Cyprus-Forum.com

[GreekIslandGirl]

For tge avoidance of doubt I am not disputing the science but your Hellenocentric spin on it,

What Hellenocentric spin is that, you Hellenophobe?

For years, I accepted the 'Out of Africa' narrative as that is where the finds took us. Now, we have to account for the older finds around Greece. Africa was considered the Motherland of Humans, our birthplace, the origin. Why when that was the case for Africa is it not the same for the older finds around Greece?

Of course it remains open for other finds. The same with other scientific theories. We hypothesize, and wait/look for something to disprove our postulates - that is how science works (something which is unfamiliar to your method of converting your dodgy opinions into 'facts' for the sake of propaganda against Greece and Cyprus).

[supporttheunderdog]

For tge avoidance of doubt I am not disputing the science but your Hellenocentric spin on it,

What Hellenocentric spin is that, you Hellenophobe?

For years, I accepted the 'Out of Africa' narrative as that is where the finds took us. Now, we have to account for the older finds around Greece. Africa was considered the Motherland of Humans, our birthplace, the origin. Why when that was the case for Africa is it not the same for the older finds around Greece?

Of course it remains open for other finds. The same with other scientific theories. We hypothesize, and wait/look for something to disprove our postulates - that is how science works (something which is unfamiliar to your method of converting your dodgy opinions into 'facts' for the sake of propaganda against Greece and Cyprus).

Your Helloncentric spin is two-fold.


For the first see the tittle of the post where you Proclaim Greece is the motherland of Humans, when the Jury is still out for lack of evidence and Bulgaria has a claim....

For the second, your claim that Greece is tge cradle of civilisation, when other places had civilisation before Greece, and a lot of what Greece had was possibly borrowed from some of these older civilisations, eg writing,probably borrowed twice, once in about 1600bc from the (non Greek) Minoans and tbe second time likely about 800 BC or a.itt,e later likely from phonecians.

The "out of Africa theory" still holds as being the most likely for Modern Humans, of which these were not. They are about million years to early. What is lacking is a clear link between these hominins found in Bulgaria and Greece and modern man, and the 22May 2000 article in the Guardian highlights the problems of linining even more recent homonins to Modern Man.

[GreekIslandGirl]

.... and Bulgaria has a claim....

Bulgaria is a sister but they make no such claim:

The discovery of the creature, named Graecopithecus freybergi, and nicknameded ‘El Graeco' by scientists, proves our ancestors were already starting to evolve in Europe 200,000 years before the earliest African hominid.

For the second, your claim that Greece is tge cradle of civilisation, when other places had civilisation before Greece,

This one really bothers you too much but if you really were civilised you would have got your civilisation from the Greeks and not from some lesser tribes and their versions of civilisation.

Besides, it's not my claim:

The ancient Greeks developed a great deal of what we take for granted. This is why Greece is often known as the Cradle of Western Civilization.

gcisd-k12

The "out of Africa theory" still holds as being the most likely for Modern Humans, of which these were not. They are about million years to early. What is lacking is a clear link between these hominins found in Bulgaria and Greece and modern man, and the 22May 2000 article in the Guardian highlights the problems of linining even more recent homonins to Modern Man.

Mixed up nonsense! Once again, you've reached the end of your meagre capabilities. Clades are not your area of understanding.

[supporttheunderdog]

Enlighten us all, what have I personally made up?

In the meantime here an article in the New Scientist which I saw a few minutes ago but in my view which confirms what I was saying,

https://www.newscientist.com/article/2132026-our-common-ancestor-with-chimps-may-be-from-europe-not-africa/?

Namely that there is not enough evidence to adequately support the theory that this particular "miocene ape" as one person quoted put it, was an ancestor of modern man, but some have expressed concern that the results might be biased to suit a particular hypothesis.

As the article points out one cannot rely upon one characteristic to make a claim, particularly where, as the Guardian Article i quoted shows, those characteristics can develop separately in different times and places, and there is no certainty that this particular "miocene ape" was a Hominin, let alone ancestral to man. That is a matter of further research.

I ask again, what have I made up? What do I not understand?

Rather you are indulging in your usual bullying and abuse type tactics, with generalised and ad hominim attacks which take More words to deal with than than the non points you make. Same old, same old...and you should know by now I will stand my ground.

Any way if you wish to reply perhaps you could address in substantive and objective terms, what you think is wrong in the 2009 article, the Guardian Article, and the New Scientist Article, which I have quote, and then we might be able to have an intelligent debate .

[GreekIslandGirl]

In the meantime here an article in the New Scientist which I saw a few minutes ago but in my view which confirms what I was saying,

https://www.newscientist.com/article/2132026-our-common-ancestor-with-chimps-may-be-from-europe-not-africa/?

Unfortunately for you even The New Scientist article (NB. this magazine is journalistic reporting NOT science) doesn't agree with your a stupid statements. For example:

The particular fossils are quite geographically distant from where it is widely thought Humanity later developed

Of course, every new find that challenges old narratives (especially one as significant as this) will get the 'Africa Archaeologists' up in arms to try to discredit it - this is normal and proves it is significant [as the articles states several times in different ways].

