I'm not scientist or anything but it's me or it's just very weird that the main theory of "men come from Africa, the cradle of men and shit" is approved by the majority ?
I mean the same people say that people in Africa was always in minority compared to others continents, check pic. So I think it's weird, normally if it was the cradle, should be more populated especially during 1000 BC.
But like I said I'm not scientist or anything
Other urls found in this thread:
en.wikipedia.org
twitter.com
The migration froma africa happened much before 1000 B.C
>So I think it's weird, normally if it was the cradle, should be more populated
food was more abundant in asia and europe, and more food=more people
1000 BC is a very recent time. Nothing to do with those theories.
The fact that men come (or not come) from Africa is not relevant anyway. Or at least does not justify nigger-centered thought.
Niggers and Europeans/Caucasoids evolved independently from a common ancestor.
Praising niggers for allegedly being our "ancestors" would be as invalid as doing so with chimpanzees.
the out of africa migration took place waaaaay before 1000 bc
and it's not as simple. "humans" were around eurasia even before, they just were homo erectus. there were many "versions" of humans spreading out of africa at different times and we were just the last ones. and then the other ones went extinct.
you underestimate human migratory autism
Not to mention migration from Africa happened in like 100,000 BC not fucking 1,000 BC
>I'm not scientist or anything but
Yes, by all means, hicks know better than biologists on evolution and a New York conman can dismiss Climate science on it being cold around him so I guess a random flag can question physical anthropology on a simpleton's interpretation of population estimates.
the simple simpleton of simpletonshire
don't be rude pedro
>we should never question anything scientists tell us because they are smarter than us
T: literal brainlet
Questioning scientists is completely fine. But OP does not know what the fuck he is talking about.
it's politically based to a certain extent as there's plenty of evidence to support multi-regional development
but I also don't know quite what you mean about the 1000 B.C. population?
You understand that multi-regional development =/= evolution?
Of course there has been individual development. The mere fact people have different skin color proves that.
but it's an undeniable fact that the early ancestors of humanity come from Africa. They only thing that can be argued is when humans first left Africa.
It means that if the population in Asia was estimated about 5 times bigger than in Africa during 1000 BC, Asia shoud be also more populated during 5000 BC or 10 000 BC and so on, logically
There are more people in the US than in France right now, therefore the US always had more people, logically of course
Please be bait
The expense of USA population was helped with technologies. Back then such tech did not exist.
Have you never heard of human migration you fucking dimwit?
>French education
Yes but the number is too high for Asia compared to Africa, that's the point.
Before big boat planes, car and shit did not exist, almost everything was in foot
I love that this retarded retort, it's amazing to watch people with absolutely 0 education on a subject justify acting like an expert.
We are talking about THOUSANDS of years you absolute retard.
It does not take long for people to move en masse if they are hunter gatherer societies. This was before civilization, so there were no cities.
Honestly this level of retardation makes you're entire country look like a fucking joke.
>THOUSANDS of years
So if the world population was estimated at 15 000 people in 70 000 BC, you tell me that the popualtion during 100 000 BC was ?
that is meaningless, food was the limiting factor for population growth (and still is in some parts of the world).
proper human civilization happened when food surplus was achieved, which opened the way for specialists (like artisans, stewards or soldiers).
Arguably, those developments started betwen 6000BC and 4000BC.
that being said, subsaharan populations didn't achieve that until much later and in many cases, by outside intervention (sahel region being a relevant exception).
probably the same 15 000 or something like that, the global population values would be crazy volatile, since something as common as a irregular season could wipe out the weak in a very large region - also have in mind that by weak I mean women and children - since adults died relatively young, either due to job hazards or giving birth (poligamy was a solution to this, as it created "shifts" at giving birth, and thus allowed women to regain some health before giving birth again)
Population of humanity was only around 100,000-200,000 between 130,000 BC (dawn of Homo-Sapien) to ~10,000 BC (dawn of Civilization)
Mostly being concentrated in the Steppe region of Asia, Fertile crescent in ME, and Med regions, as well as Sahara desert for a time, before it became a desert.
But very little is known about human population before early middle East civilizations, as there is nothing to go on.
I couldn't even find a graph that goes farther back than 10,000 BC.
Only this
>The increasing availability of DNA sequencing since the late 1990s has allowed estimates on Paleolithic effective population sizes.[2][3][4] Such models suggest a human effective population size of the order of 10,000 individuals for the Late Pleistocene. This includes only the breeding population that produced descendants over the long term, and the actual population may have been substantially larger (in the six digits).[5] Sherry et al. (1997) based on Alu elements estimated a roughly constant effective population size of the order of 18,000 individuals for the population of Homo ancestral to modern humans over the past one to two million years.[6] For the time of speciation of Homo sapiens, ca. 130,000 years ago, Sjödin et al. (2012) estimate an effective population size of the order of 10,000 to 30,000 individuals, and infer an actual "census population" of early Homo sapiens of roughly 100,000 to 300,000 individuals.[7] The authors also note that their model disfavours the assumption of an early (pre-Out-of-Africa) population bottleneck affecting all of Homo sapiens.[8]
>I'm not scientist or anything
It shows.