This site is not maintained. Click here for the new website of Richard Dawkins.

← Did Early Humans Ride the Waves to Australia?

Did Early Humans Ride the Waves to Australia? - Comments

SnowyDoc's Avatar Comment 1 by SnowyDoc

And thus we Aussies retain the surfing gene... ? ;-)

Sun, 05 Feb 2012 06:27:13 UTC | #914752

Wiwaxia's Avatar Comment 2 by Wiwaxia

The sad thing is the comments on the original Wall Street Journal article, not surprising, but sad nonetheless.

Sun, 05 Feb 2012 09:41:54 UTC | #914769

Alan4discussion's Avatar Comment 3 by Alan4discussion

Sea levels were 150 feet lower then, because the cold had locked up so much moisture in northern ice-caps, so not only were most Indonesian islands linked by land, but the Persian Gulf was dry and, crucially, the southern end of the Red Sea was a narrow strait. Recent work by Prof. Geoffrey Bailey and colleagues from York University in Britain has shown that the gap was often less than 2½ miles wide for up to 60 miles. People would not have needed to move through Sinai and the inhospitable Arabian desert to reach the Indian Ocean shoreline. They could raft or swim across a narrow marine canal.

This is a rather simplistic explanation. A much better explanation is here http://essayweb.net/history/ancient/prehistory.shtml and on earlier RD discussions.

http://richarddawkins.net/articles/643205-aboriginal-dna-dates-australian-arrival

http://richarddawkins.net/videos/644688-rethinking-out-of-africa

http://richarddawkins.net/articles/642153-new-algorithm-provides-new-insights-into-evolutionary-exodus-out-of-africa#page1

http://richarddawkins.net/articles/642225-all-non-africans-part-neanderthal-genetics-confirm

While Matt ridley has qualifications in zoology, he is a leading carbon industry AGW climate-change denier, so his expertise on climate issues affecting these migrations is very questionable.

Sun, 05 Feb 2012 09:48:15 UTC | #914770

Eyerish's Avatar Comment 4 by Eyerish

Surfing with the Aliens - All the way downunder...

What the article shows is the possible migratory mechanisms that allowed humans to move to cover the earth. There are many people who think that just because the sea level is the way it is they think it has always been that way. When in fact it has fluctuated up and down over our geological history that is greater than 6,000 years old. Cooling and warming can be explained by not just people in the current state of history but though natural phenomena such as Lake Toba - a Super massive volcano that blew that would have affected the climate of the entire world.

Sun, 05 Feb 2012 09:58:33 UTC | #914771

DaveLunt's Avatar Comment 5 by DaveLunt

Sea levels at Last Glacial Maximum were closer to 150 meters, not feet, lower. Nice article though.

Sun, 05 Feb 2012 12:11:27 UTC | #914787

GerhardW's Avatar Comment 6 by GerhardW

Ok, so the anchestors of the first Australians (and probably the first japanese, the Aiko) departed around 60,000 to 70,000 Years ago from the African Population of Homo sapiens sapiens. But why should someone think, that they arrived shortly after in Australia. Perhaps, they needed only a few hundred years to reach Australia, but it is also possible, that they needed 10,000 or 20,000 years to reach Australia.

Sun, 05 Feb 2012 13:01:27 UTC | #914793

aquilacane's Avatar Comment 7 by aquilacane

No, they flew.

Sun, 05 Feb 2012 13:28:13 UTC | #914799

littletrotsky13's Avatar Comment 8 by littletrotsky13

Comment 2 by Wiwaxia :

The sad thing is the comments on the original Wall Street Journal article, not surprising, but sad nonetheless.

Read them, it's distracting me from the rugby as I debate whether to shout at the computer or start smashing my head against a table.

Sun, 05 Feb 2012 15:39:53 UTC | #914816

potteryshard's Avatar Comment 9 by potteryshard

People go to the beaches because thats where the babes are. All kidding aside, it only makes sense that the land/sea interface probably always represents both a natural transportion corridor and an area offering both land and sea-based resources.

