1
$\begingroup$

This theory

Modern humans originated from a woman who lived in modern day Botswana

says

Every person alive today descended from a woman who lived in modern-day Botswana about 200,000 years ago

And this finding states

Piece of skull found in Greece ‘is oldest human fossil outside Africa’

A broken skull chiselled from a lump of rock in a cave in Greece is the oldest modern human fossil ever found outside Africa, researchers claim.

The partial skull was discovered in the Apidima cave on the Mani peninsula of the southern Peloponnese and has been dated to be at least 210,000 years old.

Which certainty these findings have? Which one are we supposed to believe?

The question of the topic is, which theory has more evidence, humans appeared in Africa 200,000 years ago, or there were already humans in Europe at least 210,000 years ago?

$\endgroup$
  • 5
    $\begingroup$ I don't necessarily see a contradiction in both quotes: There were humans in Europe 210'000 years ago, but their female offspring do not/little contribute to todays human gene pool. $\endgroup$ – Arsak Dec 12 '19 at 14:07
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Considering even your linked article says the skull piece date is only preliminary results that have not been independently confirmed I would say it is the weaker one. $\endgroup$ – John Dec 12 '19 at 14:24
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ Mitochondrial Eve en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitochondrial_Eve does not mean "first woman" or first humans. "Every person" refers only to the matrilineal line. See also "pedigree collapse" by which everyone before a certain point will either be the direct ancestor of everyone or the ancestor of no one. $\endgroup$ – Bryan Krause Dec 12 '19 at 15:06
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ I voted to close this as "needing details or clarity", because the question as asked is entirely based on a misunderstanding as noted in comments. Revising the question ask more broadly for an explanation would solve this. $\endgroup$ – iayork Dec 12 '19 at 15:39
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ I disagree with the close-voters. I think this post should remain open. The main question (the one in bold) seems perfectly legitimate regardless of the comments (which are somewhat tangential given the main bolded scope of the OP's question). The OP has demonstrated prior research, has formatted the question decently well, and has asked a question that can receive non-opinion answers. The bolded portion of the question is not unclear (as close-voters are suggesting) and can be understood regardless of the context of the question or comments. $\endgroup$ – theforestecologist Dec 13 '19 at 6:19

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.