The German physicist Max Planck said that science advances one funeral at a time. Or more precisely: “A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.”
However, in this case, I think that there is a vested interest in the new people perpetuating the out of Africa story because they are racist.
Well it is bullshit,because there is probably no such thing like races now. At least not binded to the color of the skin. You could treat neandertals like another race of humans,but differences between white,black and yellow are quite small
There are of course genetic differences,but the point is:
Many populations of Africa are genetically more separate from one another than, for instance, a European person and themselves. Same for some populations of Asia (like the Tibetans) that have historically lived in isolation: on the surface, they may look more closely related to Mainland Chinese people, but the Chinese person is likely to be more similar to, say, an American, in their genetic makeup.
Black or White ? Reality is even more strange - they are mix with Denisovians. The same orgin has EPAS1 sherpa gene modifying blood to let them live and function above 4000 m over see level easier than ordinary people.
"In scientific reasoning, a hypothesis is an assumption made before any research has been completed for the sake of testing. A theory on the other hand is a principle set to explain phenomena already supported by data. Theories will pull together experimental results to provide full explanations such as "The Big Bang Theory.""
So, it is a hypothesis. Note that the article OP posted even calls it that.
You have demonstrated that you are able to quote an online dictionary.
Are you able to show that this hypothesis is a theory, contradicting literally every scientists who agrees that it is a hypothesis? Contradicting the authors of the study?
If this status is confirmed by additional fossil evidence, Graecopithecus would be the oldest known hominin and the oldest known crown hominine, as the evidence for the gorillin status of Chororapithecus is much weaker than the hominin status of Graecopithecus [8]. More fossils are needed but at this point it seems likely that the Eastern Mediterranean needs to be considered as just as likely a place of hominine diversification and hominin origins as tropical Africa.
Now how the fuck is this a theory when the study itself acknowledges that more supporting evidence is required?
Educate yourself for fuck's sake. Do your own research.
Why do the ignorant have such intellectual pride? Truly it is a mystery that those who know so little are so sure of what they think they know.
A hypothesis is a specific falsifiable statement that you set out to test, and a theory is, in short a narrative to explain existing evidence of a larger dataset. Theory often comes BEFORE hypothesis testing, but sometime data is accumulated which results in a theory AFTER data is gathered in order to explain it.
Your knowledge of the scientific method is utterly lacking. Example: An apple falls and hits your head, you come up with the theory of gravity to explain it. Or, given the theory of gravity you heard about from guy named Newton, you drop apples to test they theory for yourself.
Note, you didn't even comprehend the study that was sent along you disingenuous fuck, essentially, as dropping apples to test an existing theory of human origin as not from Africa.
Ponder for a moment, why those who engage in science make a distinction between a "theory" and a "hypothesis".
Below are a lot of links for the use of the term "out of Africa theory" of human evolution, and the under various names, and competing theories, usually called the "multiple origin theory". I'm sure you can find a journalist if you look hard enough, who like you, confuses hypothesis and theory, but they, like you would be wrong.
If you look in scholarly literature, they use "theory" here.
The German physicist Max Planck said that science advances one funeral at a time. Or more precisely: “A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.”
However, in this case, I think that there is a vested interest in the new people perpetuating the out of Africa story because they are racist.
What would happen if the dominant scientific theory of "out of Africa" were shown not to be true?
Related video from the every masterful Black Pigeon Speaks: https://www.bitchute.com/video/34RN9Hydg2UQ/
The out of Africa theory is racist, and complete b.s
As I am learning, yes.
Not much. Textbooks would be updated.
Most people don't know about this anyway.
Well it is bullshit,because there is probably no such thing like races now. At least not binded to the color of the skin. You could treat neandertals like another race of humans,but differences between white,black and yellow are quite small
There are of course genetic differences,but the point is:
puzzle: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melanesians https://www.google.com/search?q=melanesian
Black or White ? Reality is even more strange - they are mix with Denisovians. The same orgin has EPAS1 sherpa gene modifying blood to let them live and function above 4000 m over see level easier than ordinary people.
<<virtual kick on your balls for calling me "Mossad">>
Who the fuck upvotes this retarded bullshit?
"New"
That hypothesis has been around for a few years and so far it is just that - a hypothesis.
Wrong, it's a theory, not a hypothesis. The same as the out of Africa theory. A hypothesis is a falsifiable, and ideally testable, proposition.
Get your terminology correct.
You have no fucking idea what you are talking about.
no, it is a hypothesis. learn the difference. words have meaning.
Yes, words have meaning, words you're using wrongly.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/difference-between-hypothesis-and-theory-usage
"In scientific reasoning, a hypothesis is an assumption made before any research has been completed for the sake of testing. A theory on the other hand is a principle set to explain phenomena already supported by data. Theories will pull together experimental results to provide full explanations such as "The Big Bang Theory.""
Exactly.
So, it is a hypothesis. Note that the article OP posted even calls it that.
You have demonstrated that you are able to quote an online dictionary.
Are you able to show that this hypothesis is a theory, contradicting literally every scientists who agrees that it is a hypothesis? Contradicting the authors of the study?
Here is the actual study.
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0177127
This is the end paragraph:
Now how the fuck is this a theory when the study itself acknowledges that more supporting evidence is required?
Educate yourself for fuck's sake. Do your own research.
Why do the ignorant have such intellectual pride? Truly it is a mystery that those who know so little are so sure of what they think they know.
A hypothesis is a specific falsifiable statement that you set out to test, and a theory is, in short a narrative to explain existing evidence of a larger dataset. Theory often comes BEFORE hypothesis testing, but sometime data is accumulated which results in a theory AFTER data is gathered in order to explain it.
Your knowledge of the scientific method is utterly lacking. Example: An apple falls and hits your head, you come up with the theory of gravity to explain it. Or, given the theory of gravity you heard about from guy named Newton, you drop apples to test they theory for yourself.
Note, you didn't even comprehend the study that was sent along you disingenuous fuck, essentially, as dropping apples to test an existing theory of human origin as not from Africa.
So, apart from you, who calls this hypothesis a theory?
Quote please.
Ponder for a moment, why those who engage in science make a distinction between a "theory" and a "hypothesis".
Below are a lot of links for the use of the term "out of Africa theory" of human evolution, and the under various names, and competing theories, usually called the "multiple origin theory". I'm sure you can find a journalist if you look hard enough, who like you, confuses hypothesis and theory, but they, like you would be wrong.
If you look in scholarly literature, they use "theory" here.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC41400/
https://science.sciencemag.org/content/283/5409/1828.summary
https://www.scirp.org/html/24586.html
https://www.aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257/aer.103.1.1
http://downloads.hindawi.com/archive/2011/615094.pdf
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/007327538502300105
http://www.scielo.org.za/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S2074-77052014000100007 (do a CNTL F for the word "theory" on this one)
https://www.jstor.org/stable/25121018?seq=1#metadata_info_tab_contents
Its correct though.