Nevertheless, they still concede such finds would have fitted in nicely if they were found in Africa (a case of dual standards).

Furthermore, even the skeptical approach concludes with:

Ultimately, however, the early human fossil record is so poorly known that it’s impossible to definitively dismiss the new claims

Now, the problem with finding as many fossils as have been found in Africa comes from the fact that Africa has largely remained relatively undisturbed over the millennia. Whereas, the regions around Greece have been dug over and laden with temples and cities for so long that evidence may well be more difficult to find - In which case, this makes the Athens find one of the most outstanding contributions to the evolutionary story.

Be happy, not jealous

[kurupetos]

[Get Real!]

As has been divinely revealed to me… God himself is Cypriot!

So you may now close this pointless thread.

Thanks.

[supporttheunderdog]

Unfortunately for you even The New Scientist article (NB. this magazine is journalistic reporting NOT science) doesn't agree with your a stupid statements. For example:

The particular fossils are quite geographically distant from where it is widely thought Humanity later developed

What is stupid about it. The Development of humanity has been a process that has been underway since the first primordial blob and it continued for another 7M years or so after Graecopithecus freybergi emerged in Greece and this fossil does not challenge the current hypothesis that modern Homo emerged in Africa say 200,000
YBP and emerged from Africa likely about 100000 YBP , so humanity most likely later developed in Africa.

What therefore is stupid about my statement?

Of course, every new find that challenges old narratives (especially one as significant as this) will get the 'Africa Archaeologists' up in arms to try to discredit it - this is normal and proves it is significant [as the articles states several times in different ways].

This is not a particularly new Idea: as far back as 2009 it was posited that early hominids had crossed from Africa to Europe and back and where Rather than Greece, Spain has its own and older claim to "the Motherland of Humans ["
url]http://www.pnas.org/content/106/24/9601.full[/url]

When currently available evidence is taken into account, the hypothesis suggesting a Eurasian origin for the Hominidae is favored, given the following facts: (i) the presence in the Eurasian Middle Miocene of both kenyapithecins and hominids, (ii) their likely sister-group relationships, and (iii) their remarkable consistent consecutive time span (kenyapithecins, 15–13 Ma; dryopithecins such as Anoiapithecus and Pierolapithecus, 11.9 Ma; and Late Miocene hominids, <11.1 Ma). Kenyapithecins retain not only a primitive facial pattern for hominoids, but also—as far as it can be ascertained—a pronograde postcranial body plan (21⇓–23, 28, 29). Anoiapithecus and other dryopithecins (Dryopithecus s.s. and Pierolapithecus) share with Late Miocene Eurasian hominids and extant great apes a derived facial morphology (4, 5) and, at least Pierolapithecus, an orthograde postcranial body plan (5). This combination of characters supports the view that crown hominids originated in Eurasia from more primitive, kenyapithecin ancestors and radiated in this continent into pongines and hominines (Fig. 4).

This scenario entails a subsequent “back to Africa” dispersal of the hominine clade (African apes and humans) (9, 18). Alternatively, the basic putative facial and postcranial synapomorphies of the Hominidae could be homoplastic between pongines and hominines, with both groups having independently evolved in Eurasia and Africa, respectively, from different afropithecid ancestors. Independent evolution of suspensory capabilities has been previously hypothesized (5). However, given the lack of both cranial and postcranial crown-hominid synapomorphies in afropithecids, this alternative, to the back-to-Africa hypothesis would entail a more pervasive role for homoplasy than previously suggested. If so, parallelism and convergence would be far more common during hominoid evolution than the principle of parsimony, customarily applied to cladistic analyses, generally assumes. We expect that future discoveries, particularly in the long Middle to Late Miocene stratigraphic sections of Els Hostalets de Pierola section (Catalonia, Spain) (3, 4), may help to disentangle the complex question of the initial diversification of the great apes.

Now, the problem with finding as many fossils as have been found in Africa comes from the fact that Africa has largely remained relatively undisturbed over the millennia. Whereas, the regions around Greece have been dug over and laden with temples and cities for so long that evidence may well be more difficult to find - In which case, this makes the Athens find one of the most outstanding contributions to the evolutionary story.

Recent studies on Homo naledi from the Lesedi Chamber, South Africa, show just how complex the whole story is with perceived primitive and advanced features emerging at different times and sometimes co existing when the simple theories of sustained progress show they should not.

As the paper itself states

the known sample of fossil hominin root configurations is too small for definitive conclusions.

which you have drawn

[GreekIslandGirl]

The Development of humanity has been a process that has been underway since the first primordial blob and it continued for another 7M years or so

Firstly, get your head around what humanity actually means before trying to insert your asinine assumptions on this topic, ok.

[supporttheunderdog]

As usual you say fuck-all of substance on the issues but resort to abuse. Same old, same old.

The fact remains that what we call modern man likely developed in East Africa 300000 to 200000 ybp, and may or may not have had (much) earlier European Antecedents, such as Graecopithecus freybergi, Ouranpithicus, etc, but we simply do not know, where the developments seen in different fossils at different times may be due to homoplasy.