Humanity's Homeland

[JackRT]

(CNN)Africa has long been regarded as the cradle of humankind, but scientists seeking a more specific location have narrowed in on northern Botswana as the "homeland" for all modern humans, according to a new study.
There, south of the Greater Zambezi River Basin, which includes northern Botswana and parts of Namibia and Zimbabwe, the ancestors of Homo sapiens began 200,000 years ago, the researchers said.
Their new study, published Monday in the journal Nature, suggests that the ancestors of modern humans thrived for 70,000 years in this region before climate change led them to migrate out of Africa and eventually span the globe.

Study author Vanessa Hayes chats with Headman ǀkun ǀkunta from an extended Ju/'hoansi family. She has been visiting ǀkun and his extended family for over a decade. They shared their blood samples to aid the study.

All modern humans originated in northern Botswana, study says - CNN

The gentleman on the left in the above photo gives us a good idea what we used to look like.

 

[Lazarus Short]

As a Christian, I am bound to consider the mountains of Ararat as the region from which humanity dispersed, and after that, wherever the Tower of Babel was.

 

[JackRT]

As a Christian, I am bound to consider the mountains of Ararat as the region from which humanity dispersed, and after that, wherever the Tower of Babel was.

I too am a Christian but I have no problem with the findings of science.

 

[Strathos]

As a Christian, I am bound to consider the mountains of Ararat as the region from which humanity dispersed, and after that, wherever the Tower of Babel was.

Babylon.

 

[~Anastasia~]

I'm not going to bother arguing for or against the findings but ...

I find it rather odd that anyone could believe HUMANS would live for 70,000 years in one small area and never venture from it until climate change forced them.

We've certainly changed as a species in that case ... just a few centuries saw us willingly speeding all over the planet and even venturing into space.

I just don't think human beings have it in their nature to sit in one place for 70,000 years and never venture out. Almost every teenager and 20-something belies that idea, don't you think?

 

[JackRT]

I'm not going to bother arguing for or against the findings but ...

I find it rather odd that anyone could believe HUMANS would live for 70,000 years in one small area and never venture from it until climate change forced them.

We've certainly changed as a species in that case ... just a few centuries saw us willingly speeding all over the planet and even venturing into space.

I just don't think human beings have it in their nature to sit in one place for 70,000 years and never venture out. Almost every teenager and 20-something belies that idea, don't you think?

You make an excellent point. Perhaps there were efforts to venture out that were unsuccessful. The Vikings in North America and Greenland come to mind. The Polynesians in South America.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I'm not going to bother arguing for or against the findings but ...

I find it rather odd that anyone could believe HUMANS would live for 70,000 years in one small area and never venture from it until climate change forced them.

We've certainly changed as a species in that case ... just a few centuries saw us willingly speeding all over the planet and even venturing into space.

I just don't think human beings have it in their nature to sit in one place for 70,000 years and never venture out. Almost every teenager and 20-something belies that idea, don't you think?

The actual paper suggests that the dispersion was both driven by and enabled by climate change:

"Palaeo-climate proxy and model data suggest that increased humidity opened green corridors, first to the northeast then to the southwest."​

"we propose a southern African origin of anatomically modern humans with sustained homeland occupation before the first migrations of people that appear to have been driven by regional climate changes."​

 

[That Guy 11200]

Origin of modern humans 'traced to Botswana'

However, the study, published in the journal Nature, was greeted with caution by one expert, who says you can't reconstruct the story of human origins from mitochondrial DNA alone.

Other analyses have produced different answers with fossil discoveries hinting at an eastern African origin.

Prof Chris Stringer of the Natural History Museum, London, who is not connected with the study, said the evolution of Homo sapiens was a complex process.

"You can't use modern mitochondrial distributions on their own to reconstruct a single location for modern human origins," he told BBC News.

"I think it's over-reaching the data because you're only looking at one tiny part of the genome so it cannot give you the whole story of our origins."

Thus, there could have been many homelands, rather than one, which have yet to be pinned down.

Mitochondrial DNA is DNA that is passed on by mothers only. Using it to infer a location for an ancient 'homeland' is a very flawed idea.

 

[SLP]

As a Christian, I am bound to consider the mountains of Ararat as the region from which humanity dispersed, and after that, wherever the Tower of Babel was.

So you just ignore stuff that does not jive with your ancient stories.

 

[46AND2]

So you just ignore stuff that does not jive with your ancient stories.

