posted
The theory that all humans have African roots has been given its strongest confirmation yet
We've all got roots in Africa (if you go back 60,000 years) By COLIN FERNANDEZ - More by this author » Last updated at 22:28pm on 7th May 2007
Research has indicated that Aborigines share the genetic features that have been linked to the exodus of modern humans from Africa
The theory that all human settlements around the world began with a single wave of migration from Africa has had its strongest confirmation yet.
Previously it was thought that the unique DNA "fingerprint" of Australia's aborigines contradicted the "out of Africa" hypothesis. But scientists have shown that they have the same ancestors as the rest of us.
This confirms the idea that all modern humans descended from a small band of settlers who left the African plains 55,000 to 60,000 years ago.
Over thousands of years, their numbers grew and they fanned out across the world - replacing older species such as the Neanderthals and Homo Erectus which left Africa much earlier.
Before the new research, geneticists were baffled by the fact that skeletal remains and primitive stone blades found in Australian archaeological sites were strikingly different from those found along the trail taken by the first migrants leaving Africa.
This gave rise to claims that the ancient Aborigines could have inter-bred with more primitive humans such as Homo Erectus, or that they evolved from a much later migration from India.
However, Cambridge University scientists were able to demonstrate that Australia's settlers share common ancestors with the rest of the world by testing DNA samples more extensively than had been possible before.
Dr Peter Forster, who led the research, said: "For the first time, this evidence gives us a genetic link showing that the Australian Aboriginal and New Guinean populations are descended directly from the same specific group of people who emerged from the African migration."
The scientists reported their findings in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
They wrote that Australian and New Guinean populations share characteristics found nowhere else because they evolved with no genetic input from outsiders once they had settled in Australasia.
The theory that all modern humans descended out of Africa is almost certainly correct, new research claims.
According to the 'Out of Africa' theory, all modern humans come from a single group of Homo sapiens who emigrated from Africa 2,000 generations ago and spread throughout Europe and Asia over thousands of years.
They then replaced other early human settlers, such as Neanderthals, rather than interbreeding with them.
Some scientists have said that there is evidence which dispels this theory, but a new study claims that its DNA evidence proves Out of Africa to be true.
A team led by scientists at Cambridge and Anglia Ruskin Universities found that Australia's Aboriginal population comes from the same small group of colonists as their neighbours in New Guinea.
They came to this conclusion after analysing the mitochondrial DNA and Y chromosomes of Aboriginal Australians and Melanesians from New Guinea.
The results showed that they share the same genetic features that have been associated with the exodus from Africa 50,000 years ago.
Early humans were able to travel to Australia via a land bridge that was submerged by water 8,000 years ago. This, the study's authors claim, explains why the fossil and archaeological record in Australia is so different to that found elsewhere even though genetic evidence shows no interbreeding with Homo erectus.
Dr. Toomas Kivisild, the report's co-author from Cambridge University, explained: "The evidence points to relative isolation after the initial arrival, which would mean any significant developments in skeletal form and tool use were not influenced by outside sources.
"There was probably a minor secondary gene flow into Australia while the land bridge from New Guinea was still open, but once it was submerged the population was apparently isolated for thousands of years. The differences in the archaeological record are probably the result of this, rather than any secondary migration or interbreeding."
The findings are published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences journal.
posted
It was most probably the mutation of a super sized speech center that gave rise to and defined man. Such an event would be most unlikely to occur in more than a single place since it would have spread so rapidly.
I suspect most people already believed the species originated in Africa. This has been the dominant theory for a couple generations.
-------------------- Men fear the pyramid, time fears man. Posts: 393 | From: NW Indiana, US of A | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm personally from Africa, and when you are familiar with the African physical diversity, it is striking how non African kept the same physical features as African although non African look mixed from an African point of view. Even some Africans who are not exposed to that African diversity don't realize that, any serious anthropologist is aware of that.
Posts: 919 | From: AFRICA | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Myra Wysinger: Out of Africa theory 'correct'
Tuesday, 08 May 2007
The theory that all modern humans descended out of Africa is almost certainly correct, new research claims.
According to the 'Out of Africa' theory, all modern humans come from a single group of Homo sapiens who emigrated from Africa 2,000 generations ago and spread throughout Europe and Asia over thousands of years.
They then replaced other early human settlers, such as Neanderthals, rather than interbreeding with them.
Some scientists have said that there is evidence which dispels this theory, but a new study claims that its DNA evidence proves Out of Africa to be true.
A team led by scientists at Cambridge and Anglia Ruskin Universities found that Australia's Aboriginal population comes from the same small group of colonists as their neighbours in New Guinea.
They came to this conclusion after analysing the mitochondrial DNA and Y chromosomes of Aboriginal Australians and Melanesians from New Guinea.
The results showed that they share the same genetic features that have been associated with the exodus from Africa 50,000 years ago.
Early humans were able to travel to Australia via a land bridge that was submerged by water 8,000 years ago. This, the study's authors claim, explains why the fossil and archaeological record in Australia is so different to that found elsewhere even though genetic evidence shows no interbreeding with Homo erectus.
Dr. Toomas Kivisild, the report's co-author from Cambridge University, explained: "The evidence points to relative isolation after the initial arrival, which would mean any significant developments in skeletal form and tool use were not influenced by outside sources.
"There was probably a minor secondary gene flow into Australia while the land bridge from New Guinea was still open, but once it was submerged the population was apparently isolated for thousands of years. The differences in the archaeological record are probably the result of this, rather than any secondary migration or interbreeding."
The findings are published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences journal.
This theory is bad science and will probably be disputed in the future. The researchers have reached these conclusions based mainly on genetics.This is a terrible use of genetics to promote population history because it is disputed by archaeology.
It is clear that some elements in these areas are remnants of the original inhabitants of the region. But to claim that Melanesia has not been influenced by later cultures is without foundation given the presence of Lapita culture in the region and the numerous place names of African origin found in Melanesia.
Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Myra Wysinger: Out of Africa theory 'correct'
Tuesday, 08 May 2007
The theory that all modern humans descended out of Africa is almost certainly correct, new research claims.
According to the 'Out of Africa' theory, all modern humans come from a single group of Homo sapiens who emigrated from Africa 2,000 generations ago and spread throughout Europe and Asia over thousands of years.
They then replaced other early human settlers, such as Neanderthals, rather than interbreeding with them.
Some scientists have said that there is evidence which dispels this theory, but a new study claims that its DNA evidence proves Out of Africa to be true.
A team led by scientists at Cambridge and Anglia Ruskin Universities found that Australia's Aboriginal population comes from the same small group of colonists as their neighbours in New Guinea.
They came to this conclusion after analysing the mitochondrial DNA and Y chromosomes of Aboriginal Australians and Melanesians from New Guinea.
The results showed that they share the same genetic features that have been associated with the exodus from Africa 50,000 years ago.
Early humans were able to travel to Australia via a land bridge that was submerged by water 8,000 years ago. This, the study's authors claim, explains why the fossil and archaeological record in Australia is so different to that found elsewhere even though genetic evidence shows no interbreeding with Homo erectus.
Dr. Toomas Kivisild, the report's co-author from Cambridge University, explained: "The evidence points to relative isolation after the initial arrival, which would mean any significant developments in skeletal form and tool use were not influenced by outside sources.
"There was probably a minor secondary gene flow into Australia while the land bridge from New Guinea was still open, but once it was submerged the population was apparently isolated for thousands of years. The differences in the archaeological record are probably the result of this, rather than any secondary migration or interbreeding."
The findings are published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences journal.
quote:Winters: This theory is bad science and will probably be disputed in the future.
If you label it bad science, then you have to back that up by refuting it *now.*
quote: The researchers have reached these conclusions based mainly on genetics.
Actually Out-of-Africa originates in anthropology, genetics has simply reinforced this so that Out-of-Africa as become Recent African Origin. IE - Recent African Origin of all human beings.
quote:This is a terrible use of genetics to promote population history because it is disputed by archaeology.
No, it isn't. If this comment is true, then don't make rhetoric, just show us clearly and specifically how archeology "refutes" genetics.
quote: It is clear that some elements in these areas are remnants of the original inhabitants of the region.
As shown by genetics. So....(?)
quote:But to claim that Melanesia has not been influenced by later cultures
What geneticists claims this? Provide the name, or admit that you once again are resorting to strawman arguments.
quote: is without foundation given the presence of Lapita culture in the region and the numerous place names of African origin found in Melanesia.
This is just noisemaking Dr. Winters. The whole point of Out-of-Africa is that all people, and therefore the base of all human culture and langauge is from Africa.
Therefore finding words in Melanesia, Eurasia, America that are similar to words found in Africa per se, is consistent with Recent African Origin of humans.
What you assert is historical migrations of West Africans across a lost continent linked to southern Asia, who then went on to found Melanesia, China, Dravidia, and so on.
What you propose is prepostrous, with or without 'genetics'.
Genetics is simply a nemisis for you because it shuts you down, by putting a stop to fantasy confusing itself with history.
Anyway, you offered to specifics to support your bias against genetics.
It's a one-sided "war" in which you appear to be unarmed. Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:This is a terrible use of genetics to promote population history because it is disputed by archaeology.
No, it isn't. If this comment is true, then don't make rhetoric, just show us clearly and specifically how archeology "refutes" genetics.
Natural question to ask; let's await the answer.
I posed a very simple question in a topic that Clyde initiated about, 'Did Man Originate in India?', and not a single answer was forthcoming from the Clyde 'camp', supposedly disputing human origins in Africa. Maybe this time, this sort of underachievement won't happen.
Posts: 1947 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Myra Wysinger: Out of Africa theory 'correct'
Tuesday, 08 May 2007
The theory that all modern humans descended out of Africa is almost certainly correct, new research claims.
According to the 'Out of Africa' theory, all modern humans come from a single group of Homo sapiens who emigrated from Africa 2,000 generations ago and spread throughout Europe and Asia over thousands of years.
They then replaced other early human settlers, such as Neanderthals, rather than interbreeding with them.
Some scientists have said that there is evidence which dispels this theory, but a new study claims that its DNA evidence proves Out of Africa to be true.
A team led by scientists at Cambridge and Anglia Ruskin Universities found that Australia's Aboriginal population comes from the same small group of colonists as their neighbours in New Guinea.
They came to this conclusion after analysing the mitochondrial DNA and Y chromosomes of Aboriginal Australians and Melanesians from New Guinea.
The results showed that they share the same genetic features that have been associated with the exodus from Africa 50,000 years ago.
Early humans were able to travel to Australia via a land bridge that was submerged by water 8,000 years ago. This, the study's authors claim, explains why the fossil and archaeological record in Australia is so different to that found elsewhere even though genetic evidence shows no interbreeding with Homo erectus.
Dr. Toomas Kivisild, the report's co-author from Cambridge University, explained: "The evidence points to relative isolation after the initial arrival, which would mean any significant developments in skeletal form and tool use were not influenced by outside sources. "There was probably a minor secondary gene flow into Australia while the land bridge from New Guinea was still open, but once it was submerged the population was apparently isolated for thousands of years. The differences in the archaeological record are probably the result of this, rather than any secondary migration or interbreeding."
The findings are published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences journal.
[QUOTE]But to claim that Melanesia has not been influenced by later cultures
What geneticists claims this? Provide the name, or admit that you once again are resorting to strawman arguments.]
See bold above.Again how can this claim be made when the Lapita culture spread to this region, and even cattle came from outside the region and had to be carried there by a different population after this proposed closure of migration mentioned by the authors above.
quote:This is a terrible use of genetics to promote population history because it is disputed by archaeology.
No, it isn't. If this comment is true, then don't make rhetoric, just show us clearly and specifically how archeology "refutes" genetics.
Natural question to ask; let's await the answer.
I posed a very simple question in a topic that Clyde initiated about, 'Did Man Originate in India?', and not a single answer was forthcoming from the Clyde 'camp', supposedly disputing human origins in Africa. Maybe this time, this sort of underachievement won't happen.
I never supported an Indian origin for mankind. In fact I attempted to explain that the main proponents of this view are Hinduvista , that dominant the field of genectics in India .
quote:This is a terrible use of genetics to promote population history because it is disputed by archaeology.
No, it isn't. If this comment is true, then don't make rhetoric, just show us clearly and specifically how archeology "refutes" genetics.
Natural question to ask; let's await the answer.
I posed a very simple question in a topic that Clyde initiated about, 'Did Man Originate in India?', and not a single answer was forthcoming from the Clyde 'camp', supposedly disputing human origins in Africa. Maybe this time, this sort of underachievement won't happen.
I never supported an Indian origin for mankind.
I suggest you 'carefully' re-read what you are citing.
quote:Clyde Winters:
In fact I attempted to explain that the main proponents of this view are Hinduvista , that dominant the field of genectics in India .
Immaterial. See above, and deliver.
Posts: 1947 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:See bold above.Again how can this claim be made when the Lapita culture spread to this region, and even cattle came from outside the region and had to be carried there by a different population after this proposed closure of migration mentioned by the authors above.
^ But you claim that Kivisild states that Melanesia was never influenceed by later cultures?
Kivisild *never states* any such thing.
Kivisild actually states:
"There was probably a minor secondary gene flow into Australia while the land bridge from New Guinea was still open, but once it was submerged the population was apparently isolated for thousands of years."
Kivisild is discussing the original settlement of south Asia 60 thousand years ago, and the isolation that led to this populations sharing a commmon and ancient ancestry.
Lapita culture relates to the spread of Polynesians from Asia to polynesia 4,000 years ago, which is a completely distinct issue.
The issue at hand is directly stated in the article:
This confirms the idea that all modern humans descended from a small band of settlers who left the African plains 55,000 to 60,000 years ago.
As opposed to...
...geneticists were baffled by the fact that skeletal remains and primitive stone blades found in Australian archaeological sites were strikingly different from those found along the trail taken by the first migrants leaving Africa.
This gave rise to claims that the ancient Aborigines could have inter-bred with more primitive humans such as Homo Erectus, or that they evolved from a much later migration from India.
^ None of this, has anything to do with the historic Lapita culture.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: I never supported an Indian origin for mankind. In fact I attempted to explain that the main proponents of this view are Hinduvista , that dominant the field of genectics in India .
Yes, I recall you were disputing the article cited, though there was some confusion about this at the time.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Cool]](cool.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic