h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

"The relative dates of hominid fossils says they didn't originate there. Unless you want them popping into existence from nowhere or managing a ridiculously implausible parallel evolution from some other ancestor, then they are the same humans as the other humans"

You know, of all of the sources I have read, no one seems to be able to conclusively say where the human species originated. The general consensus seems to be Africa, based largely on the age of fossils and other skeletal evidence....

...but the bottom line seems to be, until we've dug up every square inch of dirt on the planet, we can never really be sure of exactly what happened before recorded history (or indeed after recorded history, in many events).

Like I said earlier, if you can prove to me that the contrary is the case, please do...I have no qualms with losing an argument if I'm wrong...

"They can interbreed perfectly well. No infertility problems at all"

Ok, I misconstrued the point you were making to mean that the Aboriginal people are not distinct from other races. I didn't see it as meaning that they were another species...

"Do try to engage your brain before typing. They could have been wiped out *with* intervention like the other hominids may have been."

First of all, can we please keep the personal slings out of the discussion...we're tryng to have an intelligent argument here, and it really detracts from it when people start resorting to petty name calling and personal insults...

...Secondly...I think the one point that is prominent here is that anything is possible...yes, the Aboriginal people could've been wiped out *with* intervention...quite obviously they have not been, so you will forgive me if I don't understand what point you're making...

""Australian Aboriginals are the missing link"

I never said anything of the sort.

"To imply that these people were CAVEMEN"

I didn't though. Your inability to comprehend relatively simple things is your own problem."

If you had read what I was saying, rather than taking things out of context, what I had said was "...the implication seems to be that Australian Aboriginals are the missing link! Now, I don't want to assume that that's what you're saying, because that's a very big call to make, not to mention unsubstantiated..."

I was not saying that was what you had said at all, what I was saying is that that seemed to me to be the implication...if I had misconstrued it, all you had to do was tell me what you were trying to say, instead of again resoting to personal slings.

"Rubbish! They had been indulging in the same sort of destruction of the environment and extinction of native species (doing fine before they appeared) long before the Europeans turned up. So many people have daft ideas about a mythical golden age, noble savage or garden paradise somewhere/somewhen."

I never said that everything was perfect...I DID say that "The Australian Aboriginal people had, up until the time of settlement, lived in almost perfect harmony with their surroundings, had learnt how to live off the land without destroying it and without wandering nomadically and hoping for the best?"

The point I was making was that the Aboriginal people had systems in place that worked with nature rather than against it...if you look at the logic behind the methodical moving of Peoples from one area to another, the use of fire to encourage rebirth, the use of eel traps, even the settlement of the Kerrupjmara people in Victoria...all of these are examples of how the people used there knowledge of the land to their advantage without it being to the land's disadvantage...

...I never said it was perfect, and the last myth I want to propogate is the one of the Noble Savage...the point I am making is that these poeple were not brain dead neanderthals who were laying the earth to waste...and that "civilisation" doesn't really seem to have had the long term advantages people believed that it would 200 odd years ago...

All humans are demonstrably the same species. Africa has the oldest fossils by a long way. Ergo the Australian Aborigines probably came from Africa with the rest of us (via other places in between rather than being teleported). I don't mind if we all come from Australia instead but that's not what the evidence shows.

"petty name calling"

Nothing petty about pointing out your inability to comprehend what I actually said and your apparent determination to twist it into something else.

"the implication seems to be that Australian Aboriginals are the missing link!"

I didn't say that either though. You made that up all by yourself. Australians can't be a missing link because they came later. There isn't much in the way of missing links between current humans because they are almost identical. The evolution from something else occurred long before spreading out to infest more of the Earth.

"learnt how to live off the land without destroying it"

That's the bit that's rubbish though. They set more fires than were there before and forced plants and animals to adapt to their presence - making previously stable species go extinct. That's not harmonious. That's typical human pillaging. They are no better or worse than all the other humans - because they are effectively the same humans.

"brain dead neanderthals"

No-one said they were though. This is another thing you made up all by yourself in this thread. The AAs were doing their own thing when a bunch of their neighbours moved in who had had a bit more practice in being nasty through living in closer quarters and therefore having more conflict with each other. Civilisation isn't really the things which some people have - that's technology. For once the newer arrivals were not putting in quite so much effort into wiping out the locals and the population was possibly spread out far enough that even the disease accidents didn't have that effect (unlike on island populations). The AA's also had more space than the Easter Island people who wiped themselves out. We're all still stuck on the one planet though...

"..Do try to engage your brain before typing.."

thats usually the first sign of some-one losing an argument when you get personal!

"..They could have been wiped out *with* intervention like the other hominids may have been.."

the operative word here is 'COULD'

"Rubbish! They had been indulging in the same sort of destruction of the environment and extinction of native species (doing fine before they appeared) long before the Europeans turned up.."

you want to back that up with facts!! THIS SHOULD BE INTERESTING!!

"..So many people have daft ideas about a mythical golden age, noble savage or garden paradise somewhere/somewhen.."

its a bit like those who like to think they know what they are talking about..kinda like experts..THOSE WHO KNOW MORE AND MORE ABOUT LESS AND LESS!!

"That's the bit that's rubbish though. They set more fires than were there before and forced plants and animals to adapt to their presence - making previously stable species go extinct. That's not harmonious. That's typical human pillaging. They are no better or worse than all the other humans - because they are effectively the same humans."

The practise of firestick farming was to burn off undergrowth in a controlled environment, and encourage new and stronger growth. It was only done in specific areas in specific times, to mitigate any loss of wildlife...

...last year there were massive fires in Canberra that totally laid waste to everything in their path...if the practise of firestick farming had been continued in more recent times the fires would not have been anywhere near as destructive because the undergrowth would've been burnt off continually over time and would not have gotten to such a mass that could fuel the fires we had last year...

...The Aboriginal people tended to moved around their areas in a cyclical fashion, leaving each place before it's resources had been used up and giving the environment a chance to grow strong again before they returned...this ensured that the people survived, and that the environment survived...

...even in places like Lake Condah, where there were huts that the Kerrupjmara people lived, the people would only stay for about 9 months of the year, to give the place a chance to rejuvenate and regrow before their return...

...these intances seem to point to the fact that the Australian Aboriginal people did their best to survive in the environment without putting the environment in danger...there is always going to be some damage done by anything that exists in the world that needs to survive of its own accord...

...but when you compare it to the way we live now...ploughing down everything that gets in our way, killing of species every day, wasting the earths resources...and more of it appearing to be out of basic greed than for survival, I wouldn't say that how the Aboriginal people lived constituted "That's typical human pillaging" at all...

Ah, cue the arrival of a "newbie" just happening across a thread and determined to turn it into something it isn't.

"the first sign of some-one losing an argument"

Wrong - someone pointing out that the previous person had showed an incredible ability to misread everything which looks more deliberate than dishonest.

"the operative word here is 'COULD'"

Now you are also proving your inability to read the thread properly. You must be some sort of a package deal.

"you want to back that up with facts"

Facts: no Australian Aborigines + plant and animal life doing just fine. AAs arrive and, oh what a surprise, some animals and plants go extinct. It could be a coincidence but it tends to happen rather a lot round humans.

"kinda like experts"

Despite your inaccurate cliche about what being an expert means, it is much better to know something than not. You only want to pretend that it isn't to make yourself feel better about you ignorance. Why don't you try not being so ignorant instead. Look up the dates for AAs and then for African fossils. Try to convince yourself the AA's travelled back in time somehow to populate Africa if you are so determined that humans started in Australia.

This thread is about science and "indigenous" not AA rights. On the scientific evidence, the AA's are *not* indigenous. They are merely earlier immigrants. If more evidence is found to say otherwise that would be fine too but it hasn't. So why would anyone in their right mind try to pretend it had. Prejudice?

"to mitigate any loss of wildlife"

So they thought they were being careful. Is that supposed to make the extinct species feel better or something.

"that totally laid waste to everything in their path"

Fires have always happened. The AAs had already partly changed the landscape and the Europeans did more. If you are including anything non-"natural" in that laying waste then one could say that it shouldn't have been there. If anything the laying waste may have been slightly less because the AAs had inadvertantly reduced the local flora and fauna to those which could recover quickly - evolution again.

However, all this is irrelevant to the point of the thread. The scientific evidence says AAs were not there when humans were in Africa. They are the same species as all other humans. Ergo they migrated there. To say anything else would require evidence which doesn't exist and doesn't even look like existing. The myths of the AAs do not count as evidence in that respect any more than anyone else's myths do. Some people think humans were created by aliens. Is that the idea you prefer: humans created in Africa then only a long time later a completely separate but surprisingly identical bunch of humans were created in Australia so they could say they had always been there.

"more deliberate than dishonest"

More proof-reading required. That should have been "more deliberate than honest mistake". The point being that you have to be prejudiced against a post to misread it that badly or be very incompetent.

I have admitted occasions where I have misinterpreted things you have said and I have apologised...all I can give you is my word that I have not done any of this deliberately.

"This thread is about science and "indigenous" not AA rights. On the scientific evidence, the AA's are *not* indigenous. They are merely earlier immigrants. If more evidence is found to say otherwise that would be fine too but it hasn't. So why would anyone in their right mind try to pretend it had. Prejudice?"

So, what you have basically said is that, based on scientific evidence, the only Indigenous Peoples are the Africans. What you have also said is that we have to accept this as the truth until there is evidence that proves the contrary.

The way I see it, there is no proof that human existence began in Africa…all we can honestly say is that the oldest evidence of human existence is in Africa – surely these constitute two separate points??

I mean, I can concede that scientific evidence suggests that the oldest recorded humans came from Africa, but we cannot categorically say that no evidence exists to the contrary, all we can say is that we don’t have any evidence that proves to the contrary…

Just to reiterate kea’s point at the beginning of the thread:

“The concise oxford gives this:

1. a. (esp. of flora or fauna) originating naturally in a region. b. (of people) born in a region. 2. (foll. by _to_) belonging naturally to a place.

So what I am wanting to know is how, from a science view (as opposed to a sociological view) does one decide that something originates or belongs naturally to a place?”

"more deliberate than dishonest"

More proof-reading required. That should have been "more deliberate than honest mistake". The point being that you have to be prejudiced against a post to misread it that badly or be very incompetent.
______________________________________________________________________

...or it could be a result of human error mixed with ambiguous arguments?

Actually it would be possible for the Africans not to be indigenous either!

Suppose we had such a good fossil record that there really wasn't much doubt about who was where and when. A bunch of primates become obviously human. They split up and go in different directions. Either all leave or the group which remains dies from something (record shows no habitation). Then if the descendants of one of the migrant groups returned one might have a case for saying they weren't indigenous either.

However, the real point against that would be if the people were already identifiably human when they left and (as far as can be determined) would still have been able to viably breed with their ancestors (had they been there) or anything descended from the same ancestors - reasonably deduced by comparing viability with all extant groups. If breeding works every which way they try then speciation has not occurred. The groups are still all the same species and have not really evolved to fit new niches. If they had evolved then they could claim to be indigenous to that niche (hence my point about the whales).

So that's the clause which gets the AAs. Ignoring whether or not Africans are indigenous, the evidence says AAs and other hominids were not there before a certain point while there were loads in Africa. The AAs can happily interbreed with all other humans, so they are human (supported by obvious features and genetics). The way evolution behaves makes it extremely unlikely they could have evolved from something completely different to the same end-point. So they are and always have been humans - and humans seem to come from Africa.

It is reasonable on the face of it to say that there might not be enough evidence to prove the Africa part of all that. However, the dating of what we do have *and* the presence and absence of other closely related primates in those areas (as would be expected from a place of "origin") makes it extremely perverse to suggest anywhere other than Africa. NB Genetically, humans split off last from chimpanzees and before that from other apes with orangutans being the ones who really split off first. This is not the way round originally drawn by people hoping humans were the ones who evolved very separately from the rest. So look on a map and consider where all the cousins of humans are and ask yourself how likely it is that they all migrated there with some of the new humans, leaving no trace in Australia.

