posted
Background The molecular out of Africa hypothesis, OOAH, has been considered as an established fact amid population geneticists for some 25–30 years despite the early concern with it among phylogeneticists with experience beyond that of Homo. The palaeontological support for the hypothesis is also questionable, a circumstance that in the light of expanding Eurasian palaeontological knowledge has become accentuated through the last decades.
Results The direction of evolution in the phylogenetic tree of modern humans (Homo sapiens sapiens, Hss) was established inter alia by applying progressive phylogenetic analysis to an mtDNA sampling that included a Eurasian, Lund, and the African Mbuti, San and Yoruba. The examination identified the African populations as paraphyletic, thereby compromising the OOAH. The finding, which was consistent with the out of Eurasia hypothesis, OOEH, was corroborated by the mtDNA introgression from Hss into Hsnn (Neanderthals) that demonstrated the temporal and physical Eurasian coexistence of the two lineages. The results are consistent with the palaeontologically established presence of H. erectus in Eurasia, a Eurasian divergence between H. sapiens and H. antecessor ≈ 850,000 YBP, an Hs divergence between Hss and Hsn (Neanderthals + Denisovans) ≈ 800,000 YBP, an mtDNA introgression from Hss into Hsnn* ≈ 500,000 YBP and an Eurasian divergence among the ancestors of extant Hss ≈ 250,000 YBP at the exodus of Mbuti/San into Africa.
Conclusions The present study showed that Eurasia was not the receiver but the donor in Hss evolution. The findings that Homo left Africa as erectus and returned as sapiens sapiens constitute a change in the understanding of Hs evolution to one that conforms to the extensive Eurasian record of Hs palaeontology and archaeology.
posted
LOL. There is no archaeological evidence of anatomically modern humans migrating from Eurasia back into Africa. This is nothing more than "white claiming" an historical event which never occurred.
Moreover the earliest skeletons of the ancestor of Neanderthal H. heidelbergensis , are found in Africa, not Eurasia. You can add this nonsense to the depiction of Neanderthals with pale skin when pale skin is not even 10k years old
-------------------- C. A. Winters Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: LOL. There is no archaeological evidence of anatomically modern humans migrating from Eurasia back into Africa. This is nothing more than "white claiming" an historical event which never occurred.
Moreover the earliest skeletons of the ancestor of Neanderthal H. heidelbergensis , are found in Africa, not Eurasia. You can add this nonsense to the depiction of Neanderthals with pale skin when pale skin is not even 10k years old
I think migration of sapiens back into Africa took place much later AFTER the much earlier OOA exits. So it is quite possible to have nomads or fishermen from the Arabian peninsula crossing over into Africa circa say, 5000BC. But that is comparatively recent, well AFTER OOA events circa 60kya-40kya or other such related ancient dating. Of course one may well ask, on what grounds is say a fisherman coming back to fish off the African coast a few thousand years after his ancestors left "Eurasian"?
The article just on quick skim seems to have a number of weaknesses, some of which revolve around the old game of definitional manipulation.
1) One problem is their sampling scheme. They use West African Yoruba as "representative" of Africans, justifying their choice by referring to an article on the peopling of Australia, and claiming that "Yoruba is commonly taken as the African ancestor of non-African populations in studies that acknowledge OOAH." But Yoruba is not the only group "commonly" used as "representative" African ancestor. Their referenced article says no such thing, and simply uses Yoruba as a comparison group, along with others like the Dinka. Pagani 2015 who acknowledges OOA uses Ethiopians and Egyptians along with Yoruba as samples, and finds the Northeast Africans to be closer to non-Africans than the more distant West Afri Yoruba. This is exactly what should have been expected given NE Africa as one of the key exit points of Africans into "Eurasia." Thus right off the bat their use of a Yoruba "true negro" representative to stand in for Africans raises a question mark.
2) Their "representative" Eurasian, curiously, is rather vaguely defined, labeled "Lund". Their reference for this mysterious "Eurasian" stand-in is an article that the same lead author over 20 years ago in 1996, having to do with chimps and Homos compared. Few other credible peer reviewed studies use this mysterious "Lund" to denote a model "Eurasian." A Google search on this "Eurasian Lund" brings up fewer than 8 relevant links, most of them looping back to the same author or threads started recently in some web forums like Anthrogenica. Of the 8 links, one that seems to offer more than a simple loopback to the same study comes up, "404" error. Even now defunct alternative forums to Egypt Search don't mention this mysterious "Eurasian Lund" either. http://egyptsearchdetoxed.blogspot.com/2016/07/why-basal-eurasian-is-still-african-as.html
The article feels like one of those "HBD" "loopback" gambits. Someone posts a shaky study, and it is "referenced" or "liked" or spammed around the web in various echo chambers to build "buzz", as if it is of some sort of major significance.
-------------------- Note: I am not an "Egyptologist" as claimed by some still bitter, defeated, trolls creating fake profiles and posts elsewhere. Hapless losers, you still fail. My output of hard data debunking racist nonsense has actually INCREASED since you began.. Posts: 5905 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic