Quotes & Sayings


We, and creation itself, actualize the possibilities of the God who sustains the world, towards becoming in the world in a fuller, more deeper way. - R.E. Slater

There is urgency in coming to see the world as a web of interrelated processes of which we are integral parts, so that all of our choices and actions have [consequential effects upon] the world around us. - Process Metaphysician Alfred North Whitehead

Kurt Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem says (i) all closed systems are unprovable within themselves and, that (ii) all open systems are rightly understood as incomplete. - R.E. Slater

The most true thing about you is what God has said to you in Christ, "You are My Beloved." - Tripp Fuller

The God among us is the God who refuses to be God without us, so great is God's Love. - Tripp Fuller

According to some Christian outlooks we were made for another world. Perhaps, rather, we were made for this world to recreate, reclaim, redeem, and renew unto God's future aspiration by the power of His Spirit. - R.E. Slater

Our eschatological ethos is to love. To stand with those who are oppressed. To stand against those who are oppressing. It is that simple. Love is our only calling and Christian Hope. - R.E. Slater

Secularization theory has been massively falsified. We don't live in an age of secularity. We live in an age of explosive, pervasive religiosity... an age of religious pluralism. - Peter L. Berger

Exploring the edge of life and faith in a post-everything world. - Todd Littleton

I don't need another reason to believe, your love is all around for me to see. – Anon

Thou art our need; and in giving us more of thyself thou givest us all. - Khalil Gibran, Prayer XXIII

Be careful what you pretend to be. You become what you pretend to be. - Kurt Vonnegut

Religious beliefs, far from being primary, are often shaped and adjusted by our social goals. - Jim Forest

We become who we are by what we believe and can justify. - R.E. Slater

People, even more than things, need to be restored, renewed, revived, reclaimed, and redeemed; never throw out anyone. – Anon

Certainly, God's love has made fools of us all. - R.E. Slater

An apocalyptic Christian faith doesn't wait for Jesus to come, but for Jesus to become in our midst. - R.E. Slater

Christian belief in God begins with the cross and resurrection of Jesus, not with rational apologetics. - Eberhard Jüngel, Jürgen Moltmann

Our knowledge of God is through the 'I-Thou' encounter, not in finding God at the end of a syllogism or argument. There is a grave danger in any Christian treatment of God as an object. The God of Jesus Christ and Scripture is irreducibly subject and never made as an object, a force, a power, or a principle that can be manipulated. - Emil Brunner

“Ehyeh Asher Ehyeh” means "I will be that who I have yet to become." - God (Ex 3.14) or, conversely, “I AM who I AM Becoming.”

Our job is to love others without stopping to inquire whether or not they are worthy. - Thomas Merton

The church is God's world-changing social experiment of bringing unlikes and differents to the Eucharist/Communion table to share life with one another as a new kind of family. When this happens, we show to the world what love, justice, peace, reconciliation, and life together is designed by God to be. The church is God's show-and-tell for the world to see how God wants us to live as a blended, global, polypluralistic family united with one will, by one Lord, and baptized by one Spirit. – Anon

The cross that is planted at the heart of the history of the world cannot be uprooted. - Jacques Ellul

The Unity in whose loving presence the universe unfolds is inside each person as a call to welcome the stranger, protect animals and the earth, respect the dignity of each person, think new thoughts, and help bring about ecological civilizations. - John Cobb & Farhan A. Shah

If you board the wrong train it is of no use running along the corridors of the train in the other direction. - Dietrich Bonhoeffer

God's justice is restorative rather than punitive; His discipline is merciful rather than punishing; His power is made perfect in weakness; and His grace is sufficient for all. – Anon

Our little [biblical] systems have their day; they have their day and cease to be. They are but broken lights of Thee, and Thou, O God art more than they. - Alfred Lord Tennyson

We can’t control God; God is uncontrollable. God can’t control us; God’s love is uncontrolling! - Thomas Jay Oord

Life in perspective but always in process... as we are relational beings in process to one another, so life events are in process in relation to each event... as God is to Self, is to world, is to us... like Father, like sons and daughters, like events... life in process yet always in perspective. - R.E. Slater

To promote societal transition to sustainable ways of living and a global society founded on a shared ethical framework which includes respect and care for the community of life, ecological integrity, universal human rights, respect for diversity, economic justice, democracy, and a culture of peace. - The Earth Charter Mission Statement

Christian humanism is the belief that human freedom, individual conscience, and unencumbered rational inquiry are compatible with the practice of Christianity or even intrinsic in its doctrine. It represents a philosophical union of Christian faith and classical humanist principles. - Scott Postma

It is never wise to have a self-appointed religious institution determine a nation's moral code. The opportunities for moral compromise and failure are high; the moral codes and creeds assuredly racist, discriminatory, or subjectively and religiously defined; and the pronouncement of inhumanitarian political objectives quite predictable. - R.E. Slater

