Anyone who's interested in science, genetics, or evolution or their social or political implications. It's sort of a cerebral topic, probably not your thing....
Modern humans didn't all come "out of Africa"
- Thread starter Artful D0dger
- Start date
What exactly is so special about Africa that all Hominids who are the ancestors of humans came from there...?
Was there more radiation causing mutations...? Better climate...??? What...???
In reality, it is the fact that the climate is dry and that it preserved fossils better than anywhere else. The same is true for Australia or any other dry place.
What we're talking about here is a cognitive fallacy/cognitive bias due to the fact that more fossils have been found in Africa. Just because you find a fossil in a certain region doesn't mean that the species originated there. It just means that the fossil was found there. Hate to break it to everybody but living things move around!
Well ok, just don't tell scientists in the Human Genome Project that the evidence coming from DNA is not developing the discipline of genetic anthropology.Quote from Artful D0dger:
The "trail of specific ancestry"? yDNA gives you information about ONE single ancestor straight up the paternal line. You are clearly out of your realm here.
LOL! "genetic anthropology based on DNA"?
Actually the "out of Africa" theories have been shot out of the water by recent discoveries and the development of bioinformatics and genomics technology. There are fewer scientists clinging to that paradigm. Now many have adjusted their theories to groups of hominids coming out of Africa and evolving into the various racial groups we now observe separately.
You want to think maybe a bit harder about what you want to argue about before you post. You've said "..out of Africa and evolving " which is essentially what scientific study has said - out of Africa. So what's your problem?
You also might want to read up on the subject a little more carefully. yDNA is passed only from father to son. It allows men only to trace their paternal lineage.
I mentioned mtDNA not y. Mitochondrial DNA can trace both mens' and women's maternal lineage.
It's DNA studies in general within the discipline of Genetic anthropology which includes physical evidence such as found in archaeology that offers the most up to date information.
But then if you just want to argue about a thing you don't care to understand, you will tell me anything.
Yeah... Unless you happen to be yDNA Haplogroup I which is purely European and can't be linked to the rest of the Human Genome because Haplo. IJK from which it is supposed to be descended doesn't actually exist in nature. Scandinavians and North Germans have a lot of Haplo. I. The point here is that geneticists just linked a bunch of Haplogroups to Africa without any real evidence in some cases where they just made up the missing link as they saw fit. It is mostly guesswork on their part... Either that or Scandinavians are a different species of humans...?
:eek:Well said. I have noticed the recent Chinese trend of revisionism.
Yeah right... It's science deal with it... theories get overthrown all the time. That's why they're called theories.
Boo... hooo...!!!
Don't be a cry-baby just because Africa isn't the birth place of all modern humans...!
Wow, I can't believe someone here knew about the haplo I paradox. Admittedly I only know about it because I'm I1a, and my maternal grandfather and uncle are I2b1. It's true though, they can't ACTUALLY connect I clades with the rest of the hypothetical story. All they can really say is that it's part of macro-haplogroup F which is 90% of the world outside of Africa. Nearly everyone who isn't African falls within F. In any case, multiregional is pretty much the avant guard, although it is funny to watch some of the die hard OOA cult twist and turn to juxtapose the theory so it can still be viable. Who knows, maybe that's what the hominid OOA theory is: a parachute for the scientists who endorsed OOA so much that they married their credibility to it.
Quote from CoolTraderDude:
Yeah... Unless you happen to be yDNA Haplogroup I which is purely European and can't be linked to the rest of the Human Genome because Haplo. IJK from which it is supposed to be descended doesn't actually exist in nature. Scandinavians and North Germans have a lot of Haplo. I. The point here is that geneticists just linked a bunch of Haplogroups to Africa without any real evidence in some cases where they just made up the missing link as they saw fit. It is mostly guesswork on their part... Either that or Scandinavians are a different species of humans...?
mtDNA, just like yDNA, gives you information about ONE SINGLE ancestor.
You are talking above your head now, and that's clear to anyone who is actually knowledgeable within this realm of discourse. The video isn't "relevent" (to use your term) to this discussion. When that video was produced autosomal dna studies were in their infancy and even mtDNA testing was relatively new. The Human Genome Project is old hat now. Genetics research has now been developing roughly on par with computational capacity, many if not most experiments are not done in labs or "wet", but are done via data mining and modeling techniques. It's really a brave new world since HGP. One which you clearly don't have the faintest grasp of. If anyone needs to "read up", it's you and you likely have a year or so to go before you catch up.
Start with this: "Genetic evidence from the late 1980s on the mitochondrial genome indicated that all living humans had as an ancestor a single female living in African about 200,000 years ago. This led to a hypothesis that around that time period, a small founder population of humans left Africa and eventually replaced all archaic humans then living outside of Africa without interbreeding, contrary to the multiregional hypothesis. However, as data on the far larger nuclear DNA genome started to become available, evidence mounted that genetic contributions from archaic human populations from around the world, and not just from Africa, also persist in modern humans. Recent analyses of DNA taken directly from Neanderthal and denisovan specimens indicates that those nonafrican populations also contributed to the genome of living humans, as predicted by the multiregional hypothesis."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiregional_origin_of_modern_humans#Genetic_evidence
You are talking above your head now, and that's clear to anyone who is actually knowledgeable within this realm of discourse. The video isn't "relevent" (to use your term) to this discussion. When that video was produced autosomal dna studies were in their infancy and even mtDNA testing was relatively new. The Human Genome Project is old hat now. Genetics research has now been developing roughly on par with computational capacity, many if not most experiments are not done in labs or "wet", but are done via data mining and modeling techniques. It's really a brave new world since HGP. One which you clearly don't have the faintest grasp of. If anyone needs to "read up", it's you and you likely have a year or so to go before you catch up.
Start with this: "Genetic evidence from the late 1980s on the mitochondrial genome indicated that all living humans had as an ancestor a single female living in African about 200,000 years ago. This led to a hypothesis that around that time period, a small founder population of humans left Africa and eventually replaced all archaic humans then living outside of Africa without interbreeding, contrary to the multiregional hypothesis. However, as data on the far larger nuclear DNA genome started to become available, evidence mounted that genetic contributions from archaic human populations from around the world, and not just from Africa, also persist in modern humans. Recent analyses of DNA taken directly from Neanderthal and denisovan specimens indicates that those nonafrican populations also contributed to the genome of living humans, as predicted by the multiregional hypothesis."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiregional_origin_of_modern_humans#Genetic_evidence
Still skeptical.
It makes sense that all homo sapiens evolved from one ancestor in one place then spread throughout the world. Only after spreading around the world would you get differences like skin color, nose shapes, eye shapes and hair types etc.
Two species evolving side by side and being sexually compatible does not make sense.
It makes sense that all homo sapiens evolved from one ancestor in one place then spread throughout the world. Only after spreading around the world would you get differences like skin color, nose shapes, eye shapes and hair types etc.
Two species evolving side by side and being sexually compatible does not make sense.