[a / b / c / d / e / f / g / gif / h / hr / k / m / o / p / r / s / t / u / v / vg / vm / vmg / vr / vrpg / vst / w / wg] [i / ic] [r9k / s4s / vip] [cm / hm / lgbt / y] [3 / aco / adv / an / bant / biz / cgl / ck / co / diy / fa / fit / gd / hc / his / int / jp / lit / mlp / mu / n / news / out / po / pol / pw / qst / sci / soc / sp / tg / toy / trv / tv / vp / vt / wsg / wsr / x / xs] [Settings] [Search] [Mobile] [Home]
Board
Settings Mobile Home
/his/ - History & Humanities


Thread archived.
You cannot reply anymore.


[Advertise on 4chan]


File: hiiim.jpg (62 KB, 645x680)
62 KB
62 KB JPG
A million-year-old human skull was just found in China

It suggests that our species, Homo sapiens, began to emerge at least half a million years earlier than we thought

what are the historical implications of this? are most models of history horseshit? can we develop new models, or has IQ fallen too low for that by now, so we will just tweak the old models?
>https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cdx01ve5151o
>>
>>18025344
It is just very inprobably that a single found of a fossil will be able to debunk thousends of modells, theories, older founds etc.
It is perfect rational to wait and inquire.
>>
>>18025418
unless the data is bad, 1 counterexample is all you need to break the theory, though in this case i admit it may just be chinks chinking
>>
>>18025430
This is in theory, in pracital reality, any messurement has a certain risk of error. You cannot simply trust any counterexample.
The history of science is full of things that looks like "counterexample" at first glance, more frequent, they could be explained later by more sophisticet means.
>>
>>18025344
I fail to see how if it were true that it would realistically alter any perception of how we view history
>so it turns out those people we're based on lived half a million years earlier than we previously thought!
>huh, neat
And everyone moves on because it doesn't matter to 99% of people.
>>
>>18025344
what if we actually emerged from the Garden of Eden in Mesopotamia and we just don't have the evidence because the climatic conditions didn't allow for fossilization
>>
File: 1235612567312.png (407 KB, 442x442)
407 KB
407 KB PNG
>>18025488
A large reason for this allergic attitude towards humans evolving out of Africa and parallel theories of evolution stems from Bantu ethnonarcissism fed into by a lot of new atheist types from the early 2000s and 2010s who used their shallow reddit understanding science as an attempt to "own" and logic trap a strawman of a racist white suburban christian.
>>
>>18025540
it also closes the door to ancestral civilizations that could put questions on the progressive vision of history
>>
Traditionally, the Out of Africa theory posited that Homo sapiens originated in Africa before migrating to other continents. The new findings suggest that significant evolutionary developments may have taken place in Eurasia, particularly in regions like China.
>>
You're question makes no sense it doesn't matter if average IQ has fallen because it's an average there are still far more people with high IQ's practicing archeology and genetics than there were in the 80's.

>But the new analysis of Yunxian 2, which has been reviewed by experts independent of the research team, suggests that it is not Homo erectus.

>It is now thought to be an early version of Homo longi, a sister species at similar levels of development to Neanderthals and Homo sapiens.

>Genetic evidence suggests it existed alongside them, so if Yunxian 2 walked the Earth a million years ago, say the scientists, early versions of Neanderthal and our own species probably did too.

This would fit into the newer genetic models such as https://www.cam.ac.uk/research/news/genetic-study-reveals-hidden-chapter-in-human-evolution

tl;dr Two separate ancient populations split around 1.5 million years ago. 300,000 years ago, these groups came back together.
>>
>>18025540
>Bantus
>atheism
>>
>>18025765
Alright, you got me on the caps use but it was entirely an accident and not the intentional snarky shit journos pull
>>
>>18025344
Do we trust Chinese Science.....eh? Even if it is true, it's only more depressing to think we've been around even longer and still accomplished so little.

As for Africa. Sure all "homos" come from "African" inasmuch as all fish come from the water. Technically true, but a guppy isn't a Great White.
>>
>Chinese scientists find that China has the oldest humans
>Chinese scientists find that China has the oldest dinosaur fossils
>Chinese scientists find that China has the oldest culture
>Chinese scientists find that China has the oldest religion
>Chinese scientists find that China has the oldest rice cultivation
>Chinese scientists find that China has
the oldest civilization
>Chinese scientists find that China has the oldest weed
>Chinese scientists find that China has
The oldest medicine
>>
>>18026662
>Do we trust Chinese Science.....eh?
i don't, but i also don't trust western black-worship science, so we are at an impasse
>>
>>18025344
I honestly doubt everything
the problem is that I do not trust dating methods nor chronology
I read forbidden archaeology book and it was really interesting to read - its about too old artifacts or remains that do not make sense in the official chronology, like mln year wheel found in coal deposit, etc
The thing is that author assume that our current dating methods are reliable and chronology is right - which I don't
Personally I think that these fossils, remnants, too old artifacts was caught in some sort of rapid cataclysm or other process and they are much younger - alongside with the deposits around them
>>
>>18025344
Human doesn't mean homo sapiens in this context
>>
>>18026932
>I read forbidden archaeology book and it was really interesting to read
i love forbidden archaeology, the problem is that all the guys in the forbidden archaeology realm only want to do the bombastic claims, but nobody is willing to do the boring work to prove them.....
>>
>>18025540
Yeah asia is an exception because for them humanity starts in their country and that's the proof they're the best and we should ignore their insecurities for that conversation, but the reason why anyone is opposed to this is more or less what you've said.
Humans came out of Africa therefore Africa is the best because most diverse and also God doesn't exist and also not letting Africans live in Europe is worse than Hitler(why would they want to leave the best and most diverse continent is everyone's guess).
If you believe that the fact that more than 50k years ago your ancestors lived in Africa means that you need to think of the common negroid as your brother I guess the existence of southern slavs who split up in 6th or 7th century AD and hate each others guts makes them very confused. No normal person should ever be swayed by this sort of projection.
>>
>>18027788
nice schizo babble
>>
>>18027896
I've just tried to say way too much in way too little space. To break it down the reason why people don't like OoA isn't really scientific it's because of two ideas that are fed by some strange negrophiles more so than anyone normal. First is that the birthplace of humanity makes the place special, somehow second that the fact that normal humans and groids have the same common ancestors means that humanity is one thing and any differentiation within it is somehow wrong.
Humans however don't care about such lofty ideas. The balkanites are very closely related but they wage wars, genocide each other and you better not mistake Serbian for a Croatian. That is sociology of group dynamics manifested. Meanwhile some midwit on a documentary is like uuuooooh we all wuz africans therefore your country should be flooded by them. As if the rift between whites or asians(or even arabs) and groids wasn't astronomically bigger than between the ever mutually hateful balkanites. Most likely the entirety of ex Yugoslavia is composed of people who are at most genetically 20th cousins on average(Great Britain is iirc 16th, Iceland is 12th etc.), but it's still far enough for ethnic conflict to form. The entire projection is meaningless you can be an extreme racist(such as myself) and accept OoA,l.

The asian case I've mentioned has to do with the state of asian academic opinion on the origin of humanity. The Chinese anthropologist may concede that humanity mostly came from Africa but they'll make an exception for the east asians and say they come of separate lineage of homo erectus that simply converged with ordinary homo sapiens. These days they'll also emphasise denisovians. Koreans are even wilder because the mainline opinion of anthropologists, both north and south is that humanity comes from Korea. The insecurities lying at the basis of these stances are to convoluted to get into and that's why I'm not gonna delve into them.
>>
>>18029160
>>18027788
Take your meds man
>>
>>18025540
>Bantu ethnonarcissism
Where kids even coin terms like this?
>>
>>18029167
I hope you get what little life you have left squeezed out of you
>>
>>18025344
>A million-year-old human skull was just found in China
>found in China
>China
So it's obvious bullshit until it can be confirmed beyond even unreasonable doubt by academics in no way connected to China.
>>
>>18029160
I don't know anon. It honestly wouldn't surprise me if humanity emerged from Eurasia. It's where the most variation in phenotypes can be observed. Maybe it's a story of various lineages merging etc but I don't see how an african phenotype somehow evolved into a proto eurasian one the again into 10 different sub-phenotypes but it only happened once to the eurasian group and to none of the others.
>>
>>18029167
>Where kids even coin terms like this?
from observing reality like a scientific mind is supposed to do
>>
Dinosaur bone reconstructions are also made in china



[Advertise on 4chan]

Delete Post: [File Only] Style:
[Disable Mobile View / Use Desktop Site]

[Enable Mobile View / Use Mobile Site]

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.