Around 70,000 years ago the earth turned very ugly and wiped out all humans save for a few thousand living in southern Africa coastal caves.
I am aware the literature postulates a genetic bottleneck some 70,000 years ago, possibly due to the Toba eruption. However, this speculation is controversial as shown here
Oppenheimer accepts that the arguments proposed by Rampino and Ambrose are plausible, but they are not yet compelling for two reasons: it is difficult to estimate the global and regional climatic impacts of the eruption, and, at the same time, we cannot conclude with any confidence that the eruption actually preceded the bottleneck. Furthermore, a 2010 geneticists' study seems to question the foundations of the Toba bottleneck theory: analysis of Alu sequences across the entire human genome has shown that the effective human population was already less than 26,000 as far back as 1.2 million years ago, suggesting that no Toba bottleneck was necessary. Possible explanations for the low population size of human ancestors may include repeated population bottlenecks or periodic replacement events from competing Homo subspecies.
What I am puzzled about is how this hypothesis states Toba "wiped out all humans save for a few thousand living in southern Africa coastal caves." Do you have any sources for this information?
In the caves archaeologists found ochre, fancy tools, and lots of bivalve leftovers. These were our ancestors. Scientists found complex tools and red ochre at a location in Pinnacle Point South Africa. They also found lots of bivalve left overs.
How does the consumption of clams provide evidence for the aquatic ape hypothesis? Can humans; well known for their ability to consume virtually anything including pooped out coffee beans, maggot cheese, and poisonous fugu (source)
show anything other than that humans could easily find things to eat in tidepools as, among many others, coastal California Indians easily accomplished? I have eaten a few things from tidepools myself, such as raw jingle or cooked abalone and Gooeduk clam.
By 70,000 years ago this culture spread to other coastal sites. Out of these oyster eaters came all the rest of us. It has been postulated the ready protein the community had fueled the final brain development needed for our modern human intellect. A coastal cave site used between 75,000 years and 55,000 years yielded the same inventive tools and ochre use, and lots of bivalve feast leftovers.
So how does it follow that one specific set of coastal humans from 70,000 years ago are the common ancestor of all? Is the evidence mitochondrial, from the Y-chromosome? what is the source so we can all check its accuracy through references and peer-reviewed research? Have all other potential ancestor populations other than those from caves in southern Africa been convincingly ruled out as ancestors?
I say, if clam eating enabled brain enhancement for H sapiens, then it follows the full hominid line might have followed the same successful food strategy, being steady brain growth followed the hominid succession.
Why would eating clams enable more brain development than eating bone marrow, antelope, pheasants, or eggs? Are you referring to a high protein diet?
Unconvincing so far, please elaborate.
Edited by anglagard, : elaboration.
Edited by anglagard, : add bone marrow (another speculated source of protein)
The idea of the sacred is quite simply one of the most conservative notions in any culture, because it seeks to turn other ideas - uncertainty, progress, change - into crimes.
This rudderless world is not shaped by vague metaphysical forces. It is not God who kills the children. Not fate that butchers them or destiny that feeds them to the dogs. It’s us. Only us. - the character Rorschach in Watchmen