God's love must both center and define the Christian faith and all religious or human faiths seeking human and ecological balance in worlds of subtraction, harm, tragedy, and evil. - R.E. Slater

In Whitehead’s process ontology, we can think of the experiential ground of reality as an eternal pulse whereby what is objectively public in one moment becomes subjectively prehended in the next, and whereby the subject that emerges from its feelings then perishes into public expression as an object (or “superject”) aiming for novelty. There is a rhythm of Being between object and subject, not an ontological division. This rhythm powers the creative growth of the universe from one occasion of experience to the next. This is the Whiteheadian mantra: “The many become one and are increased by one.” - Matthew Segall

Without Love there is no Truth. And True Truth is always Loving. There is no dichotomy between these terms but only seamless integration. This is the premier centering focus of a Processual Theology of Love. - R.E. Slater

-----

Note: Generally I do not respond to commentary. I may read the comments but wish to reserve my time to write (or write off the comments I read). Instead, I'd like to see our community help one another and in the helping encourage and exhort each of us towards Christian love in Christ Jesus our Lord and Savior. - re slater

Showing posts with label Science and Evolution - General Topics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Science and Evolution - General Topics. Show all posts

Saturday, March 11, 2023

Evolution of Man & Religion - Mitochondrial Eve and Ancient Civilizations


click to enlarge


Evolution of Man & Religion:
Mitochondrial Eve and Ancient Civilizations

by R.E. Slater

Mitochondrial Eve was a woman who lived 200,000 years ago who had enough daughters in a continuous chain that her Mitochondrial DNA survived. Homo sapiens eventually migrated across the African continent around 120,000 years ago

Looking at humanity's distribution patterns several items stand out as earth's climatic conditions changed forcing migratory movement:

  • The L2 and L3 migrations re-inhabited Africa in three areas: NW, Central NE, and Southern NW regions.
  • During this time the descendants of the L2 and L3 populations, N & M, travelled across the northern and southern parts of Saudi Arabia populating the Levant's coastal regions of Greater Syria (Israel et al) and the Fertile Crescent areas of the Mesopotamian area between the Tigris and Euphrates Rivers.
  • Concurrently, Central India was also becoming populated which next led to homo sapien migrations into Oceania and Australia first, and much later into China directly from India.
  • As China's populations grew so too were human migratory groups into Europe and Russian.
  • From Russia's Land Bridge came the America's populations settling along warmer climes northward then southward.

Introduction

Today's post is more properly two posts in one. They should not be separated and must therefore be enclosed together. Think of it as a two day read rather than one....

Further below I have included several videos and articles related to today's title. However, my immediate interest today lies in humanity's shared common ancestry via Mitochondrial Eve, and from her generations, the newly birthed homo sapien civilizations which spawned around the world.

By now, many ancient civilizations had come-and-gone by the time the pages of Genesis were written down. A collection we know as "origin narratives" gathered from a dozen federated tribes composing one nation's enculturated ideas of a God they knew as Adonai (Lord), Yahweh (YHWH), and Elohim (the plural form of God which polytheists took as "gods" and for which the Abrahamic religions of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam took as the plural form of the singular God).

My evangelical church tradition does not delve much into it's ancient past. And when it does it proceeds along a common line of religiously approved divine ancestry. Here, in these recent series of posts I have been expanding from this tradition and have stated that even as the evolution of man was occurring so too was man's idea of God(s) taking root over long years of experience and observation. The first category speaks to man's origins; the other, to man's many layered enculturations of the divine.

Thus and thus we have an expanding evolution of modern man from his physique, his physiology, his sentient consciousness, epistemological awareness, individual and corporate behaviors, psyche, sociology, and religious development to mention a few. Consequently, humanity has been learning and maturing in its councils and actions. 

My surmise here is that long before the bible was written - many, many, many eons of humanity had come-and-gone. As Christians, we like to start with a biblical Adam and Eve, a Serpent in the Garden of Eden, a Tower of Babel, and Noahic Flood. In a sense, all these event-types (or archetypes) had occurred but not as we think of them today with our nice-and-neat Sunday School flannel board pictures and "bible workbooks" from Baker Book House, Tyndale House, and such like.

Instead, picture the figures of "Adam & Eve" in terms of a processual biological evolution which God designed and initiated. The "Serpent and Garden" as the mythic birthplace of the very real-world ingredients of indeterminant freewill. The "Tower of Babel" as a nod by prior Semitic civilizations to their own experience of the mixing of tribal languages in growing population centers throughout Mesopotamia and Greater Syria. And finally, the "Noahic Flood" as the general rising of the oceans up-and-down, again-and-again, with every passing glacial era during Earth's long geologic history - but especially in stone age man's psyche of ice ages over the more recent past 1000,000 years of his evolutionary birth and species' biological development.

Somewhere I read, or heard again, that the great oceans had risen 115 feet during the Pleistocene Era due to the melting of the mighty glaciers spanning the northern 'scapes of the world. As they melted, regional flooding took place often and frequently. By comparison, even today we are going through a warming of the earth due to our own man-made climatic changes. And with it, earth's remaining glaciers are melting... including the polar ice caps. Near term water level predictions are estimating near a 15-20 foot rise in coastal waters around the world. Modern day cities like Miami's Atlantic-archipelago will eventually be underwater along with much of Florida's lowlying lands.

We may concede then that a general global flooding will eventually occur worldwide. It is part of Earth's geologic history - hastened by humanity's pollution - wherein recent evolutionary land masses will again come-and-go, shift-and-move (sic, Continental tectonic plates causing the movement of the continents propelled by the subduction of displaced heat and pressure).

The Noahic Flood then was not one flood but many. Some disastrous. And some annoying. Telling us then that the biblical record in Genesis is not unlike the rest of the bible's storied memories. Each one enculturated at one time or another  in iconoclastic structure to share a quality of view by tribes or nations like Israel of their beliefs and nomadic religion turned "imperial" based upon more recent remembered events affecting their societies.

Now we might impute these climatic changes as divine events but more accuratey they are the resulting temporal changes due to earth's evolutionary processes set in place at creation's birth eons earlier.

Today, meta-modern faiths around the world are once again thinking about God in their minds and hearts due to startling climatic changes being witnessed everywhere around us. Those of faith, like myself, and those not of faith, are asking questions of God, or of society, in general. Humans are borne naturally curious. We examine and critique the processes we see around us.  And are instinctually imaginative. 

For my part, I am trying to redescribe God as the "God above or beyond the biblical page," utilizing the many good lessons and theologies in the Bible's pages and from my Christian heritage while removing, or adding, a more expansive theology better equipped to relate to the contemporary world we live in today.

By which I mean that one should never use the bible to delimit God because their theology does not fit the present context. Nor should we hold God's Spirit back from his work of salvation by our church doctrines and iconoclastic congregations. But I fear we are, and gravely so, and will describe how we have in the next section below.

The take away? We worship a God who expands to the needs and tasks of the present world at hand - thus, my evolving labour on what is becoming known as an Open and Relational Process Theology of Love. As the world changes so does God in his promises of loving care, tender mercies, and redeeming work laid before him. The bible then is a story of God... but not the final story - nor a final theology - about a God willfully connected to us ever-and-ever until our time ends along the evolutionary chain of "being and becoming".

R.E. Slater
March 11, 2023
Revised and Edited March 14, 2023





The Evolution of Man & Religion
Part 1

by R.E. Slater

One Conclusion Among Many

We know from paleo-genetic and paleo-archaeologic samplings that the Semitic and Indo-Asian cultures grew apace with one another during humanity's migratory journeys out of Africa. As they settled and lived within their separate regional geographies they each were experiencing their own histories earlier than the histories of later migratory groups as humanity extended outwards from i) the Greater Mesopotamia & Levant areas and, ii) the Central Indian areas. This is seen on the maps here provided.

For example, Africa had its own lores, legends and empires before, and later, concurrent with, ancient Egypt. Why? Because Africa was settled sooner and traded with each another eons earlier. Later, as other Near Eastern and Indo-Asian cultures (and empires) grew the intermix of their own cultures, ideas, trade, and power were extended into the older settled areas of Old Africa and places lije non-Indian Asia , China, Europe, and Russia.

The Evolution of Religion and Socio-Politics

In the last several posts I have been steadily moving towards the pre-historical times of Stone Age Semitic cultures which developed many, many eons before the pages of the bible were written down... consequently, it is important to realise that what narratives we read of in the bible were but selective cultural beliefs and understandings inherited many thousands of years earlier from prior civilizations. And as they did these beliefs - or theologies - also changed in accordance with greater sentient awareness gained from past experiences and observations.

As example, in our own life histories we would be hard pressed to say what are grandparents believed in their lifetimes or what their faith meant to them. We may know the general outlines of their faith but not much else. So too Israel's early faith as it developed. It may have come from an admixture of polytheistic and animistic beliefs and folklore but over the years God shared himself in their experiences and observations birthing a developing theology we know as Judaism today.

Within ancient Israel (approx., c.2000 BC - 70 AD) the narratives of its oral histories and beliefs were written down somewhere between 750-350 BC. These oral stories were constructed of what they "knew and understood from their geopolitical and religious existential perspectives" and should not be approached as historical or theological "gospel truths". And by these efforts the Hebrews were attempting to write their own "story of the world" from their own self-advantaged histories.

Much like Israel then, we read of faith failures and faith successes. And from such 'earthy" insights we, like they, are also adjusting our own ideas of who God is; what God does (or doesn't do); and even how God behaves in relationship to the world today. Like Israel then, we grow up with our church's teachings of God in religious contexts of lived experiences both individually and corporately.

And like Israel's priests and scribes, we ourselves, like our churches, are adjusting our attitudes and perspectives of God and ourselves by how we feel the world should work - and God in relation to this constructed world within our hearts and minds.

Assumptions of God and Our Responsibilities

I.

Looking backwards we make assumptions about our responsibilities and views of life. Mine own was how my religious culture taught me to read life through the church's views of God and people. But my public education and work-a-day experience in the world taught me that my religious teachings were overly bible-centric with a strong emphasis in it's interpretations of the bible and the narratives held within the bible. Which is all well-and-good except when it isn't.

Eventually we learn to read and live in the world alongside our church's teachings changing as we must when it's teachings become unhelpful to faith's journey. It's not the bible so much as our learned approach to the bible. Which becomes more like wearing spiritual blinders because of the church's interpretations rather than like the Spirit's reading glasses tuned to God's heart rather than religious dictums and legalisms.

Using the bible for our own religious claims about God-and-world seems to forget the more complex truth that we are not absolved from living in love with one another. This conclusion has become a more recent fundamental development in my bible reading and theological formulations. It is significantly different from other church theologies of God which are non-loving as I will explain...

II.

The other assumption I was taught by the church was that Israel's narratives got God right. Again, they did but they didn't....

Israel's God was a violent and avenging God.... But Jesus was nothing if not good, kind, and loving to the religious outsider.

The divine violence thing seems more a descriptor of myself than of God... A behavior which I suppose we all go through in some manner or another when wronged, hurt, injured, or suffering from the cruelty of others.

But from these assumptions of God have come religious wars, societal oppression, and the repugnant labelling of others who are different from ourselves repeating age-old errors of our theologies of God as wrathful and unloving. A God who dominates and rules over his foes. Churches should never be in the business of imperial kingdom-building though we may call it by "nicer" names of "winning communities for Jesus," or "membership classes," "congregational assimilation," and such like. The essence of these statements may be right and honest but the tone or nature of some churches belies their real intentions in oppressing individual rights in the name of God. 

Nor should countries be in the business of sin and cruelty toward one another. Worshipping Gods of warfare is never healthy. But worshiping a God of love can usually be more healthy for a society of people trying to live together with one another.

Results of Our Religious Assumptions

Hence, what kind of God do we picture in our heads and hearts? What kinds of world experiences have given us these pictures? How assured can we be that the religious teaching of God in the bible were correct or incorrect? Why is God so often conflicted with God's self in portrayals of being unpresent then present; vindictive then loving; avenging then forgiving? Questions of Holy Spirit inspiration aside, what spirit are we actually listening to now or then?

When first beginning this website I questioned many times whether worshipping a dipolar God caught between the white-and-black sides of God's Self - sic, the "loving" v "unloving" sides of God's divine essence - whether this depiction of God was a wholly whole picture of God. I'm of the mindset that God is One and not two divided portions of his Divine Essence. That the ruling passion, essence, mind and heart of God is wholly loving.

That there is no room for a "divine" attribute of non-loving (except when beheld in the gods of the pagan world). That all other Divine Attributes are subserviant to God's love. Whether holiness, justice, or passions like zealousness, envy, etc, as described of God in the bible... all these attributes or descriptions of the divine character are founded upon, and derive their source from, God's Love.

And perhaps more helpfully, when introducing a processual theology into the religious world (or the church's) neo-Platonic thoughts of good-and-bad divine entities (gods/polytheism), objects (animism/American folklore) or the ephemeral divine qualities of God's self (dipolar v monopolar monotheism), we might see a fuller divine story of humanity trying to work out what God's loving presence can mean to us in relation to the world. God's responsibilities, care, guidance in loving processual fashion seem the more reasonable than a hard-and-fast dominionist, or judgmental, idol of human creation.

What We Are Taught v Who God Truly Is

A God who is perfectly, fully God and deserving of the title "holy" can only be seen by God's loving care of creation. In the usage of the word "holy" we have as often misspoke it as we have spoken it of God and God's presence.

1 - As in all other attributes=qualities=descriptors of God, divine love must proceed all other attributes to the formulaic Western mindset. Divine love cannot exist with Divine judgment as we think of it. God is not vengeful but restoring. And in that restoration comes goodness not evil. God is not evil. God is loving. Holiness describes the kind of God we worship.

2 - Most of us misuse the word holiness as referring to the absence of sin or evil in God. But holiness is more than these. Holiness refers to God more than the absence of willful harm and cruelty in God. But that in God is love which is neither cruel nor evil.

3 - And further, that this God is wholly whole, wholly holy, wholly UNdivided. That God is NOT a dipolar God but a God who is One. Holiness then refers to God's UNdivided divine Self in perfect congruity with God's divine Self. That God's holiness can be recasted as a fully loving God and not a God of love and wrath divided in God's personage as to who God is.

Conclusions

A processual theology can grant this kind of narrative. A non-processual faith cannot and results in churches today which are not conducting loving ministries to congregants and society but brutalizing their own and other by stories of God which are oppressive. Stories spoken to dominate their congregants with bible-beat-downs with unconstructive/bullying labels, guilts, manipulations, legalisms, harmful pietistic rituals, and inaccurately oppressive pictures of God.

A God who is none of these things. A God which the church has made an idol of from it's own pictures of how the world and God works. But here, at Relevancy22, such a biblical God is anathema. This kind of Christian God is unwanted, unpreached and untrue despite what Israel or the Church have concluded.

The bible-kind-of-God we worship here is a God who is wholly loving, good, kind, ministering, helping, aiding and present in our lives through all our good times and bad, joys and sufferings. This God does not control the world but seeks to redeem the world from itself. Not by the wraths and judgments we bring upon ourselves but through present relationships sharing loving kindness to one another.

The Semitic stories of God are not unlike our own stories of God. A God who is difficult to grasp then as now when read in the limelight of man's own actions. But a God who from the obscurity of the biblical record we see redeeming, rebuilding, resurrecting, reconciling, and renewing all things back to relational wholeness to himself. A God who did all of this through in the person and work of Jesus. This is the true and right version of Israel's bible stories. It is the one which teaches the distance we have to go to be God-like, or godly, or whole, or holy.

R.E. Slater
March 11, 2023
Revised and Edited March 14, 2023









RES - One caveat, "Escape from Africa" refers to drought and climatic conditions.
The voice is robotic but don't let it be offsetting to watching the video. Thank you.


mtDNA shows how humans migrated across the World
Dec 3, 2021

It has been over 20 years since DNA analysis technology began to be used in the field of archaeology. In many countries, scientists are analyzing genes from ancient human fossils and making them into a database so that they can be used for research. Genes extracted from more than 10,000 fossils were extracted, analyzed, and compared.As a result, humans are said to have originated from a woman in Africa about 200,000 years ago. And as a result of genetic analysis of her descendants who lived scattered around the globe, their migration routes were revealed. In this video, their movement paths by era were mapped.



Mitochondrial Eve and Homo Sapiens
in Africa’s Great Rift Valley

Africa's Great Civilizations

PBS Learning Media


Every modern ancestor’s origins can be traced back to Africa, with Homo sapiens found in Africa’s Great Rift Valley about 200,000 years ago.

All humans share a common direct maternal ancestor known as Mitochondrial Eve. She is believed to be a part of a small group of humans who lived in Africa around the time of Idaltu skull.

Mitochondrial DNA found in our cells is the genetic signature that has been passed from from mother to child. Mitochondrial Eve was a woman who lived 200,000 years ago who had enough daughters in a continuous chain that her Mitochondrial DNA survived.

Homo sapiens eventually migrated across the African continent around 120,000 years ago. It is only between 80,000 and 50,000 years ago that some common ancestors began to leave the continent and spread our kind across the rest of the world.

Because of this history, Africa is considered the most genetically diverse of all the continents, with various peoples from the rest of the world forming a subset of that diversity.

The descendants of our common ancestors who remained in Africa passed through many of the same great historical transitions during the same eras as those who migrated.

  • This includes the transition from foraging (hunting and gathering) to farming societies, occurring between 10,000 and 5,000 BC.
  • And transitions like the emergence of towns and urban life that notably began developing in the early fourth millennium BC along the Nubian Nile south of Egypt.
Video Link here:

wosu.pbslearningmedia.org/resource/585719bf-a860-4f09-9888-3a68879df132/mitochondrial-eve-and-homo-sapiens-in-africas-great-rift-valley/?student=true&focus=true

Wednesday, March 8, 2023

Genus Homo - Origin, Timeline, Phylogeny




Human Species Timeline Explained 2020
Sep 22, 2020

After the Big Bang thatoccurredabout 13.8 million years ago, human evolution took its toll ending with us, the Homo sapiens sapiens meaning the wise man.We are the most complex beings on this planet. Standing on our two feet, we are the ones bound to dominate and shape it. How did we get here? is a very long and puzzling story to be told.
Most of the information we get about mankind or the human evolution is through studies of ancient apertures, fossils and primitive tools. There are more than 30 human species that scientists have found through these studies.

All Human Species Origin 2020
Oct 2, 2020

We may all look different and sound different but we all share a common human ancestor that lived more than 7 million years ago. Starting with the first chimps, there are so many hominin species that lived before us. Welcome guys, to another video on human species. We have given you descriptions, we have given you timeline of all these species, a versus video and even a size comparison. This time we are here to give you their origins which is mainly known through fossil sites.

* * * * * * * *

Homo

Homo
Temporal range: Late Pliocene-Present2.8–0 Ma 
Members of Genus Homo.png
Notable members of the genus Homo. Clockwise from upper left: Approximate reconstruction of a Neanderthal († Homo neanderthalensis) skeleton, Human (Homo sapiens) mother and child from India, reconstructed † Homo habilis skull, replica skull of Peking Man (subspecies of † Homo erectus).
Scientific classificatione
Kingdom:Animalia
Phylum:Chordata
Class:Mammalia
Order:Primates
Suborder:Haplorhini
Infraorder:Simiiformes
Family:Hominidae
Subfamily:Homininae
Tribe:Hominini
Genus:Homo
Linnaeus1758
Type species
Homo sapiens
Linnaeus, 1758
Species

For other species or subspecies suggested, see below.

Synonyms
Synonyms

Homo (from Latin homō 'man') is the genus that emerged in the (otherwise extinct) genus Australopithecus that encompasses the extant species Homo sapiens (modern humans), plus several extinct species classified as either ancestral to or closely related to modern humans (depending on the species), most notably H. erectus and H. neanderthalensis. The genus emerged with the appearance of H. habilis just over 2 million years ago.[a] Homo, together with the genus Paranthropus, is probably sister to Australopithecus africanus, which itself had previously split from the lineage of Pan, the chimpanzees.[b][4][5]

Homo erectus appeared about 2 million years ago and, in several early migrations, spread throughout Africa (where it is dubbed H. ergaster) and Eurasia. It is likely that the first human species lived in a hunter-gatherer society and was able to control fire. An adaptive and successful species, H. erectus persisted for more than a million years and gradually diverged into new species by around 500,000 years ago.[c][6]

Anatomically modern humans (Homo sapiens) emerged close to 300,000 to 200,000 years ago,[7] in Africa, and H. neanderthalensis emerged around the same time in Europe and Western AsiaH. sapiens dispersed from Africa in several waves, from possibly as early as 250,000 years ago, and certainly by 130,000 years ago, the so-called Southern Dispersal beginning about 70–50,000 years ago[8][9][10] leading to the lasting colonisation of Eurasia and Oceania by 50,000 years ago. Both in Africa and Eurasia, H. sapiens met with and interbred with archaic humans.[11][12] Separate archaic (non-sapiens) human species are thought to have survived until around 40,000 years ago (Neanderthal extinction).

Names and taxonomy

Evolutionary tree chart emphasizing the subfamily Homininae and the tribe Hominini. After diverging from the line to Ponginae the early Homininae split into the tribes Hominini and Gorillini. The early Hominini split further, separating the line to Homo from the lineage of Pan. Currently, tribe Hominini designates the subtribes Hominina, containing genus HomoPanina, genus Pan; and Australopithecina, with several extinct genera—the subtribes are not labelled on this chart.
A model of the evolution of the genus Homo over the last 2 million years (vertical axis). The rapid "Out of Africa" expansion of H. sapiens is indicated at the top of the diagram, with admixture indicated with Neanderthals, Denisovans, and unspecified archaic African hominins. Late survival of robust australopithecines (Paranthropus) alongside Homo until 1.2 Mya is indicated in purple.

The Latin noun homō (genitive hominis) means "human being" or "man" in the generic sense of "human being, mankind".[d] The binomial name Homo sapiens was coined by Carl Linnaeus (1758).[e][15] Names for other species of the genus were introduced beginning in the second half of the 19th century (H. neanderthalensis 1864, H. erectus 1892).

Even today, the genus Homo has not been strictly defined.[16][17][18] Since the early human fossil record began to slowly emerge from the earth, the boundaries and definitions of the genus Homo have been poorly defined and constantly in flux. Because there was no reason to think it would ever have any additional members, Carl Linnaeus did not even bother to define Homo when he first created it for humans in the 18th century. The discovery of Neanderthal brought the first addition.

The genus Homo was given its taxonomic name to suggest that its member species can be classified as human. And, over the decades of the 20th century, fossil finds of pre-human and early human species from late Miocene and early Pliocene times produced a rich mix for debating classifications. There is continuing debate on delineating Homo from Australopithecus—or, indeed, delineating Homo from Pan. Even so, classifying the fossils of Homo coincides with evidence of: (1) competent human bipedalism in Homo habilis inherited from the earlier Australopithecus of more than four million years ago, as demonstrated by the Laetoli footprints; and (2) human tool culture having begun by 2.5 million years ago.[citation needed]

From the late-19th to mid-20th centuries, a number of new taxonomic names including new generic names were proposed for early human fossils; most have since been merged with Homo in recognition that Homo erectus was a single species with a large geographic spread of early migrations. Many such names are now dubbed as "synonyms" with Homo, including Pithecanthropus,[19] Protanthropus,[20] Sinanthropus,[21] Cyphanthropus,[22] Africanthropus,[23] Telanthropus,[24] Atlanthropus,[25] and Tchadanthropus.[26][27]

Classifying the genus Homo into species and subspecies is subject to incomplete information and remains poorly done. This has led to using common names ("Neanderthal" and "Denisovan"), even in scientific papers, to avoid trinomial names or the ambiguity of classifying groups as incertae sedis (uncertain placement)—for example, H. neanderthalensis vs. H. sapiens neanderthalensis, or H. georgicus vs. H. erectus georgicus.[28] Some recently extinct species in the genus Homo have only recently been discovered and do not as yet have consensus binomial names (see Denisova hominin).[29] Since the beginning of the Holocene, it is likely that Homo sapiens (anatomically modern humans) has been the only extant species of Homo.

John Edward Gray (1825) was an early advocate of classifying taxa by designating tribes and families.[30] Wood and Richmond (2000) proposed that Hominini ("hominins") be designated as a tribe that comprised all species of early humans and pre-humans ancestral to humans back to after the chimpanzee-human last common ancestor; and that Hominina be designated a subtribe of Hominini to include only the genus Homo — that is, not including the earlier upright walking hominins of the Pliocene such as AustralopithecusOrrorin tugenensisArdipithecus, or Sahelanthropus.[31] Designations alternative to Hominina existed, or were offered: Australopithecinae (Gregory & Hellman 1939) and Preanthropinae (Cela-Conde & Altaba 2002);[32][33][34] and later, Cela-Conde and Ayala (2003) proposed that the four genera AustralopithecusArdipithecusPraeanthropus, and Sahelanthropus be grouped with Homo within Hominini (sans Pan).[33]

Evolution

Australopithecus and the appearance of Homo

Several species, including Australopithecus garhiAustralopithecus sedibaAustralopithecus africanus, and Australopithecus afarensis, have been proposed as the ancestor or sister of the Homo lineage.[35][36] These species have morphological features that align them with Homo, but there is no consensus as to which gave rise to Homo.

Especially since the 2010s, the delineation of Homo in Australopithecus has become more contentious. Traditionally, the advent of Homo has been taken to coincide with the first use of stone tools (the Oldowan industry), and thus by definition with the beginning of the Lower Palaeolithic. But in 2010, evidence was presented that seems to attribute the use of stone tools to Australopithecus afarensis around 3.3 million years ago, close to a million years before the first appearance of Homo.[37] LD 350-1, a fossil mandible fragment dated to 2.8 Mya, discovered in 2013 in Afar, Ethiopia, was described as combining "primitive traits seen in early Australopithecus with derived morphology observed in later Homo.[38] Some authors would push the development of Homo close to or even past 3 Mya.[f] Others have voiced doubt as to whether Homo habilis should be included in Homo, proposing an origin of Homo with Homo erectus at roughly 1.9 Mya instead.[39]

The most salient physiological development between the earlier australopithecine species and Homo is the increase in endocranial volume (ECV), from about 460 cm3 (28 cu in) in A. garhi to 660 cm3 (40 cu in) in H. habilis and further to 760 cm3 (46 cu in) in H. erectus, 1,250 cm3 (76 cu in) in H. heidelbergensis and up to 1,760 cm3 (107 cu in) in H. neanderthalensis. However, a steady rise in cranial capacity is observed already in Autralopithecina and does not terminate after the emergence of Homo, so that it does not serve as an objective criterion to define the emergence of the genus.[40]

Homo habilis

Homo habilis emerged about 2.1 Mya. Already before 2010, there were suggestions that H. habilis should not be placed in genus Homo but rather in Australopithecus.[41][42] The main reason to include H. habilis in Homo, its undisputed tool use, has become obsolete with the discovery of Australopithecus tool use at least a million years before H. habilis.[37] Furthermore, H. habilis was long thought to be the ancestor of the more gracile Homo ergaster (Homo erectus). In 2007, it was discovered that H. habilis and H. erectus coexisted for a considerable time, suggesting that H. erectus is not immediately derived from H. habilis but instead from a common ancestor.[43] With the publication of Dmanisi skull 5 in 2013, it has become less certain that Asian H. erectus is a descendant of African H. ergaster which was in turn derived from H. habilis. Instead, H. ergaster and H. erectus appear to be variants of the same species, which may have originated in either Africa or Asia[44] and widely dispersed throughout Eurasia (including EuropeIndonesiaChina) by 0.5 Mya.[45]

Homo erectus

Homo erectus has often been assumed to have developed anagenetically from H. habilis from about 2 million years ago. This scenario was strengthened with the discovery of Homo erectus georgicus, early specimens of H. erectus found in the Caucasus, which seemed to exhibit transitional traits with H. habilis. As the earliest evidence for H. erectus was found outside of Africa, it was considered plausible that H. erectus developed in Eurasia and then migrated back to Africa. Based on fossils from the Koobi Fora Formation, east of Lake Turkana in Kenya, Spoor et al. (2007) argued that H. habilis may have survived beyond the emergence of H. erectus, so that the evolution of H. erectus would not have been anagenetically, and H. erectus would have existed alongside H. habilis for about half a million years (1.9 to 1.4 million years ago), during the early Calabrian.[43]

A separate South African species Homo gautengensis has been postulated as contemporary with H. erectus in 2010.[46]

Phylogeny

A taxonomy of Homo within the great apes is assessed as follows, with Paranthropus and Homo emerging within Australopithecus (shown here cladistically granting ParanthropusKenyanthropus, and Homo).[a][b][6][47][4][5][48][49][50][51][52][53][54][excessive citations] The exact phylogeny within Australopithecus is still highly controversial. Approximate radiation dates of daughter clades are shown in millions of years ago (Mya).[51] Graecopithecus, SahelanthropusOrrorin, possibly sisters to Australopithecus, are not shown here. Note that the naming of groupings is sometimes muddled as often certain groupings are presumed before any cladistic analysis is performed.[49]

Hominoidea

Hylobatidae (gibbons)

Hominidae

Ponginae (orangutans)

Homininae

Gorillini (gorillas)

Hominini

Panina (chimpanzees)

Australopithecines (incl. AustralopithecusKenyanthropusParanthropusHomo)

(7.8)
(8.8)
(15.7)
(20.4 Mya)
Australopithecines

Ardipithecus ramidus (†)

Australopithecus s.l.

Australopithecus anamensis s.s. (†3.8)

Australopithecus afarensis (†)

Australopithecus garhi (†)

Australopithecus deyiremeda (†3.4)

Kenyanthropus platyops (†3.3)

Australopithecus africanus (†2.1)

Paranthropus (†1.2)

Homo

Homo habilis (†1.5) Habilis Skull.png

Homo rudolfensis (†1.9) Rudolfensis Skull.png

H. erectus s.l.

Homo ergaster (†1.4) Ergaster Skull.png

African Homo erectus s.s. (†) Erectus Skull.png

Asian Homo erectus s.s. (†0.1) Erectus Skull.png

(1.2)

Homo antecessor Antecessor Skull.png (†0.8)

Homo heidelbergensis
Neandersovans

H. neanderthalensis (†0.05) Neanderthalensis Skull.png

Denisova people (†0.05)

(0.3)

Homo sapiens Sapiens Skull.png

(0.5)
(1.9)

Australopithecus sediba (†2.0)

Homo floresiensis (†0.05)

(3.4)
(3.9)
(7.3 Mya)

Several of the Homo lineages appear to have surviving progeny through introgression into other lines. Genetic evidence indicates an archaic lineage separating from the other human lineages 1.5 million years ago, perhaps H. erectus, may have interbred into the Denisovans about 55,000 years ago.[55][48][56] Fossil evidence shows H. erectus s.s. survived at least until 117,000 yrs ago, and the even more basal H. floresiensis survived until 50,000 years ago. A 1.5-million-year H. erectus-like lineage appears to have made its way into modern humans through the Denisovans and specifically into the Papuans and aboriginal Australians.[48] The genomes of non-sub-Saharan African humans show what appear to be numerous independent introgression events involving Neanderthal and in some cases also Denisovans around 45,000 years ago.[57][56] The genetic structure of some sub-Saharan African groups seems to be indicative of introgression from a west Eurasian population some 3,000 years ago.[52][58]

Some evidence suggests that Australopithecus sediba could be moved to the genus Homo, or placed in its own genus, due to its position with respect to e.g. H. habilis and H. floresiensis.[50][59]

Dispersal

By about 1.8 million years ago, H. erectus is present in both East Africa (H. ergaster) and in Western Asia (H. georgicus). The ancestors of Indonesian H. floresiensis may have left Africa even earlier.[g][50]

Successive dispersals of   Homo erectus (yellow),   H. neanderthalensis (ochre) and   H. sapiens (red)

Homo erectus and related or derived archaic human species over the next 1.5 million years spread throughout Africa and Eurasia[60][61] (see: Recent African origin of modern humans). Europe is reached by about 0.5 Mya by Homo heidelbergensis.

Homo neanderthalensis and H. sapiens develop after about 300 kya. Homo naledi is present in Southern Africa by 300 kya.

H. sapiens soon after its first emergence spread throughout Africa, and to Western Asia in several waves, possibly as early as 250 kya, and certainly by 130 kya. In July 2019, anthropologists reported the discovery of 210,000 year old remains of a H. sapiens and 170,000 year old remains of a H. neanderthalensis in Apidima CavePeloponneseGreece, more than 150,000 years older than previous H. sapiens finds in Europe.[62][63][64]

Most notable is the Southern Dispersal of H. sapiens around 60 kya, which led to the lasting peopling of Oceania and Eurasia by anatomically modern humans.[11] H. sapiens interbred with archaic humans both in Africa and in Eurasia, in Eurasia notably with Neanderthals and Denisovans.[65][66]

Among extant populations of H. sapiens, the deepest temporal division is found in the San people of Southern Africa, estimated at close to 130,000 years,[67] or possibly more than 300,000 years ago.[68] Temporal division among non-Africans is of the order of 60,000 years in the case of Australo-Melanesians. Division of Europeans and East Asians is of the order of 50,000 years, with repeated and significant admixture events throughout Eurasia during the Holocene.

Archaic human species may have survived until the beginning of the Holocene, although they were mostly extinct or absorbed by the expanding H. sapiens populations by 40 kya (Neanderthal extinction).