When Did We Leave Africa? (d?_?b)

Hey Bros...I have another question for you...

This question has stuck in my mind for so long...Who left Africa and how do the African Migration Theory work?

I'll explain...since my teens, I have believed in the Evolution theory, since it made the most sense (I really don't want this to become a thread about religion. So, I'll rather not further that thought.). And, I do agree wit the theory of our ancestors migrating out of Africa. However, I am confused to when we migrated.

1. Some sources have stated that we were early Homo Sapiens when we left. Then, by the time humanity evolved into modern humans (Homo Sapiens Sapiens), we were already in our respected regions of the world.
2. However, other sources say the full evolution happened in Africa. And after we became modern humans, then, we migrated out of Africa.

I have always believe the first theory to be true. But, there are sources and evidence that prove both. It all really confuses me...could any of you bros clarify this for me?

d?_?b==========d^_^b=============d^L^b=============d^_^b==========d?_?b

Also.....Please try to keep it clean.

Well, the first theory is the Multi-Regional theory

The Second is the Out of Africa Thoery.

Modern evidence points the latter, for example African people have the greatest Genetic diversity out of all current Homo Sapiens (which would be expected if we came out of Africa), and Evidence show's that the Lineage between Humans and other Hominids, like Neaderthals have at least 800,000 years of divergence between them, and that there is significant Genetic difference. However the Out of Africa theory would also point to Modern Human culture completely wiping out other Human Cultures, and we don't really see this- Some Homo Erectus communities were suppossed to have lasted till around 20,000 years apperently. This could be because of non Homo Sapiens probably have greater tool capacity than we once thought (for example Homo Heilderbergsis - really bad spelling sorry), used projectile spears, something that was thought to be only assoiciated with Modern Humans. The Current Thoery is that its mostly put of Africa with a bit of interbreeding with native Homo Speices which radiated out before we did. Apperently about 1-4 percent of Western Europeans Genes, are from Neaderthals, while melasians stock is suppossed to have genetic material from Devonisian Man, a species of Human which is seperate from Neaderthals and Modern humans.

But its really interesting stuff, and I'm glad you made this thread :)

Depends what you mean by "We"

@laflux:

Thanks for the feed back...

I just looked up some articles on the two theories...The Multi-Regional theory states that Homo Eretcus left Africa and became Homo Neanderthalensis and the other species: like the Peking Man and Java Man.

I think one reason I became confused is because I thought Neanderthals evolve of of Early Homo Sapiens who left Africa into Eurasia. However, that specific thought is a old theory that has been debunked.

So...it's fact that some Homo Sapiens Sapiens couldn't have evolved outside of Africa?

@russellmania77:

What do you mean?

d^_^b

I personally don't believe in it. I'm open if someone can outright prove it, but it seems kinda racist to me.

Different groups left at different times, but we're all the same species. There's a theory that states that Europeans got their freak on with Neanderthals, but some new evidence suggests that that may not have been true.

Another theory states that the reason Europeans and Asians' DNA may have Neanderthal DNA was due to our DNAs adapting similarly the way Neanderthal's did to combat their new environment.

All in all, just let it be. We are humans and we killed them all off.

How so?

@laflux: It (at least to my understanding) implies that people evolved from Africans in the primate way. I've met many people of African descent and they're people just like you and me. Some are bad but many are good friends and honest upstanding people.

The chart isn't really accurate.

I don't think you understood the theory. It doesn't imply that Africans are more similar to primates than white people. The reason why white people are white is because we moved and needed to adjust to new environments that's. it.

@matteopg: Oh. OK. I still don't see why people have to "come" from somewhere. Isn't it possible people sprang up in multiple places?

No animals have to migrate to spread. Humans are no exception to that fact. The earliest fossils of ancestors were found in Africa so as far as we know that's where human life originated and where we migrated from and across the planet. The OP is asking at what point in our evolution did we make the journey.

No, nothing "needs" to be, but we know that that is not what happened. We have reconstructed the precise jurney of our species with a nice accuracy thanks to mithocondrial and non-recombinant y-chromosome DNA.

Science is cool :)

@matteopg: Science scares me. I prefer cold hard numbers that remain constant.

Haha, I'm ethnicially Nigerian, and I'd like to think when I'm trolling Comicvine, I'm a relatively nice person. Or at least liveable. But the Out of African theory doesn't state that African are in any way more primitve than other humans. Other Humans may be slightly different geneticially due to interbreeding with other humans, and adaptations, as well as the loss of genetic information, but not in the way which makes us any different species. When compared to alot of other species, humans are actually quite Polymorphic (that is to say we have alot of different forms, and looks), but in terms of Genetic range we are actually very closely related when compared to other animals, espicially other Great Apes (like Chimps).

So don't worry :)

Yeah there was an earlier thoery in which Neaderthals were meant to be a sub-species of Modern man (that is to say that the two species are virtually identical to one another), and that Admixture (which is basically sex), led to Neaderthals being wiped out, which would make sense given as Humans lived in much larger number than Neaderthals ever did. But Genetic evidence has shown that Humans are actually quite geneticially distinct, and probably have a ansector which split of to make Us and them (Most people think its Homo Heilderbegis as of now). Homo Erectus (or Ergaster as its called in Africa), left Africa first, and went to Asia where it became Homo Erectus (Java Peking Man). Homo Heilderbergis evolved from Homo Ergaster in Africa, rediated out of Africa into Europe to become Neaderthals. Then Mordern Humans (us), evolved from Heilderbergis (or a homo species close to it), raidated outwards and outcompeted the other Homo Species for the most part, with a bit of interbreeding with them. Some of the earlier Human species, which lived in Europe and Asia before we did, like Homo Florensis (which looked a bit like a hobbit), or Devonsian Man, or Homo Antessor, are not well enough studied to see how they really fit into this story. Maybe in the future we will see things differently, and maybe some new ideas will come out. The fustrating thing about human evolution is that it covers a relatively short period of time, thier is alot of overlap in species,w ith not the best fossils.

@knightrise- Don't you study Biology as well. Would you like to contribute :)

Okay that flowchart is evil and you should burn it with fire. Depictions of linear progression involving evolution are inaccurate, you have to think about it more like a complex tree. Heh heh but yeah I am joking about the fire thing, but that chart and others like it give a false idea of how evolution works. Uhm okay I am really sick and ill, so here is an alright video to help explain a bit.

Current ideas and facts about when 'we' left Africa as far as I understand, is that - we thinking about it as we is a bit faulty, probably better to think of it as waves of groups of people at different times starting around 120, 000 years ago or earlier, and continuing on for thousands of years with distances reached and success varying and varying because of different factors (like the environment) and so these homo sapiens were interacting with other hominids in that time. One particularly large or successful wave leaving Africa is put forward as being around 60, 000 years ago, and successful in the sense we can genetically verify them as having living descendants.

As another poster pointed out there are two competing theories Multi-Regional theory and 'Out of Africa' theory, there can be overlap between both, as far as many who apply the Multi-Regional theory still identify Africa is the leaving point for humans or types of certain hominid, just that it was much earlier and that there was more interbreeding/integration that led to modern day man. More weight and validity is given to Out of Africa theory, especially with genetic evidence. As far as simple ways to think about this, is to consider that homo sapiens as far as out ancestors left Africa 80,000 to 50,000 years ago, and we successful as far as finding places to live and thrive and continue on to this very day. Groups may have left earlier.

I think what might make all this confusing is actually that linear flow model chart. It suggests that Neanderthal evolved into Cro-Magnon evolved into Homo Sapiens but thats not what happened, and as earlier pointed out there was interbreeding, interaction, competition, assimilation. Might also be confusing because of the overlap, and say sites being found that demonstrate earlier Homo Sapiens out and about earlier than the dates I gave above and that the replacement model isn't too dissimilar to the regional model.

Please ask more questions though as well if anything sounds confusing.

@laflux:

You're Nigerian?...Wow.....I don't know why, having known you for two years (if I'm correct), I have always thought you were a Asari.

@superguy1591 said:

Yeah...it's a neat topic, but it, like discussions on religion, and Egyptians' ethnicity, I always become deeply depressed and afterwards. I feel extremely off for nearly a week before getting over it...

The only part that really brings me down is how the discussion usually always become a racial conversation, and/or argument for racial superiority.

...If it makes you feel any better, all life on Earth kind or spawned out of nowhere...

Well, I'm glad you think of me as a Original Player...

d^_^b

I didn't get it :s

@sc said:

It's accurate when depicting the evolution of humans.

We all came from the ocean.

No, he was right. That's not how the evolution of humans happened.

@awesam: Thats just the thing, it isn't. The original anthropologists that first used such charts warn against viewing such illustrations as literal.

@sc: Obviously, but I'm implying it should be taken literally. Kind of like how people aren't supposed to take the 'we came from apes' saying seriously. I'm saying it it's not an inaccurate depiction. Obviously evolution is far more complicated and an evolved species would branch off into more than one, but it's just picking out stages of human evolution. We're at a misunderstanding here and I'm having a difficult time explaining my point.

There were many attempts to leave Africa. But the biggest wave of migration came I believe 60k years ago. The earliest migrates went to Australia. All non Africans trace their mtDNA back to African L3.

Also anyone who believes in multi region will have to:

1. Find physical remains older than those found in Africa.

2 . Have to find haplogroups older than those found in Africa.

@awesam said:

I gathered you were trying to say it wasn't an inaccurate depiction when you said it was an accurate depiction. =p.

You use the term obviously here a lot, but it simply seems like you made an inaccurate assumption about the application of how I used the term. Its a bit like me saying obviously I don't mean the illustration isn't absolutely the opposite maximum extreme of what evolution is, (hence the use of the word inaccurate) but it would be "obviously" redundant for me to point that out.

Maybe if I said that the illustration was wrong or false then you might have a point otherwise I sincerely don't get what point your trying to make? If the image is picking out stages of evolution, then thats inaccurate, because actual evolution doesn't have stages nor again are they in linear progression. Such illustrations are heavily criticized and cited for misleading people about evolution, even by the people who created it but you know, wall posters and the like. That also being said the meaning of a term like inaccurate inherently supposes a degree of accuracy, just relative to a reference point. If you understand that evolution is "obviously" more complicated then to take issue about the assertion of such an illustration being inaccurate is odd.

Perhaps you could just explain how you find the image accurate as potentially I might agree with you. It does sound like a misunderstanding, Could your point be made independent of semantics about the application of inaccuracy/accuracy.

@superstay: Hahaha

Lol.

I presume it was a long while after we came from stardust :P

@sc: By "accurate" I meant it does show the correct stages of evolution starting at A and leading up to C. When one species evolves, it branches out into numerous other species. Like a tree. I know what you're saying. The depiction is wrong and falsely portrays human evolution (looks more like a transformation). What I'm saying is that it is true that human evolution went from point A to point B. That these were stages. Although, I'm unfamiliar with a bunch of the ones above, so I'm not entirely sure.

@awesam said:

I am familiar with all the 'stages' above and the person who drew it and the book it was published in and can state emphatically that it does not show the correct "stages" of evolution. The image posted is a reproduction/copy of an image drawn by Rudolph Zallinger, drawn four years earlier than the one above. Originally it was presented with text and the author of the book explained it was never their/the artists intent to present evolution as a linear process, nor is it stages either from point A to B, just notable discoveries and milestones loosely arranged in what was considered at the time earliest to modern, but that readers misunderstood and the image become more popular than the text accompanying it, which shed light on the context. Some of the figures/representations aren't even ancestors and some if them were evolutionary dead ends. So by the image it would be like having A, B, C, D, 56, Apple, Z, Omega, 2B, 2C and 2E. its now one of the more famous images to do with science notable for how inaccurate it is.

If any of your points have nothing to do with the image? Thats fine, I am speaking specifically of the image, the image is inaccurate, even the author and the artist asserted that its inaccurate and not meant to be accurate. If your speaking of evolution in some other general sense, I can see what you mean, is that what you mean? Is the misunderstanding here that I was talking about the image and you are not?!?! Heh heh.

@sc: I'm seriously just talking about the stages involvement and not the representation. I didn't think the image itself had any significance.

@awesam said:

Ah okay, well I am talking about the image, and in it, even the stages involvement and the representation are inaccurate, nor were they ever intended to be accurate. The image could have a silhouette of a blue whale and Superman depicted right in the middle and it wouldn't really decrease the validity of the image as far as evolution than where it already is.

I left about a month ago from my trip there.

@laflux: Humans? Hominids? I'm more concerned about this upcoming paper on the comparative embryology of chondritchyes and Late Devonian placoderms to worry about something as recent as humans! G*ddamnit I'm 375 million years of zoology away from worrying about humans!!!! I'm so deep in primitive gnathostomes, mandibular gill slit transitive evolution and notocords that I'm having nightmares of conodonts!!! SO DON'T YOU DARE ASK ME ABOUT HOMO F*CKING SAPIENS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

My grandparents never left.