posted
round 60,000 years ago, a man—genetically identical to us—lived in Africa. Every person alive today is descended from him. How did this real-life Adam wind up as the father of us all? What happened to the descendants of other men who lived at the same time? And why, if modern humans share a single prehistoric ancestor, do we come in so many sizes, shapes, and races? Examining the hidden secrets of human evolution in our genetic code, Spencer Wells reveals how developments in the revolutionary science of population genetics have made it possible to create a family tree for the whole of humanity. Replete with marvelous anecdotes and remarkable information, from the truth about the real Adam and Eve to the way differing racial types emerged, The Journey of Man is an enthralling, epic tour through the history and development of early humankind.
How did this real-life Adam wind up as the father of us all?
How about the simple fact that he was a lucky fellow, who actually got lucky with a chick ~ wink wink ~...ahem...quite unlike Egyptsearch's "sleepless" resident sexually-ambiguous and socially-rejected "all-time loser in life" caribbean "keyboard" chick and his/her kin intellectually dead hoodlums; any of the latter clan of clowns would have most certainly *ensured* the extinction of humanity as we know it today.
Posts: 117 | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
The concept is tracing back over 50 thousand years genetically to find the first man came from Africa nad migrated up through Africa, through India and into Australia as well as through Asia and into the Americas. It was quite an interesting watch.
Posts: 34 | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Did Early Humans Mate With The Locals? Human Genome Data Cast Doubt On "Replacement Theory" Of Human Evolution ScienceDaily (Dec. 26, 2002) — A new analysis of human genetic history deals a blow to the theory that early people moved out of Africa and completely replaced local populations elsewhere in the world. The findings suggest there was at least limited interbreeding between our African ancestors and the residents of areas where they settled.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- See also: Health & Medicine Human Biology Genes Pregnancy and Childbirth Fossils & Ruins Early Humans Human Evolution Anthropology Reference Multiregional hypothesis Recent single-origin hypothesis Human skin color Neandertal interaction with Cro-Magnons "The new data seem to suggest that early human pioneers moving out of Africa starting 80,000 years ago did not completely replace local populations in the rest of the world," says Henry Harpending, a University of Utah anthropology professor and co-author of the new study. "There is instead some sign of interbreeding."
If that conclusion is correct, it contradicts the "replacement theory" of human evolution - a theory Harpending has advocated for more than a decade.
"Hypotheses are called into question by data every day in science. That's the way it works," he says.
The journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences is publishing the new findings in its online edition the week of Dec. 23, 2002. The study's 20 co-authors include three from the University of Utah: Harpending; Alan Rogers, also a professor of anthropology; and Stephen Wooding, a postdoctoral researcher in human genetics.
The study was led by anthropologist Stephen Sherry and mathematician Gabor Marth of the National Center for Biotechnology Information at the National Institutes of Health in Bethesda, Md. Sherry is a former student of Harpending's when both were at Pennsylvania State University. Other co-authors of the new study are from the Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis, The Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine in Baltimore and the University of California, San Francisco.
Most anthropologists agree human ancestors first spread out of Africa roughly 1.8 million years ago, establishing new populations in Europe, Asia and elsewhere. The "multiregional theory" holds modern humans evolved from those multiple populations. The competing "replacement theory" says that the local populations, including Europe's Neanderthals, went extinct when they were replaced roughly between 80,000 and 30,000 years ago by another wave of human immigrants from Africa.
Scientists can analyze ancient genetic mutations in modern people to learn about how humans evolved and the size of the human population over time. Mutations occur at a relatively steady rate over time. If the human population were large at a specific point in prehistoric time, more mutations would occur, resulting in greater diversity in genetic mutations found in modern people. A small population of human ancestors would result in fewer mutations, so modern humans would display less genetic diversity.
So a person's genetic material "contains the whole history of the population from which you descended," Harpending says.
Earlier studies of genetic material known as mitochondrial DNA and microsatellites supported the notion that a small group of perhaps 5,000 to 20,000 primitive humans migrated from East Africa, spread around the world, a rapidly expanded in population as they replaced other human populations elsewhere in Africa 80,000 years ago, and in Asia 50,000 years ago and Europe about 35,000 years ago.
The new study, however, analyzed mutations called SNPs (single nucleotide polymorphisms) in DNA from the nucleus of human cells studied for the Human Genome Project, the effort to map the entire human genetic blueprint. The analysis indicates there was a bottleneck in the human population - what looks like a sharp reduction in the number of people - when ancestors of modern humans colonized Europe roughly 40,000 years ago.
Researchers are not sure what this means because it conflicts with studies of other kinds of human genetic information, which support the idea that a rapidly expanding African population spread globally and replaced local populations elsewhere.
"If Africans moved out of Africa and then populated the whole world, we would see that in the genetic evidence as an expansion in population size," yet the new study indicated the population shrank instead, Rogers says.
The evidence five years ago indicated migrating Africans did not interbreed with local populations, while the new study indicates they did, Rogers notes, adding that the conflicting genetic data mean "the question is still open."
Harpending says one possible explanation for the new data is that there was a large population of humans who migrated from Africa, yet they kept largely to themselves and mated only to a limited extent with local populations in Europe and elsewhere. Because interbreeding still was uncommon, only a few of the prehistoric European genes were incorporated into the modern human genetic blueprint, giving a false impression that the prehistoric human population collapsed or shrank in size, Harpending says.
Another possibility is that the prehistoric African population was large 100,000 years ago, but only a very small number - perhaps a few dozen - of those Africans migrated to other areas some 80,000 years ago, ultimately replacing local populations. That would explain why the human genetic blueprint could give a false impression that the human population collapsed in size even if it did not. But Harpending believes it is unlikely that such a small number of migrants from Africa could spread globally and ultimately replace other populations.
Adapted from materials provided by University Of Utah. Need to cite this story in your essay, paper, or report? Use one of the following formats: APA
MLA University Of Utah (2002, December 26). Did Early Humans Mate With The Locals? Human Genome Data Cast Doubt On "Replacement
Posts: 2069 | From: Texas | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
You are obviously very young and lack the attention span required to read; so you have become used to getting your information from movies, television, and videos. I can only say that if you continue in that direction, you will certainly grow-up to be a stupid old man. (Of course that WILL qualify you for some very high-paying and prestigious jobs in politics and business); however it is not useful if you plan to dabble in the sciences.
Before explaining; let me just say that Spencer Wells has proven himself to be a self-serving charlatan, and anything that he says needs to be approached with caution. However in this case, if you visit his National Geographic site, and READ, you will see that what he wrote on the site does not agree with what you wrote. As to the video, I don’t watch such things.
Homo-sapiens or Homo-sapiens-sapiens; Us: Modern Man, whichever name you choose to us; is about 400,000 years old. The age, like the names Homo-sapiens or Homo-sapiens-sapiens; is often changed to accommodate the latest theory that will allow Whites to be European (but that’s another story).
Some time around 60,000 years ago, a GROUP or GROUPS of them; over an unknown time-span, left SOUTHERN AFRICA, crossed over to the SOUTHERN part of Arabia, then crossed into India and followed a COASTAL route into Australia and then, probably via the Antarctic, arrived in South America at about 55,000 ya. All the while populating the places that they passed through.
Some time around 50,000 years ago, another GROUP or GROUPS of them; over an unknown time-span, left SOUTHERN AFRICA, crossed over to the SOUTHERN part of Arabia, then crossed into India and followed an INLAND route to China and then, probably via the Arctic, into North America. All the while populating the places that they passed through.
Some time around 45,000 years ago, another GROUP or GROUPS of them (southern Africans); over an unknown time-span, left NORTHERN AFRICA, and crossed over into SOUTHERN EUROPE via the straits of Gibraltar, these people CROSSED EUROPE and ASIA, with their Easternmost (known) settlement being Mal’ta Siberia; just north of Mongolia. All the while populating the places that they passed through. This group: known as the Khoisan Grimaldi; is the easiest group to follow because they left a rich trail of artifacts, which includes Cave paintings in Europe, and carved figures of Steatopygia Females throughout their range.
Of course, this all begs the question; If these people were all Africans, Where or how, did Whites and Mongols come from/get here? The honest answer is that nobody knows. Of course this hasn't stopped the liars and charlatans from coming up with the most convoluted and outrageous pronouncements and theories. But the fact still remains that we simply don't know.
Can you see how this is a little different from what you wrote?
Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! That was funny. Hang in there buddy!
quote:Originally posted by TheAmericanPatriot: Did Early Humans Mate With The Locals? Human Genome Data Cast Doubt On "Replacement Theory" Of Human Evolution ScienceDaily (Dec. 26, 2002) — A new analysis of human genetic history deals a blow to the theory that early people moved out of Africa and completely replaced local populations elsewhere in the world. The findings suggest there was at least limited interbreeding between our African ancestors and the residents of areas where they settled.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- See also: Health & Medicine Human Biology Genes Pregnancy and Childbirth Fossils & Ruins Early Humans Human Evolution Anthropology Reference Multiregional hypothesis Recent single-origin hypothesis Human skin color Neandertal interaction with Cro-Magnons "The new data seem to suggest that early human pioneers moving out of Africa starting 80,000 years ago did not completely replace local populations in the rest of the world," says Henry Harpending, a University of Utah anthropology professor and co-author of the new study. "There is instead some sign of interbreeding."
If that conclusion is correct, it contradicts the "replacement theory" of human evolution - a theory Harpending has advocated for more than a decade.
"Hypotheses are called into question by data every day in science. That's the way it works," he says.
The journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences is publishing the new findings in its online edition the week of Dec. 23, 2002. The study's 20 co-authors include three from the University of Utah: Harpending; Alan Rogers, also a professor of anthropology; and Stephen Wooding, a postdoctoral researcher in human genetics.
The study was led by anthropologist Stephen Sherry and mathematician Gabor Marth of the National Center for Biotechnology Information at the National Institutes of Health in Bethesda, Md. Sherry is a former student of Harpending's when both were at Pennsylvania State University. Other co-authors of the new study are from the Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis, The Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine in Baltimore and the University of California, San Francisco.
Most anthropologists agree human ancestors first spread out of Africa roughly 1.8 million years ago, establishing new populations in Europe, Asia and elsewhere. The "multiregional theory" holds modern humans evolved from those multiple populations. The competing "replacement theory" says that the local populations, including Europe's Neanderthals, went extinct when they were replaced roughly between 80,000 and 30,000 years ago by another wave of human immigrants from Africa.
Scientists can analyze ancient genetic mutations in modern people to learn about how humans evolved and the size of the human population over time. Mutations occur at a relatively steady rate over time. If the human population were large at a specific point in prehistoric time, more mutations would occur, resulting in greater diversity in genetic mutations found in modern people. A small population of human ancestors would result in fewer mutations, so modern humans would display less genetic diversity.
So a person's genetic material "contains the whole history of the population from which you descended," Harpending says.
Earlier studies of genetic material known as mitochondrial DNA and microsatellites supported the notion that a small group of perhaps 5,000 to 20,000 primitive humans migrated from East Africa, spread around the world, a rapidly expanded in population as they replaced other human populations elsewhere in Africa 80,000 years ago, and in Asia 50,000 years ago and Europe about 35,000 years ago.
The new study, however, analyzed mutations called SNPs (single nucleotide polymorphisms) in DNA from the nucleus of human cells studied for the Human Genome Project, the effort to map the entire human genetic blueprint. The analysis indicates there was a bottleneck in the human population - what looks like a sharp reduction in the number of people - when ancestors of modern humans colonized Europe roughly 40,000 years ago.
Researchers are not sure what this means because it conflicts with studies of other kinds of human genetic information, which support the idea that a rapidly expanding African population spread globally and replaced local populations elsewhere.
"If Africans moved out of Africa and then populated the whole world, we would see that in the genetic evidence as an expansion in population size," yet the new study indicated the population shrank instead, Rogers says.
The evidence five years ago indicated migrating Africans did not interbreed with local populations, while the new study indicates they did, Rogers notes, adding that the conflicting genetic data mean "the question is still open."
Harpending says one possible explanation for the new data is that there was a large population of humans who migrated from Africa, yet they kept largely to themselves and mated only to a limited extent with local populations in Europe and elsewhere. Because interbreeding still was uncommon, only a few of the prehistoric European genes were incorporated into the modern human genetic blueprint, giving a false impression that the prehistoric human population collapsed or shrank in size, Harpending says.
Another possibility is that the prehistoric African population was large 100,000 years ago, but only a very small number - perhaps a few dozen - of those Africans migrated to other areas some 80,000 years ago, ultimately replacing local populations. That would explain why the human genetic blueprint could give a false impression that the human population collapsed in size even if it did not. But Harpending believes it is unlikely that such a small number of migrants from Africa could spread globally and ultimately replace other populations.
quote:Originally posted by TheAmericanPatriot: Did Early Humans Mate With The Locals? Human Genome Data Cast Doubt On "Replacement Theory" Of Human Evolution ScienceDaily (Dec. 26, 2002) —
^ You guys shouldn't need help in dispatching Professor H, but apparently you do.
Honestly, some little babies up in here. Helpless, and easily led astray.
To the point.
His source is ScienceDaily, but from 2002.
Now, here is the same source, from 2007:
New Research Confirms 'Out Of Africa' Theory Of Human Evolution ScienceDaily (May 10, 2007) — Researchers have produced new DNA evidence that almost certainly confirms the theory that all modern humans have a common ancestry. The genetic survey, produced by a collaborative team led by scholars at Cambridge and Anglia Ruskin Universities, shows that Australia's aboriginal population sprang from the same tiny group of colonists, along with their New Guinean neighbours.
Professor H, knew his citation was outdated. He just didn't think anyone would call him on it.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by TheAmericanPatriot: read the above post from the university of toronto.
^^^^^Lmao.... You're a wishful thinking son of a B, now aren't ya?
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
No can you explain it again? 
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic