4 ms·
That's a lot of unsupported claims. It's very unscientific with a lot of ideological rhetoric. How is this the top comment?
by jonnybgood 10y ago
That's a lot of unsupported claims. It's very unscientific with a lot of ideological rhetoric.
How is this the top comment?
- dionidium 10y agoWhat you're noticing in the grandparent's comment -- or, should I say, what is revealed by the grandparent's comment -- is your own ideology. I don't read anything particularly ideological in the original comment. The call is coming from inside the house.
- Retric 10y agoJonnybgood is correct that comment is bunk. Out of Africa is true, but on a different timescale than more recent adaptations like skin color. You can walk back from eastern Asia to South Africa in well under a year. Assuming migration was completely in one direction is a laymen misunderstanding of long standing theory's. It's a density argument where you need populations in an area before there is any trace over these timescales. Consider some early hominid decides to follow the rising sun and ends up in Beijing. Great, well unless he finds someone else there he is going to live out his life and die without children. Even a small group does the same, without sufficient genetic diversity or immigrants they die out fairly quickly or are simply overwhelmed by the next wave. Also, 'humans' tend to make it safer for other humans in the area by killing off large predators, finding edible plants etc. PS: 70,000bce - 1,600,000bce is a very long time period. But, 1.6 million years ago South East Asia already had human ancestors and fire use is ~1.5 million years old.