I think this conclusion has arrived in the absence of and due to difficulties in search for 150,000 years old fossils across the globe. Hence this cannot be a conclusion but merely a speculation until the search for human fossils across the globe is done and checked correctly.

No it wasn't. The timeline was arrived at through an extrapolation of the mutation rates of mitochondrial DNA. There are human fossils from that far back, though they are exceedingly rare. His mtDNA methods "found that humans from Africa showed the greatest inter-individual differences, consistent with an African origin of the human species" - Wikipedia. It wasn't simply a guess based on no information.

In ‘Descent of Man’, Charles Darwin mentioned,’.... in each great region of the world the living mammals are closely related to the extinct species of the same region.’

Based on Darwin’s observation, it can be assumed safely that in each great region of the world, about 150K years ago, all human mothers underwent same evolutionary changes of becoming modern woman that reflects today in study of mtDNA of people of different racial backgrounds.

First you call into question the veracity of the mtDNA estimate due to not understanding how the tentative conclusions were arrived at in the first place, then you seamlessly move on and claim it is "safe to assume" humans developed all over the world at the same time from non-humans? That is terrible logic. You can not reasonably assume that from Darwin's statements.

If you want to establish a new theory, you first have to demonstrate that it is indeed a viable theory. You have not done that. Your ideas are most certainly not on equal footing to the currently most accepted theories.

PS: and would you do us all a favour and just post normally without any font or colour formatting. It makes it much easier to quote you. Thanks

Originally Posted by Neverfly

Originally Posted by uday yadav

For a start, I take mtDNA study.

How does anything in this post support what you claim in any way at all?

My post proposes that 150,000 ago human were already living in each region (except the colder ones) of the world. If we search for human remains of that period, we will find them in most continents and not only in Africa.

Originally Posted by KALSTER

PS: and would you do us all a favour and just post normally without any font or colour formatting. It makes it much easier to quote you. Thanks

I will repeat my answer to Sculptor on 8^th December.

I didn’t use bold font.

My share of computer time at home is not much.

At 60, I wanted my posts easily traceable. I thought of color font but that seemed loud and screaming. So I decided on font size 3. Hereon I will use 2 and see if it is OK to you and all.

Post @10 font size was 3 instead of 2 by mistake.

Do you take 1 minute to write a single post? May be 2 minutes if it is lengthy.

It takes me whole hour or more to construct a single post that includes important matter. Please bear with my font size 2. Yet smaller font will increase my work load.

Reading smaller fonts is easy. It is done in a stretch. While writing I have to look down and find alphabets on the keypad first and then look up at the screen to see if I have correctly typed the words.

Thank you and all.

[QUOTE=KALSTER;380320] It wasn't simply a guess based on no information.

[QUOTE]

I know. It is not guesswork. Critics would take it to pieces.
I said, he did not get fossils that old from other parts of world. He had a technique to arrive at the age of a fossil but if he could not find the fossils that old, he might have concluded that human did not live in other parts of the world before human from Africa reached there.
I say that we will find fossils in other parts of world which will be proven older than 150K years when examined by Allan Wilson’s technique.

[QUOTE=KALSTER;380320]... then you seamlessly move on and claim it is "safe to assume" humans developed all over the world at the same time from non-humans? That is terrible logic. You can not reasonably assume that from Darwin's statements. [QUOTE]



Non-humans? How would humans develop from non-humans? Please read my posts with little attention. I meticulously prepare my every post.

What I meant in my last post that it is wrong to suppose that human developed in Africa and then spread all over world. Long before 150K years, human had already spread on the earth except colder places. He came out of Africa far before the specified timeline of 150K years. He was hairy and had bend in the waist.

Our most recent ancestor didn’t have upright posture like us. We became erect in two parts.

Adalady has described the first part nicely. ‘The spine is aligned almost with the centre point of the base of the skull. It is pretty well exactly in a vertical line, either with the ear and hinge of the jaw or parallel to it, but vertical nonetheless.’ This means to me that human erectness was limited to upper part (spine and skull alignment) of the body while lower part (waist and pelvis alignment) still resembled to other quadrupeds. In this posture he spread all over the world.

He became totally erect and lost his fur at the time when he had encroached the entire world but was living only on the land of his choice.

Originally Posted by KALSTER

If you want to establish a new theory, you first have to demonstrate that it is indeed a viable theory. You have not done that. Your ideas are most certainly not on equal footing to the currently most accepted theories.

I am moving towards my theory without hurry. Step by step, this time.

go for it dad
balls to the wall
even if you're wrong

you'll gain from the action

Originally Posted by uday yadav

I said, he did not get fossils that old from other parts of world. He had a technique to arrive at the age of a fossil but if he could not find the fossils that old, he might have concluded that human did not live in other parts of the world before human from Africa reached there.
I say that we will find fossils in other parts of world which will be proven older than 150K years when examined by Allan Wilson’s technique.

And please read what experimental result pointed towards an African origin. I even quoted it for you. That is independent from if other human fossils were found elsewhere in the world. Here it is again: "His mtDNA methods "found that humans from Africa showed the greatest inter-individual differences, consistent with an African origin of the human species" - Wikipedia." Again, that evidence points towards an African origin, independent from any fossils found. But then you say humans did originate in Africa and then spread across the word? Why question his conclusions then? This is why you do:

What I meant in my last post that it is wrong to suppose that human developed in Africa and then spread all over world. Long before 150K years, human had already spread on the earth except colder places. He came out of Africa far before the specified timeline of 150K years. He was hairy and had bend in the waist.

Our most recent ancestor didn’t have upright posture like us. We became erect in two parts.

Hairy animals with a "bend in the waist" are not fully human. Homo Erectus moved out of Africa around 1.8 million years ago already and were fully upright. Fossils suggest full bipedalism might be as old as 4 million years. Why would you think modern humans evolved from knuckle draggers outside of Africa? There simply is no evidence for it and like I said, direct evidence against it. Please read MY posts with "little attention". Our most recent ancestor was fully upright.

Adalady has described the first part nicely. ‘The spine is aligned almost with the centre point of the base of the skull. It is pretty well exactly in a vertical line, either with the ear and hinge of the jaw or parallel to it, but vertical nonetheless.’ This means to me that human erectness was limited to upper part (spine and skull alignment) of the body while lower part (waist and pelvis alignment) still resembled to other quadrupeds. In this posture he spread all over the world.

You don't apparently understand what she was saying. A foramen magnum indicating the line of sight was perpendicular with the spine directly points towards an overall upright posture. Otherwise these animals would be looking at the ground the whole time. See how preposterous that sounds?

He became totally erect and lost his fur at the time when he had encroached the entire world but was living only on the land of his choice.......I am moving towards my theory without hurry. Step by step, this time.

Then please take heed of these very important points, because they directly contradict your idea, which in the first place is based on no evidence I can see. Where did you get your idea from? Please study the very basic first before attempting your own ideas. You are just wasting your time now.

Originally Posted by KALSTER

Why would you think modern humans evolved from knuckle draggers outside of Africa? There simply is no evidence for it and like I said, direct evidence against it.

It's a bit like the "squatting to pee" thread.
There is an existent belief prior to the speculations. The purpose of the speculations is to lend support to his belief that some force interfered with human development.
From protection of human evolution to direct inducement of it among various separate groups suddenly and at the same time. He is not concerned about evidence for his claims, only support for it and his beliefs.

uday yadav, you should probably read the wiki resources in the first reference you provided....all from Africa.

---

Unless you intend to discuss more peer reviewed science, and form some kind of arguments around credible sources, I'm going to move this to general or pseu because it's is not hard science--the ball is in your court.

Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox

uday yadav, you should probably read the wiki resources in the first reference you provided....all from Africa.

---

Unless you intend to discuss more peer reviewed science, and form some kind of arguments around credible sources, I'm going to move this to general or pseu because it's is not hard science--the ball is in your court.

I don’t see it right to object if you decide to move this thread to appropriate forum in your view. I don’t claim to be biologist of any branch. Though moving the thread will indicate that I am not capable of handling the raised subject to TSF’s info quality norms, I will try to feel not hurt.

Lynx_Fox, I had already read articles and web pages concerning human evolution available on internet. On your suggestion I read some more. I knew about clothes lice which evolved after human became hairless and wore clothes.

One article says if we compare selected genes of head and body louse, we will have an idea when we began to wear clothing. Fossil sewing needles date clothes lice evolution to 40,000 years ago. The DNA differences between two lice indicates an age of about 72,000 years ago but more recent studies give an estimate of about 107,000 years ago. The other estimate is at least by 83,000 and possibly as early as 170,000 years ago. And so on. I will come to this in my next post.

Their common suggestion is that the use of clothing likely originated with anatomically modern humans in Africa. So out of Africa, he was hairless. Out of Africa he was anatomically modern man means he was totally erect man. Then it is in order to speculate that these changes were revolutionary which might have led to human’s culture and language development.

But the further evidence goes against this speculation.

Wikipedia: Anatomically modern humans mentions,’The existence and importance of gene flow out of Africa is generally accepted, while the possibility of isolated instances of inter-breeding between recent sub-Saharan arrivals and their less "modern" contemporaries at various stages of prehistory is not particularly controversial.^] Nonetheless, and according to recent genetic studies, modern humans seem to have mated with "at least two groups" of ancient humans: Neanderthals and Denisovans.

I cannot imagine modern, cultured man who used langauge to express his creativity, the man who is hairless and erect mating with hairy and ancient human like animals.

Will someone explain this controversy?

Neverfly,

No force interfered with human evolution. Nothing supernatural. My canvas for human evolution is so big, none of you can imagine. Really.

I will put the whole hypothesis here but let me debate ‘Out of Africa’ theory first.

Originally Posted by uday yadav

I cannot imagine modern, cultured man who used langauge to express his creativity, the man who is hairless and erect mating with hairy and ancient human like animals.

Will someone explain this controversy?

You do not appear to have read very much about this. Both Neanderthal and Denisovian were at the most equivalent to today's hairy men in terms of body hair. When you look at reconstructions of their facial features, they don't look all that non-human. In fact, they are, properly imo, categorized as a sub-species human, i.e. Homo sapiens neanderthalensis. Modern humans are Homo sapiens sapiens.

Originally Posted by KALSTER

Originally Posted by uday yadav

I cannot imagine modern, cultured man who used langauge to express his creativity, the man who is hairless and erect mating with hairy and ancient human like animals.

Will someone explain this controversy?

You do not appear to have read very much about this. Both Neanderthal and Denisovian were at the most equivalent to today's hairy men in terms of body hair. When you look at reconstructions of their facial features, they don't look all that non-human. In fact, they are, properly imo, categorized as a sub-species human, i.e. Homo sapiens neanderthalensis. Modern humans are Homo sapiens sapiens.

No. I did not read about this. I was always in the impression that hairlessness was exceptionally important issue in human evolution. But it seems, atleast these two had become hairless before the Great Human's Exit Africa.

Wasn't there some business recently about older fossils being found in Asia?

Originally Posted by epidecus

Wasn't there some business recently about older fossils being found in Asia?

Thank you. Great information.

Originally Posted by epidecus

Wasn't there some business recently about older fossils being found in Asia?

http://science.slashdot.org/story/10/10/28/0312209/40-million-year-old-primate-fossils-found-in-asia

The Human Family's Earliest Ancestors | Science & Nature | Smithsonian Magazine

Excerpts from,
40 Million Year Old Primate Fossils Found In Asia - Slashdot

“….The quest for fossils of human ancestors began in earnest after Charles Darwin proposed in 1871, in his book The Descent of Man and Selection in Relation to Sex, that humans probably arose in Africa. He didn’t base his claim on hard evidence; the only hominid fossils then known were Neanderthals, who had lived in Europe less than 100,000 years ago. Darwin suggested that our “early progenitors” lived on the African continent because its tropical climate was hospitable to apes, and because anatomical studies of modern primates had convinced him that humans were more “allied” with African apes (chimpanzees and gorillas) than Asian apes (orangutans and gibbons). Others disagreed, arguing that Asian apes were closer to modern humans.

As it happened, the first truly ancient remains of a hominid—a fossilized skullcap and teeth more than half a million years old—were found in Asia, on the island of Java, in 1891. “Java man,” as the creature was called, was later classified as a member of Homo erectus, a species that arose 1.8 million years ago and may have been one of our direct ancestors.

So began a century of discovery notable for spectacular finds, in which the timeline of human prehistory began to take shape and the debate continued over whether Asia or Africa was the human birthplace….”

What to do with the evidence below? Should we declare it falsified?

Richard Potts, a researcher with the Smithsonian Institution in Washington, discovered stone tools in China which are highly refined and the scientists precisely established the age of the stone tools by dating tektites that were recovered from the same geological formation to 803,000 years, plus or minus 3,000.

There are subtle differences between them and stone tools of Africa which suggests people from China had comparable abilities in flaking stone and adapting to the environment.

Originally Posted by uday yadav

What to do with the evidence below? Should we declare it falsified?

Richard Potts, a researcher with the Smithsonian Institution in Washington, discovered stone tools in China which are highly refined and the scientists precisely established the age of the stone tools by dating tektites that were recovered from the same geological formation to 803,000 years, plus or minus 3,000.

There are subtle differences between them and stone tools of Africa which suggests people from China had comparable abilities in flaking stone and adapting to the environment.

As an example of what we would prefer you add to such postings is some credible article that backs it up.
For example:
Mid-Pleistocene Acheulean-like Stone Technology of the Bose Basin, South China

Now how does this support your idea? We know early humanoids, now extinct, such as Homo erectus were leaving Africa well before 800,000 years ago.

Isn’t it surprising? This scientist lives in Washington. But none of you knew anything about his work. He is working since 1985.
Richard Potts is a researcher and paleoanthropologist. At present he is Director of the Smithosonion’s human origins program. Along with leading excavations in early human sites in Kenya he co-directs ongoing projects in southern and northern China that compare evidence of early human behavior and environments from eastern Africa to eastern Asia.
I put here some of his websites that suggests human lived in most parts of earth since at least 1 to 2 million years.
Of course, posters must go through them before presenting ideas concerning “Out of Africa.”
http://humanorigins.si.edu/research/hop-team/rick-potts
http://humanorigins.si.edu/research/asian-research
http://humanorigins.si.edu/research/asian-research/earliest-humans-china
Human migration 1 to 2 million years ago.

Originally Posted by uday yadav

Isn’t it surprising? This scientist lives in Washington. But none of you knew anything about his work. He is working since 1985.
Richard Potts is a researcher and paleoanthropologist. At present he is Director of the Smithosonion’s human origins program. Along with leading excavations in early human sites in Kenya he co-directs ongoing projects in southern and northern China that compare evidence of early human behavior and environments from eastern Africa to eastern Asia.
I put here some of his websites that suggests human lived in most parts of earth since at least 1 to 2 million years.
Of course, posters must go through them before presenting ideas concerning “Out of Africa.”
http://humanorigins.si.edu/research/hop-team/rick-potts
http://humanorigins.si.edu/research/asian-research
http://humanorigins.si.edu/research/asian-research/earliest-humans-china

I read all three articles and none support what you are claiming. They consistently claim that Homo Erectus migrated to Asia from Africa.

Originally Posted by Neverfly;380915
I read all three articles and none support what you are claiming. They consistently claim that [I

Homo Erectus[/I] migrated to Asia from Africa.

Is this a scientific reaction to new knowledge?

My claim is clear. Whenever human came out of Africa he was hairy and a little bend in waist.

Articles take Out of Africa episode to more than million years back.

During the 1950 and 1960 a Dutch priest named father Theodor Verhoeven lived and worked on Flores at Catholic Seminary in Indonesia. Verhoeven had a keen interest in archeology and had studied it in university. While living on Flores, he identified dozens of archeological site. And conducted excavations at many of them, including the now famous site of Liang Bua where the “Hobbits” of human evolution were discovered (Homo Floresiensis). Verhoeven was the first to report and publish that stone tools were found in association with Stegoden remains in Central Flores at several site within the Soa basin. He even argued that Homo Erectus from Jawa was likely behind making the stone tools found in Flores and many had reached the island around 750,000 years ago. At the time anthropologist took little notice of Verhoeven’s claims and if they did, they discounted them outright.

FATHER VERHOEVEN, Tumhala Shatasha Abhivadan. (In my language Marathi).
FATHER VERHOEVEN, Hundred times,I touch your feet.

Homo Erectus is not Homo Sapiens Sapiens. Hominid, not human.

And it is certainly not 'new.' Peking Man, as it was called at the time, was found in China in '27. Estimated to be from 650,000 to 750,000 years ago.

Originally Posted by uday yadav

My claim is clear. Whenever human came out of Africa he was hairy and a little bend in waist.

Yes, your claim is clear...that's a start. Now we're is the evidence? Or where in Potts research, since you're using him, does he support what you're saying?

I was wrong to have supposed that no one knew of Richard Potts or ‘Java man.’ I will study this subject which is somehow (in my view wrongly) made to support ‘Out of Africa’ hypothesis, before commenting any further.

Back to my claim. I will again ask the same question that I asked in post @21.

Out of Africa man was erect and hairless and wore clothes. Then why did he mate with Neanderthal and Denisovian? If Neanderthal and Devisovian were hairless, were they using clothing of some kind?

I cannot imagine modern, cultured man who used language to express his creativity, the man who is hairless and erect, mating with hairy and ancient human like animals.

Will someone explain this controversy? Kalster’s answer (post@23) in fact supports my claim.

Originally Posted by uday yadav

I was wrong to have supposed that no one knew of Richard Potts or ‘Java man.’ I will study this subject which is somehow (in my view wrongly) made to support ‘Out of Africa’ hypothesis, before commenting any further.

Back to my claim. I will again ask the same question that I asked in post @21.

Out of Africa man was erect and hairless and wore clothes. Then why did he mate with Neanderthal and Denisovian? If Neanderthal and Devisovian were hairless, were they using clothing of some kind?

I cannot imagine modern, cultured man who used language to express his creativity, the man who is hairless and erect, mating with hairy and ancient human like animals.

Will someone explain this controversy? Kalster’s answer (post@23) in fact supports my claim.

Clearly you do not understand the term hairless. It means not covered in a full body covering of fur. It does not mean ONLY having hair on the head and pubes.

Originally Posted by uday yadav

Originally Posted by Neverfly

Originally Posted by uday yadav

For a start, I take mtDNA study.

How does anything in this post support what you claim in any way at all?

My post proposes that 150,000 ago human were already living in each region (except the colder ones) of the world. If we search for human remains of that period, we will find them in most continents and not only in Africa.

Show us the evidence that they were NOT upright bipeds at that time. no not your random speculation.

Originally Posted by uday yadav

Back to my claim. I will again ask the same question that I asked in post @21.

Out of Africa man was erect and hairless and wore clothes. Then why did he mate with Neanderthal and Denisovian? If Neanderthal and Devisovian were hairless, were they using clothing of some kind?

I cannot imagine modern, cultured man who used language to express his creativity, the man who is hairless and erect, mating with hairy and ancient human like animals.

Will someone explain this controversy? Kalster’s answer (post@23) in fact supports my claim.[/SIZE]

How can you possibly think your ideas still have any merit and that my post #23 supports your contention? Yes, Neanderthal and Denisovian were hairless and they wore clothes. In fact, Homo erectus were also pretty much hairless and probably also wore clothes.

What exactly are you trying to say then? That homo erectus evolved into modern human independently all over the world? This is not a new idea, but there is really not much support for it at all. PLEASE read up on this before trying to come up with your own ideas. Do you have some reason you have to invent this new idea of your in order to explain some pre-existing belief or something? Don't you think it is better to learn what the current science actually says before jumping in and trying to make up your own stuff?

Maybe he's saying that Homo Erectus was Homo Bentus.

Originally Posted by uday yadav

His conclusions are

1) Modern human races had diverged recently from a single population.

2) All modern humans evolved from one 'lucky mother' in Africa about 150,000 years ago.

Both of which are completely wrong.

You are onto something uday, you just have to keep an open mind and keep digging.

Originally Posted by gonzales56

Originally Posted by uday yadav

His conclusions are

1) Modern human races had diverged recently from a single population.

2) All modern humans evolved from one 'lucky mother' in Africa about 150,000 years ago.

Both of which are completely wrong.

You are onto something uday, you just have to keep an open mind and keep digging.

You forgot to add "according to gonzales56". Yours is not the mainstream view at present. Please don't be ambiguous about that.




@uday yadav; I'll move this to New Hypothesis after a while as you are presenting your own ideas and not simply enquiring about the current science.

Originally Posted by KALSTER

Originally Posted by gonzales56

Originally Posted by uday yadav

His conclusions are

1) Modern human races had diverged recently from a single population.

2) All modern humans evolved from one 'lucky mother' in Africa about 150,000 years ago.

Both of which are completely wrong.

You are onto something uday, you just have to keep an open mind and keep digging.

You forgot to add "according to gonzales56". Yours is not the mainstream view at present. Please don't be ambiguous about that.

I am not sure what you mean by "mainstream" here. I am not aware of many who refute the DNA evidence that modern humans are the decedents, the product, of multiple different hominids and/or hominid crosses between different populations and regions.

I am also not sure how declaring or stating such a statement is not "mainstream" (even though I am pretty sure it is) somehow reverses the evidence or makes the case that the evidence is wrong.

The evidence is pretty clear. Modern humans are on average 88% to 96-97% comprised of DNA/genes from archaic hominid ancestors who lived well before modern humans existed, and out of every bit of the 12% to 4% modern humans have picked up genetically over the last 150ky or so, up to 4% of that comes from those who have neandertal ancestors, up to 6% of that comes from those who have denisovan ancestors and 1-2% of it comes from other hominids who are not "modern" but are the ancestors of some modern sub saharan africans.

You see, if someone is comprised of 92% archiac hominid genes, 3% neandertal genes, 4% denisovan genes and then 1% who knows what, they are not the product or the decedent of one single population or one african "lucky woman". They are the product, the decedent of multiple hominids/humans and populations/groups.

I thank everyone who happened to provide me clues by their posts; they fed me new information that I could bring into line with my hypothesis. I have found few things myself which may support it as evidence.

It narrates how human evolved physically but mostly it is about how human behaved in his social life 80K years ago and how he behaved against enemy human bands in the void of political understanding and how political obligations arose along the lines of their growing population and growing assets. It also tells how human obligations evolved as a secondary form of culture and then the culture grew along with and also tries to establish that there were no tribes and nomads until human being discovered the idea of what we assume as agriculture.

Few members may remember that in 2011 I had posted it here and as I was less prepared to face critics, it was ignored mostly. Today I am more sober with my idea and many of you (anthropologists) have unknowingly helped me in it. My theory used to start 80K to 100K years back when human bands were able to start living near perennial rivers or perennial water source.

Thanks to everyone, you enabled me to consider the events which might have taken place in human history 150K to 200K years ago.

150K to 200K years ago, in one of the human bands living in Africa, a hairy mother with little bend in the waist, gave birth to a child whose shoulder joints, allowed his shoulders to move through a tremendous range of motion, making it the most mobile joint in the his body. His shoulders could abduct, adduct, rotate, be raised in front of and behind the torso and move through a full circle in the sagittal plane. See Wikipedia.

With this trait, the kid could grip a thing less firmly than his human band members but unlike them he could strike a thing with force and much speed. He could throw stones at animals far faster and with accuracy. By gripping long and heavy stick he was able to strike it with all his force, concentrating in his shoulder muscles and thus killing the object instantly, successfully and most of the times without anyone’s assistance.

This trait already existed in human bands. In a group, humans were using shoulder joints movements like throwing, hard-hitting, forcing the penetration and striking far better than other great apes but this kid outshined them all and when he died this trait had spread like fire across many territories. By some compulsory evolutionary time span this trait covered the whole Africa. This was the time when human bands in Africa grew really aggressive and started to live in yet smaller group. This was the time for “Out of Africa.”

Is it possible that the mother held this trait? It is very possible that she knew that she excelled in shoulder movements far better than even the other male band members but being female she had no means to be benefitted by this trait and the trait got transferred through her and through her right to her choice to choose kid’s father. I am only speculating and I don’t hold any authority on the subject of Evolutionary Genetics. But I would like to refer a statement by one scientist of evolutionary genetics, ‘Given a single origin of life from which all living things on this planet are descended, then it has to be the case that the variation in any gene traces back to a single ancestor at some point in the past.’

Would not variation in our shoulder joint trait be traced back to that hairy mother with a little bend or to her kid: Our Alfa Father?

This single trait, a single adaptation of shoulder joints wiped out human’s old mode of living completely and replaced it with a new, overpowering, dominant mode of life for him and he topped on the food chain wherever he lived.

The human bands in Africa consisted of 30 to 40 aggressive males and females including children and older ones. When a growing bigger band went on wandering for days in search of food, individuals always found themselves divided in couple of groups, according to food availability. Whenever a group had enough individuals to establish its supremacy over land of its choice, dominant males of the group always avoided returning back for reassembling and formed a separate and new band.
Thus always staying in the band of 30 to 40 members, an individual of the human band retained his body fur and yet avoided parasites.
There was little bend in his waist and he was not totally erect. Though occasionally he still used his newly found hands as front legs for speed but for self protection and predation in group his hands had turned into lethal weapon.Human bands tried to keep safe distance from each other.All animals including primates, kept safe distance from human bands. For fear of injury or death, every other animal had to leave its habitat on arrival of human band. By gripping long and heavy sticks human band was able to hit and kill animal of any size without getting injured.
Thus human bands grew very fast across Africa. They didn’t grow all over Africa. Instead they chose only perennial rivers for their stay to grow along.
At one time, along the river or in search of a river, they (some bands) came out of Africa, where they fought Neanderthals and others if any. After some evolutionary time line human shoulder joint trait happened to be main feature of universal human. Except colder regions he reached everywhere.
In my view, global spread of aggressive human took only 10K to 20K years after the rein of THE MOTHER’S KID. It was 80K to 100K years ago. That is why out of Africa happened only 1ooK to 120K years ago (in my view).
Above speculation is new. It was not part of my hypothesis that I completed in 2006. This speculation is outcome of your postings and I thank you for that.
80K to 100K years ago, though supreme and universal human bands wandered in the vicinity in search of food [fruits, edible plants, roots and animals], they preferred, as any other animal band would, to spend most of their time in the vicinity of perennial rivers and perennial water streams. During their stay, other animals stayed away from them.

Originally Posted by gonzales56

Originally Posted by uday yadav

His conclusions are

1) Modern human races had diverged recently from a single population.

2) All modern humans evolved from one 'lucky mother' in Africa about 150,000 years ago.

Both of which are completely wrong.

You are onto something uday, you just have to keep an open mind and keep digging.

Sorry, I have posted a speculation that is based on Allan Wilson’s both conclusions. His research in evolutionary genetics is exceptionally brilliant. Just few days back, I knew that he died in 1991. An early death at 56. He would be 78 as on today but he died 4 years younger than me. Had he been alive, he would have made revolutionary discoveries in genetics.

If allowed I am going to put my whole hypothesis here. It claims to have solved human mysteries: bipedalism and hairlessness.

Internet communication services collapsed globally. Reasons unknown. For me, luckily communication from Mumbai is not affected. I will make most of it until further instructions from TSF moderators.

Again I want to bring your attention to Mother-Kid Trait issue. I read that mothers pass on their mtDNA to daughters only. So it was not passed on to the Kid. So had she couple of daughters to whom she passed on the mtDNA? But then their speed of passing on mtDNA would not compete with the Kid’s ability to spread his genes across the regions. It is obvious that the mtDNA, Allan Wilson examined did not belong to daughters either.

The only option is this. The sisters, like their mother chose the right mates to pass on the trait as well their mtDNA to their sons and daughters while the Kid was on the spree of propagating his genes with assistance of immeasurable females who lined up in a wish to carry them (his genes) forward.

It might have taken 50 to 100 generations to inherit the shoulder joint trait by human species in Africa. At this point every male and every female had disowned the way they used to live and had started living in a overpowering, aggressive mode of life. This was new beginning for human species living in Africa at that particular time line.

Allan Wilson is very right when he traced back the mtDNA successfully to the ‘Lucky Mother.’ Only it shows that the mtDNA belonged not to an isolated single female but at that particular time line all the females were having the same mtDNA that boasts of supremacy over the territory..

The time line was 50 to 100 generations after the Kid.

Shoulder joint is a most repulsive, nauseating and stomach turning part of the human body.

Moving to New Hypothesis for now.

Originally Posted by uday yadav

Again I want to bring your attention to Mother-Kid Trait issue. I read that mothers pass on their mtDNA to daughters only. So it was not passed on to the Kid. So had she couple of daughters to whom she passed on the mtDNA? But then their speed of passing on mtDNA would not compete with the Kid’s ability to spread his genes across the regions. It is obvious that the mtDNA, Allan Wilson examined did not belong to daughters either.

The only option is this. The sisters, like their mother chose the right mates to pass on the trait as well their mtDNA to their sons and daughters while the Kid was on the spree of propagating his genes with assistance of immeasurable females who lined up in a wish to carry them (his genes) forward.

It might have taken 50 to 100 generations to inherit the shoulder joint trait by human species in Africa. At this point every male and every female had disowned the way they used to live and had started living in a overpowering, aggressive mode of life. This was new beginning for human species living in Africa at that particular time line.

Allan Wilson is very right when he traced back the mtDNA successfully to the ‘Lucky Mother.’ Only it shows that the mtDNA belonged not to an isolated single female but at that particular time line all the females were having the same mtDNA that boasts of supremacy over the territory..

The time line was 50 to 100 generations after the Kid.

no idea where you got the idea that mDNA is only passed to the daughters, but its very much wrong. It is passed two both male anf female offspring. There have also been reported cases, though rare of paternal mDNA inheritance.

Plus you are totally ignoring everything that has been told to you about the documented fossil record of bipedalism.

Originally Posted by Paleoichneum

no idea where you got the idea that mDNA is only passed to the daughters, but its very much wrong. It is passed two both male anf female offspring. There have also been reported cases, though rare of paternal mDNA inheritance.

Plus you are totally ignoring everything that has been told to you about the documented fossil record of bipedalism.

Thank GOD. And you that Kalster moved this here. I am addicted to your kind of fault finding. I was lonely and had started to have a feeling of being ostracized.

See. I am here because I can speculate. I don’t understand lengthy and complicated ideas. My memory is average. So I value the bits of info only as long as they serve me as my instrument to pursue my subject (speculation). I used the bit: mtDNA to daughters, because it would not harm my idea either way. My speculation says that the mtDNA examined by Allan Wilson, in fact belonged to one of the hundreds of thousands of females of supreme human bands well established in a shortest evolutionary time span in Africa in human history. All females carried identical mtDNA. In short bottleneck hypothesis is crazy idea.

I am not ignoring bipedalism of the past. 6 mya bipedalism of Homo Erectus was come up in void of predators. Their drifting through continents took millions of years. We find his presence in Indonesia 5 my after Africa that we describe as drifting.

If our other ancestors or the most recent ancestors were fully bipedals by the documented fossil records, we are yet to excavate the fossil of curved sacrum to endorse it. Till then please bear with my hypothesis that tells how the human with bend in waist became totally erect. (and after that hairless of course).

Originally Posted by KALSTER

Moving to New Hypothesis for now.

Moving to New Hypothesis...
Understood.

...for now
Not understood.

Originally Posted by uday yadav

Originally Posted by Paleoichneum

no idea where you got the idea that mDNA is only passed to the daughters, but its very much wrong. It is passed two both male anf female offspring. There have also been reported cases, though rare of paternal mDNA inheritance.

Plus you are totally ignoring everything that has been told to you about the documented fossil record of bipedalism.

Thank GOD. And you that Kalster moved this here. I am addicted to your kind of fault finding. I was lonely and had started to have a feeling of being ostracized.

See. I am here because I can speculate. I don’t understand lengthy and complicated ideas. My memory is average. So I value the bits of info only as long as they serve me as my instrument to pursue my subject (speculation). I used the bit: mtDNA to daughters, because it would not harm my idea either way. My speculation says that the mtDNA examined by Allan Wilson, in fact belonged to one of the hundreds of thousands of females of supreme human bands well established in a shortest evolutionary time span in Africa in human history. All females carried identical mtDNA. In short bottleneck hypothesis is crazy idea.

I am not ignoring bipedalism of the past. 6 mya bipedalism of Homo Erectus was come up in void of predators. Their drifting through continents took millions of years. We find his presence in Indonesia 5 my after Africa that we describe as drifting.

If our other ancestors or the most recent ancestors were fully bipedals by the documented fossil records, we are yet to excavate the fossil of curved sacrum to endorse it. Till then please bear with my hypothesis that tells how the human with bend in waist became totally erect. (and after that hairless of course).

Homo sapiens evolved from an erect ancestor, it did not evolve into an erect biped after becoming a distinct species.

Originally Posted by Paleoichneum

Homo sapiens evolved from an erect ancestor, it did not evolve into an erect biped after becoming a distinct species.

He seems to be saying that he will continue to advance his idea, even in the face of no corroborating evidence and the existence of counter evidence. Looks like he thinks the mere hope of future discoveries is enough cause for him to expand his ideas into any direction he wishes. The question I have been trying to get him to answer is where he is getting his ideas from in the first place, when nothing currently points that way? Does he have a pre-existing notion of some origin that he is trying to confirm?

That is what the "for now" bit is for uday. This section is for ideas where at least the most basic of scientific principles need to be adhered to. At the moment you are clinging to your ideas despite what the evidence points to, which is bizarre. Can you elaborate about WHY you think the current views are wrong?