Thanks

There is a nearly fully modern human skull from southern Africa that is associated with material that may be about 385,000 years old, but the date is not secure. If that date turns out to be correct, then suddenly we have to change your assertion to say that modern humans arose in Southern Africa, not NE Africa. One skull with one good date could do that. There is archaeological evidence that major changes in cognitive abilities happened with the origin of the MSA. The ESA/MSA transition is dated everywhere to close to 250K. But a key feature of the MSA, that makes us think about important cognitive changes, is also found in the ESA at closer to 400K in southern Africa, and is absent in E. Africa. So, again, a very valid interpretation of the record shows the origin of modern humans being older in S and not E Africa.

I’m not saying that modern humans arose in S. Africa. I’m saying something more conservative: That you can’t assume NE Africa.

That is what the fossil and archaeological record requires us to consider. Similar arguments can be made about earlier time periods and other “branches” of human/human ancestor.

More evidence v.s. less evidence is not evidence of anything but differential taphonomy. Earlier evidence vs. clear lack of earlier evidence when there could be earlier evidence is the only thing you can use to infer origins at this scale of geography. The vast majority of Africa is utterly unknown wrt early hominins. Your argument requires that early hominins or early h. sapiens knew our best evidence would come from the volcanically active E Rift, so they clustered there to keep their amazing evolutionary story in line with the preservational environment. If only!

Cheers,

G

Would disagree Greg, Ethiopia, Eretria the valley of Awash
is where our particular branch on the hominin bush and its various other now extinct twigs (like the Neanderthals) originated. There’s more evidence there in north-east
Africa than elsewhere on this small planet, for our perilous
origins as an inquisitive opportunist biped with love
of running…

Aha, good question! I should have been more clear, or maybe, less clear.

It does not look like the grade of hominid we assume (rightfully) Denisovans would have been given what we know about their genetic relationships to modern humans and neanderthals, etc. It is speculative without actual morphology, but Denisovans should look like an archaic Homo Sapiens. Thus “It does not look like Neanderthal or so called Denisovan.”

My understanding is that the only fossilized remains we have of Densiovans are a few finger bones, from which the amazing genetic analysis was done. My understanding is that we know very little about the MORPHOLOGY of Denisovans.

Can someone explain this comment?

That’s crazy. I mean, you might be totally wrong, but that is not a reason to kill the comment.