"The concise oxford gives this ... how, from a science view"

The question is flawed and that is part of what I was addressing. You do not start from a dictionary definition and ask for the science view. The science view always says something like "I wouldn't start from there, that's not the scientific definition". So I gave you the science (with some simple comparisons for why that's the way it is) and you suddenly went quite deranged - ranting about other stuff instead.

The only thing you can say in confidence is that human beings as a species are indigenous to the planet Earth. Unless of course you are one of those people who believe that we were put here by aliens at some point in the distant past. If this happens to be true then we would have to find out more information. I did once read some stuff based (loosely)on the old testament that claimed Moses was a descendant of some kind of alien lifeform. I checked all the references used and it was almost believable.

you DIDN'T back up any of your 'arguments' with FACTS..so far all i see are just your opinions..you want to make these outrageous statements, then SHOW your evidence to prove them, otherwise i will just assume you obviously prefer to look 'cute' rather than 'creditable'!

I haven't had a chance to respond today, as this thread demands more attention then I can give it at the moment...I will reply tomorrow...

Starlea, I note that you SHOUT like a creationist or other nutter. None of the scientists here, on the message boards or in other internet groups have ever been impressed by such moronic tactics.

It occurs to me that the reason you are so irrationally prejudiced is because your opinion about AAs is an entirely uninformed one based on their myths rather than any science at all. No wonder you haven't seen the facts. You wouldn't dare look for them or at them because they might shatter your fondly held delusions.

Here's a reasonably representative list of the hominid fossils showing how humans evolved in (and are thus indigenous to) Africa:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/specimen.html

From Africa hominids/humans moved into Europe and Asia. They only wandered off to Australia much later (about 40,000 years ago). Interestingly, the last of the Neanderthals were still around then - though not in Australia because only "modern" humans migrated there. Evolution is not directed to go down a particular route. So if AAs had evolved in Australia they wouldn't be the same species as all other humans - which they demonstrably are. So since they are the same as the older group in Africa they cannot be indigenous to Australia. The only other choice is independent spontaneous creation of AAs suspiciously identical humans - and only nutters believe in that sort of thing.

Here is a brief report on some of the genetic evidence. Strangely enough [sarcasm] it agrees with the fossil evidence:
http://www.nature.com/nsu/001207/001207-8.html

If you weren't too lazy and/or scared to look (internet searches are relatively easy compared with digging things up or working in a lab) you would already have seen the facts for yourself. If you have seen them and still deny them then that proves you are an irrationally prejudiced person whose opinion is not worth the posts it uses up.

SEF, I would be interested to find out what you base this so called "prejudice" on...

If it is of any consequence, yes, I am Aboriginal on my mother's side. If this is the proof you needed to back your opinion that am as, as you put it "irrationally prejudiced person whose opinion is not worth the posts it uses up", then so be it. I honestly do not think that this is something that has swayed me at all...

...If someone could show me conclusively that human life as we know it began in Africa, I would believe it. It would not alter my beliefs or thoughts as a person at all. The bottom line is that I am as much a part of Australia as the Inuit people are a part of Canada, the Maori people are of New Zealand, etc, etc.

Whether that is "scientific" or not does not matter to me.

The point I am making is that no one can conclusively say anything. We can say that, of the evidence gathered, the oldest proof of human existence comes from Africa. That I am willing to concede. But the point I am making is that science cannot proove anything beyond a shadow of a doubt, because, however remote, their is still a possibility that older evidence exists somewhere else that is as yet undiscovered.

Which leads me to the point of immigration. If we are going to go by the dictionary definition, it could be said that Australian Aboriginals are Indigenous, and therefore not immigrants. From a scientific view, it would seem *likely* that Australian Aboriginals are immigrants, while still remaining *possible* (however seemingly improbable) that they are not.

