Origins of Humanity: Out of Africa or Multiregional Theory?

40 posts / 0 new

Tue, 2009-06-30 08:21

remind

Bookish Agrarian wrote:
Wow were did you read that. I would be fascinated to read that myself. Personally I subscribe to the theory that North and South America were settled much longer ago than the last Ice Age. I think the evidence is starting to pile up pretty high to support that.

I forget which Gear book it was contained in and the resources they listed, that I explored, it was a few years back now.

But the gist is, they now know there was a large shallow central sea that lead to the formation of the upper Great lakes at the end of the last ice age, when doing digs in this area, archeologists found large amounts of ancient human bones, perhaps predating the paleo Indians, scattered in amongst the glacial till, that appears to have been all thrown together in a massive out pouring of water. The theory being that when the glaciers collapsed en masse, there was a huge explusion of water, till and the peoples did not have time to flee the on slot brought about by the collapse. This findings of bones mixed with glacial till, means that the First Peoples were present for sure at the time of the central sea and the collapse of the glaciers, and indeed either lived in the shadow of them, or under them.

Under them is extremely plausible, as they were miles thick in places and would be honey combed with caverns and tunnels just as glaciers are today. Having fire in them would not be any different than in an Igloo, and less so because they could have bigger fires. And they would escape the climatic external conditions around the glaciers, that would suffer under if they lived in the shadow.

Currently accepted in NA history, excluding Mexico, and cCentral America are; First Peoples dates going back 13,000 years with the Paleo Indian, then Early Archaic, at about 7300 -6000 BCE, Archaic, around 6000-3000 BCE, Basketmakers around 3000-1500 BCE, Woodland about 1500-100 CE, Mississipian, and Pueblo around 800-1000 CE.

However, with the findings in the Great Lakes area, and the chert blade recently found in the Jamestown area, from the time when NA and Europe were covered in Ice, suggest that their were pockets of Peoples living here throughout the ice age.

Then of course there is what Eliza has recounted by way of oral traditions, being found to be true.

Added:

There is no historical findings of evidence of the Southwest Anasazi, or the Mississipians having any "Moorish/African/" influence within their societies. Nor is there any in the Archaic Floridian and lower Mississipian peoples, nor any in the Paleo Indian and Early Archaic eras either.

And there is no consensus on the Olmec's receiving visitors from west Africa. And if there is found to be any for sure, it was only about 2250 years ago, long long after First Peoples advent on Turtle Island. In fact, there is more evidence that they perhaps had visitors from space, rather than from West Africa.

Also, just had some friends drop by who are Nooaitch and showed them this thread. Response was that they were pretty upset about such claims. And I won't say what else they stated.

Mon, 2009-06-29 18:39

Bookish Agrarian

Well if nothing else you have encouraged me to pick up the Gear series again. I forget where I left off, but I should give them another chance.

I still don't get the need to 'prove' First Nations had African origins. Its like all the amazing things First Nations built and created couldn't have happened without someone elses help. I find that deeply weird and distrubing on so many levels. And for all the world it sounds like the mirror of some crackpot theory about how it was really early Europeans that 'brought' civilization to the 'Americas'

Mon, 2009-06-29 19:32

remind

Met them years ago, when they were doing interviews of the Elders in Comox, when researching the oral traditions of the Peoples of the Pacific Northwest. I am thinking it was in their resources in the book People of the Lakes or People of the Nightland. And my daughter has them so I can't check.

Can't say land claims and rightful exploitation loudly enough on your last quandry.

This link below is an excellent resources.

http://www.academicinfo.net/anthbio.html

And this has some interesting bits in the links below the main page.

http://www.ontarioarchaeology.on.ca/summary/paleo.htm

Mon, 2009-06-29 19:32

Tommy_Paine

I think the major problem dating the arrival of humans to North, Central and South America is that the best preserved evidence is not the earliest evidence. The examination of Mitochondrial DNA seems to overturn the previous notion that peoples from Asia crossed a "land bridge" over the Bering Straight, and then quickly migrated down some glacier free zone that existed in the Yukon and the Mackenzie River into central North America.

Now, it seems more likely that people first migrated down the coast from north to south, then migrated inland from west to east. Which means the earliest evidence of humans in the Americas are probably under a few hundred feet of water (sea level would have been lower during the last or previous glacial periods) on the west coasts.

Does it not seem logical that these people were sea faring (else how did they manage to get here? "land bridge" notwithstanding, there had to have been some boating involved) and that was their expertise. It would seem to me they would likely have stayed for thousands of years on the coast before population and environmental pressures pushed them over the mountains and deserts east into a new and unfamiliar way of life.

So, I think the argument should be over how many millenia we should add to the earliest undisputed evidence of humans on the continent.

Mon, 2009-06-29 19:37

remind

merowe wrote:
I'd recommend the book '1491' for a fascinating survey of recent archaelogy of the Americas.

Speaking to the conjecture around a 'Moorish' presence in America, the very term is confusing to me since Moor in my understanding connotes the Islamicized North African cultures that expanded into southern Europe before the middle ages.

Unless there is semantic confusion this would put a limit to how far back we can go to look for Moorish colonization of any part of the Americas.I am also curious at the dearth of historical and material evidence to support the notion. Unless evidence has been deliberately suppressed any direct genetic links between various African populations and American - predating modern slavery - would long ago have made waves in the scientific community, you couldn't keep the lid on something like that.

Furthermore genetic evidence indicates that Africans' closest biological kin are Europeans.

Also, something to do with haploids I recall: at any rate North American Indians carry 11 different types where Europeans have 47 or so. This suggests population bottlenecks in the early American inhabitants, wherever they came from - and also explains in part their increased vulnerability to European diseases apparently. This all seems credible enough to me and could be cross-referenced to explore the African link.

Thanks for this, and from what I have researched, there is no genetical link even with those in Mesoamerica. The Mayans have their own distinct genetics, which are shared with no others in Mesoamerica, or NA.

Mon, 2009-06-29 19:42

remind

Well, tommy you have a very good point, VIsland is 20 ft higher out of the water now than it was in the beginning of 1700's and FN's of the west coast oral traditions indicate this north south, west east, migration too.

Mon, 2009-06-29 19:46

Tommy_Paine

While looking around for some stuff last week, I found a neat diagram showing migrations traced through mitochondrial DNA. Hopefully, I can find it again.....

Ah. But it's a wikipedia entry, and it seems there are some caveats regarding disputes and needed citations. But there's a neat colourfull map:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Out_of_Africa_theory

Mon, 2009-06-29 19:59

Tommy_Paine

It's an uneducated guess. But, I find when the dust settles on a lot of these arguements, when more facts are in, the explanations tend to have an eloquence that I think is lacking in the established hypothesis.

And, I really bristle at ideas that require some kind of cultural influence from Europe or Asia to explain things like Mayan mathematics, Incan masonary or Aztec aquaducts. It's unsuported by evidence, and racist in it's intent and effects.

I think in the end that genetics will end up giving us the closest to the truth picture. I think the physical evidence is either irretrivably incomplete, as I said above, and unfortunately subject to the racist interpretations of people I'd like to think would be too smart for such things, but clearly are not.

Mon, 2009-06-29 20:53

Bookish Agrarian

remind wrote:

Met them years ago, when they were doing interviews of the Elders in Comox, when researching the oral traditions of the Peoples of the Pacific Northwest. I am thinking it was in their resources in the book People of the Lakes or People of the Nightland. And my daughter has them so I can't check.

Can't say land claims and rightful exploitation loudly enough on your last quandry.

