Did man come from Israel instead of Africa?

1. 92

   habeeposted 12 years ago

   Have you read about these latest discoveries?
   
   http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/ … n-man.html

   replyreport
   1. 60

      Kushal101posted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Believe to be so. Israel and India have the most ancient and civilized cultures, it's a long known scientific fact.  It only natural if man's origin have been from one of the two places.

      replyreport
   2. 59

      Mark Knowlesposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      You need to be careful what you believe from the Daily Mail. They are claiming that "human remains" have been discovered. This is not the case. 8 teeth that may be human or neanderthal have been discovered.
      
      Interesting, but premature to write a headline "did the first humans come out of the middle east"?

      replyreport
      1. 92

         habeeposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         Mark, a similar story is on MSNBC, Huffington Post, Yahoo, the Miami Herald, AOL, Forbes, USA Today, CBS, etc. And all the articles have a similar headline.
         
         I realize that teeth are not a good indicator, but the MSNBC article said this:
         
         "Other artifacts found in the cave — including flint blades as well as animal bones that appeared to be cut in a characteristic way — led the researchers to conclude that modern humans lived in the cave. Radioisotope dating suggests that the cave was occupied between 400,000 and 200,000 years ago."
         
         The remains might very well be from Neanderthals, but I think it's exciting news, just the same!

         replyreport
         1. 59

            Mark Knowlesposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            News? OK - if that is what you want to call it. I just read what the actual researchers said. But - you go with it and call it news if you want. 400,000 to 200,000 years is a very, very big time gap.

            replyreport
2. 84

   Midnight Oilposted 12 years ago

   It all depended where the alien ship crashed or landed - was it the middle east, Africa or India, or was there multiple landings? Ancient buildings, statues and writings etc are far too advanced for a mammal that fell out of a tree.  We are yet to discover the missing link, but I think it will be a the wreck of a space ship, not a skeleton.
   
   Or have we already found the wreck of a space ship?  Stored in Area 51?

   replyreport
   1. 64

      I am DB Cooperposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      I find that theory interesting, although I have trouble believing a living creature that can build a ship capable of interplanetary travel would become so primitive once it crashed on Earth. I mean, as advanced as some ancient structures are, we do not find any evidence of electronics or other advanced communications equipment, unless of course it's being hidden from us.
      
      Communication and the effect it has on collaborative scientific research (the very reason the internet was originally created) is going to be critical to our advancement as a species as we transition from beings that survive on this planet to beings that thrive throughout the galaxy. We are still quite primitive compared to the alien space travelers we conjure up in science fiction novels. Think about it. We get most of our energy from digging black stuff out of the ground, we use more resources than we can give back (unsustainable in the long term) and we've never sent a person farther from our planet than the orbit of our own moon. We're clearly a step above cavemen, but it's not a very big step.

      replyreport
3. 72

   getitriteposted 12 years ago

   It's exciting  news, because we no longer have to believe that we came from Africa, Right?  Yay!

   replyreport
4. 92

   habeeposted 12 years ago

   I think all discoveries like this are fascinating! To me, even if the teeth are from Neanderthals, I think it's very interesting. But then, I have an interest in ancient tools, as I collect them myself. One of my prized possessions is a large, perfect Paleo point I found - perhaps 10,000 years old. Sorry if my enthusiasm offended. Geesh. I'm just a dumb ol' country hick and not as jaded as you sophisticated cosmopolites. lol
   
   Evidently, I'm not the only one who found this news, however!

   replyreport
   1. 59

      Mark Knowlesposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      I think discoveries like this are fascinating also. Why wouldn't I? Making assumptions and nonsensical claims which include headlines like "Did we come from Israel instead of Africa," which have already started yet another religious argument in the comment section of the article you linked to? No - not so much.

      replyreport
      1. 60

         Kushal101posted 12 years agoin reply to this

         Hard to imagine one can get a spat in this forum for even posting a news.
         Post something interesting and be ready to get beaten for being racist /fanatic/unscientific.

