quote:Originally posted by TheAmericanPatriot: You may be aware that research just out of the University of Toronto wants to say that primates left africa, went to Europe and returned as humans. That, if correct, would negate that idea that the origin of man was in Africa. Now, it may prove to be incorrect but the lesson in this research is that we are still learning about that process and the jury is not yet in.
Keep in mind that none of thois has anything to do with man as we know him today.
Lmao Patriot you're a sad individual. You will believe anything that Eurocentrists who will also go to dire lengths to disconnect themselves, and discredit Africa as the cradle of pretty much everything. It's pitiful, there is no debate. I already refuted your Toronto claim. Take your final nail in your coffin chump, and rest eternally.........The research, at the University of Cambridge and funded by the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council (BBSRC), represents a final blow for supporters of a multiple origins of humans theory.
New Research Proves Single Origin Of Humans In Africa
ScienceDaily (July 19, 2007) — New research published in the journal Nature (19 July) has proved the single origin of humans theory by combining studies of global genetic variations in humans with skull measurements across the world. The research, at the University of Cambridge and funded by the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council (BBSRC), represents a final blow for supporters of a multiple origins of humans theory.
Competing theories on the origins of anatomically modern humans claim that either humans originated from a single point in Africa and migrated across the world, or different populations independently evolved from homo erectus to home sapiens in different areas.
The Cambridge researchers studied genetic diversity of human populations around the world and measurements of over 6,000 skulls from across the globe in academic collections. Their research knocks down one of the last arguments in favour of multiple origins. The new findings show that a loss in genetic diversity the further a population is from Africa is mirrored by a loss in variation in physical attributes.
Lead researcher, Dr Andrea Manica from the University's Department of Zoology, explained: "The origin of anatomically modern humans has been the focus of much heated debate. Our genetic research shows the further modern humans have migrated from Africa the more genetic diversity has been lost within a population.
"However, some have used skull data to argue that modern humans originated in multiple spots around the world. We have combined our genetic data with new measurements of a large sample of skulls to show definitively that modern humans originated from a single area in Sub-saharan Africa."
The research team found that genetic diversity decreased in populations the further away from Africa they were - a result of 'bottlenecks' or events that temporarily reduced populations during human migration.They then studied an exceptionally large sample of human skulls. Taking a set of measurements across all the skulls the team showed that not only was variation highest amongst the sample from south eastern Africa but that it did decrease at the same rate as the genetic data the further the skull was away from Africa.
To ensure the validity of their single origin evidence the researchers attempted to use their data to find non-African origins for modern humans. Research Dr Francois Balloux explains: "To test the alternative theory for the origin of modern humans we tried to find an additional, non-African origin. We found this just did not work. Our findings show that humans originated in a single area in Sub-Saharan Africa."
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally brayed by AmericanPatriot: You may be aware that research just out of the University of Toronto wants to say that primates left africa, went to Europe and returned as humans.
Since you're the one proposing this fallacy I hope you have the balls and will also take responsibility to address the following. Omo I and others from over 150kya were much like Ethiopians and Southern Sudanese today.
quote: "From the size of the preserved bones, we estimated that Omo I was tall and slender, most likely around 5'10" tall and about 155 pounds," University of New Mexico anthropologist Osbjorn Pearson, who co-authored at least two of the new papers, told Discovery News.
Pearson said another, later fossil was also recently found. It too belonged to a "moderately tall -- around 5'9" -- and slender individual."
"Taken together, the remains show that these early modern humans were...much like the people in southern Ethiopia and the southern Sudan today," Pearson said.
Or perhaps you'd be able to tell us why humans in African were already behaving modernly and expressing cognitive abstract thinking, 164kya in Africa? Whereas, modern humans didn't even reach Europe until 40-45kya, AmericanPatriot can you explain this? I really doubt you can, I actually doubt you will even address this post. Meanwhile, you have the audacity to call yourself a history teacher.....??
quote:Earliest Evidence Of Modern Humans Detected
— Evidence of early humans living on the coast in South Africa, harvesting food from the sea, employing complex bladelet tools and using red pigments in symbolic behavior 164,000 years ago , far earlier than previously documented, is being reported in the journal Nature.
The international team of researchers reporting the findings include Curtis Marean, a paleoanthropologist with the Institute of Human Origins at Arizona State University and three graduate students in the School of Human Evolution and Social Change.
"Our findings show that at 164,000 years ago in coastal South Africa humans expanded their diet to include shellfish and other marine resources, perhaps as a response to harsh environmental conditions," notes Marean, a professor in ASU's School of Human Evolution and Social Change. "This is the earliest dated observation of this behavior."
quote:Discovery Of The Oldest Adornments In The World
ScienceDaily (June 18, 2007) — The discovery of small perforated sea shells, in the Cave of Pigeons in Taforalt, eastern Morocco, has shown that the use of bead adornments in North Africa is older than thought. Dating from 82 000 years ago , the beads are thought to be the oldest in the world. As adornments, together with art, burial and the use of pigments, are considered to be among the most conclusive signs of the acquisition of symbolic thought and of modern cognitive abilities, this study is leading researchers to question their ideas about the origins of modern humans. The study was carried out by a multidisciplinary team made up of researchers at CNRS, working with scientists from Morocco, the UK, Australia and Germany.
quote:World's Oldest Ritual Discovered -- Worshipped The Python 70,000 Years Ago
A startling archaeological discovery this summer changes our understanding of human history. While, up until now, scholars have largely held that man's first rituals were carried out over 40, 000 years ago in Europe, it now appears that they were wrong about both the time and place.
Associate Professor Sheila Coulson, from the University of Oslo, can now show that modern humans, Homo sapiens, have performed advanced rituals in Africa for 70,000 years. She has, in other words, discovered mankind's oldest known ritual.
The archaeologist made the surprising discovery while she was studying the origin of the Sanpeople. A group of the San live in the sparsely inhabited area of north-western Botswana known as Ngamiland.
Coulson made the discovery while searching for artifacts from the Middle Stone Age in the only hills present for hundreds of kilometers in any direction. This group of small peaks within the Kalahari Desert is known as the Tsodilo Hills and is famous for having the largest concentration of rock paintings in the world.
quote: 'Modern' Behavior Began 40,000 Years Ago In Africa, Evidence Suggests
-- Excavations from the Enkapune Ya Muto (EYM) rock shelter in the central Rift Valley of Kenya offer the best evidence yet that modern human behavior originated in Africa more than 40,000 years ago. They also suggest that by that time our earlier selves sealed social alliances and prevailed over others by giving token gifts, in this case, beads. So says archaeologist Stanley Ambrose, a professor at the University of Illinois.
Ambrose, an expert on stone tools, paleoecology and stable isotope biogeochemistry, has found that his EYM site "contains perhaps the earliest example of what we think of as an Upper Paleolithic stone-tool technology, and then later in time, ostrich eggshell-bead technology -- the earliest evidence for ornamentation, which may imply a new kind of adaptive social system."
In one of the oldest layers, Ambrose found the stone tools -- "possibly the oldest example of Later Stone Age or European equivalent Upper Paleolithic stone-tool technology. The blade-based tools are at least 46,000 years old, but may be as much as 50,000 years old -- older than the oldest previously known industry of its kind, from Israel."
quote: This lecture was delivered by Dr. Ian Tattersall at The Metropolitan Museum of Art on the occasion of the symposium "Genesis: Exploration of Origins" on March 7, 2003. This symposium was held in conjunction with the special exhibition, "Genesis: Ideas of Origin in African Sculpture," and was made possible through the support of The Ford Foundation.
"The most remarkable early evidence of symbolic activity in Africa comes in the form of the recent find of engraved ochre plaques, such as this one, from Blombos Cave on the southern coast of Africa (Fig. 10). This is an unequivocally symbolic object, even if we cannot directly discern the significance of the geometric design that the plaque bears; and it is dated to around 70,000 years ago, over 30,000 years before anything equivalent is found in Europe. To evidence such as this can be added suggestions of a symbolic organization of space at the site of Klasies River Mouth (Fig. 11), also near the southern tip of Africa, at over 100,000 years ago. Pierced shells, with the strong implication of stringing for body ornamentation, are known from Porc-Epic Cave in Ethiopia at around 70,000 years ago. Bone tools of the kind introduced much later to Europe by the Cro-Magnons, are found at the Congolese site of Katanda, dated to perhaps 80,000 years ago. Blade tool industries, again formerly associated principally with the Cro-Magnons, are found at least sporadically at sites in Africa that date to as much as a quarter of a million years ago. Also in the economic/technological realm, such activities as flint-mining, pigment-processing and long-distance trade in useful materials are documented in Africa up to about 100,000 years ago. These and other early African innovations are reviewed by McBrearty and Brooks (2000)."
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote: That's why I say that the hypothesis that M168 suggests that all males in areas not called Africa descend from members of only one group that migrated east into other areas is just a plausible hypothesis--and not gospel truth science.
It's not a hypothesis you reject. A hypothesis is an educated **guess**. M168 is a genetic fact. I am pretty sure you're a dogmatist. Man walked with dinosaurs too huh?
quote: Reasoning analogically: I mentioned the more than a single migration from East Asia and possibly elsewhere into the Americas. I add to that claim the notion that on the MtDNA side Europe received at least 7 separate migrations at different times into that Eurasian peninsula. See Brian Sykes--"The Seven Daughters of Eve", for example.
Lamin, how many times does this have to be explained to you? See, you have this old style of thinking, of where you're like Clyde Winters and don't understand genetics and what it can tell us. I implore you to find something that disproves OOA. OOA = recent single origin in East Africa for all non Africans.
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
Spencer Wells, in his book, The Journey of Man-A Genetic Odyssey, describes the history of our Y-chromosome. The following is excerpted from Well's book.
Genetic "Adam" Males all over the world have a set of markers, particular letters in the four-letter genetic alphabet, on their Y-chromosomes. Once a particular marker appears by mutation in a man, all of his descendants will also carry that marker. If we compile information on a large set of markers and project them back in time using computer algorithms, we find that the trail of mutations coalesces in a single Y-chromosome whose owner lived, according to the genetic dating, some 60,000 years ago. Actually, this date is rather uncertain since the 95% confidence interval is 40,000 to 140,000 years ago. Other data suggest that the date was probably a little older than 60,000 years ago, perhaps about 100,000 years ago. At that time, a mutation arose, which is now carried by every male on the planet. This man has been dubbed "Genetic Adam," though this is a misnomer since he was certainly not the first male modern human. His father was undoubtedly fully as human as he was. The "silent" nature of mutations in non-functional regions of the Y-chromosome means that none of "Adam's" contemporaries would have thought that there was anything out of the ordinary about him-indeed there probably wasn't. There were also many other males living at the same time, but they did not carry the same mutation and none of the male lines from them survived down to the present.
Genetic Adam lived in Africa, probably on the plains of East Africa. He may have resembled the Han people who live in southern Africa today, though earlier they had lived over a wide area of eastern and southern Africa.
M94 "Adam's" descendant identified by the mutation M94, which we Haplogroup G folk carry, lived on the plains of East Africa some 75,000 years ago. He is the ancestor of the overwhelming majority of males today because it is his progeny who "founded" all the Haplogroups B through R. Only Haplogroup A, which until fairly recently was confined to sub-Saharan Africa, does not carry M94. Everyone else is descended from M94 and carries the M94 mutation. Many of his descendants lived along the northeast African coasts.
M168 "M94's" descendant M168 lived about 60,000 years ago, perhaps in the area of today's Ethiopia. He too is our ancestor and we carry his M168 mutation. His descendants make up Haplogroups C-R. It is believed that increasing ice in the far north dried up the African climate to the extent that at least two different groups of M168's descendants left Africa in search of adequate food supplies, or perhaps just seeking new lands. Everyone outside of Africa, and quite a few people still in Africa, descend from M168. The first wave of his descendants left Africa close to 60,000 years ago and are believed to have followed the southern coastline of Asia eastward. Sea level at the time was as much as 400 feet lower than it is now. They and their descendants ended up in Southeast Asia, Australia, south China, and the Pacific Islands. A few even joined their (by then) distant cousins in North America some 10,000 years ago.
A second wave of M168's descendants went north and east out of the Sahara area (forced out in a period of drying) through Egypt into the Middle East. The ancestors of future Haplogroup G were among them.
M89 M168's descendant M89 lived about 45,000 years ago probably in modern-day Iraq. He was the founder of macro-haplogroup F. His descendants include all members of Haplogroups G-R. That means that he is the ancestor of virtually everyone in Europe and the Middle East, and of the vast majority of Asians and Native Americans.
A large group of M89's descendants moved up into central Asia above the Caspian Sea. It was very cold there near the edge of the great northern ice pack. Life was harsh but food was plentiful. Vast herds of big game thronged the tundra and the grasslands south of the ice pack A new mutation arose here, M9, that founded a new Haplogroup K, the "father" of the Eurasian Haplogroups L-R, whose descentants spread over most of Europe, Asia and the Americas. Half of Europeans today belong to this haplogroup, but our Haplogroup G Y-chromosomes are only cousins of these. Many of M89's descendants stayed in or near the Middle East and perhaps some even returned to northeastern Africa. New mutations among them gave rise to the Haplogroups G-J.
M201-Founder of Haplogroup G The first guy to have the M201 mutation which distinguishes our Haplogroup G is thought to have lived about 30,000 years ago along the eastern edge of the Middle East, perhaps as far east as the Himalayan foothills in Pakistan or India. He has had relatively few descendants. Some of them went east on into Southeast Asia, south China and the Pacific Islands, but most moved back into the Middle East. Then about 10,000 years ago things began to change for the members of the four Haplogroups G-J. Prior to this time all humans were hunter-gatherers. The people of what was known as the "Fertile Cresent" developed agriculture and the world would never be the same again. Population could expand rapidly and farmers began moving out of the Middle East, through the islands and along the shores of the Mediterranean, through Turkey into the Balkans and the Caucasus Mountains.
It was once thought that the advancing farmers must have displaced or eliminated the hunter-gatherers of Europe. However the DNA studies have shown that the spread of agriculture did involve the movement of some people into Europe who had not been there before, but largely the spread of farming was through the adoption of the practice by the existing Europeans. An hypothesis which is growing stronger recently is that these same people at the same time may have introduced the Indo-European language into north India, the mid-East and Europe. Indo-European is the parent language for Greek, Latin, Sanskrit, Germanic and hence of most of the other languages of the mid-east, north India and Europe.
To be more specific about where Gs are to be found today: those that went east have very small numbers of living male-line descendant members in China, Indonesia, Taiwan, the Philippines, and the Polynesian Islands of the Pacific. Those that went north have small numbers of living male-line descendant G-folk in Syria (Arab), Russia (Adygeans), Uzbekistan (Tartars and Karakalpaks), Mongolia, and western China (Uygurs). Those that went west and north live today in Italy, Sicily, Hungary, Austria, Germany, France, Norway and Sweden. In the Republic of Georgia (Caucasus Mountains south of Russia, north of Turkey) members of G make up as much as 30% of the population. There are 14% on the island of Sardinia, 10% in north central Italy, 8% in northern Spain, almost 7% in Turkey, and lesser percentages in the Czech Republic, Slovakia, the Ukraine, Lebanon, Greece, Hungary, Albania, Croatia, and Ethiopia. G is still represented in the Middle East--some of these are Arab, some are Jews, many are neither. Across northwestern Europe, G haplotypes occur at a low frequency, 1-3%.
Our Cousins, M52, M170, 12f2.1 The mutations M52, M170, and 12f2.1 gave rise to Haplogroups H, I, and J, which are "brother" haplogroups of G. H is largely confined to the Indian subcontinent. I spread up through central Europe and into Scandinavia, where it is well represented today. J is very common in the Middle East, where many Jews, Arabs, and others belong to it. These three haplogroups probably arose between 20,000 and 30,000 years ago. Haplogroups J2 and E3b, along with G, came to Europe primarily during the spread of agriculture.[/quote]
Thus:
1)Very possibly not just one group of humans migrated out of Africa in the past--both assumedly with the M168 marker dominant. But there would be many others in the migratory groups who would not carry M168.
2)There is a plethora of subsequent mutations for those who migrated to Eurasia and the Americas but relatively very few for those who did not migrate Eastwards from the source land mass of Africa to another.
3) Haplogroup A precedes all the other haplogroups--so the question is why isn't it rather than M94 and M168 seen as the parent lineage of the rest of the world?
4) It should be noted that the Y and MtDNA chromosomes are mere markers and that the bearers of novel sex-linked mutations would also carry the whole cluster of autosomal material of their group. In other words the M168 carrier would not be phenotypically distinguishable from from the kin members of his group.
1)Very possibly not just one group of humans migrated out of Africa in the past--both assumedly with the M168 marker dominant. But there would be many others in the migratory groups who would not carry M168.
Your own post answered your question..... and the reason he states it's a misnomer to call the M168 mutation Adam for all humans, is because all contemporary Africans do not descend from that East African population identified by M168, as explained ad Nauseum.
Actually, this date is rather uncertain since the 95% confidence interval is 40,000 to 140,000 years ago. Other data suggest that the date was probably a little older than 60,000 years ago, perhaps about 100,000 years ago. At that time, a mutation arose, which is now carried by every male on the planet. This man has been dubbed "Genetic Adam," though this is a misnomer since he was certainly not the first male modern human.--Spencer Wells
quote:2)There is a plethora of subsequent mutations for those who migrated to Eurasia and the Americas but relatively very few for those who did not migrate Eastwards from the source land mass of Africa to another.
Lamin, regardless of mutations OOA, all non African lineages can be traced back to the M168 mutation. There is no debate. Sorry.
quote: 3) Haplogroup A precedes all the other haplogroups--so the question is why isn't it rather than M94 and M168 seen as the parent lineage of the rest of the world?
Because Haplogroup CT contains the M168 change, which is present in all Y-chromosome haplogroups except A and B and is therefore the common ancestral type of all early migration out of Africa according to genetics which prove OOA.
quote: 4) It should be noted that the Y and MtDNA chromosomes are mere markers and that the bearers of novel sex-linked mutations would also carry the whole cluster of autosomal material of their group. In other words the M168 carrier would not be phenotypically distinguishable from from the kin members of his group.
Cavalli-Sforza: Genes, Culture, and Human Evolution. Pg 187.
..."In other words, all non-Africans carry M168. Of course, Africans carrying the M168 mutation today are the descendants of the African subpopulation from which the migrants originated.... Thus, the Australian/Eurasian Adam (the ancestor of all non-Africans) was an East African Man."Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
Haplogroup A precedes all the other haplogroups--so the question is why isn't it rather than M94 and M168 seen as the parent lineage of the rest of the world?
Having edited my initial reply, we have...
M91 (associated with Hg A) is of course the oldest attestable lineage [not necessarily common recent ancestor] of *all* contemporary males.
When one speaks of M168, one is naturally referring to the oldest common recent ancestor of *just* non-African males, even though they share this ancestry with a portion of African male population. The oldest attestable common recent ancestor that non-Africans share with their African M168-descendent counterparts, is associated with M94 and M139 mutations [named Hg BT]
While non-African males essentially descend from the M168-bearing ancestor [regardless of how many mutations had occurred over time], *not* all African males descend from this ancestor; there are Africans who do not have this lineage. There are *major* African male lineages free of M168 ancestry!
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Of course the whole thing is geared to the so-called non-African audience--that's why there's all the fuss about the so-called "Eurasian Adam". Unbiased analysis would focus on haplogroup A--and not on M168.
They are all amazed that they made it out of the place they labeled Africa--or so-called "sub-Saharan Africa". I just don't see why they are so worked up about this.
Posts: 5492 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Of course the whole thing is geared to the so-called non-African audience--that's why there's all the fuss about the so-called "Eurasian Adam". Unbiased analysis would focus on haplogroup A--and not on M168.
Not really, educated persons will understand that...
Cavalli-Sforza: Genes, Culture, and Human Evolution. Pg 187.
..."In other words, all non-Africans carry M168. Of course, Africans carrying the M168 mutation today are the descendants of the African subpopulation from which the migrants originated.... Thus, the Australian/Eurasian Adam (the ancestor of all non-Africans) was an East African Man."
^^^^The above is why Eurocentrists spend so much time trying to make East Africans into "Caucasoids", or ancient Africans into generalized moderns, which just doesn't hold up under scientific scrutiny.......
quote: "From the size of the preserved bones, we estimated that Omo I was tall and slender, most likely around 5'10" tall and about 155 pounds," University of New Mexico anthropologist Osbjorn Pearson, who co-authored at least two of the new papers, told Discovery News.
Pearson said another, later fossil was also recently found. It too belonged to a "moderately tall -- around 5'9" -- and slender individual."
"Taken together, the remains show that these early modern humans were...much like the people in southern Ethiopia and the southern Sudan today," Pearson said.
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, it comes as no mystery that Europeans are generally interested in anything that more immediately relates to things European, and hence, have the tendency to artificially start from history tied into such. That's where the motivation for the unnecessary "Eurasian Adam" biblical eponym *in science* comes from [the "Greek Miracle" or second-coming "Greek Miracle"/the so-called "Renaissance" rebirth scenario are other examples]. Science should be separated from religion as much as possible. If eurocentric extremists could help it, Africa would be totally out of the picture, where humanity's origin is concerned...or anything else for that matter.
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by lamin: Unbiased analysis would focus on haplogroup A--and not on M168.
Haplogroup A is essentially non-existent in non-Africans, including Europeans, short of any rare occasion of post-OOA migration of Africans carrying this lineage to non-African territory. This being the case, Eurocentric mentality doesn't immediately relate to it, and so, goes back to the point I just made.
-------------------- The Complete Picture of the Past tells Us what Not to Repeat Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yeh, it's like any movie, film or story set in Africa has to have a "white hero"--no matter how distorted and ridiculous the whole thing becomes.
Cf: Danny Glover and his film on Toussaint of Haiti complaining that he was turned down right and left in the U.S. and Europe when looking for money for the film. He says he was told that there was no "white hero" so he couldn't get the support.
Posts: 5492 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
It would rather mention some supposed study than agree with the concensus when it normally agrees with anything it even considers mainstream (so long as it supports its Eurocentric agenda - actually, anything that doesn't or supports the afrocentric agenda 'is not mainstream' - according to its own words).
It would rather not link to or even name the "study" (as it is well aware of its own lack of reading comprehension skills and of the number of times clown scholars have had their own sources directly debunk them).
It would rather not explain *why* the claims of said study are more accurate or make more sense (for obvious reasons), or atleast explain the pros and cons of the OutOfAfrica consensus vs those of the claims of the "study".
quote:Now, it may prove to be incorrect but the lesson in this research is that we are still learning about that process and the jury is not yet in.
Looks like i made a mistake in ignoring it this time, this time it said somehting different.
Little does it know that there is no final jury in science, other than the perpetual testing of different ideas to learn more and more about something.
quote:Originally posted by lamin: Yeh, it's like any movie, film or story set in Africa has to have a "white hero"--no matter how distorted and ridiculous the whole thing becomes.
Cf: Danny Glover and his film on Toussaint of Haiti complaining that he was turned down right and left in the U.S. and Europe when looking for money for the film. He says he was told that there was no "white hero" so he couldn't get the support.
Wow. It doesn't completely surprise me really, after watching those old movies with my Uncle where they had to play heroes (intangible to bullets) opposite hords of fiendish [non white] others.
posted
The relevant point/question is why aren't big money blacks financing it? Finaciers are making an economic investment for return. Apparently black potential investors see "no returns" possibility.
Are they are aware there's no audience for the film thus no profitability? Is their feeling based on statistics of black turnout for docudramas on topics related to long ago history not focusing on sexual abuse/intrigue?
The films on Malcolm X and Ali were exceptional perhaps due to the more current in time nature of the protagonists. This is something RU2 could fill us in on since it's his bag.
Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Excellent article Explorer. This recent study only confirms what anthropological remains and genetics have been saying all along. Since Africa is the original source of human populations, it would make sense that the further away from Africa, the greater the decrease in genetic diversity a population has via genetic drift and bottle-necks.
Oh and LMAO @ Patriot's ridiculous and desperate pleas for Eurocentric lies and wishful thinking! A study in Toronto "wants" to say that primates left Africa to go to Europe to become humans and then returned to Africa??! LMAO That sounded so obviously silly even folks at "Racial Reality" or "Mathilda" would laugh.
Posts: 26239 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I guess, for the sole fact that I've witnessed features around me, I've associated certain ones with certain populations.
The simple notion that you continue to render certain features to be solely independent and specific to populations shows your limited understanding of what is discussed. Only thing unique to Europeans and East Asians is pale skin(besides albinos). Be specific in what features you mean.
Which is why you were asked to post/provide clear pictures/examples of individuals that you deem to look non African. Too much to ask??
"Will Smith does not look like a kushite" -Knowledgeiskey718 et al.
LOL you are not fooling anyone dude.
Posts: 152 | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by DevilNegrokiller_Wolofi:
quote:Originally posted by Knowledgeiskey718:
quote:I guess, for the sole fact that I've witnessed features around me, I've associated certain ones with certain populations.
The simple notion that you continue to render certain features to be solely independent and specific to populations shows your limited understanding of what is discussed. Only thing unique to Europeans and East Asians is pale skin(besides albinos). Be specific in what features you mean.
Which is why you were asked to post/provide clear pictures/examples of individuals that you deem to look non African. Too much to ask??
"Will Smith does not look like a kushite" -Knowledgeiskey718 et al.
LOL you are not fooling anyone dude.
^Actually, Djehuti is the one who made that post, and I agreed, you dumb ignorant insignificant trolling jackass... bwahahahahahaa
Anyway, what did that have to do with my post??
You're not fooling anyone, crackerjack!!
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote: Posted by Clyde: It does matter. If you're talking about ancient populations and the population only dates back 2000 years ago the population probably has nothing to do with the ancient group.
Step into the new age, old man.
Who the hell are you to talk to Clyde like that. He is a very respectful and mature poster that has contributed to Africana Studies for years.
What the hell have you done but cut and paste as a butler on a web site for the past 6 months?
How dare you as a mesteeeeeeeezo spic ridicule an African scholar I am starting to think that you are really Jaime and are playing the same Jekyl and Hyde game that the white dude Betty boo plays to get dumb negros on his side only to squash them with racism hmmmmm
Still mad that Winters said Olmecs were blacks huh lol
Posts: 152 | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote: Who the hell are you to talk to Clyde like that. He is a very respectful and mature poster that has contributed to Africana Studies for years.
Lol, you mean contributed to pseudo scholarship and old 19th century racist anthropology, where he still believes in Caucasoids Negroids and Mongoloids? So according to Clyde, all Africans who are not "true negro" or prognathous are actually result of admixture? According to Clyde Winters logic, the Ancient Egyptians were "Caucasoids". Yea I can see your uneducated ass backing Clyde up all day long.... Crackerjack!! bwahahahahahaa Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by TheAmericanPatriot: You may be aware that research just out of the University of Toronto wants to say that primates left africa, went to Europe and returned as humans. That, if correct, would negate that idea that the origin of man was in Africa. Now, it may prove to be incorrect but the lesson in this research is that we are still learning about that process and the jury is not yet in.
Keep in mind that none of thois has anything to do with man as we know him today.
Lmao Patriot you're a sad individual. You will believe anything that Eurocentrists who will also go to dire lengths to disconnect themselves, and discredit Africa as the cradle of pretty much everything. It's pitiful, there is no debate. I already refuted your Toronto claim. Take your final nail in your coffin chump, and rest eternally.........The research, at the University of Cambridge and funded by the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council (BBSRC), represents a final blow for supporters of a multiple origins of humans theory.
New Research Proves Single Origin Of Humans In Africa
ScienceDaily (July 19, 2007) — New research published in the journal Nature (19 July) has proved the single origin of humans theory by combining studies of global genetic variations in humans with skull measurements across the world. The research, at the University of Cambridge and funded by the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council (BBSRC), represents a final blow for supporters of a multiple origins of humans theory.
Competing theories on the origins of anatomically modern humans claim that either humans originated from a single point in Africa and migrated across the world, or different populations independently evolved from homo erectus to home sapiens in different areas.
The Cambridge researchers studied genetic diversity of human populations around the world and measurements of over 6,000 skulls from across the globe in academic collections. Their research knocks down one of the last arguments in favour of multiple origins. The new findings show that a loss in genetic diversity the further a population is from Africa is mirrored by a loss in variation in physical attributes.
Lead researcher, Dr Andrea Manica from the University's Department of Zoology, explained: "The origin of anatomically modern humans has been the focus of much heated debate. Our genetic research shows the further modern humans have migrated from Africa the more genetic diversity has been lost within a population.
"However, some have used skull data to argue that modern humans originated in multiple spots around the world. We have combined our genetic data with new measurements of a large sample of skulls to show definitively that modern humans originated from a single area in Sub-saharan Africa."
The research team found that genetic diversity decreased in populations the further away from Africa they were - a result of 'bottlenecks' or events that temporarily reduced populations during human migration.They then studied an exceptionally large sample of human skulls. Taking a set of measurements across all the skulls the team showed that not only was variation highest amongst the sample from south eastern Africa but that it did decrease at the same rate as the genetic data the further the skull was away from Africa.
To ensure the validity of their single origin evidence the researchers attempted to use their data to find non-African origins for modern humans. Research Dr Francois Balloux explains: "To test the alternative theory for the origin of modern humans we tried to find an additional, non-African origin. We found this just did not work. Our findings show that humans originated in a single area in Sub-Saharan Africa."
LOL R.I.P to Europe? Ummm wouldn't that be 70 percent of your own Genome Paco?
Posts: 152 | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
^^^According to whom Bill? And that's R.I.P Euro-centrism, not Europe, so you don't have to be so upset about it, your place of origin(Europe) still lives. Crackerjack!!! Bwahahahaaa
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: The relevant point/question is why aren't big money blacks financing it? Finaciers are making an economic investment for return. Apparently black potential investors see "no returns" possibility.
Are they are aware there's no audience for the film thus no profitability? Is their feeling based on statistics of black turnout for docudramas on topics related to long ago history not focusing on sexual abuse/intrigue?
The films on Malcolm X and Ali were exceptional perhaps due to the more current in time nature of the protagonists. This is something RU2 could fill us in on since it's his bag.
Thats because big money blacks are successful and don't need movies to boost their self esteem like beat down blacks and WHITES do and they realize movies are NOT reality and make no material difference in people's lives lol.
Does that answer your question?
Posts: 152 | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote: Who the hell are you to talk to Clyde like that. He is a very respectful and mature poster that has contributed to Africana Studies for years.
Lol, you mean contributed to pseudo scholarship and old 19th century racist anthropology, where he still believes in Caucasoids Negroids and Mongoloids?
Aren't you the one who parrots racial divergence theories and Coonian scholars? Why do you keep projecting your racialism onto others? You believe in population differentiation between Kushites and Egyptians, population differentiation (racial divergence) between Africans (Forest Negros) and east Asians (Chinese). Who are you to talk about old 19th century racist anthropology?
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: Distance from Africa, not climate, explains within-population phenotypic diversity in humans
Lia Betti1, François Balloux2, William Amos1, Tsunehiko Hanihara3, Andrea Manica1
December 02, 2008
Abstract
The relative importance of ancient demography and climate in determining worldwide patterns of human within-population phenotypic diversity is still open to debate. Several morphometric traits have been argued to be under selection by climatic factors, but it is unclear whether climate affects the global decline in morphological diversity with increasing geographical distance from sub-Saharan Africa. Using a large database of male and female skull measurements, we apply an explicit framework to quantify the relative role of climate and distance from Africa. We show that distance from sub-Saharan Africa is the sole determinant of human within-population phenotypic diversity, while climate plays no role. By selecting the most informative set of traits, it was possible to explain over half of the worldwide variation in phenotypic diversity. These results mirror those previously obtained for genetic markers and show that ‘bones and molecules’ are in perfect agreement for humans.
=======
Of course, climate, environment, living conditions, random mutation and genetic drift, and globalization [inter-ethnic miscegenation as a consequence of immigration] chime in in varying forms and in complex ways in influencing cranio-morphometric variation, as I've noted here before, but what these folks seem to be observing, at least from the little mentioned in the abstract above, is more diversity in Africa, especially sub-Saharan Africa, vs. that elsewhere. It goes back to that old age basic lesson: non-African groups derived from a subset of Africans, and hence, loss of diversity or a fraction of diversity. Though variations would occur in OOA, as a result of a number of bottleneck events and elements of the aforementioned factors, the overall diversity within the population is very likely to be impacted by that of the "founding" population, notwithstanding subsequent expansion events. The pre-existing variation in the original OOA subgroups was already a fraction of that in the African homeland, and there is reason to suspect that a series of bottlenecks events, that marked the dispersal of OOA migrants, would have led to further losses in diversity along the way. [/QB][/QUOTE]
Excellent data, and a needed corrective against assorted "Mediterranean" climate theories that would use climate as a way to spin an artifical division between peoples of Africa. Some of the darkest people in the world live in cooler "Mediterranean" climates, and have narrow noses to boot, along with tight 'nappy' hair. And they have been found from very old times, not being subjects of any recent gene flow.
Likewise the dry air of desert areas was suppsoed to have excluded "negroid" types, according to anthropologists such as Strouhal in the 1970s who held that said negroid types could not possibly have been in Egypt or in the nearby Sahara due to their supposed inability to adapt to drier climates! Apparently, such "types" could only be "truly" found somewhere far south in a sweltering jungle locale. But this claim likewise has been debunked on these forums. Plenty of such dark-skinned peoples live in the dry desert, with both broad AND narrow noses.
Artifical climate separator approaches (darker negroes way down south in sweltering tropical heat, versus the lighter "Caucasoid" people up nawth there in a cooler "Mediterranean" climate), are also undermined by the limb proportion studies of Zakrewski et al showing that the AEs had a tropical body plan, and that the Nile Valley was not settled by cold adapted peoples. Such a finding holds even for northern Egypt, claimed by some to be a hotbed of "Caucasoid" settlement based on the Palestine and Lebanon area. Unfortunately, those pesky "negroid" features just won't go away. Quote:
[i\... "sample populations available from northern Egypt before the 1st Dynasty (Merimda, Maadi and Wadi Digla) turn out to be significantly different from sample populations from early Palestine and Byblos, suggesting a lack of common ancestors over a long time. If there was a south-north cline variation along the Nile valley it did not, from this limited evidence, continue smoothly on into southern Palestine. The limb-length proportions of males from the Egyptian sites group them with Africans rather than with Europeans." (Ancient Egypt Anatomy of a Civilisation, Barry Kemp, Routledge; 2 ed, 2005, pp. 30-67)[/i]
Explorer's post reinforces the fact of the built in genetic diversity of Africans. Climate could play part in local areas- i.e thin, cold mountain zones tend to have people with narrower noses, but in diverse Africa, you will find broad nosed people living on the upper slopes of Kilimanjaro, as neighbors of the narrow nosed folks, without the need for any "white blood" to explain the difference. It takes more than climate to make African people vary in how they look.
Posts: 5905 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ As insane as it sounds Knowledge is correct, that because of the very fact that humans originated in African and specifically all *non-Africans* originated in East Africa, that Eurocentrics are now trying to turn East Africans into "caucasoids"! LMAO
If you don't believe me, you can have a look at websites such as 'Racial Reality' by the Greek psuedo-scholar and pseudo-intellectual Dienekes Pontikos. We even had one of his lackeys as our resident troll who tried to propagate his psychotic nonsense of "prehistoric East African caucasoids"!
This reminds me of Americanpatriot's claim of "ancient North African caucasoids". Cacazoids, cacazoids, everywhere in Africa but no blacks. LOLPosts: 26239 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
On Dinekes blog, he asserts the following: Quote:
The finding that the anterior region of the cranium is more informative in terms of reduced diversity is actually consistent with selection and not with bottlenecks, since it is in this part, in nasal features, facial flatness, prognathism, etc. that populations have developed strongly differentiated types under selection.
Furthermore, in this paper the study is limited to skulls from the last 2,000 years. But, if bottlenecks are indeed responsible for the reduction of diversity, then this reduction of diversity would be visible in the earliest Homo sapiens skulls from the various regions, as these would be descended from the few bottlenecked migrants. Are Upper Paleolithic Europeans, for example, more or less diverse than Africans of equivalent age, or even modern Africans?
On the contrary, recent skulls may be less diverse than the earliest ones, due to a longer period of selection, i.e., the tens of thousands of years between the earliest Homo sapiens in Europe or Asia and the ones of the last 2,000 years. Moreover, this selection ought to have been strongest in regions further from Africa, as this is correlated with different environments (although not necessarily the 3 climate variables considered here).
In conclusion: -Within-population variance decreases with distance from Africa, but this does not measure between-population difference in mean trait values
-Both bottlenecks and selection result in reduced variance
-A stronger variance-reduction signal in the anterior cranium is more consistent with selection than with bottlenecks
The bottlenecks theory should be more visible in early, not recent skulls as those studied in this paper. Recent skulls should have reduced variance compared to their more ancient counterparts due to a long period of selection.
However there seem to be several weaknesses in his arguments. The study found that the anterior cranium traits were most informative in finding that diversity decreased the greater the distance from sub-Saharan Africa. Dienekes argues that this is consistent with selection rather than bottlenecks. But is this necessarily so? If the dispersed OOA population, containing a fraction of the variability from the original source met with a bottleneck, would not the diversity also come to a standstill without things like climate necessarily kicking in, as noted elsewhere?
In other words, for example only, if say a group leaving Africa met a huge sea or unpassable mountain range as a bottleneck, would not they become isolated and over time, as inbreeding within that group produced LESS diversity than was present back home in Africa? Climate need not enter into this scenario at all in terms of reducing diversity.
Furthermore it is argued that the “bottlenecks theory should be more visible in early, not recent skulls as those studied in this paper. Recent skulls should have reduced variance compared to their more ancient counterparts due to a long period of selection.”
But again, is this necessarily so? Could not bottlenecked data from say recent populations on isolated islands show the effect of reduced diversity? As for recent skulls having less diversity perhaps this might apply to say a Scandanavia versus Congo region comparison. But within Africa, would not the impact of climate factors be less due to the original built-in diversity in place already? Hence jet-black tribes with broad noses appear in cool climates, and more narrow nosed ones like the Fulani stroll easily through hot sweltering ones. The “climate as destiny” approach breaks down within ultra diverse Africa it seems.
-------------------- Note: I am not an "Egyptologist" as claimed by some still bitter, defeated, trolls creating fake profiles and posts elsewhere. Hapless losers, you still fail. My output of hard data debunking racist nonsense has actually INCREASED since you began.. Posts: 5905 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:In other words, for example only, if say a group leaving Africa met a huge sea or unpassable mountain range as a bottleneck, would not they become isolated and over time, as inbreeding within that group produced LESS diversity than was present back home in Africa? Climate need not enter into this scenario at all in terms of reducing diversity.
Yes, your example is correct. This is what is explained in this study as result of these bottlenecks, the farther non African populations moved from Africa, the more you see a loss in the genetic and phenotypic diversity of that non African population, which is result of population reduction. Which is represented by All non Africans carrying M168,(which represents a subset of East African diversity) as does the population they descend from, in East Africa. Which is how we know that the people who populated the world (60+kya) was a subset of East Africans, represented by this marker which indicates all non Africans carry a small subset of African diversity, which is OOA.
Note, if the continents were populated by subsequent migrations directly from Africa, or arose, in situ from Erectus(multi-regional model), than the genetic diversity of non Africans would be much greater than what it is, but this is not the case, and all non Africans lose diversity phenotypically, and genetically, the farther the population is from Africa.
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ It is basic fact of evolutionary genetics. Unfortunately many people here are either too unintelligent or are willing not to learn to understand it.
Posts: 26239 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
Yes, your example is correct. This is what is explained in this study as result of these bottlenecks, the farther non African populations moved from Africa, the more you see a loss in the genetic and phenotypic diversity of that non African population, which is result of population reduction. Which is represented by All non Africans carrying M168,(which represents a subset of East African diversity) as does the population they descend from, in East Africa. Which is how we know that the people who populated the world (60+kya) was a subset of East Africans, represented by this marker which indicates all non Africans carry a small subset of African diversity, which is OOA.
posted
What diversity do you see besides lightskin and dark skin? Definitely not much phenotypic diversity......
Anyway, as the study proves, the further the population has moved from Africa is represented by a loss in phenotypic diversity. Filipinos don't possess as much phenotypic diversity as say, Melanesians, or Australians, nor do Filipinos compare to their ancestors who originally migrated from East Africa.
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:What diversity do you see besides lightskin and dark skin?
Which one is "dark skin"? And are these your Euro-Asian who were changing in Europe? lol
Posts: 4165 | From: jamaica | Registered: May 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ And all of that is besides the point since even *all* native Filipinos whether non-black like the ones above or black Aeta (aboriginals) are equally Asian and equally have decreased genetic diversity via great distance from Africa (the hearth).
Posts: 26239 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ LOL Nope, but as usual you twist things into senselessness to cover your ass. But it doesn't work with your boyfriends in real life and it ain't working here in this forum. Posts: 26239 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:How do you explain this diversity among Filipinos?
quote:Originally posted by Knowledgeiskey718: What diversity do you see besides lightskin and dark skin? Definitely not much phenotypic diversity......
^ He doesn't understand. Actually I'm sure you can find better photos of genuine diversity within any population. But Winters chooses groups of people who vary only in skin color, which shows he isn't paying attention to the study in the parent thread.
I've noticed Dr. Winters has tremendous difficulty with any new idea, or any idea outside the box of his race ideology.
quote:Originally posted by rasolowitz: Old age is tough.
^ Yeh, I mean who in their right mind would argue for Asia and Europe as "alleged racial groups"? Posts: 4165 | From: jamaica | Registered: May 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by rasolowitz: You actually tried to claim that Europeans 'really are' a race.
^ So we're back to the genisis of your beat down. LOL
What I say and still I maintain is that race as a social construct is real. That there are physical differences between whites and blacks. You agree too [New E3b paper totally destroys East African "Caucasoid" myth, posted 05 September, 2008 06:17 PM, posted 06 September, 2008 02:38 AM], you even see "mixed" Sicilians as still white. Give it up rasolowitz, you got baited and then owned.
quote:"Alleged" for everyone but you.
So do you see them as "alleged racial groups"? Posts: 4165 | From: jamaica | Registered: May 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Again, an unintelligent response...why do I even bother?
quote:Your NAZI beliefs are "real" social constructs
Btw speaking of Nazis, I'm still waiting on your "proof" that Jews were gassed at Dachau... Posts: 4165 | From: jamaica | Registered: May 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by rasolowitz: Old age is tough.
^ Yeh, I mean who in their right mind would argue for Asia and Europe as "alleged racial groups"?
You might want to ask Keita this question.....
quote:
quote:Originally posted by akoben: [QB] [QUOTE] The Dravidian sample shows shifts between Europe and Asia. Translation: Dravidians show sifts between two major racial groups. Pay attention little bitch....
Oh come now, clueless718, you know you're talking bullshit! Why are you doing this?! So Europeans are an alleged racial group now?
Tell Keita that Dravidians shifting between Europe and Asia, is not shifting between alleged major racial groups, because according to Keita. The Dravidian sample shows shifts between Europe and Asia. Translation: Dravidians show shifts between two major racial groups. Pay attention little bitch....
Bwahahahahahahaa
quote: A Dravidian sample from Southern India likewise shifts between European and Asian populations, not attaining significance by standard bootstrap criteria.-- Keita
The Berber and Dravidian examples show shifts between the major racial groups as traditionally and currently defined by scholars--Keita
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ You should have bolded the part that said "as traditionally and currently defined by scholars"! Watch, now the jackass will go back to saying Keita espouses 'races'! LOL
Why not, since the dumb donkey does not know what a social construct is as opposed to a real measurable scientific entity! Posts: 26239 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Mad]](mad.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic