First of all, it assumes that H. sapiens treated her brethren as enemies, or as some anthropologists seem to suggest, she saw them as animals rather than members of her family. The question is: How likely is it that a group of tired H. sapiens wanderers, coming upon a community of H. erectus with tools and recognizably human faces, would attack them or ignore them as "animals"? Most likely they would trade with the locals, and possibly spend a while hanging out with them as they rested on their long journey.

Maybe Homo erectus was the violent one.

Instead, she arose at roughly the same time throughout the world through this extended network.

I think they have a vaccine for that.

abb3w: ...which still doesn't mean Creationism deserves to be taken seriously.

THE ARTICLE IS NOT ABOUT CREATIONISM. WHY DO YOU INSIST ON REFUTING SOMETHING THAT HAS NOT BEEN BROUGHT UP?

Tofu: THE ARTICLE IS NOT ABOUT CREATIONISM. WHY DO YOU INSIST ON REFUTING SOMETHING THAT HAS NOT BEEN BROUGHT UP?

You seem to be unfamiliar with the concept of preemption.

WorldCitizen:

Um, we don't seem to have much of a problem committing genocide against our own species. I don't see how it would be much of a problem for us to kill off another species. We're a pretty violent animal. We're no bonobos.

Someone asked about this in Wolpoff's paleoanthropology course when I took it 10 years ago. His response:

"People try to mate with sheep. What do you think they did when they met each other?"

We're just as far from chimps as bonobos. We got the sex AND violence from our common ancestor. Even a conquering population out of Africa would fark the hell outta the other populations along the way and produce multiple offspring.

Ed Grubermann: Should have waited two minutes for Bevets to show up, dude. Now that the thread shiatter is here, we can dispose with the analysis of the article and resume our continued argument with the God -bothering retards.

The Ignore feature is magnificent, you know.

How humans evolved:

First we were stupid, then we stopped clicking on io9 links.

BarryJV: How humans evolved:

First we were stupid, then we stopped clicking on io9 links.

You mean Gawker links duh

abb3w: FTA: Most anthropologists are comfortable admitting that we just don't know what happened when early humans left Africa, and are used to revising their theories when new evidence presents itself. Richard Klein's influential textbook The Human Career, which I highly recommend as a detailed primer on human evolution, is full of caveats about how many of these theories are under constant debate and revision.

...which still doesn't mean Creationism deserves to be taken seriously.

Depends on who you think did the creating....

gameshowhost: You have summoned ... KEN HAM

Christ alive, it's the reincarnation of Lincoln!

Interesting picture, although I've seen very few people that look like long red or blue worms around lately.

Maybe subby meant to type "how people migrated around while evolving"?

drjekel_mrhyde: BarryJV: How humans evolved:

First we were stupid, then we stopped clicking on io9 links.

You mean Gawker links duh

Well, all of Gawker in general, but this link was io9 specifically.

Ed Grubermann: Kirk's_Toupee: First of all, it assumes that H. sapiens treated her brethren as enemies, or as some anthropologists seem to suggest, she saw them as animals rather than members of her family. The question is: How likely is it that a group of tired H. sapiens wanderers, coming upon a community of H. erectus with tools and recognizably human faces, would attack them or ignore them as "animals"? Most likely they would trade with the locals, and possibly spend a while hanging out with them as they rested on their long journey.

Maybe Homo erectus was the violent one.

I think we know who the violent ones were. Look at how willing we are to slaughter ourselves.

Maybe that is the homo erectus in us. Or maybe we share that violent gene. or maybe the entire human race was sprinkled with homo erectus viruses at the same time.

Ed Grubermann: TofuTheAlmighty: Ed Grubermann: Should have waited two minutes for Bevets to show up, dude. Now that the thread shiatter is here, we can dispose with the analysis of the article and resume our continued argument with the God -bothering retards.

The Ignore feature is magnificent, you know.

Which does you know good when everyone else decides to quote him. If more people would just either Ignore him, or just plain ignore him, we might have an interesting discussion once in a while.

I vow to never reply to him again. Let's start something.

Kirk's_Toupee: Maybe Homo erectus was the violent one.

No, I'm betting they were tasty.

Farker Soze:
I vow to never reply to him again. Let's start something.

AND MY AXE!

Human evolution explained..

Ed Grubermann: Which does you know good

Don't see that one as often these days.

Mugato:
B___ts: blah blah

Are you seriously still repeating that stupid nonsensical quote?

Stop quoting B___ts, please. Put it on ignore, it'll go away :)

Ishkur:
I don't get why the anthropologists keep thinking that they were "waves" of immigrations, as if to imply there was a period where man migrated, and then settled for a bit, and then migrated again, and then ere was another migration period that came later.

Maybe the history of man can't be compartmentalized like that. Maybe human migrations were ceaseless and indivisible,

Pre-historically, species migrations have coincided with geographical changes such as land bridges etc. appearing. IANAA but I assume this is why people entered the Americas 16,000 years ago: The Bering Strait was briefly dry land. I think similar events may have happened to allow migration through to Australia.

So, geographically, are there reasons why humans would have left Africa in waves?

Kirk's_Toupee: First of all, it assumes that H. sapiens treated her brethren as enemies, or as some anthropologists seem to suggest, she saw them as animals rather than members of her family. The question is: How likely is it that a group of tired H. sapiens wanderers, coming upon a community of H. erectus with tools and recognizably human faces, would attack them or ignore them as "animals"? Most likely they would trade with the locals, and possibly spend a while hanging out with them as they rested on their long journey.

Maybe Homo erectus was the violent one.

I think they'd do just like we would, act nice till we figure out they have something we want, or there's a big power vacuum. We at least know that we've interbred with Neandertals. I think you might be mistaking their "journey" like some tribe on a quest. We're talking many thousands of years, even hundreds of thousands for more archaic species. All you're seeing is people continuously putting distance between them and the asshole with an axe that lives next door or migrating to more plentiful resources.

Bevets: Though we may not know what happened during those many migrations out of Africa, one thing that's certain is that we evolved from an ancestor that we share in common with apes.

Evolutionism is the tinfoil hat atheists wear to keep God out of their brainwaves.


So you post one link to one fraud and that proves evolution does not exist?

Sweet..Scientist re-creates Turin Shroud to show it's fake (new window)


I just disproved Jesus.

Who is to say H. sapiens wasn't always intermingling and interbreeding with H. erectus and H. neanderthalensis?

That explains the origins of the Tea Party quite nicely.

Ishkur: I don't get why the anthropologists keep thinking that they were "waves" of immigrations, as if to imply there was a period where man migrated, and then settled for a bit, and then migrated again, and then ere was another migration period that came later.

Maybe the history of man can't be compartmentalized like that. Maybe human migrations were ceaseless and indivisible, and occurred constantly over a 500,000 year time-frame, with blocks of tribes wandering around the afro-eurasian landmass like ants, occasionally bumping into and overrunning each other (or trading or fighting or farking or whatever else they felt like doing). We only think it looks like pockets of immigrations because that's how we categorize the fossils which are a depressingly small fraction of evidence to make sweeping generalizations for.

Just saying.

When paleoanthropologists talk about waves of migrations they are still talking about events happening over tens of thousands of years.

Many animals migrate.

I'm more interesting in determining if Homo Sapiens speciate on the Y chromosome (^) or not.

TofuTheAlmighty: You seem to be unfamiliar with the concept of preemption.

Yes, because if Bevets shows up and says that evolution is tin foil, then he wins the internet and we all have to worship Jesus. But if abb3w gets here first and shiats all over the thread by saying, "still doesn't mean Creationism deserves to be taken seriously" then wow! Thank Dawkins! We're all saved and can continue getting gay married.

Is that what you meant? Is that your point?

Because my point is that it'd be awesome to see a science thread about actual science for once. I would love to see a rule on fark that if you bring up creationism but you don't actually believe in creationism, you get banned. That would be awesome. Bevets is a troll and everyone should ignore him. If any actual creationists show up, they're free to post whatever questions they have, and then at that point we could have a discussion. But until that happens (and it would happen very rarely) we could stay on topic.

"preemption" as you call it, is the science thread equivalent of some idiot saying "first (filter interruption) post" - that's all it is. Idiots with nothing constructive to say trying to be first.