His faith identifier is atheist.

His objection is one shared by other scientists in the field. The paper has met some resistance for the very reason he stated.

 

[~Anastasia~]

You make an excellent point. Perhaps there were efforts to venture out that were unsuccessful. The Vikings in North America and Greenland come to mind. The Polynesians in South America.

But that involves sea travel, which would require a degree of technical development to proceed in any viable numbers.

One would think at least a good portion of the land masses?

The actual paper suggests that the dispersion was both driven by and enabled by climate change:

"Palaeo-climate proxy and model data suggest that increased humidity opened green corridors, first to the northeast then to the southwest."​

"we propose a southern African origin of anatomically modern humans with sustained homeland occupation before the first migrations of people that appear to have been driven by regional climate changes."​

And to be fair, the article didn't cover everything.

Still ... 70,000 years and human beings? I find it implausible no one would attempt it except for space and deep ocean travel.

That's my only point.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

I just don't think human beings have it in their nature to sit in one place for 70,000 years and never venture out. Almost every teenager and 20-something belies that idea, don't you think?

...unless they have video games, of course.....



er....

 

[Lazarus Short]

So you just ignore stuff that does not jive with your ancient stories.

This ex-atheist ignores nothing, but I adhere to a certain orientation. There are other reasons than the Bible to doubt the Out-of-Africa theory, and yes, it is a theory. That means some data are in its favor...some not.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

As a Christian, I am bound to consider the mountains of Ararat as the region from which humanity dispersed, and after that, wherever the Tower of Babel was.

Not all Christians feel bound to trust Yahuweh nor to honor nor to believe His Word. Most in fact do not.

It is good (best!) as posted that we/ you trust Him and His Word, yes. It is worth more than much much gold, yeah greater even than great amounts of find gold..... sweeter also than the honeycomb !

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Still ... 70,000 years and human beings? I find it implausible no one would attempt it except for space and deep ocean travel.

That's my only point.

It's possible they'll find signs of earlier forays, but the evidence suggests that they didn't originate successful diasporas.

It's early days

 

[JackRT]

It's possible they'll find signs of earlier forays, but the evidence suggests that they didn't originate successful diasporas.

It's early days

I believe it was about 1500 YBP when the Polynesians reached and colonized Easter Island. Recent DNA studies turned up some anomalies that when investigated told an interesting story. It would seem that some of them went on to the west coast of South America but then returned to Easter Island. That is some damn fine navigation in itself! But when they returned they came with DNA from South American Indians. Seems that there was some gene swapping going on while they were there.

 

[dlamberth]

The actual paper suggests that the dispersion was both driven by and enabled by climate change:

"Palaeo-climate proxy and model data suggest that increased humidity opened green corridors, first to the northeast then to the southwest."​

"we propose a southern African origin of anatomically modern humans with sustained homeland occupation before the first migrations of people that appear to have been driven by regional climate changes."​

The population couldn't have been all that large back than. So I wonder if "dispersal" is an accurate word to use until after those first 70,000 years.

 

[~Anastasia~]

It's possible they'll find signs of earlier forays, but the evidence suggests that they didn't originate successful diasporas.

It's early days

My point is ... 70K Years is a long time to consider "early" if the persons in question are supposedly modern humans.

I'm sure folks will have different points of view.

 

[Halbhh]

This ex-atheist ignores nothing, but I adhere to a certain orientation. There are other reasons than the Bible to doubt the Out-of-Africa theory, and yes, it is a theory. That means some data are in its favor...some not.

Actually that idea humans had to originate elsewhere is only a theory about the bible text. It's a theory to say that when God created various types of humans it was only in the Garden. Another theory that fits the text perfectly well for instance is that God created Adam/Eve specially, as a special instance, separately from other humans already created on the 6th day, perhaps elsewhere, but that Adam/Eve were the first to have God-breathed spirit/soul, accountable on the day of judgment to come. There are many possible theories of course.

The scripture isn't about these kind of details at all.

Why not?

Here's why -- Scripture is about things far more profound than mere location, mere details of science, etc. -- scripture is instead about our relationship with God, and how to reconcile with Him.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

... 70K Years is a long time to consider "early" if the persons in question are supposedly modern humans.

I don't follow - modern humans presumably refers to homo sapiens sapiens; we will have changed a little since then, but 70k years is not a long time in evolutionary terms for a relative slow-breeding creature with relatively small populations (until recently) like us.