I have always believed all of mankind originated from Africa. I was never shown any proof of this claim, I just heard others say it and assumed it was true.

Then I saw this video movie titled "The real Eve" this movie made the claim that all of mankind started in Africa and made several points concerning this claim; but the so called facts it presented were so "shotty" so ridiculas that not only did I doubt the claims it made, but I am now beginning to doubt the claims that all humans originated from Africa.

This movie is the only evidence I've ever seen to support this claim; I've always taken somebody elses word for it, and this evidence was full of holes that I am forced to reject it.

My question is, is anybody aware of any evidence to support the claim that mankind originated from Africa other than the fact that the oldest human bones thus far were found there? (which is basically the argument the movie was making) Does anybody have something a little more convincing?

K

Original Post
The only evidence we have is from scientific theories and the fact that Africa is the continent where the oldest human remains have been found so far, and the fact that no human remains have been found on any continent that are older (so far).


With that said, I'm not sure if that is proof that man originated from Africa or is merely proof that science has coincidentally not found any older human remains anywhere else on this planet. 


I personally believe that earth used to be an island surrounded by ocean until something either suddenly (or over eons) erupted Earth into divisions. 


Another thing I don't beleive, is the claims that this so-called "Eve"  they claim to have found in Africa is supposed to be the mother of modern humans.  You have to remember that there are too many scientists in this world now that do not originate, but instead regurgitate the same information that has been feed to them and generation after generation.  I believe that this so-called "Eve" is more of an attempt to convince people that human evolved from apes than it is the supposed proof of the oldest humanoid being found in Africa.  This is what people of African descent must remember before claiming this so-called "Eve."  By claiming "Eve" without evidence other that what scientists and anthropologists propagandise and polarize, we would be accepting or admitting to the twisted science that claims that people evolved from apes.  So, I believe that all mankind originates from an originally island earth and it may be more coincidence than anything else that the oldest human remains have been found in Africa-----if what scientists are claiming to be human remains are even human; and maybe what is now the continent of Africa was originally the center of Earth Island or the part with the largest human population.
Well in addition, its been scientifically proven through the most recent DNA survey & genetic study recently ended in 2009 that Africa has the most diverse genetic population that any other continent in the world. Scientists have also proven that many of the world's peoples migrated out of Africa. Most recently the Great Andaman Islands which is on the eastern side of India, close to what is considered South Asia.
If you don't believe it Kevin-1122, I suggest you read the works of Dr. Cheik Anta Diop
Kevin, 

Of course there's no "proof" of something that can't be directly seen, but the overwhelming evidence, from a lot of sources, seem to point to the conclusion that humanity began in Africa.  However,there are two different hypotheses that predominate.  The one you're talking about is commonly called the "Out of Africa" hypothesis, but there's another one -- i think they call it the "multiregional" hypothesis -- that suggests that, even though early man evolved in Africa, different waves of populations traveled outside of Africa and either evolved on their own or merged/mated with newer populations they later encountered after their own subsequent migration out of Africa, if I'm explaining it correctly.   

The out of Africa model is the most accepted, though.  The evidence for it does involve fossils, but now they have the added benefit of genetic evidence.  I don't know which "Eve" your movie was referring to, but the genetic evidence involving the review of mitochondrial DNA puts the real mitochondrial "Eve" somewhere in East Africa around 200,000 years ago.  This doesn't mean she was the "first woman"; it only means that this was the most recent female whose mitochondrial DNA is shared by all currently living humans.  

This, plus what Yemaya said about the extreme genetic variety in Africans, strongly supports the idea that Africa is where humanity began, and makes other hypotheses very difficult to reconcile with the evidence.

Sunnubian

(quote)

I believe that this so-called "Eve" is more of an attempt to convince people that human evolved from apes than it is the supposed proof of the oldest humanoid being found in Africa......By claiming "Eve" without evidence other that what scientists and anthropologists propagandise and polarize, we would be accepting or admitting to the twisted science that claims that people evolved from apes.

 

(reply)
Actually what the movie claimed was sorta the opposite. According to the movie, all of mankind origionated from 1 woman who lived in africa approx 250,000 years ago (They conviently neglect to answer where she come from, how she became pregnant, or how do they know it was only one person rather than many) and that this person whom they call "Eve" was found in Africa; and all humans share the same mitochondrioal DNA that she had thus proving we all came from her (neglecting to consider the possibility that maybe someone who hasn't been found yet may have preceeded her and gave her this mitochondrioal DNA)

They admit neanderthal man (whom scientists claim humans evolved from) existed prior to this "Eve" such as Lucy whom according to scientists is well over 3 million years old, but they claim the neanderthal man died out along with the dinosaurs because they were'nt intelligent enough to survive.

I think the movie kinda leads you to conclude that God created Eve, and from her came everybody else; which is not an opinion shared by science but I am sure would be welcomed by some of the religious/creationist types.

I found the claims of the movie to be rather ridiculas

Kevin





Reference:
Actually what the movie claimed was sorta the opposite. According to the movie, all of mankind origionated from 1 woman who lived in africa approx 250,000 years ago (They conviently neglect to answer where she come from, how she became pregnant, or how do they know it was only one person rather than many) and that this person whom they call "Eve" was found in Africa; and all humans share the same mitochondrioal DNA that she had thus proving we all came from her (neglecting to consider the possibility that maybe someone who hasn't been found yet may have preceeded her and gave her this mitochondrioal DNA) They admit neanderthal man (whom scientists claim humans evolved from) existed prior to this "Eve" such as Lucy whom according to scientists is well over 3 million years old, but they claim the neanderthal man died out along with the dinosaurs because they were'nt intelligent enough to survive. I think the movie kinda leads you to conclude that God created Eve, and from her came everybody else; which is not an opinion shared by science but I am sure would be welcomed by some of the religious/creationist types. I found the claims of the movie to be rather ridiculas Kevin
I am not familiar with this film "The Real Eve", but I think that you may be conflating a number of different claims about the family of hominids, or the biological family Hominidae. All the great apes including humans are in this family, but not all are in the same genus, and there are some genera that are extinct. Within the genus homo (human) there are also a number of extinct species. All the species in the genus homo are technically human, but these species share common ancestry with the other genera in the family Hominidae.
Sorry Kevin, everyone, I was thinking of "Lucy" when I typed "Eve."  However, what I am really trying to say is that a lot of "science" is more or less guess work that is fueled and influenced just as much by the scientists' background, belief systems, prejudices and revisionisms as it is by facts.  Lucy is probably a primate that scientist are trying to chug and plug into the theory of evolution and the reliance  on DNA as evidence is basically flawed because what they do not tell people when this 'evidence' is put forth is the fact that nearly every animal on earth, hell even trees, have just as much of the same DNA a modern humans.


And, NO to the above poster, I DO NOT believe that human being evolved from apes/primates.  I do believe that human being have evolved over time and will continue to evolve relative to their environment, diet, and intellectual leaning, but I think that primates/apes have always been prmates/apes and human beings have always been human beings.  As far as creation is concerned, it is my belief that they both could have taken place;  humans could have been created by a highter being and evolved over eons due to adaptation to environment, etc., into what we are today.  It doesn't necessarily have to be an either/or, but both could have occurred.



Once the theory that humans evolved from apes/primates is accepted as proven then you will have the entire human race's stratification etched in stone by a hirearchial system that may last an eternity.  The whole world would begin to live under a racial caste system like the color caste system of India/the East.  Once we really go down that road as human beings, there will be no turning back.
Kevin, I don't know which movie you saw, or what their bent was (they may have been taking some germ of science and bending it to suit their agenda).  But as I was saying before, real science has determined what they refer to as a "mitochondrial eve," but they're NOT claiming that this is the first woman.  All it means is that this individual is the most recent female from whom all currently living humans get their mitochondrial DNA.  For example -- and this is something we've discussed here before, in the context of those DNA ancestry tests -- if you have 16 great-great-grandparents, you got your mitochondrial DNA from only one of them.  You're descended from all of them, but the one you got your MtDNA from is your maternal grandmother's maternal grandmother.  All of your brothers and sisters, all of your cousins by your mother's sisters, al of your mother's sisters, and assorted other female relatives on your mother's side, all share that same ancestor's MtDNA.  

This Mitochondrial Eve they refer to is the most recent person from whom all living humans share MtDNA.  It doesn't mean she was the first woman, and science holds as much.  Just like you have 15 other great-great grandparents, there were undoubtedly many tens of thousands of other people on earth at the time this woman lived, and we all are undoubtedly  descended from almost all of them.  In fact, the male equivalent of this Eve -- "Y-Chromosomal Adam" -- is said to have lived 60,000 to 90,000 years ago.  No one of any relevance is trying to claim that these were the first humans.
'Of course there's no "proof" of something that can't be directly seen, but...'---Vox

The 'Scientific Method' is specifically designed to provide 'proof'.

Not all things 'proven' can be seen, or even made to be seen.

Being a lawyer, you must agree that neither 'guilt'. nor 'innocence' can be seen..., nor can it even be made to be seen.

In the case of Africa being the origin of human life...

'Lucy' is the best tangible proof...to date.

The DNA information seems to be supportive of that conclusion..., and can be 'seen' as well.

PEACE

Jim Chester

PEACE

Jim Chester
Reference:
'Of course there's no "proof" of something that can't be directly seen, but...'---Vox The 'Scientific Method' is specifically designed to provide 'proof'. Not all things 'proven' can be seen, or even made to be seen. Being a lawyer, you must agree that neither 'guilt'. nor 'innocence' can be seen..., nor can it even be made to be seen. In the case of Africa being the origin of human life... 'Lucy' is the best tangible proof...to date. The DNA information seems to be supportive of that conclusion..., and can be 'seen' as well.
Jim, it's not literally "proof," it's evidence and support that you get from the scientific method.  And you're right, as a lawyer, strong evidence that strongly supports a conclusion is usually good enough for me. 

But just so you understand -- because I think someone else on this site once was confused on this -- "Lucy" was not a human being.  This was a member of a pre-human species that humans are related to.  The DNA evidence that most strongly supports African origins of humanity are the "mitochondrial Eve" and the "Y-Chromosomal Adam."  These WERE human beings, and they are our MRCAs (most recent common ancestors) from each respective gender.  The fact that their DNA is most related to certain African populations tells us that the first true modern human beings were from Africa.
Jim, it's not literally "proof," it's evidence and support that you get from the scientific method.  And you're right, as a lawyer, strong evidence that strongly supports a conclusion is usually good enough for me. 

But just so you understand -- because I think someone else on this site once was confused on this -- "Lucy" was not a human being.  This was a member of a pre-human species that humans are related to.  The DNA evidence that most strongly supports African origins of humanity are the "mitochondrial Eve" and the "Y-Chromosomal Adam."  These WERE human beings, and they are our MRCAs (most recent common ancestors) from each respective gender.  The fact that their DNA is most related to certain African populations tells us that the first true modern human beings were from Africa.---Vox

Every discipline has its rules, e.g. 'murder', 'insane', etc

I have no challenge for 'Lucy'.

I accept the DNA protocol.

But....the 'scientific method' does indeed accept a proof, e.g. all levels of geometry.

Also mathematics.

And chemistry with its stoichiometric protocols.

Just to name a few.

Proof is indeed, and often intangible.

PEACE

Jim Chester
Okay. My two cents. Well one and a half cents. Those of you who are familiar with the Pangea supercontinent [and I am not sure if this is the correct name....but!] know that all the continents were once infused together for thousands or maybe even million of years. When they separated....some moved north, south, east and west....thus creating the current hemisphere in which each encroached. Now....during this period THEY [those smart white scientists] say there was NO LIFE....but! I beg to differ. Only cuz I don't trust a DAMN thang massa and his boys say....but! That's just me. If we put on our thinking caps and ponder that when these continents separated we know a few of them went north plunged into one of many ice ages....which means of course NOTHING as we called life could live under those conditions. Right? But! On the other hand, where there is an abundance of plant life and food resouces emerging as a result of the atmosphere and warm climate in the south....bingo! There could very well be a possibility of what? LIFE! Hence the continent we know as Africa[I believe south America was still connected to it too]....sat there....in the sun....where organisms could flourish. And because of this....I believe that human life has been there [that is in Africa] for about 4 million years. Where you ask? Again....I didn't stutter. Right in the smack of Africa. Anthropology...Archaeology[sp] and other fields are man-made [massa-made]studies....excuse me "White" man's studies...who have claimed for many years that Africans were/are subhumans. Am I to believe anything damn thing these folks say about whether or not life began in the very place they enslaved the people who lived there in the land they called savage/uncivilized? Well.....patting my feet. Checkin' my watch. HELL NO! So. Those who want to believe the "Eve" theory can...but! For me...the proof is in the pudding. And the pudding is the many years massa has LIED about our very existence including our contribution to the world. So. Why in the hell would anybody BLACK in their right mind believe a damn thang massa says especially if this so-called theory primarily pertains to us. Huh? Bottom line. Europe and Asia were deep in the ice age for too many years to count. That's why the neantherals stayed in their caves staring at each other when evidence of a shinning sun shown them they could walk through the cave opening at any time. Did they? Yup! 20 thousands years later. So. If it make folks feel better to believe that the "original" man came from Europe than from Africa...then I say it's a matter of choices in what YOU personally want to believe. Cuz for the most part, massa hasn't PROVEN a damn thang. He tried with the Piltdown Man....and that was a lie. So. There you go....but! I'm just sayin
Reference:
Blizzie C3 · 2 Forum Posts March 15, 2010 at 9:45 AM (Last Edited: This could be it. http://www.cell.com/current-bi...-9822%2809%2902065-X

Nice reference... there was a great paper in Science in June 2009 or so that used haplotype analysis to ID populations arising from Africa by looking at 120+ unique African communities...

Vox, I like the multiregional hypothesis, which I think is better supported than the "Out of Africa" hypothesis by the haplotype data scientists have to date...
How so, Shulamite?  I thought the fact that the Most Recent Common Ancestor, on both the mitochondrial and the Y-Dna side, both being African, would support the out-of-African hypothesis more.  Or does it? 

The last Mitochondrial Eve is from around 200,000 years ago, while Y-Adam is from just 60-90k years ago.  Does that discrepancy help one theory over the other?
Reference:
How so, Shulamite? I thought the fact that the Most Recent Common Ancestor, on both the mitochondrial and the Y-Dna side, both being African, would support the out-of-African hypothesis more.
Vox, this is correct. I misread and commented inappropriately. When I read "multi-regional" I focused on recent SNP studies suggesting that current populations arose from multiple regions in Africa, which diverges from previous thinking that they arose from a more concentrated location in Africa. This is solely h. sapiens, however and wasn't relevant to what you and Kevin were discussing, which is about the fate of h. erectus.  My mistake...

Add Reply

Likes (0)
Post
×
×
×
×