How do we know exactly where mankind began and what we looked like?

Question

I've been hearing that we originate from Africa and that our ancestors were African (in the context of the people I've heard this from it was implied that "African" meant black skin). I'm not in the field of anthropology, so I have to ask you guys, the professionals, what the reasons are for these conclusions. I know that I've met some people who are thrilled to death about the "discovery," which they see as a way of destroying the "inflated ego of eurocentrism."

But when I hear so many politicians, college professors and left-wing organizations applaud this as an absolute showing that we all descend from "black Africans," then I have to wonder about the authenticity of these findings in terms of the motivating factor for the discovery.

I'm perfectly OK with us coming from any race, we had to originate from some source. But I just want to make sure this discovery is well founded and scientific as opposed to emotionally driven. Below are two misunderstands I have about this.

Answer 1

The evidence is not just in the skeletal remains, it is in our genetics, as well. Geneticists have conducted studies that show that ALL humans, the world over, descended from a small band of humans that left Africa around 50,000 years ago. We know that they were modern humans, physically speaking, because of the fossil record, and, again, because of genetics. Geneticists can study "genetic markers" and determine how long certain traits have been present in the human lineage. Also, we are descended from apes, and we know that they evolved in Africa, and nowhere else.

And we know that they had black skin, BECAUSE we know they came from Africa, (and, again the genetic record). Skin color is nothing more than human's response to environmental pressures; it is determined by the level of melanin in our skin, which in turn is determined by the environment. Equatorial environments such as Africa, where there is intense sunlight, cause humans to develop darker skin in order to regulate the amount of Vitamin D produced by our bodies, since exposure to sunlight is what affects production of Vit. D in humans. Too much or too little Vit. D can be harmful to humans, thus in high sunlight areas, humans develop darker skin, so that they will not produce too much Vit. D. In low sunlight areas, humans develop lighter skin, to be able to produce enough Vit. D. Modern humans evolved in Equatorial Africa, so we know their skin was dark.

As modern humans moved over the globe, environmental pressures caused them to adapt to their environment...changing, physically, as their new environment dictated.

It is interesting to note that humans, the entire population the world over, have less genetic variance than a small family of chimps. This also implies that we are all descended from a small group of people, a relatively short time ago. It also implies that "race" as we know it, is nothing more than a social construct. Skin color is not "race", it is the level of melanin in our skin. If skin color, and physical variations are all the separate us...doesn't that imply that we are all the same underneath the surface...or at least not as different as the concept of "race" would suggest?

http://www.archaeology.org/9609/abstract...

http://abc.net.au/science/news/stories/s...

http://abc.net.au/science/news/stories/s...

Answer 2

Let's tackle this, because it's actually a pretty good question. I don't tend to see a lot of those around here, so kudos!

First, there's always going to be someone applauding the results of whatever research comes out, for whatever reason. This isn't necessarily the point of doing research - to bolster the preconceived notions of people with closely held agendas - but it will invariably happen. The important thing to look for is if the research has been conducted with such agendas in mind (and treat it will much greater caution if it has). My experience with archaeology has shown that there is a deep, wide pool of knowledge that has been gleaned from research which was conducted as it should be. So don't worry about who's clapping their hands, because many times those hands weren't the ones that got dirty doing the work.

The idea that humans originated in Africa is not a new one. Biblical scholars will probably tell you that the Garden of Eden was located in modern day Iraq (or the middle east, anyway), which is in Africa. The idea is long lived. Good physical evidence is somewhat younger, but still older than you or I...most likely. The oldest remains of human ancestors (because people resembling modern humans didn't really appear until 100,000 years ago, at the earliest) can be found at Olduvai Gorge, further into the interior of the African continent. These remains hover around 1.8 million years old. But not just ancient remains were found there. Layers upon layers of human activity have been excavated and recorded, revealing a long stretch of human occupation. Other localities in Africa show a similar pattern of very early occupation by human ancestors. There really isn't any doubt in the anthropological community that Africa contains the remains of humans before they were humans. Furthermore, DNA evidence (and I don't have all night to regale you with the finer points of the analysis) shows pretty well that modern human populations descended from ancient African populations. There are certainly competing theories, but I'm not here to cover the field. This is the leading theory, as things stand.

Whether or not they had black skin is anyone's guess. It's extremely likely though, like in the area of you better have some d**n good evidence, like a million year old skin sample, to suggest otherwise. But they were Africans. Modern Africans, and the rest of the all modern people from all over the Earth, share a common ancestor population that used to live in Africa. The evidence for that is pretty clear.

No, this doesn't mean modern Europeans are more "evolved", or that Africans are "less evolved" because they stayed in Africa. There's no such measure, and mutation rates show we've all undergone comparable levels of what uninformed people call something like "amount of evolution."

Now to cover your specific points...

1. To argue a point, you could also say that the reason the oldest skeletons are found in Africa is that the oldest people lived in Africa. Maybe there is no "limiting factor" on the evidence. But you bring up a good point. Maybe it's sampling bias. More digs in Africa so more skeletons. Maybe there has been less development in Africa. All possibly true, even though Africa has had its fair share of industrious human civilizations. But then again, we're not talking about a couple of bones here and there. The evidence that we do have shows a lot more than the simple fact that people were there. There is good support for the notion that modern humans began in Africa and spread out to the rest of the world. The fossil/skeletal record leaves a path, and it's much harder to support alternate explanations. This includes physical evidence from not only Africa, but also from Europe, Asia, and the rest of the world. Bones, fossils, stone tools, pollen, geology, paleoenvironmental studies (from geology), DNA studies, and a host of other analytical methods have been used to formulated these ideas.

2. Let's be clear about this. We have 2 million year old skeletal remains from Africa. The oldest we have anywhere else hovers around a million years old. They aren't even the same species; they actually represent different stages in human evolution. This is the base of our evidence on the matter. Calling it "few very ancient skeletons in African [sic]" isn't accurate, and it's a poor way of posing a question. But the question has been posed. Since we only have skeletal remains of the actual people, we can't say what their skin looked like, or their what their exact facial features were like, or what color their eyes were. So who's to say they were black? Again, to argue the point, who's to say they were white? The fact that they lived in Africa at all is actually very good evidence that they had dark skin. Africa was hot back then, too. Also, skeletal features do give clues as to what they looked like. The fact is that there isn't anyone who is to say what these people looked like. That's what we spend all our time gathering evidence for.

But this isn't exactly what you are asking. You seem to raise an objection about our ancestors being "black Africans" with quotation marks, which is most likely a group very far removed from what our evidence can tell us. We're pretty sure they were African. It's not unreasonable at all to suggest that they were black. Our ancestors seem to have been black Africans, but were they "black Africans"?

Good God, who knows. But just remember this: The political point that we all came from Africa comes from the evidence that we all came from Africa, NOT the other way around. In the context of your question, that's about the most important thing to consider.

Answer 3

God created man. Gen 1:27