Which leads me to the conclusion that we can't really conclude anything...

The observation that you (and Starlea) are prejudiced against the scientific evidence is an obvious one. Your personal ancestry merely provides a possible reason for your emotional reaction (and your bias for myth over hard data). It isn't proof in itself. Your posts are the proof (or more accurately they are the scientific evidence for your prejudice since proof is generally restricted to mathematics and you might be spoofing everything).

Ok, if the only proof you have of my prejudice is that I'm unwilling to accept the scientific "evidence" as the be all and end all, I don't really find that proof at all...I have explained my views on the scientific evidence presented, and I think that my point is logical. And I don't recall at any point saying that I was more willing to believe myth over scientific data.

I would of course like to add that, apart from my own knowledge based on cultural upbringing, I did study Australia (and more specifically Australian Aboriginal) history in High School and University...so my arguments, while they have been impasisoned ones, have not been ones based on misinformation...

And if you could please explain your last point to me... "Your posts are the proof (or more accurately they are the scientific evidence for your prejudice since proof is generally restricted to mathematics and you might be spoofing everything)."...I would really appreciate it, because I honestly don't understand the point you are trying to make.

It was not just you preferring to ignore the evidence for an African origin in favour of remaining nebulous (post 21) but the way that you turned into some sort of deranged loony and started misquoting me, taking things out of context and pretending I'd said things which I hadn't (eg post 19). On the whole, only the dishonest and/or prejudiced nutters of various sorts do that. The others who do are usually merely pretending to be one of the former types for their own amusement (hence the reference to spoofing). You say you studied AA history but unfortunately that seems to have led to you putting credence in the beliefs of people (eg post 14) compared with scientific evidence. Kea wanted the scientific view. Plainly you do not.

Re: Post 19

"but the way that you turned into some sort of deranged loony and started misquoting me, taking things out of context and pretending I'd said things which I hadn't (eg post 19). "

I have said several times that I had obviously misread this...the fact is that I cannot give this thread my undivided attention, as I would like to, because I do have other tasks to perform outside of hootoo...

...more to the point, I had said (in post 19) just previously to making the point that was a result of the misreading "I don't want to assume that that's what you're saying, because that's a very big call to make, not to mention unsubstantiated." So I had in fact noted before making the point that it may have been unrelated to what you were saying. That you choose to constantly bring this up as some form of "derangement" on my part doesn't make sense to me at all.

And again on this point, all of the quotes that I have taken form your posts have been direct quotes, cut and pastes...and I have posted the entire point made in the quote, as opposed to a few choice words taken out of context, as you have done to me on more than one occassion.

"You say you studied AA history but unfortunately that seems to have led to you putting credence in the beliefs of people (eg post 14) compared with scientific evidence"

What I had in fact said was on the definition of "belonging to a place", and that the Australian Aboriginal People believe that they are a part of the country and always have been... if you have taken this to mean that I would take this belief as "evidence" I'm sorry you misunderstood. The point I was making was that Australian Aboriginals have a long standing cultural, spiritual and environmental connection to the land...thus fulfilling, in my opinion, the criteria of "belonging to a place".

And yes, Kea does want a scientific view. The point I am making is that it would be very difficult for science to create a view, as opposed to the "theories" you have often mentioned.

> thus fulfilling, in my opinion, the criteria of "belonging to a place".

What you have missed again though is that you are referring to a flawed dictionary definition (ie deliberately designed to include common inaccurate usages not strict single discipline ones) when what was asked for was the scientific view.

AAs are demonstrably human. Therefore they have not co-evolved to any noticeable degree at all. This completely refutes the assertion in post 1 and the only relevant part of post 7. If you want to use the common parlance later parts of the dictionary definition, then elephants are indigenous to Kent and wallabies are indigenous to Scotland (if I've remembered that outbreak correctly). That's not the scientific view though just as your view of AAs isn't - as you actually admit by your choice of definition in the middle of post 14 (right after getting the science wrong) but now seem to want to have it both ways.