Sun, 05 Feb 2012 16:07:08 UTC | #914818

Neodarwinian's Avatar Comment 10 by Neodarwinian

" The systemic fraud by most paleontologist is shocking. "

Comments like this at The Wall Street Journal??? This sentence was just the beginning of a multi paragraph tirade of nonsense. I expect this kind of comment at yahoo news, not a major paper. This rot has spread too far.

Interesting idea on " riding the waves ", but just one of many such ideas.

Sun, 05 Feb 2012 21:58:33 UTC | #914895

Alan4discussion's Avatar Comment 11 by Alan4discussion

Comment 10 by Neodarwinian

" The systemic fraud by most paleontologist is shocking. "

The systemic fraud by most climate-change deniers is shocking. The fraud by creationists is just as bad!

This sentence was just the beginning of a multi paragraph tirade of nonsense.

A bit like the OP on the link @3 - http://richarddawkins.net/articles/643807-thank-you-matt-ridley

Indeed most of the Wall Street Journal comments were irrelevant and utterly missed the evolutionary point of the migration story and the genetic traces!

Sun, 05 Feb 2012 23:02:53 UTC | #914909

Schrodinger's Cat's Avatar Comment 12 by Schrodinger's Cat

I must say I increasingly find the whole genetic history of our species utterly confusing.

First we have all those earlier species....Neandethals, Cro-Magnons, etc, who populate much of the Earth but then for some reason nobody can figure out, they all conveniently die out before or during the spread of Homo Sapiens.

Then we are told....er, no....they didn't all die out and some were still around and even mated with Homo Sapiens.

But then it gets really confusing....because we are told loads died off and the entire species was down to just 2000 people....in Africa.....and that is the basis of much common genetic history. But hold on....what are those 2000 in Africa doing with Neanderthal genes in them ? The Neandethals were supposedly never in Africa.....so how can the 2000 in Africa have Neanderthal genes ?

Mon, 06 Feb 2012 02:57:22 UTC | #914937

Alternative Carpark's Avatar Comment 13 by Alternative Carpark

Later generations just pinched loaves of bread in England and got sent over for free.

Mon, 06 Feb 2012 03:56:26 UTC | #914940

Vorlund's Avatar Comment 14 by Vorlund

Jared Diamond in guns germs and steel provides a good argument.

Mon, 06 Feb 2012 08:24:19 UTC | #914977

Alan4discussion's Avatar Comment 15 by Alan4discussion

Comment 12 by Schrodinger's Cat

I must say I increasingly find the whole genetic history of our species utterly confusing.

When you are trying to trace the worldwide spread of a genus/species/subspecies over tens of thousands or millions of years, using bits of preserved fossil, it is difficult.

In the case of ring species, such a gulls, which I have linked on earlier discussions, it is complicated and difficult, even when they are living at the present time!

.what are those 2000 in Africa doing with Neanderthal genes in them ? The Neandethals were supposedly never in Africa.....so how can the 2000 in Africa have Neanderthal genes ?

Clearly, the Neanderthals were living elsewhere at the time the other Homo species were reduced.

Mon, 06 Feb 2012 10:05:27 UTC | #914990

Grundibular's Avatar Comment 16 by Grundibular

"Then we are told....er, no....they didn't all die out and some were still around and even mated with Homo Sapiens."

The confusion here is because you're thinking of species evolving like: This, then That, then Those, the These.

It's more: thhhissssstheeeeennnnnthatttttttttheeeeennnnnnthossssssseeeeeeethennnnnntheeesssseeeee.

Mon, 06 Feb 2012 14:47:49 UTC | #915028

TheChrissetti's Avatar Comment 17 by TheChrissetti

If my understanding is correct, didn't the human population get reduced to endangered levels some time before the Great Migrations?

Mon, 06 Feb 2012 15:11:25 UTC | #915038