New Theory Of Early Human Migration, Science!!!!!

Thought some of you may find this interesting too!

Migration patterns theory

I never heard of such a thing. All the archaeological evidence I've ever heard of supported the idea that humanity originated in the savannas of Africa and spread from there. If you believe in the theory of evolution (and I do), man could not have arisen from apes it he had come from the arctic.

Oh, I agree!!! I just threw it out there......
There is far to much evidence out of Africa that supports that theory.

In school we learned about the Out of Africa Theory (which I believe) and........can't remember the other one, but it wasn't that.

As always, one must consider the source: Pravda (which is Russian for truth) is not known for being terribly concerned with veracity. Interestingly, a book I have been reading, "The Real Eve," presents credible evidence to support the theory that the initial migrations out of Africa were to Asia and points east, and that there were at least two migrations from Asia to Europe--a earlier souther one and a later northern one. I can't help wondering whether the Pravda story may be a misinterpretation of archeological finds relating the later migration from Asia to Europe. Yet another example of interesting stuff I'll never have the time to follow up on.

This theory has a lot of hallmarks of self-fulfilling prophecy. Russian scientists, in a northern climate, formulate a theory that mankind originated in the north and migrated south. Then, they find a little evidence that they can make fit the theory and ignore the preponderance of conflicting theory. It is similar to the approach of "creation science".

Scientific data has all sorts of variance. Good science weeds out the bogus data and weighs the preponderance of the evidence.

An interesting idea, but I would have to agree with dfilpus in so far as it smells rather self-satisfying. It sort of reminds me of how Chekhov in the original Star Trek used to claim that a Russian was always behind all the greatest discoveries and inventions. I might be more inclined to believe then if they had more substantial evidence to support their claims...

I was watching Scientific American (or whatever Alan Alda's PBS show is called), and there is yet another theory that says that while early man DID come from Russia (and cross the Bering Straits and migrate down in to southern North America), there is a belief that they made it further east than originally thought.

And while I don't doubt that there is some validity to the Out of Africa theory, I am given to wonder if both theories have some merit.

Either there is a point of origin that predates both of them, or maybe there were two (or three) points of origin at almost the same time.

Just my too sense.

[QUOTE]ignore the preponderance of conflicting theory

Wait a minute if it is only THEORY with some proof could it not be wrong? Just because somebody else came up with a theory that has some merit does not mean that it is completely right. That is what science is, people formulate theories all the time then TEST and OBSERVE those theories. Early human migration cannot be tested and observed, unfortunatly ( as in we can't turn on a tv or go into the field and watch Ancestor 1 move from Moscow to London), so one persons theories are just as valid as others. (now there may not be much evidence to support that theory, but is there any solid evidence-beyond any doubt-to say that the theory is wrong) Have archeologists found everything there is to find? What if there was a civilization that predates the earliest ones we can find, but they burned the bodies of their dead and lived in grass huts (which would erode and be destroyed over time)? They would leave little to no evidence of their existence and scientists would be working with incomplete data. What if the dates that are givin for these people groups are wrong? Wouldn't we have to readjust our migration patterns? Remember Evolution is only a theory also so we can't use one theory to say another theory is wrong. We can say these thoeries either support each other or don't, but one theory does not disprove another no matter how much you believe a theory to be fact.

Now Mailagnas had a point, consider the source though. Pravda was not known for being entirly truthful.