Whilst it's largely accepted that homo-sapiens originated from Africa... I've heard a theory from numerous sources that it wasn't Africa mankind originated from but was actually Australia... (They were respectable sources).

Has anyone heard this theory and does anyone think it's possible that Aborigines are the earth's original human beings?

I think the first man was red. As in american indian red.
then we turned different couours due to the climate where we lived.

Mind you, I am not a respectable source.  

Sprintcyclist wrote on Jun 27^th, 2007 at 8:57am:

I think the first man was red. As in american indian red. then we turned different couours due to the climate where we lived. Mind you, I am not a respectable source.

Out of curiousity, what makes you think Indianscame first?

According to the race/IQ thread, Indians were the most recent people to evolve.

Not going to query you or anything.... just curious. A lot of people have their own special theories.

hahha, now you are going to really dislike me !!

the name "adam" means red man.  Inidians have/had a very good social structure and spiritual understanding.
AND they looked cool.  That's important to me.

ex-member DonaldTrump wrote on Jun 27^th, 2007 at 1:21am:

Whilst it's largely accepted that homo-sapiens originated from Africa... I've heard a theory from numerous sources that it wasn't Africa mankind originated from but was actually Australia... (They were respectable sources). Has anyone heard this theory and does anyone think it's possible that Aborigines are the earth's original human beings?

Ive heard of this theory too. I guess that makes the Abo's a museum piece, as they never changed from original. Why not? they are still inferior cavemen.

DT did you see this on a TV show today?

According to the race/IQ thread, Indians were the most recent people to evolve.

'Arrive' is a more accurate term.

Sprintcyclist wrote on Jun 27^th, 2007 at 1:46pm:

hahha, now you are going to really dislike me !! the name "adam" means red man.  Inidians have/had a very good social structure and spiritual understanding. AND they looked cool.  That's important to me.

Haha. No problem. Don't mind at all.


Ausnat
Quote:

Ive heard of this theory too. I guess that makes the Abo's a museum piece, as they never changed from original.

Well... this theory came about when they found mungo man which is 'claimed' to date back 60,000 years. Although other estimates are around 30,000.

Further, they found other sub-human species on Indonesia. What I mean by that is a species completely different to humans.

A few of my old ancient civilisation teachers brought this up in a lesson... but dismissed it as unlikely. I just thought I'd bring it up to see what you guys thought.

Further, according to Aboriginal sources... they have ALWAYS been in Australia... but I guess Aboriginal sources... (Dreamtime stories) ... are pretty unreliable.

As Australia was once part of Africa, South America, India, Antarctica, New Guinea, and New Zealand - the theory of aboriginals being the first homo sapiens makes sense.

Freediver - what do you mean "arrive".  Couldn't the aboriginals have been part of another culture evolving in Australia when the land mass separated?  How would they have had the capability of travelling such vast differences by water?

I think you've got your time scales mixed up mantra. The land masses separated long before the first humans arrived on the scene (by anyone's estimation).

Whilst it's largely accepted that homo-sapiens originated from Africa... I've heard a theory from numerous sources that it wasn't Africa mankind originated from but was actually Australia... (They were respectable sources).

Has anyone heard this theory and does anyone think it's possible that Aborigines are the earth's original human beings?


Ive heard that said Donald and it wouldnt surprise me.. they are a very ancient race.

but I tend to go with the African theory..it seems to be a more rounded and developed arguement.

I think that building theories on such scant data is fraught with danger, but not as much danger as relying on 'traditional' knowledge.

Sprintcyclist wrote on Jun 27^th, 2007 at 8:57am:

I think the first man was red. As in american indian red. then we turned different couours due to the climate where we lived. Mind you, I am not a respectable source.

Ive heard this same theory but in relation to the African race ..that we all started there and as evolutionary processes took over and we spread across the world ie: Russia and Australia that our skin colours evolved to adapt to environmental factors/stressors. Makes sense. Ind pple/Africans have a much higher resistance to skin cancer than pple from cold climates, who environments produced limited and weaker uv and uva rays.

freediver wrote on Jun 28^th, 2007 at 4:07pm:

I think that building theories on such scant data is fraught with danger, but not as much danger as relying on 'traditional' knowledge.

which data would this be FD ?..noone had  put any forward yet.

African Archaeology
The Search for the Beginnings of Humankind


About 3.6 million years ago, three early hominids were walking across the plains of what is now known as Laetoli in East Africa when the volcano Sadiman erupted, showering the earth with ashes. A light rain was falling at the same time, and as the hominids continued to walk, each footprint they made was cast into the mixture of muddy ash. When the impressions later dried, the result was two rows of footprints; apparently, two of the hominids walked side by side, the third, perhaps a juvenile, trailed behind the one on the right, stepping in the footprints of his predecessor.

Three and a half million years later, these footprints were to be found by Mary Leakey and her team of archaeologists. The incredible find, however, is more than just an important archaeological discovery, although it is certainly that. The finding of actual footprints from humankind's ancient ancestors represents the true grandeur of the archaeological bounty to be found in Africa, as well as how far the archaeology of human evolution has come. Only fifty years before the footprint find of 1978, very few scientists believed humans had originated in Africa. Practically ignoring Raymond Dart's Taung Baby from South Africa, attention on the search for the earliest humans was focused on China, where the Peking Man skull was found. Scientists such as Sir Arthur Keith, who wrote The Antiquity of Man in 1915, had a great impact on this mal-focusing of attention, arguing that of the major fossil discoveries at the time, the Neanderthal, Peking Man, and Java Man, represented various species of human that existed in ancient times, with the Piltdown man being the true precursor of modern humans (Interestingly, forty years later the Piltdown man turned out to be a hoax which brought together a five-hundred year old human skullcap with the lower jaw and incisors of an orangutan).

What changed all this? Beginning with the extraordinary finds of Louis and Mary Leakey at Olduvai Gorge from the 1930s on, such a wealth of fossils has been found in Africa (especially East Africa) that it became the obvious "cradle" of human life. Over the years, many extraordinary finds have been made (including a great number of species of hominids and other animals), and with each discovery some theories as to the classification of certain fossils are toppled while others have been bolstered. Many scholarly battles have been waged over these classifications, yet after all these years the hierarchy of human evolution is still as contentious as ever.

Although the debates about the true relationships of the hominid fossil discoveries to date will likely not be resolved any time soon, there are three main theories of the evolutionary tree of humans and a much greater number of theories on the actual classification of the fossils with regard to this evolutionary tree. This site explores these theories, as well as the evidence on which the theories are based.


http://www.utexas.edu/courses/wilson/ant304/projects/projects97/weimanp/weimanp.html

Australia was once part of Asia and in that time Australia was  known as Sunda Sahul..this is before the first Aborigines came across the small devide on crude crafts to arrive on these shores.

I doubt very much if Ind pple were the 1st pple in the world..they are at least as old as the Asian pple themselves.

In the Jared Diamond book I am reading he says neither. I think from memory the current belief is that humans started out somewhere in central asia, spread south and east through asia and the pacific, to Australia and then to Africa. If I recall correctly anyway.

Suck sh!t Trump first humans were arabs ;)

(that was a joke by the way)

The TV show I saw yesterday (which I suspect DT saw also), claimed to have DNA evidence that the people who settled Eruope, a lot of Asia and the Americas all went via central Asia, but came originally out of Africa.

freediver wrote on Jun 28^th, 2007 at 4:51pm:

The TV show I saw yesterday (which I suspect DT saw also), claimed to have DNA evidence that the people who settled Eruope, a lot of Asia and the Americas all went via central Asia, but came originally out of Africa.

I saw SBS doco that gave very good evidence that the first life started in Africa

zoso wrote on Jun 28^th, 2007 at 4:47pm:

In the Jared Diamond book I am reading he says neither. I think from memory the current belief is that humans started out somewhere in central asia, spread south and east through asia and the pacific, to Australia and then to Africa. If I recall correctly anyway.

All good. I never said I believed the theory... just thought it should be investigated further and share it around to see what other people thought.

I know sounds dumb... but Aboriginals just seem to fit the bill of being the 'first humans.' And it's a romantic notion (No...   not that kind of romantic) to suggest that humans came originally from this land called Australia.

Who's Jared Diamond?   :-/ Sounds like Neil Diamond's brother.



Quote:

Suck sh!t Trump first humans were arabs ;)

Answer to that: No wonder their brains are so primitive.  8-)



Quote:

(that was a joke by the way)

All good. I have a grasp of how you talk/type now. Feel free to slander.  ;)


Freediver
Quote:

The TV show I saw yesterday (which I suspect DT saw also)

Nah... didn't see it.

The original place I saw it was when I watched a doco on SBS about 5 years ago where the Nazis sent an expedition to the Himilayas to find the origin of the 'superior race.' They for some reason thought the people of the Himilayas were their ancestors.


At first... I was thinking... man... those guys were nuts back then...

But I've been reading recently about the origins of Europe and where they come from ... and it appears that we may have come out of the Himilayas after all. We were called... get this... Aryans.  :P I guess that might have been where Hitler got his word from. No, I'm not reading a Nazi book, I'm reading about the history of India... and apparently... most European languages are very similar in tongue to various Indian dialects... more similar than that of Arabic and African. The Aryans were nomadic people living around north west India I think.

I've seen a pic of a mummy of an Indian from about 3000 years ago... and it looks like it has European features... so yeah... big mystery. It's very hard to detect these nomad people also becasue they're just that... nomadic. -Hard to find.


Anyway... I hate tangents so let's stick to the topic... Aboriginals and Africans.

I think you'd like Jared Diamond DT. His books are very easy to read, and he covers topics like why Europeans gained such superiority over the world. You may not like his answers though. 'Guns, Germs and Steel' is probably the best one to start with. Any library should have it.

freediver wrote on Jun 30^th, 2007 at 9:05am:

I think you'd like Jared Diamond DT. His books are very easy to read, and he covers topics like why Europeans gained such superiority over the world. You may not like his answers though. 'Guns, Germs and Steel' is probably the best one to start with. Any library should have it.

Hmm sounds good. Might gve it a look.... one day.

The best books are usually the ones which are easiest to read. The complicated ones are generally people who are just trying to sound smart with their 'big words.' It's an essay technique and unnecessary.

oceanz wrote on Jun 28^th, 2007 at 4:14pm:

African Archaeology The Search for the Beginnings of Humankind About 3.6 million years ago, three early hominids were walking across the plains of what is now known as Laetoli in East Africa when the volcano Sadiman erupted, showering the earth with ashes. A light rain was falling at the same time, and as the hominids continued to walk, each footprint they made was cast into the mixture of muddy ash. When the impressions later dried, the result was two rows of footprints; apparently, two of the hominids walked side by side, the third, perhaps a juvenile, trailed behind the one on the right, stepping in the footprints of his predecessor. Three and a half million years later, these footprints were to be found by Mary Leakey and her team of archaeologists. The incredible find, however, is more than just an important archaeological discovery, although it is certainly that. The finding of actual footprints from humankind's ancient ancestors represents the true grandeur of the archaeological bounty to be found in Africa, as well as how far the archaeology of human evolution has come. Only fifty years before the footprint find of 1978, very few scientists believed humans had originated in Africa. Practically ignoring Raymond Dart's Taung Baby from South Africa, attention on the search for the earliest humans was focused on China, where the Peking Man skull was found. Scientists such as Sir Arthur Keith, who wrote The Antiquity of Man in 1915, had a great impact on this mal-focusing of attention, arguing that of the major fossil discoveries at the time, the Neanderthal, Peking Man, and Java Man, represented various species of human that existed in ancient times, with the Piltdown man being the true precursor of modern humans (Interestingly, forty years later the Piltdown man turned out to be a hoax which brought together a five-hundred year old human skullcap with the lower jaw and incisors of an orangutan). What changed all this? Beginning with the extraordinary finds of Louis and Mary Leakey at Olduvai Gorge from the 1930s on, such a wealth of fossils has been found in Africa (especially East Africa) that it became the obvious "cradle" of human life. Over the years, many extraordinary finds have been made (including a great number of species of hominids and other animals), and with each discovery some theories as to the classification of certain fossils are toppled while others have been bolstered. Many scholarly battles have been waged over these classifications, yet after all these years the hierarchy of human evolution is still as contentious as ever. Although the debates about the true relationships of the hominid fossil discoveries to date will likely not be resolved any time soon, there are three main theories of the evolutionary tree of humans and a much greater number of theories on the actual classification of the fossils with regard to this evolutionary tree. This site explores these theories, as well as the evidence on which the theories are based. http://www.utexas.edu/courses/wilson/ant304/projects/projects97/weimanp/weimanp.html

I saw a doco on SBS a while back that supports this theory, that humans first began in Africa..as they spread across the world occupying different continents..due to climate extremes , theyre skin colours(pigmnets) changed..all balck pple came from the hot pllces and white pple lived in cold climates..

Its all relative.

It's related to the amount of direct sunlight you are exposed to. The darker your skin, the more light you block out so the less likely you are to get burned or get skin cancer. However, you need some to get through to help your body make a vitamin (D I think). So it is a trade off. White people living on the equator get skin cancer. Black people living in the north or south get vitamin D deficiency, more depression etc.

---

http://www.smh.com.au/news/World/Vitamin-D-levels-can-be-low-despite-sun/2007/07/02/1183229000875.html

In many people, vitamin D levels can remain low despite abundant exposure to sunlight, research shows.

Inadequate sun exposure is often blamed for the high prevalence of low vitamin D status, the authors explain, but the truth of this has been unclear.

"This implies that the common clinical recommendation to allow sun exposure to the hands and face for 15 minutes may not ensure vitamin D sufficiency," Binkley and colleagues report.

Doesn't take a genius to work out that climate and sun exposure effects skin colour. I worked that out when I was in high school.


In case everyone is wondering... no... white people in Australia aren't going to turn brown in a couple of thousand years... unless our living conditions are seriously changed (Ie. We start spending more time outdoors).

Ain't gonna happen.

It doesn't take a few thousand years, just a couple of months.

freediver wrote on Jul 2^nd, 2007 at 1:53pm:

It doesn't take a few thousand years, just a couple of months.

I logged back on briefly to let you know that was an idiotic reply, freediver. With all due respect.

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,22289183-2,00.html

REDHEADS are becoming rarer and could be extinct in 100 years, according to genetic scientists.

The current National Geographic magazine reports that less than two per cent of the world's population has natural red hair, created by a mutation in northern Europe thousands of years ago.

Global intermingling, which broadens the availability of possible partners, has reduced the chances of redheads meeting and producing little redheads of their own.

It takes only one red-haired parent to produce ginger-headed babies, but two redheads obviously create a much stronger possibility.

If the gingers really want to save themselves they should move to Scotland.

An estimated 40 per cent of Scots carry the red gene and 13 per cent actually have red hair.

Some experts say that redheads could be gone as early as 2060, but others say the gene can be dormant for generations before returning.

National Geographic says the gene at first had the beneficial effect of increasing the body's ability to make vitamin D from sunlight.

However, today's carriers are more prone to skin cancer and have a higher sensitivity to heat and cold-related pain.

freediver wrote on Aug 23^rd, 2007 at 4:17pm:

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,22289183-2,00.html REDHEADS are becoming rarer and could be extinct in 100 years, according to genetic scientists. The current National Geographic magazine reports that less than two per cent of the world's population has natural red hair, created by a mutation in northern Europe thousands of years ago. Global intermingling, which broadens the availability of possible partners, has reduced the chances of redheads meeting and producing little redheads of their own. It takes only one red-haired parent to produce ginger-headed babies, but two redheads obviously create a much stronger possibility. If the gingers really want to save themselves they should move to Scotland. An estimated 40 per cent of Scots carry the red gene and 13 per cent actually have red hair. Some experts say that redheads could be gone as early as 2060, but others say the gene can be dormant for generations before returning. National Geographic says the gene at first had the beneficial effect of increasing the body's ability to make vitamin D from sunlight. However, today's carriers are more prone to skin cancer and have a higher sensitivity to heat and cold-related pain.

I like red haired people as I pointed out in the supremacist thread. IF it's true... this would be tragic. The equivalent of losing a breed of dogs.

