...
Post A Reply
my profile
|
directory
login
|
register
|
search
|
faq
|
forum home
»
EgyptSearch Forums
»
Egyptology
»
Ques. about AMH migrations: horn vs. nile-valley
» Post A Reply
Post A Reply
Login Name:
Password:
Message Icon:
Message:
HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Doug M: [QB] Another point for those who don't get it. Not to long ago, the researchers were saying that the Khoi and the San have some of the oldest genetic lineages on the planet. Now if that is true and those lineages are older than any lineages outside of Africa, then how on earth does science now do a 180 degree turn and now say that these same people, who have lineages older than any outside Africa, are part Eurasian? How does that make sense? Here is the point I am making. European scholars cannot accept that the African lineages and populations are the oldest on the planet and the basis of all others. Therefore, they will do anything and everything in their power through trickery and slight of hand to make it seem as if 'Eurasian' lineages are 'widespread' as in Eurasians lineages are more mobile and widespread (not counting colonization) than African lineages. But that is a contradiction. If all lineages come from Africa, then how on earth can 'Eurasian' lineages be more widespread than 'African' lineages? The point being when did the first populations in 'Eurasia' stop being genetically African if the first populations in Eurasia were all carrying African lineages? On top of that, we know full damn well that Africans have been moving around Africa for hundreds of thousands of years. So obviously, the San are not the only people in Africa with ancient genetic lineages. This is ludicrous. And certainly Africans did not get to South Africa 2,000 years ago, as all the finds at blombos cave make obvious. So why the obsession a) with the San and b) with potential 'Eurasian' admixture, when we know that the history of African migrations WITHIN Africa is older and longer than the existence of any OUTSIDE of Africa. And on top of that, when Africans did move out of Africa, they moved to regions relatively close to Africa. And aside from those who moved far away, as in the Aborigines of Australia, many populations went back and forth. How much 2 way travel was going on between Africa and the Levant or Africa and Europe over the 40,000 years since Africans left? To suggest that these populations suddenly stopped moving is ludicrous as well. And most of all, if the foundation of all genetic lineages is fundamentally African, dating back to a time 40,000 years ago when African founder populations created those lineages, then to speak of Eurasian lineages that are 60,000 years old is to speak of African lineages as the populations in that time frame were still African by any definition of the term. So again, how are they defining Eurasian? [QUOTE] One of the most ancient lineages of the modern human has been uncovered by the sequencing of genes of a Southern African tribe. The Khoisan tribe, made popular by The Gods Must Be Crazy movie series has been the biggest group of living humans for most of the last 150,000 years. Scientists from Nanyang Technological University and Penn State University sequenced the genome of five living individuals of the Khoisan hunter/gatherer tribe and compared them with 420,000 genetic variants across 1,462 genomes from 48 ethnic groups of the global population. [b]The group was found to be genetically distinct not only from Europeans and Asians, but also from all other Africans.[/b] Some individuals of the tribe exhibited traits showing their ancestors did not breed with other ethnic groups for 150,000 years The study shows how genetic sequencing can reveal the ancestral lineage of any ethnic group up to 200,000 years ago. The work will enable scientists to better understand how the human genome has evolved and lead to more effective treatment options for certain genetic diseases. Khoisan hunter/gatherers in Southern Africa have always perceived themselves as the oldest people. "Our study proves that they truly belong to one of mankind's most ancient lineages, and these high quality genome sequences obtained from the tribesmen will help us better understand human population history, especially the understudied branch of mankind such as the Khoisan," said Prof Schuster, an NTU scientist at the Singapore Centre on Environmental Life Sciences Engineering and a former Penn State University professor. [/QUOTE] http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/150000-year-old-lineage-modern-human-genetically-traced-living-tribe-south-africa-1478180 So, if humans were making paint in Blombos cave 100,00 years ago, where did they go and what lineages did they carry and what modern populations in Africa carry traces of those lineages? Or are we to believe these people just up and disappeared? [QUOTE] The hoard includes red and yellow pigments, shell containers, and the grinding cobbles and bone spatulas to work up a paste - everything an ancient artist might need in their workshop. This extraordinary discovery is reported in the journal Science. It is proof, say researchers, of our early ancestors' complexity of thought. "This is significant because it is pushing back the boundaries of our understanding of when Homo sapiens - people like us - first became modern," said Prof Christopher Henshilwood from the University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg. "These finds indicate that humans were certainly thinking in a modern way, in a way that is cognitively advanced, at least 100,000 years ago," he told BBC News. [/QUOTE] http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-15257259 And here is what I am getting at, these Europeans are now going to try and ressurect multiregional 'races' or 'mixtures' based on trace genetic lineages to play up this idea that homo sapiens from different regions have different markers based on different mixtures with different hominid species. That is what they are trying to do with this whole 'Eurasian' gene bag. They are trying to claim that the 'neanderthal' mix in Europe is what Eurasians DIFFERENT from Africans. And that is the point. Again, if all genetic lineages originated in Africa because all humans originated in Africa, then what is the meaning of a 'Eurasian' lineage that is 60,000 years old if that lineage goes back to populations recently emerged from Africa. Put it this way, if Europe or Eurasia was the home of modern humans, these people would claim all lineages as Eurasian lineages no matter how many mutations have ocurred and how far away. Because at the end of the day, European anthropology has always been about showing that Europe is the pinnacle of human biological evolution. And that is what is going on here, albeit in a more subtle way, as they play games with words to try and suggest that "Eurasian" lineages are more dominant in humanity (again leave out colonization). Meaning that Eurasian 'genes' can never be diluted or mutate and not still be Eurasian. This allows them to totally erase and downplay the fact that most of human history is African history around the world, starting before Africans migrated out of Africa and lasting many thousands of years after Africans left Africa. Again, these are the same people who produced the images of monkeys and apes evolving into white European men and Women, even now long after the African origins of humans has been proven. This isn't just about genetic evolution, it is about trying to find some 'special' marker for Europeans and Asians that in a subtle way, they can claim makes them 'special', 'distinct' and 'unique', even if 99.99999% of all those genes originate in Africa that .00001% makes them special. [QUOTE] Stringer states that the paradigm for human evolution must be changed with the emergence of these new discoveries. For the present, he remains focused on Africa as the birthplace of our species. It is commonplace for Westerners to picture Africa almost as a single spot, but it is larger than Europe and western Asia combined. Similarly, one might tend to imagine the “Stone Age” as a single unchanging episode, but it lasted hundreds of times longer than all of recorded history. [b]Stringer suggests that across this vast space and time, a sort of multiregional interbreeding resulted in the rise of H. sapiens.[/b] This evolution occurred all across Africa before the founding group of moderns departed. There are new findings that may place very early H. sapiens in ancient Morocco. Evidence is accumulating that its southern coast may have been the refuge where H. sapiens survived the expansion of the ice that covered most of northern Europe and that produced the population bottleneck seen in the record of our DNA. [b]New DNA research hints at contributions to our genome from previously unknown sources, possibly humans who came back to Africa in the long period after the first archaic dispersal.[/b] Taken all together, Stringer finds the origin of modern humans to be much more complex than previously envisioned, and he suggests this complexity will increase as more evidence is discovered. [/QUOTE] http://www.humanjourney.us/loneSurvivors3.html [/QB][/QUOTE]
Instant Graemlins
Instant UBB Code™
What is UBB Code™?
Options
Disable Graemlins in this post.
*** Click here to review this topic. ***
Contact Us
|
EgyptSearch!
(c) 2015 EgyptSearch.com
Powered by UBB.classic™ 6.7.3