quote:Africa has long been regarded as the cradle of humankind, but scientists seeking a more specific location have narrowed in on northern Botswana as the "homeland" for all modern humans, according to a new study.
There, south of the Greater Zambezi River Basin, which includes northern Botswana and parts of Namibia and Zimbabwe, the ancestors of Homo sapiens began 200,000 years ago, the researchers said.
Their new study, published Monday in the journal Nature, suggests that the ancestors of modern humans thrived for 70,000 years in this region before climate change led them to migrate out of Africa and eventually span the globe.
Humans’ maternal ancestors may have arisen 200,000 years ago in southern Africa But new DNA findings don’t offer a complete picture of how and when Homo sapiens emerged By Bruce Bower 10/28/2019
Humankind’s maternal roots extend back about 200,000 years to what was then a lush region of southern Africa, a study suggests. But these results highlight how much remains unknown about human origins.
Examining variations in a type of maternally inherited DNA, scientists concluded that the founding maternal line of Homo sapiens arose in what’s now northern Botswana. Then around 130,000 years ago, some members of that group migrated in two waves to East Africa via a vegetated corridor created by increased rainfall, the researchers report. Until then, that corridor was arid and sparsely vegetated. Those East African migrants may have eventually given rise to early herding and farming groups there.
A second population pulse out of the maternal homeland moved southwest, all the way to the southern tip of Africa, by around 110,000 years ago, while some members stayed behind, geneticist Vanessa Hayes and colleagues report online October 28 in Nature.
As in the previous migration, climate data indicate that wetter conditions created a green pathway for people to traverse. Southern migrants became specialists in hunting and gathering along the coast, the scientists speculate.
“Everyone alive today goes back genetically to one maternal starting point in southern Africa,” said Hayes, of the Garvan Institute of Medical Research in Sydney, in an Oct. 24 news conference. Geologic and archeological evidence suggest that the homeland was characterized by vast, ancient wetlands that allowed humans to thrive there for about 70,000 years.
But the question of how, when and where H. sapiens originated remains far from settled.
That’s because Hayes’ team examined only mitochondrial DNA, which represents a tiny fraction of human ancestry, says archaeologist Eleanor Scerri of the Max Planck Institute for the Science of Human History in Jena, Germany.
Ancient folks who possessed forms of mitochondrial DNA that managed to get passed to people today were not the only people living in Africa 200,000 years ago or earlier, Scerri emphasizes. So only studies of entire genomes (SN: 9/28/17), or at least analyses of nuclear DNA, can provide reliable glimpses of ancient human origins, she argues. In contrast to mitochondrial DNA, nuclear DNA is inherited from both parents and would provide clues to the timing and location of humankind’s paternal roots.
Researchers will need to extract ancient DNA from human fossils to determine whether southern African foraging groups today are related to people who lived in the same region 50,000 or 200,000 years ago, says geneticist Sarah Tishkoff of the University of Pennsylvania. And numbers of East African foragers are now so small that mitochondrial DNA can’t resolve the age and location of their maternal roots, leaving a big question mark about humankind’s maternal evolution, Tishkoff says.
Hayes’ team studied a rare form of mitochondrial DNA, known as L0, which is today largely restricted to the Khoisan people of southern Africa. Khoisan consist of separate populations of herder-gatherers and hunter-gatherers who speak languages containing “click” consonants. Over the last decade, researchers have determined that L0 has far more ancient roots than other forms of mitochondrial DNA that have been inherited by living people.
The researchers collected L0 mitochondrial DNA from 198 indigenous people living in southern Africa, mainly Khoisan. Adding in previously published samples, Hayes’ group analyzed L0 mitochondrial DNA from a total of 1,217 people.
Mitochondrial DNA accumulates changes slowly over many generations. Based on numbers of mitochondrial DNA alterations to samples from different parts of southern Africa, the scientists calculated how long ago and approximately where each L0 variant originated, revealing the ancient migrations and the ancestral homeland.
Comparisons with geologic data and computer simulations of ancient climate shifts corroborated the genetic evidence for the timing of migrations out of that homeland, the researchers say.
While the proposed homeland region is more arid and sparsely populated today, it contained small lakes and abundant vegetation that supported a variety of animals along with humans between 200,000 and 130,000 years ago, Hayes says.
_________________________________
source article authors
Human origins in a southern African palaeo-wetland and first migrations
Eva K. F. Chan, Axel Timmermann
, Benedetta F. Baldi, Andy E. Moore, Ruth J. Lyons, Sun-Seon Lee, Anton M. F. Kalsbeek, Desiree C. Petersen, Hannes Rautenbach, Hagen E. A. Förtsch, M. S. Riana Bornman & Vanessa M. Hayes
Posts: 42919 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:It is a compelling story, but experts in human prehistory aren’t impressed.
The problem is that mitochondrial DNA can’t tell us about such ancient populations, says geneticist Mark Thomas of University College London. Mitochondrial variants only map weakly onto individual populations, and this mapping gets worse further back in time.
“When you go back to the mitochondrial common ancestor, around 200,000 years ago, at that point the tree must contain no information about our population history,” says Thomas.
The paper also ignores evidence that our species is more than 200,000 years old, says Eleanor Scerri at the Max Planck Institute for the Science of Human History in Jena, Germany.
For instance, Moroccan fossils suggest our species is at least 315,000 years old. It can be argued these fossils aren’t modern enough to be humans, says Scerri, but the same is true of many southern African fossils. “The constellations of traits that define us today don’t appear in any single individual until sometime between 100,000 and 40,000 years ago.”
It is also unlikely that people in southern Africa “are evolutionary relicts who have neither changed nor moved geographically for tens or even hundreds of thousands of years”, says Scerri. If populations have moved or changed significantly, their present locations can’t tell us where our species began.
Without data you are just another person with an opinion
-------------------- Without data you are just another person with an opinion - Deming Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
"That’s because Hayes’ team examined only mitochondrial DNA, which represents a tiny fraction of human ancestry, says archaeologist Eleanor Scerri of the Max Planck Institute for the Science of Human History in Jena, Germany.
Ancient folks who possessed forms of mitochondrial DNA that managed to get passed to people today were not the only people living in Africa 200,000 years ago or earlier, Scerri emphasizes. So only studies of entire genomes (SN: 9/28/17), or at least analyses of nuclear DNA, can provide reliable glimpses of ancient human origins, she argues. In contrast to mitochondrial DNA, nuclear DNA is inherited from both parents and would provide clues to the timing and location of humankind’s paternal roots."
-------------------- Without data you are just another person with an opinion - Deming Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
So Max Planck prefers to use autosomal over uniparental markers, You know why they prefer autosomal markers?
Tic! Toc!
-------------------- Without data you are just another person with an opinion - Deming Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
For starters... the authors conclusions are predicated on 200,000 years of continuity in a region with well documented climatic shifts and population turnover. Not to mention the dating for the arrival of AMH can’t be trivialized in such away that we can pinpoint a rudimentary date and HG signifying the first AMH.
What determines a AMH is morphology and lifestyle; some of which can be inferred by autosomal (coding regions) data.... but just about none of which can be determined by something as arbitrary as a haplogroup assignment... much less a uniparental.
This paper is not worth the sensationalism.
Posts: 1781 | From: New York | Registered: Jul 2016
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Elmaestro: For starters... the authors conclusions are predicated on 200,000 years of continuity in a region with well documented climatic shifts and population turnover. Not to mention the dating for the arrival of AMH can’t be trivialized in such away that we can pinpoint a rudimentary date and HG signifying the first AMH.
What determines a AMH is morphology and lifestyle; some of which can be inferred by autosomal (coding regions) data.... but just about none of which can be determined by something as arbitrary as a haplogroup assignment... much less a uniparental.
This paper is not worth the sensationalism.
do you think any study has better evidence for a particular region in Africa being the locale of the first human beings?
Also do you think there is good evidence for the first humans to be most similar to Khoisans?
Posts: 42919 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
WT.....! Did you say there? You have not changed. All glitter and no substance. SMH. Now there is a difference uniparental markers-haplogroups?
quote:Originally posted by Elmaestro: For starters... the authors conclusions are predicated on one of ..... which can be determined by something as arbitrary as a haplogroup assignment... much less a uniparental.
This paper is not worth the sensationalism.
-------------------- Without data you are just another person with an opinion - Deming Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have speculated for awhile that SE Africa played a major role OOA. Madagascar holds some key information. There is a reason why Madagascans carry both Paleo East Asian and African Neolithic ancestry. And it has Nada to do with ancient East Asian women sailors. Lol!
