Europe was the birthplace of mankind, not Africa, scientists find

[Rion]

Europe was the birthplace of mankind, not Africa, scientists find

I still say it was the middle east. That's where the first kingdoms appeared, after all.

 

[Arcangl86]

The Telegraph overstates what the authors of the studies found. The evidence so far is only suggestive, no where near enough to support an absolute statement like the one the Telegraph made.

 

[GoldenBoy89]

So much for the idea of science being unwilling to change when presented with new information.

 

[SnowyMacie]

The Telegraph overstates what the authors of the studies found. The evidence so far is only suggestive, no where near enough to support an absolute statement like the one the Telegraph made.

Yeah, I got the impression that article was making way more assumptions and statements about the discovery than the studies.

 

[Arcangl86]

Yeah, I got the impression that article was making way more assumptions and statements about the discovery than the studies.

Here is the conclusion of the study referenced in the article.

Therefore, we submit that the dental root attributes of Graecopithecus suggest hominin affinities, such that its hominin status cannot be excluded. If this status is confirmed by additional fossil evidence, Graecopithecus would be the oldest known hominin and the oldest known crown hominine, as the evidence for the gorillin status of Chororapithecus is much weaker than the hominin status of Graecopithecus [8]. More fossils are needed but at this point it seems likely that the Eastern Mediterranean needs to be considered as just as likely a place of hominine diversification and hominin origins as tropical Africa

 

[JackRT]

The Telegraph overstates what the authors of the studies found. The evidence so far is only suggestive, no where near enough to support an absolute statement like the one the Telegraph made.

The Telegraph is known for lurid headlines and jumping to conclusions. This is an interesting find, but at the moment it is no more than that. Just another piece in the puzzle but we don't yet know where it fits.

 

[Desk trauma]

Yet more poor reporting of science, color me shocked.

 

[MoonlessNight]

There is a powerful argument in this post that claims that anyone who doubts that the reporters tried to report this as accurately as possible is being un-Christlike.

In case you don't want to click the link, I'll reproduce it here:

In other words, people don't trust reporters, not because there is something wrong with reporters as a group but because there is something wrong with people. In my experience, when right leaning people hear something they don't like, they try to figure out how to ad hominem the new source; when it happens to the left, they tend to ignore it or downplay it.

You (the general "you") haven't met them. You don't know them. You work based on the assumption that they should not be trusted.
So, as Christ calls us to love people, can you help me understand how you can START on that assumption of that many people when we are told to love others?
These are the things that "Love" is and the highlighted ones are aspects of "love" that are not being fully realized by not trusting that 150,000 people do not want to do their best job and feed/clothe/house their family:

"Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. 5It does not dishonor others, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. 6Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. 7It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres."

 

[Rion]

The Telegraph overstates what the authors of the studies found. The evidence so far is only suggestive, no where near enough to support an absolute statement like the one the Telegraph made.

Yeah, I just don't like changing article titles most of the time because certain individuals would claim I was trying to mislead if I tried to make it simpler or more accurate.

 

[USincognito]

That's a nice clickbait title. Hominid > humans and 7.1 million years ago is, according to our current understanding, from about the time of or just before the chimpanzee/human LCA.

Interesting find though.

 

[JackRT]

That's a nice clickbait title. Hominid > humans and 7.1 million years ago is, according to our current understanding, from about the time of or just before the chimpanzee/human LCA.

Interesting find though.

I've tried to teach and/or coach a few hominids in my time *blink*

 

[rambot]

There is a powerful argument in this post that claims that anyone who doubts that the reporters tried to report this as accurately as possible is being un-Christlike.

In case you don't want to click the link, I'll reproduce it here:

I'm going to respectfully ask that you please remove this misrepresentation of what I said . That, or reframe what you are saying so that it actually represents what I said.

Thank you.