What is now known as the continent of Africa still remains the site for the oldest hominid species Oldest Skeleton of Human Ancestor Found.

Of course the reality that there were no borders, no countries, no Africans, Israelis or Canadians should not be dismissed either.  Maybe that is what made it Eden, a pre ethnic era where humanoids were simply human.  Perhaps that is how humanity can return to Eden....

LB

Borders are scratched across the hearts of men, by strangers with a calm, judicial pen, and when the borders bleed we watch with dread the lines of ink along the map turn red.

     Marya Mannes

 Fern : can you post a link to the article?  It is nearly impossible to find these articles without one.

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/israeli-archaeologists-ancient-teeth-may-oldest-evidence-human-20101227-094607-031.html

 I saw that article too, but I don't really know why the story was released when the teeth in question have not been authenticated yet.

The article says clearly, ""Based on the evidence they've sited, it's a very tenuous and frankly rather remote possibility," Mellars said. He said the remains are more likely related to modern man's ancient relatives, the Neanderthals."

oui, now is not the time to not jump to conclusions.

[.

Even if verified, it does not contradict the out-of-Africa hypothesis.   

Skeletal remains are much harder to find in tropical Africa due to the hot, humid climate in which things decay very quickly.

Another huge source of evidence for out-of-Africa has arisen with modern genetics:  that our closest living "cousins" from a DNA perspective are chimpanzees.

I don't think anyone is worried about "contradicting" anything, just getting closer to the truth should be the main priority.

Also, wouldn't Africa provide an abundance of mumified remains through the natural mumifications properties of  the desert and the salt (natron)? And even if climate change over millions of years created deserts elsewhere, it would make sense to search in these areas also.

It's interesting that our DNA is closer to chimpanzees(around 99%), yet we have more success with "transplants" from pigs (83%) eg: skin grafts,insulin, etc....

Possibly and probably but the question is where do you search?   It's big place just as the world is a big place and searching every square inch is near impossible.   I'm certain that there's lots of things still buried and just waiting to be discovered.  You could spend your life walking over some major find buried 50ft below the surface and never know it.     So the choice of where to search, if that's what your searching for has to be determined in terms of likelihood and clues.  Determining where to spend the money and time searching in the first place is a search in and of itself.   

  A lot of major finds over the years in the fields of archeology and physical history have been mere accidents that either are a find themselves or are clues which lead to bigger finds.   A farmer plowing up something in a field, some guy stumbling across and falling into a cave full of old texts(Dead Sea Scrolls), a bulldozer building a house digging up something, a bog being harvested or drained and a body appearing,  ice melting or cracking in an area a revealing a frozen corpse, an earthquake or flood bringing something closer to the surface.   Another thing to consider especially in terms of bodies is that over the millieum many cultures did not bury their dead, or at least not in any way that leads to long term preservation.  They had other ways that just wouldn't leave much trace in that regard.   A culture that ritualistically burned is not going to leave a whole lot of body evidence expect through people that have accidentally died somewhere and just left.  The same with people who practice ritual forms disposal through the elements- the dead go into a tree,  left on a platform,  a rock and in some cases dismembered and left for the vultures and other scavenging animals.  

    Then with the case of the earliest humans there's the fact that they by nature were transient, hunter gatherer types and didn't necessarily have specific places where dead were placed even if they were buried.   A couple of people in one area,  move on, a few there etc etc.   You could possibly get an idea, through other clues,   where these people lived but dig 20ft to the right or left and you miss it.   :)  

What you said, is more close to the point I was trying to make.  Our knowledge remains current only to our abilities to find it.

I think the weight of evidence still points to Africa, however it wouldn't bother me if it turned out to be Isreal.

In the broad scheme of things the two places aren't even really all that far apart.

It would cause major problems for the Atheists though. They'd have to change their T-shirts with Africa (Capital red "A:) to something starting with an "I".

T-shirt makers are Satan's tool, don'cha know?

I don't understand why you would have such a problem with that image:

I mean, the Bible also apparently points to the Earth being 6000 years old, which we also know is off by a factor of about 1,000,000.  The point here, is that we all have a common place of ancestry, and it's not some mythical Garden of Eden.  It's real.

Spuzzum, BC

Africa has enough problems. Why should we blame it for being the birthplace of modern man?

Because that would mean that everyone on the planet has a soul instead of the majority of them having limp, soggy noodles :3

 For the record, chansen, you're posting your "straw-man argument" t-shirt again.

The Bible does not say that "modern people are the result of incestuous relations Cain and his brothers had with their sisters."

There are two creation narratives - complimentary rather than contradictory. The first is Genesis 1, and takes a more universal approach, speaking of the creation of all humanity. In Genesis 1:26, God creates humanity. It's always plural; it's male and female. In Genesis 1:28 humanity is told to fill the earth and subdue it. It's most likely that the story is meant to suggest that God created many humans as opposed to just a few. Genesis 2 is the linkage of the creation story to Israel, which is really what the rest of the Old Testament is about. Thus, "Adam" in essence becomes not the ancestor of all humans but the ancestor of Israel specifically. Cain and his brothers marry women from outside their lineage.

That's all reflection on a mythic story of creation of course, but I'm getting really tired of the ridiculous "incest" straw-man t-shirt. You're more intelligent than having to resort to such straw-man arguments. 

Rev. Steven Davis,

remember, chansen has bandwagons (those bits of belief where we can take a break from constant thinking) just like we all do :3

I think it'd be neato if someone could try a thread on the various accepted hypotheses of the origin of modern humanity, to get people like chansen away from the 'OMG!  They're disbelieving my African Origin hypothesis!  RELEASE THE HOUNDS OF REASON!' or something like that :3

Witch it is so nice to see your witticisms upon the screen again.

It's true that some major finds have been 'accidental', but I can guess why that is.  No one funds treasure hunts anymore.  Unless you have a darned good idea of where something might be (Herod's palace is a good example), you're going to have a hard time finding financial support.  I love archaeology, and I think it's essential to discover our past and try to interpret it... but I also know that very little of what is discovered ever has a great impact on the majority of people's lives.  If we originally came from the continental plate that is now Africa, is it really that different than if we came from East Asia?  Or Australia?  Or North America?  These discoveries have profound truths really only understood by specialists.  Sometimes I see people react far to strongly to 'archaeological truths', and I just want to shake them and make them realize the naivety of their responses.