A funny thought, but more along the lines of we are all descended from ancient humans that happened to live in the Arabian peninsula, which would have been a very different place back then.

If modern humans came out of Africa 200,000 years ago, where in the world did the modern Africans come from?

We are all descended from people who once traveled through the Arabian Peninsula, but that doesn't make them Arabs.

JK: Yours is a common question. Modern Africans are descended from Africans that never left Africa.

Some left, some stayed.

Google the Human Genome Project by National Geographic, it is pretty interesting. Those who try genetic genealogy, like "23 and Me" or "FamilyTreeDna" (I did that one, and several family members) also got to put in our DNA.

Those who left Africa, traveling into Arabia, either hung a left toward Europe, or a right toward Asia - as they tracked DNA. Some of the Pacific Islanders, of which there are MANY groups, may have not gone by way of Mainland China (2 main ethnic branches there), but traveled along coastlines - the Aborigines of Australia may be one of those early groups, genetically isolated on that island for maybe 50k years! (A book, "Fatal Shore", talks of this group some, but just briefly.)

My haplogroup out of Africa came out probably 30k years ago- give or take 10k, and could not get too far into Russia - ice age still going on. Ethnically, about 13%, I am Jewish - with Bedouin and Mozabite too - kind of interesting to me, a green eyed Methodist from backwater Ohio/Indiana! The migration of humans is just interesting to some, me included - maybe because even in recent history (as early as 1690 in the US) my family has been moving for better economic conditions. A common human quest, it would seem.

"The 100-to-200 artifacts they found there were of a style dubbed Nubian Middle Stone Age, well-known throughout the Nile Valley, where they date back about 74,000-to-128,000 years."

The 74,000 date is interesting because that's when Mt. Toba exploded, and wiped out virtually every human on Earth at that time. Only the relatively few survivors of that disaster led to who we are today.

Here's a link for those interested;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toba_catastrophe_theory

Thanks, Roy - esp. for the link. Having taken my degrees in anthropology (tho' never having practiced it professionally), I've long been fascinated by the whole "bottleneck" issue. I was not up to date, however, on its potential association with the last Toba eruption, tho' it makes sense - most researchers thought it had a climatological basis and a super-eruption would provide that - and more.

I came of age at the height of the Arthur Schlesinger/"Great Man" theory of history, but after reading Philip Ziegler for the first time, I realized just what prisoners of our environment we really are, great men or not. That our dispersion across the globe and our racial and linguistic differentiation might be the consequence of an Indonesian volcano puts all of our hubris into doubt.

I hope that JK's question was done in jest. Third-graders know the answer to that one.

It doesnt matter where we came from we evolved to our environments. In tropics there was always plenty of food but lots of disease favoring breeding like rabbits to outbreed disease and short distance running so predators wouldn't eat you. In tropics skin got darker to protect from burning, and vitamin D overdose. In areas with winter, evolution promoted intellect strength and organizational skills , and skin evolved lighter to get a minimum amount of vitamin D.

The problems the tropics have now is medicine from areas where winter is hard to survive have been brought to the tropics. This caused population booms but giving medicine is easy , teaching people that never had to work/plan for food how to farm and store is hard. Disease had always kept the tropical populations below what could get by just eating low hanging fruit, and the result of bringing medicine to where disease ruled was the population exploded until a disease that couldn't be cured was found namely HIV.

A golden retriever and a pit bull are both dogs but have evolved differently.

The Indians didn't make it to the America's till a LONG time after these artifacts came into existence. These things are 100,000 years old, the ancestors of the indians are thought to have crossed the land bridge between Russia and Alaska between 40,000 - 16,500 years ago. Do a little research before calling people out on things ;-)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indigenous_peoples_of_the_Americas#Migration_into_the_continents

LOL "Do a little research" says the guys using wikipedia as a valid scientific source.

I believe the poster was referring to this caption under the picture of the stone tools:

The stone artifacts found in Oman were likely made by striking flakes off flint, leading to distinctive triangular shapes. This is the first time this particular stone tool technology has been found outside of Africa.

It's a little misleading because arrowheads have been found all over the world long before this tool was discovered.

They are referring to this particular type of points.

@Do Work

Please point out one error in that wikipedia article. Wikipedia is very accurate.

I find Wikipedia to be very accurate for the kinds of things I look up. I would like someone to point out to me where it is wrong with any article or classification.

I think he finds Conservapedia to be more in line with his thinking.

Wiki is fine for a quick reference - can at least be a first step to looking stuff up. I donated to them recently, like I do to PBS.

Your whole post is close-minded hogwash, sorry friend. I believe in God, but even I know better than to honestly believe a book that was written by man and translated by men in power many times over. The very fact that there was council to decide which books should and shouldn't be in the Bible tells you there are things the men in power didn't want future generations to know about.

indy, that was satirical, right? Because only crazy (or intellectually stunted)people think humans have been around for only 6500 years.

Right, Indy. And God created the planet with the fossils intact as traps for intellectuals. As if He would do such a thing. Didn't He create people with wise intellects, too? Doesn't He love them just as much as He loves idiots and demagogues?

[/sarcasm]

Broken Arrow is on the right track.

Look, yet another ignorant Christian persecuting those of us of science. Funny how they like to claim they are always persecuted yet they are the one always persecuting other not of their faith. I you look at the folks that originally left England because of persecution, They were being persecuted by another sect of Christians.

Also what is funny if you question the bible and htier religion they love to say "how can you presume to know the mind of God because he is a super being. MY question is how can they presume to know his mind? There whole religion is based on men presuming to know the mind of God which they say cannot be done. Again nice hypocrisy Christians.

LOL all you morons just got trolled by the OP

Don't put all Christians in the same group. Just as you complain about all of "them" persecuting others, you group all of them to criticize them all as hypocritical followers who are the only type of people possible of persecution. {I know you didn't say exactly that, but it is more or less what you seem to be alluding to} Instead, take religion out of it and focus on education. It has been my experience that anyone who is enlightened with factual evidence that isn't slighted or biased by an agenda of any kind, can come to an agreement on certain things. If you look at persecution for example...I would argue that close-minded, ignorant people of any background are quite capable of persecution. Instead of tossing mud on someone to further cloud the issue at hand...why not add some of your worldly knowledge to the discussion. Just my ignorant Christian opinion.

I don't get where Christians come up with this 6500 year timeline. It is not biblical. Just because some theologian said so? I don't buy it. Just try and follow the chronology yourself and see what number you come up with. There is so much we don't comprehend, and are likely screwing up the biblical chronology - too much left to our own interpretation. But that's what makes it so fascinating!

Congrats to the sum of the posters here - indychevyman just busted your chops!!!

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH

Good one indy!

Yeah well, indychevyman, see what happens when you suck too many fumes. To argue with someone like you about known facts, you don't understand, is just a waste of time. Crawl back under your rock.

And yet you have no tangible evidence to support your postulates while the theories you criticize have volumes. You may want to start quoting from your Bible now.

You have any links to these million year old ruins? Or any sources, articles, peer reviewed studies?

That tin hat of yours need to be pulled down tighter.

The older remains are not modern humans, but even so they still came out of Africa in earlier migrations. And even if your alleged "countless ruins" really existed, why could those people have not been originally from Africa as well, where human ancestors are known going back millions of years?

Really? I like the way you tried to put a intellectual spin on your obvious denial of "Out of Africa". The problem with history is not those who spend countless days and hours discovering it, it's those who will not accept it because of their own hatred, ego and superiority complex. Don't worry...it's not like anyone will mistaken you from being black. It's history so try to learn and enjoy it!

Take another ignorance pill, William, and go back to bed. You'll feel better in another 100,000 years.

William, Jock is right. They were hominids, not humans. I don't remember the species name, but they are nicknamed "hobbits".

One could argue that Africa (as we know it) didn't exists millions of years ago. Continental drift, cataclysmic geological events, oceans rising and falling, mountains rising and falling. Land that was once deep in the ocean is now on top of mountains and likely vice versa. The Earth has changed quite a bit. Who knows what archeological evidence has been lost. All we have is what is still remaining and even that is scant. The picture will always be incomplete.

Not necessarily agreeing with William, but making the point that we still have a lot to learn and discover. Who knows what we will find in the future.

It all started in Africa and gradually spread, in different migrations, over a long time.

My ancestors can be traced to living in Wisconsin 10,000 years back. Before that who cares? I am alive and well where I am.

I agree with nomenclature like the spirit of William's comment. A little disappointed in the hostility of some of you. Historically, our science and theories have constantly evolved. The idea that we could be wrong is not that far-fetched, after all we HAVE been wrong so I'm not sure what you all are so afraid of. Pangaea anyone? Africa schmafrica, we could figure out we all started out on Antarctica (just read saw an article about that yesterday)! So many of our theories evolve, why can't this one? Don't be so arrogant that you're afraid to question, science shouldn't be treated like a religion.

William, I saw that special on the History Channel too. It was called "Ancient Aliens, Undersea Civilizations" or something. I was smoking chronic so I can't be too sure of the name....

During the period of likely human existence (if we confine that to clearly hominid types), the continents were largely in their current arrangement and places, so you can't really use "continental drift" or "plate tectonics" to assail the "Out of Africa" school of thought on, for instance, the argument that there "wasn't an Africa back then". Even going back to the Australopithecines (3 to 5 million years ago), would not bring us to the days of "Pangea" or "Gondwanaland".

By the same token, it is true that the "Out of Africa" school of thought is NOT the only legitimate theory out there, tho' it is, by far, the most widely endorsed. Part of the problem, of course, is simply definitional, involving what, precisely, it is that we consider to be "modern man". You cannot say where he came from until you've determined who "he" is.

You tell'em, William!

Perhaps we started on Antarctica and migrated from there? Our ancient relatives are all on ice and waiting for global warming to release their remains.

On the other hand, it makes more sense that space aliens came down and modified a rat's DNA so that we would evolve into the human race.

Personally, if we can trace all our ancestry through Arabia, I want my share of the oil profits.

Sorry, random crud.

I like the aliens modifying the rat's DNA, excellent theory. Kind of like evolution from a single molecule. Might as well believe in a Creator. Proof, we don't need no stinkin' proof!

I have serious doubts we will ever have proof of how it began and where we migrated from. I'm putting my faith in God.

It is interesting that these artifacts have put a question in the out of Africa theory. Many Christians believe that life began in the area between the Tigris and Euphrates rivers in Ancient Mesopotamia. Not exactly Africa, but close.

I don't really understand why the bigots are the ones most against the out of africa theory. It actually backs up their claims of superiority. Humans left africa and evolved to suit thier new enviroment and the ones that stayed did not. They should be the ones most in favor of this theory.

And here I was wondering why I could never learn to swim my entire life.

"Blacker than the ace of spades"? What an odd way to put it.

This is before the races came about. The "black" woman, and the "white" woman both came from a earlier human.

This is fascinating stuff. One anthropologist says that it takes 20,000 years for whites to become black, if they lived primitively beginning in northern Europe, and over time, migrated into Africa.

Look at the physical appearance of peoples just at the tip of Africa, and then going more northward from that point. They get progressively lighter. This is why the people in India, Sri Lanka and that area can be very, very dark, but don't have the African facial features or hair.

Then go further up on the map, and the skin gets lighter and lighter. This is why the Middle East aren't as dark as India, Sri Lanka, Burma, etc.

Keep going and you get light olive (Russia, Spain, Italy, Greece), and then further up, very pale (Scandinavia). Coincidence? I think not.

Okay then, why aren't the South Americans and South Seas peoples as black as Africans? Simple answer: Influence by modern-day living prevents the need to have maximum melanin production to survive.

Airrika, it could also be that the people have not been in South America for 20,000 years, or it takes longer. Don't forget Autralian natives were/are very dark skinned, and they were there at least 40,000 years ago.

Also, how long does it take to get from black to white? That wasn't addressed in your post.

1DesperatelySeekingTheTruth, who said the people coming out of Africa were black? They could have been red, yellow or brown. We have skeletal remains, not skin pigmentation fossils. Seems likely they were dark skinned, we just have not proof.

Tell that to Pat Robertson or Jerry Falwell and their heads will explode!!!

Actually we are all descendents from slime...some have just progressed further than others...

we are descendents of slime that turned into a fish that somehow started hanging out on shore. But to think that the only place those fish came onto shoer was a sinle place in west africa is silly, much like thinking we are the only planet that could have life. There is only evidence from a very short period of time that we are finding human made artifacts, but we still have a huge areao f the world that is under plants/ice whatever that could be hinding more info than we ever knew. In fact very recently there has been evidence of a fish that had little leg/fins that could pull its way out of the water, from over a million years ago, that was found in northern...canada. The native americans say they have always been here. To think that only one set of fish did it on land in one place is crazy.

jeez.....does this mean I have to retake "African-American History"?

Pigs bleed red also Perido,t so you are a pig.

Trilliions? Really? Whole universe is only 4-5 Billion years old. So the Black Man predates the universe? Either stop listening to charlatans or stop posting here.

LOL at both of you.

Sorry, The universe, though we don't know exactly, is currently estimated to be 12 to 15 billion years old.

I could be wrong, but I don't think so.

Neal is thinking of the age of the EARTH.

No,

He explicitly said the "whole universe".

It was a major faux pas.

Dream on Muslim Man!

For Adul and Barack Hussein Obama -

The Black Liberations’ believe God will lead only blacks to the Promised Land. Don’t they know they are already here! America was once a land of milk and honey, a shining beacon of light spreading justice, freedom and opportunity throughout the land. In the Exodus, God led Moses and the Israelites from Egypt as slaves to the “Promised Land”. The Jews were led to a place of ‘milk and honey”. Unlike the Black Liberationist, they knew that only hard work would milk flow and honey had to be found and collected. They are destroying their “promised land” by many being a “Taker” and their misguided unduly political support of the Progressives. “Being Christian does not mean following in his (Jesus) steps”. (Black Theology and Black POWER, PAGE 139(3). If African American’s who descended from slaves had a choice, would they rather live here or in the dark Sahara? Let’s check our immigration records of American’s moving to Africa. My conversation with a Black Liberationist:

Fred C. Dobbs

"Black theology refuses to accept a God who is not identified totally with the

reject his love."! - Thu Aug 25, 2011 4:16 PM EDT

My response - Love and black Power, sounds like an orgy to me. There is only one God as I had one mother and a father. Just because I seldom get my way, or given gratis, or put on easy street; doesn't mean that God or my parents were unjust. God is of the spirit and as such is not in tune with one eating Kobe Steaks, drinking fine wines, living in a mansion or driving a nice car. All these material things are thus irrelevant to God. Your God is that of envy, anger, jealously, conceit and revenge. Good Luck with that! If you think Allah will make you prosperous, Go for it!!

Apparently some black religious leaders preach sermons more about white racism, than on God. Their congregations will be well versed on the racist evil actions of Europeans and European Americans and how they continued to be mistreated, but gain little knowledge of CHRIST! In Jamaica ‘Man” they blend together Christianity and Voo Doo. Voo Doo is carried over from their days in Africa. Jamaica college students go to Voo-Doo U. This is similar to the African Descendents in American combining Black Liberation Theology with a dash of Christianity. This must be an “African Thing”. Unfortunately this will be useless when you leave this world, and your deeds are revealed in the “Book of Life”. God upon reviewing your life will say” You did not know me in life; I do not know you in death.” Jeremiah Wright for the first time was turned away. Affirmative Action, Political Correctness and Social Promotion had finally failed him.

nazarite Apparently some black religious leaders preach sermons more about white racism, than on God. Their congregations will be well versed on the racist evil actions of Europeans and European Americans and how they continued to be mistreated, but gain little knowledge of CHRIST! In Jamaica ‘Man” they blend together Christianity and Voo Doo. Voo Doo is carried over from their days in Africa. Jamaica college students go to Voo-Doo U. This is similar to the African Descendents in American combining Black Liberation Theology with a dash of Christianity. This must be an “African Thing”. Unfortunately this will be useless when you leave this world, and your deeds are revealed in the “Book of Life”. God upon reviewing your life will say” You did not know me in life; I do not know you in death.” Jeremiah Wright for the first time was turned away. Affirmative Action, Political Correctness and Social Promotion had finally failed him.

....no Kwaanzaa presents for you!!!

That's OK, Kwanza is made up by black liberationist. Who cares? I will start a new holiday "Go to Work Day"

Uh.... no. The universe is not 4-5 billion years old. The estimate for Earth's age is 4.5 billion years. Estimates for the current universe's expansion vary from 13.75 billion to roughly 20-25 billion.

Well, I don't know what Fred C. Dobbs said, but I know what J.R. "Bob" Dobbs said:

• There IS no God — but if you're any kind of real American, you'll demand that He treat you as an EQUAL.

• Don't forgive them, for they know exactly what they do.

• Eternal Salvation — Or TRIPLE your money back!

I'm waiting for them to prove that ACC's story about "Moonwatcher" and the ebon Monolith was actually an historical event. Cue the music "Also Spracht Zarathustra."

Seems to me to be as valid a theory as any other. It came from the mind of the man who figured out geostationary orbit and "invented" such things as revolving space stations and telecommunications satellites. His ideas of where we were going have proved to be true (within reason, of course - we haven't sent humans to Saturn yet), so maybe his ideas of where we came from may hold some truth.

To see civilization from the end of the ice age look on youtube or discovery channel for "ice age columbus". It shows how europeans sailed to america along the edge of the ice pack when glaciers where all the way down to northern france and spain long before the land bridge to alaska was open.

There is much evidence, actually. Again, mainstream filters are applied to disregard hard evidence that does not conform to popular theory. Evidence from the Pliocene, Miocene, and even earlier - 5-55+ million years ago. This article is beyond poorly written let alone researched.

Just a few: Leakey-Tuttle - anatomically modern footprints, 3.6 million years old, Laetoli, Tanzania (1979); Moir's tools - Red Crag, 2.5 - 55 million years old (1909); H. Stopes - Pliocene Red Crag (1881); Harrison eoliths and paleoliths - Kent Plateau (1885); Louis Leakey stone tools - Calico, California, 200,000 years old (1950s). Hans Reck's anatomically modern human skeleton in strata - Olduvai, 1+ million years old (1913). I could go on and on...

Not to say that there weren't more recent migrations but there is much evidence for the antiquity of Homo and coexistence. For anyone that believes the 200,000 year myth I also have a bridge for sale.

Clearly, you have not evolved.

And neither have you, we are who we are and the only way to mix a race is to cross breed that way!

Go read a book.

Try to wrap your mind around the fact that there is only one "race", with various ethnic variations. Period. Simple as that.

No white dude is going to wake up a black man OK

But his children might....

BRILLIENT!

"Theory is theory.....I'm sorry but all the races didn't evolve from one race....we were placed here as we are (place your choice of creator here)..... black man...white man...yellow man...red man....none of us evolved from the other. No white dude is going to wake up a black man OK?"

Your fact laden, over-powering argument has convinced me that we (mankind) are not all EVOLVED from "monkeys"!

I postulate an equine origin for some.

I postulate an equine origin for some.

From the back-end no doubt!!

tck063-i know where you're getting this idea from and really, without trying to insult you, because i'm not, you need to see things from a different point of view. the religious idea that you have been indoctrinated into believing is a lie. it's one of the great, insidious lies that have perpetuated through out the history of religion-and that is that because the bible says we are created in the image of God that we can't possibly be descended from anything and that we all had to appear on earth exactly the way we are today. but, God says "i am the alpha and the omega, the beginning and the end." God only appears as one form of energy or another. even when he comes to abraham as a visitor, he is a spirit in human form and disappears as he walks away. God, the creator of the universe, is NOT human, never has been human. by implying that He is, is to instantly limit Him. God is energy and that which we were created in the image of, is that energy that is in every single human, yet individual and different. that doesn't make God less of a god, if anything this idea that God IS the living universe gives Him the omnipotence that He should have. but, the minute you start putting human attributes and human emotions into the picture, you no longer have the true picture of the power that caused the universe to come into being. you give that power to the heirarchy of religions whose only goal is to control you, your thinking and your life. i know for people who don't believe in God, that maybe i sound as crazy as you, but, i don't think the idea of creative energy existing without form is so crazy and there is plenty of evidence to suggest that the logic of the universe connotes intelligence. but, it is NOT the holyroller, god on a cloud kind of reality that you have been fed. really, just think about it. it makes more sense when you're faced with the overwhelming evidence that evolution bring us.

Do you have thumbs?

"No white dude is going to wake up a black man OK

But his children might...."

Only if his wife gets rap ed.

Life is nothing but a process of evolution and we can see differences over time even among Homo Sapiens themselves. To argue that humans will not change anatomically and physiologically is to claim that there's no such thing as evolution which is absurd.

There is no way...if that's the case and we have been here millions of years, don't you think we would all be one color by now?

Some argue that it's where we lived that dictated our color....um...why hasn't the blacks that have lived far north for centuries started turning white yet?

The trouble with theories is that they can be manipulated any way you want!

@Tcko63 - melanin densities change over thousands of years, not hundreds and modern civilization has essentially slowed if not stopped evolution as Darwinian forces are not operating any more.

ALL races evolved from a common ancestor. What became early humans split from the apes (chimps) about 6 million years ago.

so much info is bogus, like that of the climate change financial promoters.

Oh my God! Is this really the "education" sopme peole have? I mean I'm a decent Catholic but even I don't think that all of a sudden "POOF" here we were!

Why don't blacks in Europe "turn white" ? No need to, because they get plenty of vitamin D in milk and other fortified foods. The foundational evolutionary reason for skin color change relates to vitamin D production. Blacks don't produce the vitamin D in northern climates very well, but in modern day times, this doesn't matter because vitamin D is plentiful in processed foods.

One of the problems with evolution is that it provides a basis for racial superiority.

Maybe black is the more evolved skin color. It provides more protection from the sun and appears to have more elasticity. Maybe everyone started out white and the superior groups produced more pigmentation.

One of the problems with evolution is that it provides a basis for racial superiority.

Actually, no it doesn't. All humans are virtually the same. There are no "races". That is a past fallacy. There are ethnicities, but the term "race" hangs around due to common usage, like "dialing" a telephone.

Bu the story you are referring to happen less than 400 years ago. SO how could those folks from millions of years ago do it?. I guess they all just sat and waited till Moses came along.

that theory is just stupid.

Oh good grief! Abraham came from Iraq. His grandson went to Egypt. His children went back to Canaan following Moses. Even the Bible refutes your nonsense.

I accept the out of Africa idea for now. As for races, there are none. All changes and subsequent changes were caused by isolation and selection usually caused by climate. Other factors such as sexual selection probably contributed as well.

I have always found the movements of peoples fascinating and try to keep up. I do feel the coastal route was taken at first but that does no mean inland forays for miles didn't occur.

And just exactly who proved it and when?

OK, so I do selective breeding of dogs for a couple thousand years, come up with one that has blue fur and walks on its front legs - does that prove Darwinism? Or maybe, does it just prove that selective breeding can produce changes?

Darwin himself had doubts in his later years. It may provide some explanations, but to say it is proven fact - sorry, but do you have notarized statements from witnesses that were there when we were evolving? But, you are entitled to your "religion", I am entitled to mine. Either one is just a matter of faith.....

Thousands of scientists over the past 200 years....derp

The THEORY if you want to call it that Sharon, explains the OBSERVED FACTS.

You creationists have presented a weak and limp argument. Did you know that ALL dogs are descended from the grey wolf. DNA proves it.

Darwin himself had doubts in his later years

No He did not.

What he doubted was his religious views.

A common misconception for the ill informed.

Wychdoctor: Darwin's theory of evolution is not a religion (and please don't come back to me with the tired "it's just a theory" thing, it's been discussed and settled time and time again).

Let me remind you, a religion does not accept change in its precepts, as a matter of fact it utterly condemns them, by punishment of death sometimes.

Science encourages change and discovery. If evolution is wrong there are ways to falsify it (a fossil of a dinosaur with the bones of a caveman in its belly) and if one is encountered then the whole thing goes to the trash bin. So far, all evidence has supported evolution, and no evidence has been found to falsify it

pablo hillo, i totally agree with you, but would like to edit what you said, slightly. let's change religion to religions-because it is solely the thoughts and deeds of man that has tainted the philosophy of love and brotherhood that is at the heart of religion. i happen to believe there is no argument between God and evolution because if you truly believe in the omnipotence of the creative force of the universe, everything is fits nicely. do we know everything about evolution? no, that's why it's called a theory, but that doesn't mean that what we have discovered isn't true. we may yet find out that mankind found his way out of africa in different ways and maybe even earlier. to me, if we found out that we evolved sooner and more widely than thought of before would be so exciting. even now, there is strong evidence that the american indian came here a lot earlier than we first suspected(see i think november scientific american) that just makes the story more interesting.

The THEORY if you want to call it that Sharon, explains the OBSERVED FACTS.

You creationists have presented a weak and limp argument. Did you know that ALL dogs are descended from the grey wolf. DNA proves it.

Ok, all dogs come from wolves.... which is still a dog. Variety within a species is not contrary to the Bible. Neither is adaptation. The bible says they were ceated, each one, according to it's kind. There is genetic room for a great variety within a species. What is not in agreement with the Bible is that one "kind" of animal can change so much that it changes into another "kind" of animal alltogether.

If you breed dogs you are taking the role of mother nature. Darwin basically said that traits that make one more likely to produce viable offspring will produce more offspring,and traits that help to survive, help to reach reproductive age. So lets say you decide to not breed any dog that runs slow you are using evolutionary pressure to make fast running dogs. If you only allowed smart dogs to breed you would have the same Darwinistic affect as winters had on humans.

When they can breed a penguin from a wolf, give me a call. ;)

Out of Africa...another sad pseudo-science theory.

Well everyone is entitled to an opinion, yours does not fit the observable facts.

Neal - you assume all men came from the same lineage. Are we not learning new information as reported in this article. Much human history is buried under the sea, since sea levels were much lower in the past. Humans have always occupied areas along the coast and lakes.

The theory, sort of tracks with the bible really, is that there is one "Eve". One genetic mutation from a female, whence modern "Man" came from. They don't just pull a number out of a hat, they track chemicals of DNA - that which is passed down for thousands of years.

If you believe the earth is only 6,000 years old, and that Man walked with the dinosaurs, well, no point in going further.

Cassandra - did I say the earth was 6,000 years old? The beginning of Judaism and the "chosen ones" first son of God in the flesh was 6-7 thousand years ago. This was also time of man being "Civilized" and built monuments such as the pyramids. My other thoughts:

Adam the first Son of God in the flesh was created approximately 6,139 years ago. Climate during this time was temperate with abundant rainfall. It was an ideal situation for gatherers and foragers. Food was plentiful allowing man to increase in numbers. Later the development of agriculture and animal husbandry permitted larger settlements. This was the time where man built cities and monuments such as the Pyramids of Egypt. The early climate of this area greatly contributed to the Middle East being a “cradle of civilization.” The timing of the “Great Flood’” corresponded with a warming trend that melted ice sheets and caused glaciers to recede. The massive release of fresh water from the ice sheets resulted in rising sea levels. Before this time the Dead Sea was a freshwater lake, lying far below sea level. It is probable that early “Chosen Ones” lived in small settlements around the edges of this lake. They survived by fishing, foraging and hunting. Rising sea levels rose far above the elevation of the inland lake until the sea broke through the land dam, causing a massive flood. Once the barrier between the ocean and lake was breached, there were great waterfalls and walls of salt water filling the lake and all adjacent landmasses. To Noah’s perspective, the flood destroyed all that he knew before the flood. His pre-flood village was now hundreds of feet under water. People and animals that lived around the inland lake would have perished in the flood. The area which was the Garden of Eden is most likely now submerged. This fresh water entering the oceans reduced the salinity of the sea water. This lowering of salinity would impact climate by interrupting ocean current patterns. The less saline waters would sink deeper in the ocean than the lighter more saline water. This would alter global current patterns, which distribute heat in the oceans. This action would result in drastic “Climate Change” upon the land.

Also, is not the title of this article "Rewrite Out of Africa" I think the answer is more complex than only using DNA.

Oh brother.

If the first son of god in the flesh was created 6,139 years ago than how do you explain the Lascaux cave paintings that date back to roughly 17,000 years ago.

bt - there were other men before the "chosen Ones" adam in the bible was not the first man, but the beginning of the lineage of Christ.

AMEN, nazarite!

Do both of you ol' boys wear that "angelic" underwear by chance? Just asking.

So if Jesus and Satan are brothers, born on the planet Cobol ... sorry.... Kobol, WHERE was their father (The Supreme Being) born ?

That kinda sounds like Cain and Able.

No..I'm no Mormon even if they are probably the nicest believers I know.

Yes...they have some strange traditions like the magic underwear.

Since Jesus was/is the Logos which IS GOD, you can't put Him on the same created level as Angels, Demons or humans.

Again...GOD has no beginning and no end. Deal with it!

Source please to veryify what you said, unless you made it up.

Some recent studies of DNA has shown that Modern humans co-existed with Neaderthals for a time and mated with them. You see evidence of it every day here on Newvine. :)

If you type in "Neanderthal breeding with humans" quite a few results will pop up.

Point being that the main reasons for the different breeds of modern humans is inter-species mating. It wasn't just Neanderthals though. Please understand that I do NOT agree with S. Williams' tone in referring to "Our" ancestors, it comes across rather bigoted. Modern Africans are the closest living people to being pure H. sapiens.

sure...

Actually, MOST DNA testing (since 1998, and including studies of mitochondrial DNA) suggests that there was little or no interbreeding between Neanderthals (Homo sapiens neanderthalensis) and Modern Humans (Homo sapiens sapiensis), at least not enough to have left any genetic marker. However, other researchers have questioned those results. Clearly, however, the assertion that "everyone except Africans has a Neanderthal lineage" would be accepted by NO scientist in the field.

Now, I personally believe that some of our racial differentiations do owe themselves to interbreeding with "other types" of humans. For instance, there are certain conformities of the skull, common among Asians, which they share with Homo erectus, but not with other races of modern humans. Since H. erectus appears to have survived longest in east and southeast Asia, it is easy to postulate such interbreeding (by contrast, there is NO evidence that Neanderthals ever got into south or east Asia, at all).

Part of the problem, however, is (again) definitional. While we all think that we can tell what race any particular person is (well, except for Jessica Alba - does anyone know what race Jessica Alba is?), when you actually sit down and attempt to come up with a workable definition, it all falls apart. I mean, seriously, is Halle Berry white or black? She's 1/2 each, yet most Americans (and Ms. Berry herself) claim her to be black. Why? And at what particular shade of beige or tan do you cease to be black and become white? So, when we talk about "race" (even without the complication of modern admixtures and miscegenation), let's understand that we are talking about some pretty ill-defined notions.

The latest on Neanderthal research is that Neanderthals were NEVER in Africa, which is why the Africans who STAYED in Africa do not show Neanderthal lineage.

Apparently the Neanderthals broke off from a primitive lineage that had established itself outside of Africa somewhere.

So far as we can tell, Neanderthals lived in the Levant and Anatolia (what is now modern day Turkey) as well as throughout Europe, extending into Russia and possibly northern Persia/Iran. There is no evidence of any Neanderthal presence in Africa or in most of Asia (outside of the central Asia area around the Caspian Sea and eastward). There is morphological evidence of potential interbreeding with Modern Humans in the Levantine finds, tho' that could also simply reflect an early stage of Neanderthal evolution (contrary to popular notion, the brutish, beetle-browed Neanderthal of popular conception is a later form, largely confined to Southern France and the Iberian Peninsula - other Neanderthals actually kinda look like Rosanne Arquette). Nobody knows whence the Neanderthals came, tho' the oldest finds tend to be the Levantine ones which raises the possibility that they were an early set of "Out of Africa" types who, cut off for some reason from the populations in Africa, then went on to their own evolutionary development. Alternately, of course, they could have been an independent, evolution of an early human type, tho', again, that evolution most likely started somewhere in the area of modern Israel or Lebanon, which, once more, raises the potentiality that they evolved from migrants (albeit proto-human migrants) from Africa. After all, there appear to have been several diasporas of African hominids before our own ancestors left it (the Homo erectus one being pretty well documented).

The Neanderthals are fascinating precisely because they do not fit our "tree of life" reconstructions and we just don't know how they came to be or where they went.

oldefarte,

I believe Jessica is Albanian.

Who cares? She's hot - and I'm old, but, still...

"Modern Africans are the closest living people to being pure H. sapiens"

(in that Europeans are mutts of Homo sapiens and Homo neandarthal linage)

I bet that THIS is one of the things that REALLY gets these Crackers and PWs going.

-And the Thumpers (of whatever "sacred"- book(s)/papyrus scrolls/comics/ecet) -because reality doesn't fit their notions for control over the masses.

As opposed to the Ignorant demanding that the rest of us, also stick our heads up our nether noses, eh?

You appear to be found of putting people in boxes. Sill a neanthral.

Why is it that merely because we all came out of Africa,we all had to be black? Besides that, I don't necessarily think like EWE!

Frank - that would likely be North Africa, yes? The Arabs mixed into that population so much that it is no surprise. They went back and forth as the conqueror and the conquered - BEFORE islam got thought up. Likewise those of Jewish descent, no doubt. That would be why my grandma's side, with Jewish roots, has links to Mizrahim, Sephardic (Egypt probably), and Ashkenazim (Europe) ethnic groups.