This link below is an excellent resources.

http://www.academicinfo.net/anthbio.html

And this has some interesting bits in the links below the main page.

http://www.ontarioarchaeology.on.ca/summary/paleo.htm

Jeez remind I have work to do. Tons of it during haying season - but now there is the temptation to get lost for hours and hours through all the interesting stuff in those links. Thanks!

Must resist - must resist

Mon, 2009-06-29 21:27

#10

remind

Quote:
And, I really bristle at ideas that require some kind of cultural influence from Europe or Asia to explain things like Mayan mathematics, Incan masonary or Aztec aquaducts. It's unsuported by evidence, and racist in it's intent and effects.

I could not agree more, and would extend it out of Mesoamerica too. For example, the Nuu Chah Nulth at first contact with Cook, had extremely high culture and vast towns with planked long houses, and they travelled up and down the coast from Alsaka to Mesoamerica, in their huge dugout cedars. Hell Chief Maquina got the better of the HBO in trading initially.

The Ojibway were also prolific traders and transversed across the continent, in fact I met a Shaman who lives north of Hinton, on land granted to his family by the King, for their efforts in bringing Thompson, Mackenzie and others across to the Pacific. And it ain't no small piece either, I think it is like 33,000 hectares, running along the Rockies and foothills.

Unfortunately, the greed and racism of white men destroyed what could have been, and indeed what was. And frankly, I blame the Masons for this.

Mon, 2009-06-29 21:39

#11

remind

Bookish Agrarian wrote:

Jeez remind I have work to do. Tons of it during haying season - but now there is the temptation to get lost for hours and hours through all the interesting stuff in those links. Thanks!

Must resist - must resist

Tell me about!

I got so lost in it all, I was going to go for a Masters dual degree in Cultural Anthropology and Sociology at SFU, still could I suppose, contract is still in place. However, practicality stepped into the equation, as back in the 90's there were no jobs to be had really, unless I wanted to teach.

Mon, 2009-06-29 22:07

#12

Tommy_Paine

Notice something funny about the "B" group in that MDNA dispersal map at wiki I linked to? Apparently, they had the sea faring abilities to migrate from north eastern china to Hawaii, but not from Hawaii to North America. Seems another branch had to take the good ol' land bridge. I don't know which way it happened, certainly. But neither did the map maker.

If you ever get the chance, Remind, you should pick up Herman Melville's fairly short book, "Typee." He was certainly ahead of his time as an anthropologist, even if no one, including himself, considered him to be one. People often make excuses for their favorites from history as being "a product of his time" when their racist or sexist views are brought up, a good example being Rudyard Kipling. But Melville seemed to have been able to remove himself from his "times" as much as anyone has, or maybe can. If you're not a Moby Dick fan, don't let that put you off. "Typee" is a different sort of book-- and the one that Melville afficianados consider his best.

Tue, 2009-06-30 07:51

#13

remind

What an interesting mtDNA flow diagram. Did you see where X came from and flowed to?

And thanks for the book heads up.

Tue, 2009-06-30 10:56

#14

Tommy_Paine

It's interesting, but I'm not sure it's authoritative. And, like I mentioned about the "B" group, the "X" group could have, say, travelled down the east coast of North America, ending up in the Amazon, rather than drifting down the interior of the continent, through some substantial desserts and then rain forests. In fact, now that I think of it, it would have been much easier to go down the east coast.

This map and the previous interpretations of archeological evidence seems to present to us an academic mental block concerning Aboriginal peoples of the America's never inventing things like boats.

Tue, 2009-06-30 11:07

#15

remind

Well, FN's oral tradition stories show a intercontinental drift, by both river and over land routes. And the pacific north west oral traditions address coastal travel from Alaska to Mexico, and perhaps further south.

Tue, 2009-06-30 11:22

#16

Tommy_Paine

Well, it seems to me that because mtDNA mutates at a predictable rate, (but very slowly, if memory serves...or was that paternal mitochondrial DNA? I read up on this years ago, and now it's all foggy) we can make some deductions regarding time, which in turn would make suggestions regarding mode of travel.

Tue, 2009-06-30 12:22

#17

remind

Believe that they have now found that the mtDNA D-loop mutates faster than they ever before thought...wait going to go look for the site I found about it.

Well could not find the site but found this one, that actually has more on the mutlti-regional theory too.

http://www.actionbioscience.org/evolution/ingman.html

and then found this one too:

DNA Mutation Rates and Evolution

Quote:
"Mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) is generally assumed to be inherited exclusively from the mother…. Several recent papers, however, have suggested that elements of mtDNA may sometimes be inherited from the father. This hypothesis is based on evidence that mtDNA may undergo recombination. If this does occur, maternal mtDNA in the egg must cross over with homologous sequences in a different DNA molecule; paternal mtDNA seems the most likely candidate…. If mtDNA can recombine, irrespective of the mechanism, there are important implications for mtDNA evolution and for phylogenetic studies that use mtDNA" 48

Before this evidence of paternal inheritance was discovered it was assumed that mtDNA was strictly the result of maternal inheritance. Based on this assumption, it was assumed that the mitochondrial offspring would get exact copies of the mitochondria that the mother had except if there was a mutational error. This error rate in the non-coding portion of mitochondrial DNA has long been thought to occur once every 300 to 600 generations, or every 6,000 to 12,000 years for humans.

The Berkeley biochemists who developed the theory, Allan Wilson, Rebecca Cann, and Mark Stoneking, made several apparently reasonable assumptions. Since there were no DNA changes due to genetic recombination events (ie: with paternal DNA - now known to be a wrong assumption), they assumed that all changes in the mtDNA were the result of mutations over time and that these mutations occurred at a constant rate. On the basis of these assumptions, the researchers believed they had access to something like a "molecular clock." Because mtDNA is thought to mutate faster than nuclear DNA (nucDNA), it was thought that the faster mutation rate of mtDNA would make for more accurate time keeping than nucDNA.

The original 1987 study involved mtDNA from 136 women from many parts of the world having various racial backgrounds. The analysis seemed to support the idea of a single ancestral mtDNA molecule from a woman living in sub-Saharan Africa about 200,000 years ago. Later, more detailed studies seemed to confirm this conclusion. Unfortunately though, there was a undetected bias in the computer program as well as with the researchers themselves. The researchers used a computer program designed to reveal a "maximum parsimony" phylogeny or the family tree with the least number of mutational changes. This was based on the assumption that evolution would have taken the most direct and efficient path (which is not necessarily true, or even likely). Also, the computer program was biased by the order of data entry to favor the information entered first. This problem was recognized when the computer gave different results depending on the order that the data was entered. Now, after thousands of computer runs with the data entered randomly, it appears that the "African origin" for modern humans does not hold a statistical significance over other possibilities.26

The problems with these studies were so bad that Henry Gee, a member of the editorial staff for the journal, Nature, harshly described the studies as "garbage." After considering the number of sequences involved (136 mtDNA sequences), Gee calculated that the total number of potentially correct parsimonious trees is somewhere in excess of one billion.25 Geneticist Alan Templeton (Washington University) suggests that low-level mixing among early human populations may have scrambled the DNA sequences sufficiently so that the question of the origin of modern humans and a date for "Eve" can never be settled by mtDNA.22 In a letter to Science, Mark Stoneking (one of the original researchers) acknowledged that the theory of an "African Eve" has been invalidated

http://www.detectingdesign.com/dnamutationrates.html

Tue, 2009-06-30 23:08

#18

Erik Redburn

Wow Remind, that is big news. So much for all the grand theories of the past twenty years.

Everything else still mostly points to Africa as the original homeland for human and pre-human populations, but if the older time lines are so uncertain again then maybe the lines between human and "near" human branches are again blurred.

Both "replacement" and "multi-regional" theories can be seen as supporting inequality in different ways IMV, which is why I prefer to think some of both were involved. Maybe my own bias, but still most likley as historical demographic displacements and invasions were almost never complete and usually involve some inter-marriage and cultural exchange early on. Mostly depends if our Cro-Magnon ancestors and Neanderthal and surviving Homo Erectus lines were genetically compatible I suppose. Probable for the first but the second...?

Wed, 2009-07-01 08:50

#19

remind

Yes, it is big news, though perhaps not surprising news.

People, "forget" that theories are theories, and ascribe more weight to them than perhaps they should, especialy considering the unfolding relevations of history through science and new findings that arise all the time.

Personally, I have always believed in genetic compatibility amongst hominids and have never found theories of no compatibility to be compelling.

To me it is much like the created mystery around the change from hunter gatherer to managed agrarian pursuits.

Wed, 2009-07-01 10:10

#20

Sven

Erik Redburn wrote:

So much for all the grand theories of the past twenty years.

Earlier, someone had a link in this thread to the following ActionBioscience.org article (the link has since been edited out): [url=http://www.actionbioscience.org/evolution/johanson.html][color=blue][u]"Orgins of Modern Humans: Multiregional or Out of Africa?"[/u][/color][/url], which discussed the strengths and weaknesses of the two orgins theories. The author concluded:

"For the moment, the majority of anatomical, archaeological and genetic evidence gives credence to the view that fully modern humans are a relatively recent evolutionary phenomenon. [u]The current best explanation for the beginning of modern humans is the Out of Africa Model that postulates a single, African origin for Homo sapiens.[/u] The major neurological and cultural innovations that characterized the appearance of fully modern humans has proven to be remarkably successful, culminating in our dominance of the planet at the expense of all earlier hominid populations."

While the Out of Africa Theory is, indeed, a "theory"...so is the "theory" of evolution (yet the Out of Africa Theory is consider by most to be the best and most likely theory given existing scientific knowledge -- just like the theory of evolution).

_______________________________________

[b]Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!![/b]

Wed, 2009-07-01 11:07

#21

remind

What are you talking about editing it out? It was and is in the last thread, see post # 88! Talk about a spurious smear.

http://rabble.ca/babble/anti-racism-news-and-initiatives/continuing-how-...

Wed, 2009-07-01 11:16

#22

Sven

remind wrote:

What are you talking about editing it out? It was and is in the last thread, see post # 88! Talk about a spurious smear.

http://rabble.ca/babble/anti-racism-news-and-initiatives/continuing-how-react-appropriately-when-accused-racism-guide

Ah. I forgot there was another thread (and that this thread is merely a continuation of closed thread), as the OP in this thread had no link to a prior thread (that's one of the reasons "closing threads for length" is problematic -- not to mention quaintly archaic).

What, by the way, is a "spurious" smear? Are you attempting to contrast that with a genuine smear?

_______________________________________

[b]Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!![/b]

Wed, 2009-07-01 11:47

#23

Tommy_Paine

I think one of the bugaboos that erupt when people interested in science, but lack formal scientific education, is confusion over the use of the word "theory". In science, theory is not interchangeable with the word hypothesis, or "guess". While the scientific use of the word theory doesn't have a precise deffinition, it might be best understood as a "why" things work the way they do. Where as "how" things work might be described as a "law". No doubt the better educated amoung us will correct or fine tune my rendering. Please feel free.

Creationists like to play with the general missunderstanding of the scientific use of the word "theory" in relation to evolution, equating it to an hypothesis. It's hardly an hypothesis.

Wed, 2009-07-01 11:48

#24

remind

Actually just indicating that you are the personification of spurious!

And BTW your last post underscores it.

Wed, 2009-07-01 12:02

#25

Sven

Tommy_Paine wrote:

While the Out of Africa Theory is, indeed, a "theory"...so is the "theory" of evolution (yet the Out of Africa Theory is consider by most to be the best and most likely theory given existing scientific knowledge -- just like the theory of evolution).

I think one of the bugaboos that erupt when people interested in science, but lack formal scientific education, is confusion over the use of the word "theory". In science, theory is not interchangeable with the word hypothesis, or "guess". While the scientific use of the word theory doesn't have a precise deffinition, it might be best understood as a "why" things work the way they do. Where as "how" things work might be described as a "law". No doubt the better educated amoung us will correct or fine tune my rendering. Please feel free.

Creationists like to play with the general missunderstanding of the scientific use of the word "theory" in relation to evolution, equating it to an hypothesis. It's hardly an hypothesis.

That is an excellent explanation and relevant observation, Tommy_Paine.

Most people are terribly ignorant about even basic concepts of science and statistics -- two areas of knowledge that all educated people should have.

_______________________________________

[b]Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!![/b]

Wed, 2009-07-01 12:44

#26

Tommy_Paine

I used to work with statistics a bit, through using Statistical Process Control at work. Though, it's kind of bastardized into what I came to call "Statistical Quality Control", in the way it's practiced.

That kind of statistical stuff is fairly rudementary, along with using statistics for gauge or instrument appraisal. I could see how methodology could be tweeked to arrive at wanted or prefered results.

I have to admit to humming through the chapter on Factor Analysis in Stephen J. Gould's "Missmeasure of Man."

However, when we turn to the subject of this thread, and the use of DNA, statistics will be the discipline that ends up shedding a lot of light.

Wed, 2009-07-01 12:55

#27

remind

In respect to theory comments, I liken the theories on where we originated from, to those regarding how supposedly the pyramids were built, and not like the evolutionary theory at all.

Wed, 2009-07-01 13:12

#28

Sven

remind wrote:

In respect to theory comments, I liken the theories on where we originated from, to those regarding how supposedly the pyramids were built, and not like the evolutionary theory at all.

The theories about where humans originated from is more closely analogous, analytically, to theories about how the pyramids were built than to evolutionary theories?

_______________________________________

[b]Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!![/b]

Thu, 2009-07-02 00:17

#29

Erik Redburn

There is a great deal more evidence for the "theory" of evolution than there is the origins of (modern) humanity. The issue is still very much open to question, though as I said myself, Africa at some point is where we all came from, even if some of our genes derived from earlier migrations. Not many most probably, but its hardly been settled in the way that the general theory of evolution has been, that is there being no other remotely plausible alternative that matches the present level of knowledge. I'll get back to this tomorrow as have to dig up some old files that cover this and other things I'd like to catch up on.

Fri, 2009-07-03 02:10

#30

Erik Redburn

Taking me longer than I thought to work through all the old information, and so many contradictory theories based on one or two pieces of the puzzle that it'll take longer than I thought. Someone should come up with as theorum that covers the inverse relationship between surplus optimism and organization shortage.

Meanwhile, heres one posted awhile back which indicates the general Africa to East to North migration patterns, with alot of movement and mixing to and fro, as to be expected over fifty thousand years. (archeology suggests at least that much out of Africa) Time frames are open to question again, but I think the general patterns show through with abit of sorting. Very little relationship to any of the traditional theories of "race", even the more recent ones. Mostly geography and movement until the beginning of agriculture and state, and the growing imbalance in weaponry and numbers.

http://www.scs.uiuc.edu/~mcdonald/WorldHaplogroupsMaps.pdf

One flaw common to studies of genetics I find, is that broad theories are being develped based on very small and fragmentary samples and surveys, which don't take into account the very uneven settlement patterns of human populations which have little relationship to historic demographics or cultural spreads.

Fri, 2009-07-03 09:35

#31

Tommy_Paine

It puts me in mind of the first discoveries of extra-solar planets. They seemed to turn the parsimonious model (based on observations of our own solar system, backed up by simple Newtonian physics) that rocky planets would orbit close to a star, while gaseous planets would orbit further out. However, the first observations seemed to discover only big gas giants orbiting close in.

Back then, I thought that our rudementary tools of observation were only letting us see strange anomalies, and as the techniques are being refined, I think this has been born out.

Similarly, using what are early techniques in genetics to make observations is undoubtedly showing us a less than complete picture, and may be only showing us anomalies, and not the main picture.

Fri, 2009-07-03 12:09

#32

martin dufresne

Origins of Humanity

Fri, 2009-07-03 12:32

#33

remind

LOL Martin!

Mon, 2009-07-06 01:37

#34

Erik Redburn

Ha. Congratulations Martin, you've found the one "theory" no-one's ever found an exception to. Even test tubes babies. :)

Mon, 2009-07-06 03:23

#35

Erik Redburn

Tommy_Paine wrote:

One flaw common to studies of genetics I find, is that broad theories are being develped based on very small and fragmentary samples and surveys, which don't take into account the very uneven settlement patterns of human populations which have little relationship to historic demographics or cultural spreads.

It puts me in mind of the first discoveries of extra-solar planets. They seemed to turn the parsimonious model (based on observations of our own solar system, backed up by simple Newtonian physics) that rocky planets would orbit close to a star, while gaseous planets would orbit further out. However, the first observations seemed to discover only big gas giants orbiting close in.

Back then, I thought that our rudementary tools of observation were only letting us see strange anomalies, and as the techniques are being refined, I think this has been born out.

Similarly, using what are early techniques in genetics to make observations is undoubtedly showing us a less than complete picture, and may be only showing us anomalies, and not the main picture.

Never even heard that one Tommy, but you may be right. What always gets me is how every new "theory" of human origins (if there can even be said to be such a discrete event) always seems to ignore other conflicting dates arrived at by other means, then acts like its all wrapped up -this time. I think the "human sciences" have an extra difficulty in theres so much politics involved and some things can never be known, by observing say the laws of physics as we now understand them -more or less. Dead languages that weren't recorded are dead forever, and living ones are only traceable so far back. Archeology only tells a small part of the story too, almost nothing about who actually built the artifacts. All the attempts to tie them together with cultural or "physical" anthropoliogy, as its politely called now, have so far failed. Probably because theyre all really ninety percent guesswork with no established base lines, outside the slow accredation of what we now know to be impossible or unlikely in the extreme. Africa is where it all began, still about it, maybe more recently than we now think.

Mon, 2009-07-06 03:38

#36

Erik Redburn

Anyhow, every frikkin thing I read is in some way open to question, and I keep detecting wafts of subtle racism hidden under alot of it -even among some of the more rigorously objective studies- but the biggest problem I keep running into is that one view or the other is pitted against each other, when thats so rarely the case when we know the history.

This lists the many haplogroups found in human populations (-so far -the uneven sampling I referred to earlier originally overlooked small but possibly significant groups like the Asian "pygmies" -more properly the Aeta, Semang/Orang Asli and Andaman islanders, once believed to be directly linked to African "Twa" but now believed to be first wave out of Africa and more closely linked to East Asian and Papuan/Melanesian peoples -distantly -in part) and offers some explanation of what they represent:

file:///C:/My%20Download%20Files/Human_mitochondrial_DNA_haplogroups.htm

These cover the basic arguments here -with a couple points more questionable than it lets on -as usual. (too much specialization I now believe) -up until the latest findings:

http://www.raceandhistory.com/cgi-bin/forum/webbbs_config.pl/noframes/re...

http://www.actionbioscience.org/evolution/johanson.html

I'm have a hard time finding where the ultimate sources are but the main argument against complete replacement is that some transitional types between Neaderthals and modern humans existed, not only in Europe where intermediate types created artifacts normally associated (assimilation?) only with "moderns", but also 80 thousand BCE, sometime before Mount Toba (now lake Toba) blew up and human poulations dwindled again before being forced to resettle into what was assumed to be largely emptied territory again.

Therefore even if Cro-magnons and Neanderthals tended not to mix much, living side by side as discrete populations for millenia some areas, they may well have at times, and since the original mitochondria theory was partly based on poorly reconstructed neanderthal fossils indicating they physically lacked our ability to pronounce certain basic vowels (giving us the assumed advantage in speech, perhaps thought) and since they/we may have "interbred" right before this crucial setback, then theres no reason to think we wouldn't again a mere twenty thousand years further on. Neanders and some Pithicanthropus survived as well, albiet fewer and father between. Before then there were no major barriers between human and "pre" human populations as they then existed.

There has also been a few DNA samples found which do indicate earlier origins, but they remain very controversial, as very difficult to keep extracted DNA from contamination. So still up in the air. Also having a hell of time myself finding the exact references I was thinking of, but I'll keep at it. Is important I think, least in sofar as all the confusion on the subject, with which racist groups are always trying to twist to "prove" that some of us are more equal than others by ancestry. Or conversely, that its only natural for more "evolved" colonizers to completely eliminate the aboriginal competition. Too bad for the Aryan nation that the most likely candidates for the most "pre"human ancestry happens to be the worlds biggest historical colonizers -us. Anyhow, can go both ways as I said, even among more honest researchers if taken to extremes. Still leaning mostly to "replacement" side though, dumb luck doing the rest.

Mon, 2009-07-06 09:06

#37

Tommy_Paine

The dissapearance of Neanderthals is an argument that has gone back and forth more than a few times, between outright extinction and disspearance through interbreeding with us. Right now, the argument seems to be back to the extinction camp.

I think part of the problem is the way information is presented to us. Before T.V. and the internet, these hypothesis spent a lot of time marinating in academia, going through peer reviews and such before they were made part of general public knowledge. An argument could be made that it might have been too slow. The late adoption of the theory of plate tectonics makes a good example.

But now, it seems that pedullum has swung too far the other way. And, as science is being more popularized, a lot of stuff is lost in translation to a general public that really has never really been trained to discern ideas based on evidence, and ideas based in speculation.

For example, I think most people believe Neanderthals died out 30,000 years ago, or whatever the latest number is. Whatever it is, it's based on the latest fossile evidence. It's therefore proper to say that the last fossil evidence we have of Neanderthals dates to 30,000 years ago. It's speculation to use that date as "when the Neanderthals dissapeared." It's not impossible, in fact quite likely, that Neanderthal populations existed long after-- in places (as most places are) that do not favour the preservation of bone or other artifacts. Or in places we just haven't looked yet.

The same was said for the extinction of mammoths. But lately, evidence of isolated populations on Wrangle Island existing just 4000 years or so ago, seems to be clear.

I bet most people would tell you that dinosaurs never lived in Ontario. There is absolutely no strata dating from the Cretaceous, Triasic or Jurasic period. But, it doesn't mean dinosaurs never walked the Ontario earth. Just that during those periods there was no sedimentation, or conditions present to preserve dinosaur remains.

Good examples for the sceptic proverb "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence".

Mon, 2009-07-06 09:49

#38

remind

Excellent points tommy.

Thu, 2009-07-09 20:05

#39

Doug

It's not really too much up in the air anymore. Most of the Neanderthal genome's been sequenced and it looks like if there was interbreeding, it wasn't very frequent.

Wed, 2009-07-15 04:03

#40

Erik Redburn

Yeah, probably a very small percentage of us, if any at all, but the possibility remains. I think theyve only tested one genetic sample from a Neanderthal succesfully and far too few in modern population samples to say for sure yet, all I was arguing here. Tommy I thought summed it up pretty well, the average guy just doesn't understand the complexities or the science well enough yet and neither do most journalists. (neither do I really, but understand the scientific process well enough to follow the general debate) Maybe that feeds this constant pendulum swing too, but right now the replacement theory is definitely in ascendence.