Tofu: But until that happens (and it would happen very rarely) we could stay on topic.


ummm ...not sure if you know this but you are on fark.
I'm sure there are pure science forums out there, maybe you should try one of them.

Bevets 2011-03-05 08:51:24 PM
Though we may not know what happened during those many migrations out of Africa, one thing that's certain is that we evolved from an ancestor that we share in common with apes.

Evolutionism is the tinfoil hat atheists wear to keep God out of their brainwaves.

Evolutionism?

Ya know, Tofu, you could just have the conversation you wish to have with those that also wish to have it while choosing not to respond at all to those don't.

Or you can spend the entire thread whining like a biatch about it.

Tofu: TofuTheAlmighty: You seem to be unfamiliar with the concept of preemption.

Yes, because if Bevets shows up and says that evolution is tin foil, then he wins the internet and we all have to worship Jesus. But if abb3w gets here first and shiats all over the thread by saying, "still doesn't mean Creationism deserves to be taken seriously" then wow! Thank Dawkins! We're all saved and can continue getting gay married.

Is that what you meant? Is that your point?

Because my point is that it'd be awesome to see a science thread about actual science for once. I would love to see a rule on fark that if you bring up creationism but you don't actually believe in creationism, you get banned. That would be awesome. Bevets is a troll and everyone should ignore him. If any actual creationists show up, they're free to post whatever questions they have, and then at that point we could have a discussion. But until that happens (and it would happen very rarely) we could stay on topic.

"preemption" as you call it, is the science thread equivalent of some idiot saying "first (filter interruption) post" - that's all it is. Idiots with nothing constructive to say trying to be first.

Ummmmm..... aside from making you basically a Nazi asshole, how would that work? Does Drew send Thought Police around to the homes of suspected fake Creationists to shove needles under their fingernails and find out if they really believe it? Or maybe you just purse your lips, put your finger to your head, roll your eyes and wiggle your eyebrows three times and telepathically pass judgement?

Oh, and how do you define "Creationism"? I know of at least seven variants of non-evolutionary, mixed evolutionary (creation jump-started or assisted) or purely creationary belief systems. And most of them have been screeched and foamed at by close-minded Evolution True Believers here on Fark.

Curious minds want to know....

bookman: Oh, and how do you define "Creationism"? I know of at least seven variants of non-evolutionary, mixed evolutionary (creation jump-started or assisted) or purely creationary belief systems. And most of them have been screeched and foamed at by close-minded Evolution True Believers here on Fark.

I suspect you're one of the creationists, and define it as someone like you. Must suck to be stupid.

Albinoman: Kirk's_Toupee: First of all, it assumes that H. sapiens treated her brethren as enemies, or as some anthropologists seem to suggest, she saw them as animals rather than members of her family. The question is: How likely is it that a group of tired H. sapiens wanderers, coming upon a community of H. erectus with tools and recognizably human faces, would attack them or ignore them as "animals"? Most likely they would trade with the locals, and possibly spend a while hanging out with them as they rested on their long journey.

Maybe Homo erectus was the violent one.

I think they'd do just like we would, act nice till we figure out they have something we want, or there's a big power vacuum. We at least know that we've interbred with Neandertals. I think you might be mistaking their "journey" like some tribe on a quest. We're talking many thousands of years, even hundreds of thousands for more archaic species. All you're seeing is people continuously putting distance between them and the asshole with an axe that lives next door or migrating to more plentiful resources.

no. They could have been more violent than we are. Pure speculation ATM.

Bevets: Though we may not know what happened during those many migrations out of Africa, one thing that's certain is that we evolved from an ancestor that we share in common with apes.

Evolutionism is the tinfoil hat atheists wear to keep God out of their brainwaves.

Needs more 'retarded fish frog'.

Just speculation here as well, but I lean toward the Homo sapiens being the more violent ones. It's hard to imagine one human population replacing another except through violence. With the neanderthals, anyway - if you buy into the theory that they were built mainly for strength and homo sapiens for speed. Of course there was interbreeding as mentioned, but taken as a whole their disappearance may have been the first genocide.

If you like, equate it with an ancient version of the mentality at work when your older brother destroys you playing hockey because he can.