         replyreport
         1. 59

            Mark Knowlesposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            Aww - sorry to stick to the facts. How boring. Go - shout a headline!

            replyreport
         2. 92

            habeeposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            Still think we're all open-minded here on HP?

            replyreport
            1. 59

               Mark Knowlesposted 12 years agoin reply to this

               Open minded is not believing every piece of nonsense that comes your way.

               replyreport
               1. 92

                  habeeposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                  Why do you think this discovery is nonsense? Do you think the findings are nonsense, or do you think the article is nonsense because you think the "discovery" was made up and never actually happened?

                  replyreport
      2. 92

         habeeposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         Huh? I'm not using this as a religious argument. What comments?? The discovery site is in Israel. What should the headline read - "Did we come from Mexico instead of Africa"? I'm sure you read enough to know that many archeologists have doubted the findings in Africa as being the oldest. Spain comes to mind.

         replyreport
         1. 59

            Mark Knowlesposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            Too lazy to read the religious argument on the article you linked to?
            
            Oh well - It is all me then. OK - I am persecuting you.

            replyreport
            1. 92

               habeeposted 12 years agoin reply to this

               Sorry, Mark. I'm missing something. I just read the article again, and I still don't see any religious argument there. Maybe I'm just getting the first page??
               
               I don't mind being persecuted by you - except on the weekends. I generally take those off. lol

               replyreport
               1. 59

                  Mark Knowlesposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                  There are 148 comments on that article.

                  replyreport
   2. 58

      C.J. Wrightposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      DO NOT APPROACH THE SACRED ALTER OF DARWINISM WITH A QUESTIONING MIND! ALL OF THE SKELETAL REMAINS THAT DARWINISM IS FOUNDED ON ARE COMPLETE. THEY ARE RE-TESTED WITH EACH SCIENTIFIC ADVANCE. ALL DATA IS 100% CORRECT. YOUR TIME WOULD BE BETTER SPENT IN A "SPIT FOR DISTANCE" CONTEST! NOW GO AWAY YOU UNWASHED HILLBILLY!LMAO.

      replyreport
      1. 59

         Mark Knowlesposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         If anything - this simply adds to the body of evidence proving humans were not created by a invisible super being, and instead evolved by non-random mutations over millions of years. But jumping to conclusions and producing headlines like this simply gives religious people ammo when proven incorrect. I pity you, but I can see why you are so very angry.

         replyreport
         1. 58

            C.J. Wrightposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            Don't you be pittee'n me. I'm rat as rain. I was just funnin about wit Habee.

            replyreport
         2. 84

            Midnight Oilposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            "non-random mutations over millions of years." - you have been shaking my family tree again !!

            replyreport
5. 86

   rebekahELLEposted 12 years ago

   habee, the NOVA site of PBS always has interesting articles and reports. they also have an article about the findings.
   http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/ancient/

   replyreport
   1. 92

      habeeposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Thanks, Bek! I'll check it out there.

      replyreport
6. 61

   Don Simkovichposted 12 years ago

   I don't know if man first came from Israel or Africa. However, I'm originally from western PA and I do know that Ligonier in Westmoreland County, 50 miles east of Pittsburgh, used to have as its town slogan "Gateway to the West." So stuff that, St. Louis folks!
   
   Ft Ligonier was the last major base for the British before going in to beat the French at Ft. Duquense. Hard to imagine the Duquense Steelers vying for a first-round 'bye.

   replyreport
7. 61

   Don Simkovichposted 12 years ago

   In all seriousness, glad you posted this Habee. It's an important topic.

   replyreport
8. 92

   habeeposted 12 years ago

   Thanks, Don!
   
   Mark, you're referring to comments made by readers?? If so, I rarely read those. Anyway, I really don't see how this could be used for a Biblical argument, anyway. Most Bible scholars think the Garden of Eden was in Africa or present-day Iraq - not Israel.

   replyreport
   1. 58

      C.J. Wrightposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Also if true it makes the earth older, something biblical scholars don't believe

      replyreport
9. 92

   habeeposted 12 years ago

   True, CJ. It would make man older.

   replyreport