posted
Original Tropically Adapted African Human to leave Africa was the ancestor of ALL modern humans and Neanderthals. Many Homo Erectus continued to live in Africa and evolve into modern Homo Sapiens.
quote:(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."
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.
quote:Originally posted by MindoverMatter718: Support from the relationship of genetic and geographic distance in human populations for a serial founder effect originating in Africa
Sohini Ramachandran*†, Omkar Deshpande‡, Charles C. Roseman§, Noah A. Rosenberg¶, Marcus W. Feldman*, and L. Luca Cavalli-Sforza†
Abstract
Equilibrium models of isolation by distance predict an increase in genetic differentiation with geographic distance. Here we find a linear relationship between genetic and geographic distance in a worldwide sample of human populations, with major deviations from the fitted line explicable by admixture or extreme isolation. A close relationship is shown to exist between the correlation of geographic distance and genetic differentiation (as measured by FST) and the geographic pattern of heterozygosity across populations. Considering a worldwide set of geographic locations as possible sources of the human expansion, we find that heterozygosities in the globally distributed populations of the data set are best explained by an expansion originating in Africa and that no geographic origin outside of Africa accounts as well for the observed patterns of genetic diversity. Although the relationship between FST and geographic distance has been interpreted in the past as the result of an equilibrium model of drift and dispersal, simulation shows that the geographic pattern of heterozygosities in this data set is consistent with a model of a serial founder effect starting at a single origin. Given this serial-founder scenario, the relationship between genetic and geographic distance allows us to derive bounds for the effects of drift and natural selection on human genetic variation.
Results
Testing whether a serial founder effect could give rise to the decay of expected heterozygosity with distance observed in Fig. 4A requires appropriate demographic models for calculating the effect of drift. We performed simulations of evolutionary processes to assess whether we could recover a similar pattern to what was computed from the data as shown in Fig. 4A (37). Assume for simplicity that we begin with a parental population, and there are n serial bottleneck episodes starting at the origin (the location of the parental population). In each bottleneck, a sample of individuals of size Nb founds the next colony, which is established at some distance from the previous colony and which remains isolated from all other colonies. This subsampling generates a succession of colonies in time, each of which grows to a large size K before generating the next colony in the chain. Each bottleneck episode decreases expected heterozygosity in the new colony by a factor of 1 1(2Nb) (39). To be precise, this computation includes the drift effect only of the first generation after the bottleneck. Based on this simple model of n bottlenecks with Nb founders at each bottleneck, an approximation for the total loss of expected heterozygosity from the beginning to the end of the expansion from the parental population due to the sequence of bottlenecks alone will be Regressing heterozygosity on distance from the parental colony, we can estimate Hby calculating the difference between the intercept of the regression line and the fitted value for the last population in the expansion (the furthest population from the origin). In Fig. 4A, the observed H is 0.12. Because n and Nb are unknown, Eq. 8 only allows the estimation of their ratio. Moreover, this simple model assumes no intermigration among colonies after their founding; it only accounts for genetic drift that occurs as a result of the bottlenecks in the serial founder effect, ignoring genetic drift (i) during the growth period where the founding population increases in size to carrying capacity and (ii) while the population stays at carrying capacity as the subsequent colonies are formed. These components will increase the amount of drift experienced by populations over that which would ensue from a population of constant size K. Simulation enables the evaluation of these components of the evolutionary process by using estimable quantities, such as the mutation rate of microsatellites and the sizes of populations (see Supporting Text, which is published as supporting information on the PNAS web site, for more discussion). Fig. 4B shows that simulation can produce heterozygosity values similar to those observed in the data set, giving a simulated value for H of 0.12, very close to the observed value. Hsim will differ from H˜ in Eq. 8 (see Supporting Text). The main assumption in the simulation (Fig. 4B) is that Nb, the number of founders at each bottleneck, is of the order of a hunter–gatherer tribe (35, 36).
Discussion
Geographic distance is a good predictor of genetic distance on a global scale (Fig. 1). The pattern’s robustness is indicated by our ability to reasonably explain anomalies (Fig. 2) based on what is generally believed to have occurred during the past 100,000 years of modern human history (29). We also find a close relationship between the correlation of FST and geographic distance (Fig. 1) and the geographic pattern of heterozygosity across populations (Fig. 4A). An increase in genetic distance with geographic distance has been observed in the past and has been attributed to equilibrium models of isolation by distance, but simulation results show that the geographic pattern of heterozygosities in the HGDP-CEPH populations is consistent with a serial founder effect starting at a single origin. Further, the observed pattern of within-population diversity is best explained by an origin in Africa (Fig. 5). By studying the relationship between genetic and geographic distance, we can assess the relative importance of genetic drift and natural selection in determining the genetic variation observed among human populations. The average contribution of drift generated by the serial founder effect might be estimated from the properties of the regression in Figs. 1B and 4A. Because our regressions explain 76–78% of the observed genetic variation, this quantity is therefore an estimate of the minimum influence that drift, due to the serial founder effect, has on the total variation observed. In other words, the fraction of the variation in heterozygosity across human populations that is explained by drift is at least 76–78%. If stabilizing selection has been a major force in human evolution, then the decrease of average heterozygosity would be reduced, and the slope in Fig. 4A would be less negative (by an unknown amount). The residual 22–24% of genetic variation not explained by the regression is generated by population-specific selection, drift, and mutational histories. The deviation from the regression of each individual population (Fig. 4A) or of each population pair (Fig. 2) is a consequence of each population’s particular demographic history (40). But it is clear that part of these deviations also may be due to different selective conditions met by these populations in the different environments to which they have been exposed. Therefore, we estimate that 76–78% can be considered a lower bound on the effect of drift, and 22–24% an upper bound on the effect of selection, in the genetic differentiation of human populations.
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer:
Global Haplotype Diversity in the Human Insulin Gene Region John D.H. Stead1,3,4, Matthew E. Hurles2 and Alec J. Jeffreys1
The insulin minisatellite (INS VNTR) has been intensively analyzed due to its associations with diseases including diabetes. We have previously used patterns of variant repeat distribution in the minisatellite to demonstrate that genetic diversity is unusually great in Africans compared to non-Africans. Here we analyzed variation at 56 single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) flanking the minisatellite in individuals from six populations, and we show that over 40% of the total genetic variance near the minisatellite is due to differences between Africans and non-Africans, far higher than seen in most genomic regions and consistent with differential selection acting on the insulin gene region, most likely in the non-African ancestral population. Linkage disequilibrium was lower in African populations, with evidence of clustering of historical recombination events. Analysis of haplotypes from the relatively nonrecombining region around the minisatellite revealed a star-shaped phylogeny with lineages radiating from an ancestral African-specific haplotype. These haplotypes confirmed that minisatellite lineages defined by variant repeat distributions are monophyletic in origin. These analyses provide a framework for a cladistic approach to future disease association studies of the insulin region within both African and non-African populations, and they identify SNPs which can be rapidly analyzed as surrogate markers for minisatellite lineage.
The insulin minisatellite, located within the promoter of the human insulin gene, has been intensely investigated for nearly two decades due to its associations with diseases such as diabetes (Bell et al. 1984; Bennett and Todd 1996). Most studies have analyzed populations of European descent where low diversity at the minisatellite combined with strong linkage disequilibria in flanking regions make it difficult to distinguish between etiological and associated variants (Bennett and Todd 1996; Doria et al. 1996). The identification of etiological polymorphisms in the insulin region may therefore require analysis of a range of different populations, in particular those showing a greater range of haplotype diversity than that seen in Europeans...
Franck Prugnolle1, Andrea Manica2 and François Balloux1
A leading theory for the origin of modern humans, the ‘recent African origin’ (RAO) model [1], postulates that the ancestors of all modern humans originated in East Africa and that, around 100,000 years ago, some modern humans left the African continent and subsequently colonised the entire world, displacing previously established human species such as Neanderthals in Europe [2,3]. This scenario is supported by the observation that human populations from Africa are genetically the most diverse [2] and that the genetic diversity of non-African populations is negatively correlated with their genetic differentiation towards populations from Africa [3]. Here we add further compelling evidence supporting the RAO model by showing that geographic distance — not genetic distance as in [3] — from East Africa along likely colonisation routes is an excellent predictor for genetic diversity of human populations (R2 = 85%). Our results point to a history of colonisation of the world characterised by a very large number of small bottlenecks [4] and limited subsequent gene flow. The pattern of decrease in genetic diversity along colonisation routes is very smooth and does not provide evidence for major genetic discontinuities that could be interpreted as evidence for human ‘races’ [2,5].
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
New analysis shows three human migrations out of Africa
Replacement theory 'demolished' February 2, 2006, Washington University, St. Louis
A new, more robust analysis of recently derived human gene trees by Alan R. Templeton, Ph.D, of Washington University in St Louis, shows three distinct major waves of human migration out of Africa instead of just two, and statistically refutes — strongly — the 'Out of Africa' replacement theory.
That theory holds that populations of Homo sapiens left Africa 100,000 years ago and wiped out existing populations of humans. Templeton has shown that the African populations interbred with the Eurasian populations — thus, making love, not war. *Homo sapiens*: 'Out of Africa' three distinct times, new analysis shows
*Homo sapiens*: 'Out of Africa' three distinct times, new analysis shows
"The 'Out of Africa' replacement theory has always been a big controversy," Templeton said. "I set up a null hypothesis and the program rejected that hypothesis using the new data with a probability level of 10 to the minus 17th. In science, you don't get any more conclusive than that. It says that the hypothesis of no interbreeding is so grossly incompatible with the data, that you can reject it."
Templeton's analysis is considered to be the only definitive statistical test to refute the theory, dominant in human evolution science for more than two decades.
"Not only does the new analysis reject the theory, it demolishes it," Templeton said.
Templeton published his results in the Yearbook of Physical Anthropology, 2005.
A trellis, not a tree
He used a computer program called GEODIS, which he created in 1995 and later modified with the help of David Posada, Ph.D., and Keith Crandall, Ph.D. at Brigham Young University, to determine genetic relationships among and within populations based on an examination of specific haplotypes, clusters of genes that are inherited as a unit.
In 2002, Templeton analyzed ten different haplotype trees and performed phylogeographic analyses that reconstructed the history of the species through space and time.
Three years later, he had 25 regions to analyze and the data provided molecular evidence of a third migration, this one the oldest, back to 1.9 million years ago.
"This time frame corresponds extremely well with the fossil record, which shows Homo erectus expanding out of Africa then," Templeton said.
Another novel find is that populations of Homo erectus in Eurasia had recurrent genetic interchange with African populations 1.5 million years ago, much earlier than previously thought, and that these populations persisted instead of going extinct, which some human evolution researchers thought had occurred. Alan Templeton
Alan Templeton
The new data confirm an expansion out of Africa to 700,000 years ago that was detected in the 2002 analysis.
"Both (the 1.9 million and 700,000 year) expansions coincide with recent paleoclimatic data that indicate periods of very high rainfall in eastern Africa, making what is now the Sahara Desert a savannah," Templeton said. "That makes the timing very amenable for movements of large populations through the area."
Templeton said that the fossil record indicates a significant change in brain size for modern humans at 700,000 years ago as well as the adaptation and expansion of a new stone tool culture first found in Africa and later at 700,000 years expanded throughout Eurasia.
"By the time you're done with this phase you can be 99 percent confident that there was recurrent genetic interchange between African and Eurasian populations," he said. "So the idea of pure, distinct races in humans does not exist. We humans don't have a tree relationship, rather a trellis. We're intertwined."
By Tony Fitzpatrick
Posts: 42921 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
"By the time you're done with this phase you can be 99 percent confident that there was recurrent genetic interchange between African and Eurasian populations," he said. "So the idea of pure, distinct races in humans does not exist. We humans don't have a tree relationship, rather a trellis. We're intertwined."
The Final Nail in Afronut's and the Racialist's Coffins..
RIP: Kahanyah Afronut Slayer, Mike111, Clyde, Horsenation.
Posts: 8804 | From: The fear of his majesty had entered their hearts, they were powerless | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Jari - I always thought you to be stupid, there is no need for you to continually prove it.
I have always held to the OOA theory, and all of my writing reflects that. Considering how often I write on the subject, I fail to see how a person of normal intelligence could fail to note that. Obviously, like NonProphet, you are not a person of normal intelligence.
But at least NonProphet has an excuse, he is in Albino denial mode, is that your excuse also?
Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Evidence is stacking up for competing evolutionary theories of hybridization(Sapien-Neandertal) or structured African differential lineages over the single origin replacement hypothesis better known as OOA. All modern non-Africans are 1% to 4% Neandertal and when East Africans get tested for Neandertal genes, OOA will likely be superceded.
The Emerging Fate Of The Neandertals
ScienceDaily (Apr. 24, 2007) — For nearly a century, anthropologists have been debating the relationship of Neandertals to modern humans. Central to the debate is whether Neandertals contributed directly or indirectly to the ancestry of the early modern humans that succeeded them.
As this discussion has intensified in the past decades, it has become the central research focus of Erik Trinkaus, Ph.D., professor of anthropology at Washington University in St. Louis. Trinkaus has examined the earliest modern humans in Europe, including specimens in Romania, Czech Republic and France. Those specimens, in Trinkaus' opinion, have shown obvious Neandertal ancestry.
In an article appearing in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Trinkaus has brought together the available data, which shows that early modern humans did exhibit evidence of Neandertal traits.
"When you look at all of the well dated and diagnostic early modern European fossils, there is a persistent presence of anatomical features that were present among the Neandertals but absent from the earlier African modern humans," Trinkaus said. "Early modern Europeans reflect both their predominant African early modern human ancestry and a substantial degree of admixture between those early modern humans and the indigenous Neandertals."
This analysis, along with a number of considerations of human genetics, argues that the fate of the Neandertals was to be absorbed into modern human groups. Just as importantly, it also says that the behavioral difference between the groups were small. They saw each other as social equals.
The Oase 2 (Upper) and Muierii 1 (Lower) crania in norma lateralis left. In an article appearing in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Erik Trinkaus, Ph.D., professor of anthropology at Washington University in St. Louis, has brought together data showing that early modern humans did exhibit evidence of Neandertal traits. (Credit: Romanian Academy/Muzeul Olteni/Erik Trinkaus)
There are two predominant models of modern human origins: multiregional evolution and recent African replacement. Multiregional evolution posits that the evolution of contemporary peoples occurred around the globe, with archaic populations such as the Neandertals contributing locally in their geographic regions [4]. This model predicts that Neandertals will share significant genetic variation with Europeans to the exclusion of other populations. Recent African replacement suggests that contemporary humans owe their heritage to a small African population that spread around the world replacing archaic populations with little to no interbreeding [5]. This model predicts that Neandertals will be equally distantly related to all contemporary human populations.
We propose a third alternative. The paleontological and archaeological records suggest that modern humans and Neandertals overlapped in the Eastern Mediterranean region around 100 thousand years ago during a time when the African faunal zone extended temporarily into the Middle East. The range of modern humans then likely contracted back into Africa, severing contact with Neandertals, before finally expanding their range out of Africa around 50 thousand years ago [11]. Admixture may not have been possible during this time because a southern route out of Africa through the Arabian peninsula [12] would not have put the populations in contact. Any admixture would have occurred prior to the expansion of modern humans out of Africa between East Africans and Neandertals (Figure 1C). If this is correct, Neandertal genes will be found at low frequency in East Africans and perhaps others. These low-frequency Neandertal genes may then have been pushed to high frequency or fixation in the out of Africa populations through the iterated founder effect associated with range expansions [13].
If humans originated in East Asia, for the sake of entertaining idiocy for a second, then they must have first essentially emptied Asia, gone to Africa, and then back to Asia, as Africa has far more diversity than non-African territories and also has the deepest clades. Now why on earth would early humans...uhem...I mean "east Asians" do such a thing?
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer:
quote:Originally posted by NonProphet:
After more Africans get tested for Neanderthal genes, one of the current models will turn into a theory with the most evidence.
That would be a neat trick, as there were no neanderthals in Africa. This means, they would have only obtained it from genetic exchange with non-Africans who, according to one report, carried traces of Neanderthal lineage. I don't see how that makes a slightest dent in the African origin.
New analysis shows three human migrations out of Africa
Replacement theory 'demolished' February 2, 2006, Washington University, St. Louis
A new, more robust analysis of recently derived human gene trees by Alan R. Templeton, Ph.D, of Washington University in St Louis, shows three distinct major waves of human migration out of Africa instead of just two, and statistically refutes — strongly — the 'Out of Africa' replacement theory.
That theory holds that populations of Homo sapiens left Africa 100,000 years ago and wiped out existing populations of humans. Templeton has shown that the African populations interbred with the Eurasian populations — thus, making love, not war. *Homo sapiens*: 'Out of Africa' three distinct times, new analysis shows
*Homo sapiens*: 'Out of Africa' three distinct times, new analysis shows
"The 'Out of Africa' replacement theory has always been a big controversy," Templeton said. "I set up a null hypothesis and the program rejected that hypothesis using the new data with a probability level of 10 to the minus 17th. In science, you don't get any more conclusive than that. It says that the hypothesis of no interbreeding is so grossly incompatible with the data, that you can reject it."
Templeton's analysis is considered to be the only definitive statistical test to refute the theory, dominant in human evolution science for more than two decades.
"Not only does the new analysis reject the theory, it demolishes it," Templeton said.
Templeton published his results in the Yearbook of Physical Anthropology, 2005.
A trellis, not a tree
He used a computer program called GEODIS, which he created in 1995 and later modified with the help of David Posada, Ph.D., and Keith Crandall, Ph.D. at Brigham Young University, to determine genetic relationships among and within populations based on an examination of specific haplotypes, clusters of genes that are inherited as a unit.
In 2002, Templeton analyzed ten different haplotype trees and performed phylogeographic analyses that reconstructed the history of the species through space and time.
Three years later, he had 25 regions to analyze and the data provided molecular evidence of a third migration, this one the oldest, back to 1.9 million years ago.
"This time frame corresponds extremely well with the fossil record, which shows Homo erectus expanding out of Africa then," Templeton said.
Another novel find is that populations of Homo erectus in Eurasia had recurrent genetic interchange with African populations 1.5 million years ago, much earlier than previously thought, and that these populations persisted instead of going extinct, which some human evolution researchers thought had occurred. Alan Templeton
Alan Templeton
The new data confirm an expansion out of Africa to 700,000 years ago that was detected in the 2002 analysis.
"Both (the 1.9 million and 700,000 year) expansions coincide with recent paleoclimatic data that indicate periods of very high rainfall in eastern Africa, making what is now the Sahara Desert a savannah," Templeton said. "That makes the timing very amenable for movements of large populations through the area."
Templeton said that the fossil record indicates a significant change in brain size for modern humans at 700,000 years ago as well as the adaptation and expansion of a new stone tool culture first found in Africa and later at 700,000 years expanded throughout Eurasia.
"By the time you're done with this phase you can be 99 percent confident that there was recurrent genetic interchange between African and Eurasian populations," he said. "So the idea of pure, distinct races in humans does not exist. We humans don't have a tree relationship, rather a trellis. We're intertwined."
By Tony Fitzpatrick
I was not insulting you, when I said that you cannot read. Templeton's theory doesn't refute OOA replacement; it simple adds other possibilities to the OOA replacement.
Ask yourself this simple question as a starter, and then determine if you or any other anti-African character has "demolished" the OOA replacement:
Why does non-African gene pools come from a subset of African gene pool?
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
East Africans are the key to the puzzle because absolutely NO Neandertal admixture or genes are present in West African Yorubans and South African Khoesan.
posted
We propose a third alternative. The paleontological and archaeological records suggest that modern humans and Neandertals overlapped in the Eastern Mediterranean region around 100 thousand years ago during a time when the African faunal zone extended temporarily into the Middle East. The range of modern humans then likely contracted back into Africa, severing contact with Neandertals, before finally expanding their range out of Africa around 50 thousand years ago [11]. Admixture may not have been possible during this time because a southern route out of Africa through the Arabian peninsula [12] would not have put the populations in contact. Any admixture would have occurred prior to the expansion of modern humans out of Africa between East Africans and Neandertals (Figure 1C). If this is correct, Neandertal genes will be found at low frequency in East Africans and perhaps others. These low-frequency Neandertal genes may then have been pushed to high frequency or fixation in the out of Africa populations through the iterated founder effect associated with range expansions [13].
posted
Name a neanderthal remain found in any territory of Africa, including eastern Africa. Otherwise, you are citing a bunch of people who are going off on their imaginations. Simply citing people without understanding the ramifications of what is being said is not a sign of intelligence.
-------------------- The Complete Picture of the Past tells Us what Not to Repeat Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by the lioness: maybe you should take it up with Templeton, he's the one that said it
When called out on the nonsense, all the individual can do is call names and/or refer to sites they received this dogma or study from. Basically because the individual is simply parroting from these sites without fully understanding for his/herself (actually reading the study), it then doesn't feel obligated to defend what it posted. Classic.---MindoverMatter718Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
^NonProphet may be right - Proof positive that even a fool can luckup on the truth.
People forget that Neanderthal is NOT in the Human family line, he is a branch of the Homo tree: likely derived as a result of admixture between Humans (who are much older that Neanderthal) and Erectus.
Neanderthal remains have been found in the Middle East, North Africa, and Central Asia.
Erectus fossils were first found at Trinil on the island of Java; other finds were near Peking in China, at Ternifine in Algeria, and at Olduvai Gorge and Koobi Fora in Eastern Africa.
Thus it is entirely possible that Neanderthal is a result of admixture between East African Humans and East African Erectus.
(Humans and Erectus overlapped for perhaps 100,000 years).
Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
Ask yourself this simple question as a starter, and then determine if you or any other anti-African character has "demolished" the OOA replacement:
anti-African people in this very forum do precisely the opposite thing to what you are saying, they say that African people were first and therefore less evolved than people out of Africa. That is what's anti-African. And I am very much against that. you have your glasses on backwards
Posts: 42921 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
1) Did Templeton write the article you posted, or is the article simply referencing Templeton?
2)If Templeton's theory rejects OOA replacement, then why does his own theory rely on OOA migrations?
3)Has Templeton found more than one most basic nodes of Y-DNA and mtDNA respectively, implying independent anatomically modern human evolutions, and wherein these basic nodes don't converge to a common recent ancestor in Africa?
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: Name a neanderthal remain found in any territory of Africa, including eastern Africa. Otherwise, you are citing a bunch of people who are going off on their imaginations. Simply citing people without understanding the ramifications of what is being said is not a sign of intelligence.
Your ASSumption of ALL Africans not having Neandertal genes is wrong because not all African populations were sampled. ONLY Yorubans and San were tested and showed no admixture. East Africans have yet to be tested for Neandertal genes.
Posts: 644 | Registered: May 2010
| IP: Logged |
Neanderthal remains have been found in the Middle East, North Africa, and Central Asia.
Where in northern Africa?
quote:Originally posted by the lioness:
anti-African people in this very forum do precisely the opposite thing to what you are saying, they say that African people were first and therefore less evolved than people out of Africa. That is what's anti-African. And I am very much against that. you have your glasses on backwards
You are wrong of course, as usual. Anti-African proponents, like nonprophet exemplifies, don't like the idea of anatomically modern human origin in Africa, which is where all this nonsense of multi-regional parallel anatomically modern human evolutions comes from. It upsets their anti-African supremacy ideals. Furthermore, the OOA replacement theory actually does the opposite of what you reckon. It states the superiority of the African a.m.h. in colonizing the globe and giving rise to the populations we see around us today...whereas the Neanderthal and other archaic humanoids died off outside of Africa.
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by the lioness: maybe you should take it up with Templeton, he's the one that said it
When called out on the nonsense, all the individual can do is call names and/or refer to sites they received this dogma or study from. Basically because the individual is simply parroting from these sites without fully understanding for his/herself (actually reading the study), it then doesn't feel obligated to defend what it posted. Classic.---MindoverMatter718
American Journal of Physical Anthropology Volume 128, Issue S41 ,
Haplotype Trees and Modern Human Origins (p 33-59)
Alan R. Templeton
(complete study available free, google Haplotype Trees and Modern Human Origins)
page 1,2 below
Templeton is quoted in man publications such as Science Daily as saying about this study:
"The 'Out of Africa' replacement theory has always been a big controversy," Templeton said. "I set up a null hypothesis and the program rejected that hypothesis using the new data with a probability level of 10 to the minus 17th. In science, you don't get any more conclusive than that. It says that the hypothesis of no interbreeding is so grossly incompatible with the data, that you can reject it."
Templeton's analysis is considered to be the only definitive statistical test to refute the theory, dominant in human evolution science for more than two decades.
"Not only does the new analysis reject the theory, it demolishes it," Templeton said.
Your ASSumption of ALL Africans not having Neandertal genes is wrong because not all African populations were sampled.
This is a figment of your imagination, born out of an inability to read. This was what was said:
"That would be a neat trick, as there were no neanderthals in Africa. This means, they would have only obtained it from genetic exchange with non-Africans who, according to one report, carried traces of Neanderthal lineage. I don't see how that makes a slightest dent in the African origin." - The Explorer.
As any literate folk can see: No assumptions on my part. That said, I cannot argue for any "Neanderthal genes" in eastern Africans, because I've seen no evidence of it. This is not an assumption, it is a statement of a matter of fact.
The real ASSumption here, comes from you, about Neanderthals in Africa, and Neanderthal genes in eastern Africans. Where's evidence of this, other than your imaginations?
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Nonprophet Your ASSumption of ALL Africans not having Neandertal genes is wrong because not all African populations were sampled. ONLY Yorubans and San were tested and showed no admixture. East Africans have yet to be tested for Neandertal genes.
West Africans as well as south Africans are ultimately from East Africa.
Posts: 6546 | From: japan | Registered: Feb 2009
| IP: Logged |
Meanwhile, in a study from 2007 we can be certain through the analysis of genetic and phenotypical diversity amongst non Africans vs Africans by the unrefutable fact that the further the population has traveled along the trail OOA thousands of years ago, with numerous bottlenecks that the diversity has decreased genetically and phenotypically.
Which of course, further proving that all non Africans descend from a subset of Africans, and hence at first carried a subset of this diversity when they left Africa, which was ultimately decreased by population bottlenecks.
Until you can show that there is more diversity genetically outside of Africa than inside your point is null and void, this is what needs to be shown.
What has been shown year after year is that all non Africans carry the mutation M-168...
Cavalli-Sforza: Genes, Culture, and Human Evolution. Pg 187.
quote: ... "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."
which originated in Africa as noted above, and all haplogroups (patenral and maternal) outside of Africa can ultimately be traced back to Africa without discrepancy through a few parent haplogroups which go back not too long ago.
Lead researcher, Dr Andrea Manica from the University's Department of Zoology, explained:
quote:"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."
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
The Explorer - I see the point of your question, apparently now they want to talk about the "Classical" Neanderthal. Seems the White boys are back to their bullsh1t mode again.
Unless someone could tell me what kind of repellent was used to keep him out of Africa, as the White boys now imply.
quote:Originally posted by Brada-Anansi: Nonprophet Your ASSumption of ALL Africans not having Neandertal genes is wrong because not all African populations were sampled. ONLY Yorubans and San were tested and showed no admixture. East Africans have yet to be tested for Neandertal genes.
West Africans as well as south Africans are ultimately from East Africa.
Yes, which would only mean that nonprophet would have to be implying, or making the ASSumption that I identified in my comment recited above, about the possibility, that in the event "Neanderthal genes" were detected in eastern Africa, one would have to reckon that it must have come from anatomically modern humans of eastern Africa receiving it from their anatomically modern, presumably "non-African", neighbors. This is a far cry from saying that these genes could only have been attained "prior to OOA migration" and "inside Africa itself" by supposed admixture between modern humans and Neanderthals.
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Brada-Anansi: Nonprophet Your ASSumption of ALL Africans not having Neandertal genes is wrong because not all African populations were sampled. ONLY Yorubans and San were tested and showed no admixture. East Africans have yet to be tested for Neandertal genes.
West Africans as well as south Africans are ultimately from East Africa.
The point is if Neandertal genes are discovered in East Africans this would have most likely occurred AFTER the split with West and South Africans and from mixture with bidirectional migrating Eurasian/African hybrids.
Posts: 644 | Registered: May 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
The split of western Africans from eastern Africans is fairly recent and post-dates OOA migrations. I don't see how that lends any support to a multi-regional hypothesis of separate macro-evolutions of modern humans in discrete continents.
^I should say, sections of western Africans, as there are western Africans with deep-root clades.
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by NonProphet: The point is if Neandertal genes are discovered in East Africans
The point here would be IF, of which it hasnt been proven and most likely will not be, with many vigorous studies done on East Africans genetically, no Neanderthal DNA has yet to be detected, zilch. So don't hold your breath.
The numerous studies on these East African populations along with the numerous finds of skeletal remains in the same area has proven something though, of course being the OOA migration beyond a reasonable doubt.
As a side bit of information;
quote: A description of the Omo I postcranial skeleton, including newly discovered fossils
Osbjorn M. Pearson
Journal of Human Evolution
August 2008
"While it once may have been reasonable to interpret the presence of these ‘‘Neandertal-like’’ features in Eurasian early modern humans as potential evidence of gene flow from neighboring and contemporaneous Neandertal populations, the presence of these features in Omo I raises the distinct possibility that Eurasian early modern humans inherited these features from an African ancestor rather than Neandertals."
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
There is no fossil or archaeological evidence to prove that early humans moved from southern Africa to the Nile Valley in the early Pleistocene.
Posts: 42921 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes [re: MOM's post], on the palaeontological front, diversity of record has been greater on African territory, especially in eastern Africa, followed by southern Africa. The record for anatomically modern human here stretches back to nearly 200,000 years ago. What non-African record rivals this in age and diversity of anatomically modern humans?
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: Furthermore, the OOA replacement theory actually does the opposite of what you reckon. It states the superiority of the African a.m.h. in colonizing the globe and giving rise to the populations we see around us today...
Indeed as seen in the many studies which have been surfacing over the years.....
quote:Prior to the Blombos Cave discovery, the earliest evidence of pressure flaking was from the Upper Paleolithic Solutrean culture in France and Spain roughly 20,000 years ago. "This finding is important because it shows that modern humans in South Africa had a sophisticated repertoire of tool-making techniques at a very early time," said Villa. "This innovation is a clear example of a tendency to develop new functional ideas and techniques widely viewed as symptomatic of advanced, or modern, behavior."
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by the lioness: There is no fossil or archaeological evidence to prove that early humans moved from southern Africa to the Nile Valley in the early Pleistocene .
Define the timeline highlighted in your post above. And then tell us who proposed this migration.
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by the lioness: There is no fossil or archaeological evidence to prove that early humans moved from southern Africa to the Nile Valley in the early Pleistocene .
Define the timeline highlighted in your post above. And then tell us who proposed this migration.
1.8 million years ago to 11,500 years ago
Posts: 42921 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by the lioness: There is no fossil or archaeological evidence to prove that early humans moved from southern Africa to the Nile Valley in the early Pleistocene .
Define the timeline highlighted in your post above. And then tell us who proposed this migration.
1.8 million years ago to 11,500 years ago
Actually that would be the whole Pleistocene in general, which is actually broken down into three time periods (just like the Paleolithic of Europe etc..), if you didn't know.
What happened to the middle (781 mya to 126mya) and late Pleistocene (126mya to 12-10kya)?
Don't you know about this stuff? I thought you were well read.
Perhaps you meant late Pleistocene which would then make sense, since this is during a time frame wherein anatomically modern humans actually existed.
Wherein then the following applies, which of course you failed to answer;
Who proposed this migration from southern Africa during this time period to the Nile Valley?
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Speaking of "Neanderthal genes", precisely what does this mean? I reckon it constitutes motifs markedly distinct from counterparts of the modern human genome. Otherwise, how does one deem what is "Neanderthal genes" as a separate entity from modern human genes. I would have to also take it that these presumably survived in the autosomal section of the genome, which is generally where chromosomes recombine more, and therefore making genealogical history less predictable, especially over extended periods of time stretching to remote antiquity [due to shuffling and associated loss of info]. The "Neanderthal" imprint has certainly been absent in uniparental lineage, and in fact under DNA sequencing tests, the Neanderthal uniparental DNA fragments could not amplify using primers developed for modern human DNA fragments. Again, testament to the condition of Neanderthal lineage being markedly distinct from that of recent humans.
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
I call it you not knowing what you're talking about, capish?
For you to say specifically the early pleictocene, to anyone who knows, this implies a certain epoch in the geological timescale. Don't be upset when called out on it.
Anyway, now that you've been corrected on that, care to be corrected on the next one?
If so, answer the following...
Who proposed a late Pleistocene migration from southern Africa to the Nile valley?
And as an added bonus (laugh) for us all, what did this migration supposedly imply?
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: Speaking of "Neanderthal genes", precisely what does this mean?
It means that Europeans want so much to be separated from Africa, that they will go to any length just do so. Despite the pile of evidence to the contrary bio-anthropologically staring them in the face. Same old...
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
I mean what's this fuss about the human genome showing some very minor Neanderthal genetic accretions. People seem to forget that Neanderthal genes were also found in new Guineans. Maybe they would also be found in Andaman Islanders, Solomon Islanders and--gasp--Tasmanians, many of whom were just killed for sport by the invading whites then their stuffed heads mounted in glass cases as anthropological trophies.
The Neanderthal fundamentalists--in their efforts to distinguish Euro genomes--have not given an account of why the tropical New Guineans, with all their feathered finery share in the Neanderthal accretions. Obviously, the genetic uniqueness of Europe evaporates at this finding--because the assumption is that it is the genetic uniqueness of Europe--with those Neanderthal genes that Africans don't have--that explains their self-aggrandizing [pesudo]superiority.
The thing with Templeton is that I am not sure whether he supports the bogus Wolpoff hypothesis or whether the genetic minglings he shouts about came after the OOA time range(circa 60KBP).
Posts: 5492 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
The unwrapped mummy of 'Red-Haired' Ginger Ramses II, photographed in 1889 by Emil Brugsch -
Neanderthals 'were flame-haired' By Paul Rincon Science reporter, Murcia, Spain
Some Neanderthals were probably redheads, a DNA study has shown.
A team reports in the journal Science that it extracted DNA from the remains of two Neanderthals and retrieved part of an important gene called MC1R.
In modern people, a change - or mutation - in this gene causes red hair, but, until now, no one knew what hair colour our extinct relatives had.
By analysing a version of the gene in Neanderthals, the scientists found that they also have sported fiery locks.
"We found a variant of MC1R in Neanderthals which is not present in modern humans, but which causes an effect on the hair similar to that seen in modern redheads," said lead author Carles Lalueza-Fox, assistant professor in genetics at the University of Barcelona, Spain."
posted
Silly people, saying and showing, silly things.
Albinism - Hair color is the pigmentation of hair follicles due to two types of melanin, eumelanin and pheomelanin. Generally, if more melanin is present, the color of the hair is darker; if less melanin is present, the hair is lighter. Blond hair can have almost any proportion of phaeomelanin and eumelanin, but both only in small amounts. More phaeomelanin creates a more golden blond color, and more eumelanin creates an ash blond. Blond hair is common in many European peoples, but rare among peoples of non-European origin. Many children born with blond hair develop darker hair as they age. Red hair ranges from vivid strawberry shades to deep auburn and burgundy, and is the rarest fully distinct hair color on earth. It is caused by a variation in the Mc1r gene and believed to be recessive. Red hair has the highest amounts of phaeomelanin and usually low levels of eumelanin, and is the rarest natural human hair color.
posted
A 400,000-year-old stone object unearthed in Morocco possibly the world's oldest attempt at sculpture by Homo erectus, Homo heidelbergensis or a close relative. This predates by 200-300K years Homo Sapien or earliest AMH.
Tan-Tan figurine/tools, Bednarik The figurine was found 15 metres below ground
Handaxes were found close to the figurine
'Oldest sculpture' found in Morocco
A 400,000-year-old stone object unearthed in Morocco could be the world's oldest attempt at sculpture.
That is the claim of a prehistoric art specialist who says the ancient rock bears clear signs of modification by humans.
The object, which is around six centimetres in length, is shaped like a human figure, with grooves that suggest a neck, arms and legs. On its surface are flakes of a red substance that could be remnants of paint.
The object was found 15 metres below the eroded surface of a terrace on the north bank of the River Draa near the town of Tan-Tan. It was reportedly lying just a few centimetres away from stone handaxes in ground layers dating to the Middle Acheulian period, which lasted from 500,000 to 300,000 years ago.
Cultural controversy
The find is likely to further fuel a vociferous debate over the timing of humanity's discovery of symbolism. Hominids such as Homo heidelbergensis and Homo erectus, that were alive during the Acheulian period, are not thought to have been capable of the symbolic thought needed to create art.
Writing in the journal Current Anthropology, Robert Bednarik, president of the International Federation of Rock Art Organisations (IFRAO), suggests that the overall shape of the Tan-Tan object was fashioned by natural processes.
But he argues that conspicuous grooves on the surface of the stone, which appear to emphasise its humanlike appearance, are partially man-made. Mr Bednarik claims that some of these grooves were made by repeated battering with a stone tool to connect up natural depressions in the rock.
Tan-Tan figurine/tools, Bednarik Handaxes were found close to the figurine "What we've got is a piece of stone that is largely naturally shaped.
"It has some modifications, but they are more than modifications," Mr Bednarik told BBC News Online.
Mr Bednarik tried to replicate the markings on a similar piece of rock by hitting a stone flake with a "hammerstone" in the manner of a punch. He then compared the microscopic structure of the fractures with those of the Tan-Tan object.
Skeptic's view
However, Professor Stanley Ambrose of the University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, US, said he saw no evidence for tool marks and that, although the figure was evocative, it was most likely the result of "fortuitous natural weathering".
"[Mr Bednarik] has effectively presented all the information necessary to show this is a naturally weathered rock," Professor Ambrose told BBC News Online.
Professor Ambrose points to Mr Bednarik's observation that some rocks in the vicinity of the figure were weathered and even rounded from transport by water. Professor Ambrose believes that rocks and artefacts found at the site could have been disturbed by flowing water in the past.
Mr Bednarik also observes that flecks of a greasy substance containing iron and manganese on the surface of the stone could be red ochre, a substance used as paint by later humans.
"They [the specks] do not resemble corroded natural iron deposits, nor has any trace of this pigment been detected on any of the other objects I have examined from Tan-Tan," writes Mr Bednarik in his paper.
A 200,000-300,000-year-old stone object found at Berekhat Ram in Israel in 1986 has also been the subject of claims that it is a figurine. However, several other researchers later presented evidence to show that it was probably shaped by geological processes.
The Tan-Tan object was discovered in 1999, during a dig directed by Lutz Fiedler, the state archaeologist of Hesse in Germany.
By Paul Rincon BBC Science
Original Tropically Adapted African Human to leave Africa was the ancestor of ALL modern humans and Neanderthals. Many Homo Erectus continued to live in Africa and evolve into modern Homo Sapiens.
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic