Paleo Diet: Raw Paleo Diet and Lifestyle Forum
Raw Paleo Diet Forums => Science => Topic started by: TylerDurden on November 17, 2017, 01:04:47 am
-
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-5084509/Ancient-skull-China-rewrites-human-history.html (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-5084509/Ancient-skull-China-rewrites-human-history.html)
-
I'm always surprised to hear that this idea continues to be discussed in anglo-saxon anthropological circles.
Don't expect this kind of information to appear in french science journals or common press. Even reluctantly.
In France polygenism (the idea that humanity could come from several "stocks" as opposed to monogenism ) is an absolute scientific taboo ( bordering on holocaust revisionism in terms of political well pensance). If you would make a poll in french streets asking people " do you know that there are alternative theories to the "Out of Africa" hypothesis ?" , you would get 99,99 % "NO".
Reason for this ideological histeria lays in the history of anthropology : those who defended the polygenist hypotheses (in France at least , don't know about England) were downright racists. They did not want european population to descend from african stock.
Even though the link between polygenism and racism refers to ancient science , the matter is still not debatable in France one or two centuries later. This and some other curiosities in the history of anthropology clearly shows how scientific debates can be annihilated by cultural history. Obviously the same applies to the lack of debate on the matter of food instinct.
-
Well, not just anglo-saxon circles but Russian, Chinese and now even American, given recent evidence re ancient hominids in the Americas long before Native Americans ever turned up.
What is absurd about the whole out-of-africa theory is that, in itself, it is a rather racist theory in that its proponents have constantly come up with very tenuous claims that the Neanderthals were somehow inferior to early modern man, despite a lot of evidence indicating the contrary.It is also very Biblical in nature re the single origin from Africa claim as recent as c. 60,000 years ago. It reminds me of Bishop Usher's literal interpretation of the Bible that suggested that Mankind got started c. 4004 BC. And then there is the ridiculous lack of "diversity" in suggesting a single origin of Mankind.