-------------------- Without data you are just another person with an opinion - Deming Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
Haven't read the article. Don't plan to. Lacking aDNA? Lacking male uniparental? Lacking autosomes?
Don't think we evolved in simple progressive steps like A begot B, B begot C. Thinking Homo sapiens (Hs) always thought "modern" regardless of looks. Today's Homo sapiens sapiens (Hss) probably developed various physical and genetic traits in different locales at different times in wholly different regions in Africa.
People just wander for the lust of it. People trade for the necessity and esteem of it. People take exotic playmates for the thrill of it.
SIDENOTE If the article was black authored people'd label the producers Afrocentric. Whites and others get no derisive labels. They can make mistakes or initially far reaching paradigm altering proposals without being though of as whacky, biased, race proud, etc.
quote:Originally posted by Elmaestro: For starters... the authors conclusions are predicated on 200,000 years of continuity in a region with well documented climatic shifts and population turnover. Not to mention the dating for the arrival of AMH can’t be trivialized in such away that we can pinpoint a rudimentary date and HG signifying the first AMH.
What determines a AMH is morphology and lifestyle; some of which can be inferred by autosomal (coding regions) data.... but just about none of which can be determined by something as arbitrary as a haplogroup assignment... much less a uniparental.
This paper is not worth the sensationalism.
do you think any study has better evidence for a particular region in Africa being the locale of the first human beings?
Also do you think there is good evidence for the first humans to be most similar to Khoisans?
To my knowledge no one study presents a definitive answer for where exactly the fist AMH arrived. At first look the Khoisan autosome seems to suggest that the first humans were most like them, given we have statistical evidence that most other Africans (and sub-sequentially Eurasians) have previously lost damn near half of their diversity. But more findings puts things in perspective, like Neanderthal segments shared with the Khoisan and eurasians as well as proposed archaic introgression in Western Africa, etc. Etc. For all we know Western Africa could have housed the first technically AMH.... or better yet multiple groups of “Semi- AMH” could have been roaming the continent before 200Kya. And you also have to consider how relevant the actual “First” AMH might’ve been to contemporary humans. As there is a possibility that they didn’t contribute anything at all to contemporary populations.
@Xyyman Read Tukulers post if you’re still confused... he said it better than I could.
Posts: 1781 | From: New York | Registered: Jul 2016
| IP: Logged |
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
For anyone who read and analyzed the article. Forget its title and its author's bent. Is it a valid mtDNA report? Is it at least usable to help understand Africa female lineage(s) and their so far known descent?
posted
"@Xyyman Read Tukulers post if you’re still confused... he said it better than I could."
SMH. Man you are so full of it. How many people do you fool with your bs.
No man, what he said was completely different from what YOU said.
But to his point, he is wrong. Why?
Autosomes shows "shared" ancestry. Uniparental....uhm....haplogroups.... shows "direction" of ancestry or migration once it is added to the tree,
-------------------- Without data you are just another person with an opinion - Deming Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
There are Black Americans whose female uniparental is American male uniparental is Eiropean autosomes majority indicate Africa.
In their case autosomes more accurately show geographic movement.
quote:Originally posted by xyyman: "@Xyyman Read Tukulers post if you’re still confused... he said it better than I could."
SMH. Man you are so full of it. How many people do you fool with your bs.
No man, what he said was completely different from what YOU said.
But to his point, he is wrong. Why?
Autosomes shows "shared" ancestry. Uniparental....uhm....haplogroups.... shows "direction" of ancestry or migration once it is added to the tree,
You can’t even discern a uniparental from a haplogroup. Clearly you are unqualified to even read what I say out loud much less school anyone lol.
The thread is about pinpointing human origins but only used mitochondrial reads. Which genes on the mitochondria are indicative of AMH development Xyyman?? And how at all do they correlate with respective haplogroup assignment?
...I’m sure you won’t answer. Because you can’t.
@Tukuler yeah as far as I can tell the haplogroup assignments are fine.
Posts: 1781 | From: New York | Registered: Jul 2016
| IP: Logged |
I hope I am not the only one who is NOT falling for your bull,,,,,,,,
"Bantu distinguished from Khoe by uniparental markers, not genome-wide autosomal admixture Carlos Quiles Anthropology, Archaeology, Bantu, Culture, Genetics, Khoisan June 19, 2018"
And the bs bantu expansion..... "In the context of the Bantu expansions, these patterns have been mostly interpreted as the result of polygyny and/or higher levels of assimilation of females from resident forager communities38,40. However, most groups from the Angolan Namib are only mildly polygynous11 and ethnographic data suggest that the actual rates of polygyny in many populations may be insufficient to significantly reduce Nem2,41. In addition, the finding of a large Nef/ Nem ratio in the Himba (Fig. S5), who have almost no Khoisan-related mtDNA lineages9, indicates that female biased introgression cannot fully explain the observed patterns.
-------------------- Without data you are just another person with an opinion - Deming Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
Come on Sage. You know we are talking before the age of wholescale intercontinental travel.
AFRAM??? as an example. Really!?
This is NOT a pissing contest. The man is a fake.
quote: [Q] .
In their case autosomes more accurately show geographic movement. [/Q]
-------------------- Without data you are just another person with an opinion - Deming Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
Howz dis full genome jobby grab ya?
It ain't hard ta tell. SAB r ez 2 tell from KS. Even diff kindsa KS from each other.
= - =
So sorry about the recent tragedy in Philly, another Afrikan Violet will never seed. OMG why?
Spent a couple of weeks in NY recently. Watching the news there. It is open season on black men, Philly is getting there.
-------------------- Without data you are just another person with an opinion - Deming Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
"One exception to these general comments may arise in recently admixed populations, in which genetic ancestry varies substantially among individuals; this variation might correlate with risk as a result of genetic or cultural factors (24). In some contexts, however, use of genetic clusters is more appropriate than use of self-reported ancestry"
-------------------- Without data you are just another person with an opinion - Deming Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
in short. SNP/autosome should NEVER used!!!!!! Uniparental marker....uhm.....haplogroups is always better in conjunction with ....yes. codis STRs.
-------------------- Without data you are just another person with an opinion - Deming Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
Europeans are 2/3 African. 1/3 Asian. my man, Sforza, had it wrong.
SNPs follow IBD - isolation by distance with Africa...maybe Botswana being ground zero. OP.
------------- A Population-Genetic Perspective on the Similarities and Differences among Worldwide Human Populations Noah A. Rosenberg
-------------------- Without data you are just another person with an opinion - Deming Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
I've always been skeptical of studies like the one cited in the OP. Back when Stephen Oppenheimer's book on mt Eve came out the theory was that modern humans originated somewhere in North Africa around the Niger/Algeria area, later geneticists said it was in East Africa in Tanzania per Nat Geo, now Botswana??
Tukuler is right, how can one rely solely on autosomes for place of origin? Especially when geneticists keep discovering new autosomal alleles in African populations almost every year?!
-------------------- Mahirap gisingin ang nagtutulog-tulugan. Posts: 26238 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
You guys just don't get it. The claims of population genetics alone can not support any population movements. Like most Eurocentrics you rely too much on genetics to manufacture historical data.
Genetics can only provide descriptive information nothing more. Using Bayesian statistics to create historical events is nothing more than conjecture.
I would support the origin of AMH in southern Africa. The Botswana study has merit because the archaeology supports the earliest presence of AMH in southern Africa.
Given the enormous lakes that extended from southern Africa to North/Central Africa was an ideal location for man to not only originate but also learn the navigation skills and knowledge to spread from Africa to other parts of the world beginning around 150,000 years ago.
This map does not show the lakes in southern Africa which were connected to Lake Congo,
-------------------- C. A. Winters Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Remains identified as "sapiens" older than any date in this study have been found, notably in Morocco.
There is some support for the notion that Homo sapiens in fact evolved over a wide area of Africa, not in one place. There would have been variation thoughout the range of this proto-sapiens, with likely input from local non-sapiens species which would vary from place to place.
It could be that something we could call "sapiens" was present over a wide expanse of Africa, but that the ones from Botswana gave rise to subsequent humans.
The Press loves to exaggerate all such findings, claiming "this changes everything" with nearly every discovery. I say wait and see, because there will be a lot more information on this topic revealed, which will of course change the range of possible conclusions.
-------------------- Nican Tlaca Posts: 139 | From: Piedmont, Virginia | Registered: Jan 2020
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic