4 ms·

We are also all African descendents; it's only a question of how far back.

Finnucane 9y ago
We are all everything, more or less. We know that even in fairly ancient times there was trade between Europe and Asia and Africa, which likely means trading genes as well.
spodek 9y ago
And fish.
to_bpr 9y ago
This is essentially factually untrue at this point. [wrong-link]
- kens 9y ago
  I think you're misinterpreting the article you link to. Among other things, note that Morocco is in Africa.
  - canoebuilder 9y ago
    7.2-million-year-old pre-human remains found in the Balkans New hypothesis about the origin of humankind suggests oldest hominin lived in Europe https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/05/170523083548.htm https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/05/170523083548.h... Europe was the birthplace of mankind, not Africa, scientists find http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/2017/05/22/europe-birthplace-mankind-not-africa-scientists-find/ http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/2017/05/22/europe-birthpl... Edit: In response to pharrington, I seem to be rate-limited. "All that high-falutin' garble that was not only missing the point, but only in service of that lame dig at the end? come on man... In my understanding, the point under discussion here, starting with to_bpr, was that the evidence is starting to shift away from the "Out of Africa" theory. And yes that is true, the evidence is starting to shift away from it."
    - ZeroGravitas 9y ago
      I read the Telegraph link, it says at the end there's not yet enough evidence to support the claim that the ape-human split occured in the mediterrainian rather than Africa as generally accepted. (Aside, this is a suprisingly nuanced take on science for a newspaper) However, even the person proposing this theory is suggesting that if they didn't die out completely, then afterwards the descendents probably moved to Africa. If accepted, your claim that "Europe was the birthplace of mankind" is subtly diffferent from the original claim of this thread chain, which was "We are also all African descendents; it's only a question of how far back" which if we accept the new theory is true twice, African before the split and African after the split.
    - pharrington 9y ago
      The vernacular usage of mankind refers to the self described species, which is homo sapiens. The mistitled Telegraph article is talking about the species that was "a member of the tribe of hominins and the direct ancestor of homo." Literally not even in our own genus, but an ancestor of it. I do, though, understand how easy it is to confuse all the various terms; our brains unfortunately aren't optimized for the type of rigor demanded of science.
    - ghostbrainalpha 9y ago
      >I seem to be rate-limited. I enjoy seeing your perspective on things. You are one of the very few usernames I recognize and remember. But maybe you are rate limited because you only seem to comment on Bitcoin or Race related topics? Also for the age of your account I don't understand how your Karma could be correct. Someone must have reset your score or something.
      - baud147258 9y ago
        Perhaps it's just an alt created at the same time than the original account and seldom used (on controversial topics) since then? It could explain the age/karma count discrepancy. Still I have no idea what's HN position is regarding alts, so I might be wrong.
b_emery 9y ago
Indeed, with dark skin no less (c.f. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Before_the_Dawn_(book) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Before_the_Dawn_(book))

We are all everything, more or less. We know that even in fairly ancient times there was trade between Europe and Asia and Africa, which likely means trading genes as well.

spodek 9y ago

And fish.

to_bpr 9y ago

This is essentially factually untrue at this point. [wrong-link]

kens 9y ago
I think you're misinterpreting the article you link to. Among other things, note that Morocco is in Africa.
- canoebuilder 9y ago
  7.2-million-year-old pre-human remains found in the Balkans New hypothesis about the origin of humankind suggests oldest hominin lived in Europe https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/05/170523083548.htm https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/05/170523083548.h... Europe was the birthplace of mankind, not Africa, scientists find http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/2017/05/22/europe-birthplace-mankind-not-africa-scientists-find/ http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/2017/05/22/europe-birthpl... Edit: In response to pharrington, I seem to be rate-limited. "All that high-falutin' garble that was not only missing the point, but only in service of that lame dig at the end? come on man... In my understanding, the point under discussion here, starting with to_bpr, was that the evidence is starting to shift away from the "Out of Africa" theory. And yes that is true, the evidence is starting to shift away from it."
  - ZeroGravitas 9y ago
    I read the Telegraph link, it says at the end there's not yet enough evidence to support the claim that the ape-human split occured in the mediterrainian rather than Africa as generally accepted. (Aside, this is a suprisingly nuanced take on science for a newspaper) However, even the person proposing this theory is suggesting that if they didn't die out completely, then afterwards the descendents probably moved to Africa. If accepted, your claim that "Europe was the birthplace of mankind" is subtly diffferent from the original claim of this thread chain, which was "We are also all African descendents; it's only a question of how far back" which if we accept the new theory is true twice, African before the split and African after the split.
  - pharrington 9y ago
    The vernacular usage of mankind refers to the self described species, which is homo sapiens. The mistitled Telegraph article is talking about the species that was "a member of the tribe of hominins and the direct ancestor of homo." Literally not even in our own genus, but an ancestor of it. I do, though, understand how easy it is to confuse all the various terms; our brains unfortunately aren't optimized for the type of rigor demanded of science.
  - ghostbrainalpha 9y ago
    >I seem to be rate-limited. I enjoy seeing your perspective on things. You are one of the very few usernames I recognize and remember. But maybe you are rate limited because you only seem to comment on Bitcoin or Race related topics? Also for the age of your account I don't understand how your Karma could be correct. Someone must have reset your score or something.
    - baud147258 9y ago
      Perhaps it's just an alt created at the same time than the original account and seldom used (on controversial topics) since then? It could explain the age/karma count discrepancy. Still I have no idea what's HN position is regarding alts, so I might be wrong.

b_emery 9y ago

Indeed, with dark skin no less (c.f. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Before_the_Dawn_(book) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Before_the_Dawn_(book))