The more I think about it, the more I doubt it. There would be more red haired people alive now than have ever existed in human history. Races do not mix that evenly. Most people now in Scottland for example would have been born there and would be likely to marry a local.

Maybe we will find another "original human beings" by doing reserch years later...........

Bronzed Aussie myth wilting in shade

http://news.smh.com.au/bronzed-aussie-myth-wilting-in-shade/20071218-1hpl.html

Hospitals are again treating children with rickets while their casualty wards struggle with an epidemic of broken bones.

Cancer and diabetes may also be increasing because more and more Australians are staying out of the sun and not getting the vitamin D they need to stay strong and healthy.

Some figures suggest 70 per cent of the population lacks the vitamin D produced when sunlight hits the skin.

"I think a lot of us have been worried about it for a long time, but have just realised how widespread it is over the last five to 10 years," osteoporosis specialist Peter Ebeling said of vitamin D deficiency.

---

More sun is healthy, despite cancer risk

http://news.smh.com.au/more-sun-is-healthy-despite-cancer-risk/20080108-1kqe.html

A little more sunshine might help you live longer, according to a study suggesting that for some people health benefits from the sun outweigh the risk of skin cancer.

Sunlight spurs the body to produce vitamin D but fear of skin cancer is keeping many people in the shade and depriving them of an important protection from a range of diseases, researchers said.

"The skin cancer risk is there but the health benefits from some sun exposure is far larger than the risk," said Johan Moan, a researcher at the Institute for Cancer Research in Oslo, who led the study. "What we find is modest sun exposure gives enormous vitamin D benefits."

A number of studies have found protective effects from higher vitamin D intake for some cancers and ailments such as rickets, osteoporosis and diabetes, Moan said. Certain foods contain vitamin D but the body's main source comes from the sun.

The researchers calculated that given the same amount of time spent outside, people living just below the equator in Australia produced 3.4 times more vitamin D than people in Britain and 4.8 times more than Scandinavians.

This means even though rates of internal cancers such as colon cancer, lung cancer, breast cancer and prostate cancer rise from north to south, people in the sunnier latitudes were less likely to die from the diseases, the researchers said.

"The current data provide a further indication of the beneficial role of sun-induced vitamin D for cancer prognosis," said Richard Setlow of the US Department of Energy's Brookhaven National Laboratory, who worked on the study.

Getting more vitamin D - which helps the body's immune system work properly - is also critical for people living in places like Scandinavia where long winters and short days during the year limit sun exposure, Moan added.

In Norway, Moan estimated that doubling the sun exposure for the general population would also double the number of annual skin cancer deaths to about 300 but that 3,000 fewer people would die from other cancers.

"The benefits could be significant for people in other countries as well," he said in a telephone interview. "I would be surprised if they were different."

Moan, whose findings were published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, recommended daily sun exposure for about half the time it takes a person to get sunburn.

Another way to get more vitamin D could be designing sunscreen that blocks long ultraviolet wavelengths that trigger the deadliest forms of skin cancer while letting through short ultraviolet wavelengths that produce the vitamin, the researchers said.

---

Studies confirm 'Out of Africa' theories

http://news.smh.com.au/studies-confirm-out-of-africa-theories/20080222-1tw0.html

Two big genetic studies confirm theories that modern humans evolved in Africa and then migrated through Europe and Asia to reach the Pacific and Americas.

The two studies also show that Africans have the most diverse DNA, and the fewest potentially harmful genetic mutations.

One of the studies shows European-Americans have more small mutations, while the others show Native Americans, Polynesians and others who populated Australia and Oceania have larger ranges of genetic changes.

The studies, published in the journal Nature, paint a picture of a population of humans migrating off the African continent, and then shrinking at some point because of unknown adversity.

Later populations grew and spread from this smaller genetic pool of founder ancestors - a phenomenon known as a bottleneck.

Populations that remained in Africa kept their genetic diversity - something seen in many other studies.

"The one thing that I think we cannot say from this study is that any one person's genome is any healthier or evolutionarily fit than another person's genome," said Carlos Bustamante of Cornell University in New York, who worked on one study.