Out of Africa, Into Africa, Back to Africa and What's Behind Door #3?

[Hvizsgyak]

I trying to think of how to state this analysis that I have with the scientific community on the disbursement of man across the globe we call Earth. I first want to state to my creationist friends (AMVETS and others) first though that I believe God could have gone about creating Adam and Eve in hundreds of different scenarios because God can do anything. The way Moses (and any other God-inspired authors of Genesis) wrote the first 11 chapters of Genesis though, leads me to believe that those chapters are a symbolic account of Creation personally. God didn't put more into that section because He really didn't want us fretting about it. His point was Abraham and onward - the calling of God's people.

My dialogue, with some scientific people here who adhere to evolutionary doctrines, is to have scientists (and their spokespeople) make their thoughts clearer to the general public (if you want us to follow your train of thought, explain it fully and better and include fringe thoughts without disdain). As you can read from my title, I'd like a better understanding on the "out of Africa" theory which seems to be the consensus among scientists.

I think the thought goes Homo erectus left Africa over two billion years ago. While out of Africa they branched off to Homo neanderthalensis and possibly other hominid forms. Homo sapiens started (probably from Homo Erectus who stayed in Africa) in Africa and branched out into the rest of the world 100,000 years ago (okay, these dates seemed to have changed since the last time I looked (only a year ago) - it now says 270,000 years ago.

Here is one area where way better dialogue is needed. Scientists should always preface anything they say to the general public by explaining "this is based upon the latest findings out in the field or a re-evaluation of already acquired findings; that all theories are created on dug up evidence (no speculations about "ghost hominids existing"). If there is speculation about "ghost hominids" which possibly may have existed as a linkage between two other known (fossils having been found for these two hominids) then state that in "big letters" and mark it as "the current train of thought among most scientists". I'm sure there will be disagreements so mark those as "not so popular thoughts on the subject - but give them a voice (because there may be a whole lot under the ground that may prove those thoughts right.

So, here's my first question: is the "out of Africa" theory based on skeletal remains of some of earliest forms of hominids and oldest to be found so far anywhere on Earth? Now humor me here. If they found similar hominids and close to the same amounts of skeletal remains in South America as the ones in Africa, a new line of thought would have to be considered by scientist possibly to explain the situation, yes? My second question is do the skeletal remains of an early hominid found in the Atapuerca Mountains in Spain change the timeline as to when the exodus of hominids started leaving Africa or does it question the "Out of Africa" theory altogether? These theories are based upon what type of hominid was found and how old the hominid was, yes?

So, I have heard it said that some areas of the Earth are not conducive to preserving skeletal remains. Does that not play as a factor in creating the "Out of Africa" theory? Another factor which might play into the creating of the "Out of Africa" theory would be that many parts of the world have not been searched for skeletal remains as Africa has been. In my eyes, those are pretty big factors against the "Out of Africa" theory, right? I'm not trying to disprove science here. I just would like to have a clearer picture of this whole theory and how much of it is solid evidence and how much of it is speculation.

It is difficult to find good, clear articles on all of this information. One of the posters here gave me a very good website to follow the progress of man's possible evolution but it didn't explain his migration across the world. So now, I'd like to check that information out. Any suggestions?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

is the "out of Africa" theory based on skeletal remains of some of earliest forms of hominids and oldest to be found so far anywhere on Earth?

Largely, yes.

Now humor me here. If they found similar hominids and close to the same amounts of skeletal remains in South America as the ones in Africa, a new line of thought would have to be considered by scientist possibly to explain the situation, yes?

Largely, yes.

My second question is do the skeletal remains of an early hominid found in the Atapuerca Mountains in Spain change the timeline as to when the exodus of hominids started leaving Africa or does it question the "Out of Africa" theory altogether?

Maybe.

These theories are based upon what type of hominid was found and how old the hominid was, yes?

Yes.

So, I have heard it said that some areas of the Earth are not conducive to preserving skeletal remains. Does that not play as a factor in creating the "Out of Africa" theory?

I would say so, yes.

Another factor which might play into the creating of the "Out of Africa" theory would be that many parts of the world have not been searched for skeletal remains as Africa has been. In my eyes, those are pretty big factors against the "Out of Africa" theory, right?

I would say so, yes.

 

[Shemjaza]

I think the thought goes Homo erectus left Africa over two billion years ago.

What!?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

What!?

Oh wow, I missed that comment.

 

[Hvizsgyak]

What!?

Whoops, I meant 2 million years ago .