human origin debate (out-of-africa?)

Originally posted by Beylerbeyi Some multi-regionalists are against out-of-Africa because the theory can be linked to religous ideas. Most religions claim we have the same original ancestors and spread from them. Interesting. But even the broken clock shows the right time twice a day. Religious nutters are similarly right about this.

Funny point. The rare in this case is that the paradox reaches even further.

Both the "single-origin-hypothesis" and the "multi-regional-theory" have proven some points, of which some concerns the time-scales for the respected "Uit-of-Africa-theory".

The present evidences points to a single origin of the "naked, speaking ape" called the human specie. The timing seems awfully of though, since both the Java-man and the Peking-man have had a say in the case of the East -Asian populations.

There are no clear paralell ("proto-type") found in India, but it is obvious that the Indoneian, Chineese and Indian peoples are distinctivey and "inherrently" different from each other. The discrepancy to Africans are also obvious and the word "race" have been the traditional way to adress these clear, physiognomic characteristics - that makes itpossible to distinguish different kinds of people - by both appearance and language.

(The word "race" used to be a pretty neutral term, associated with "recogition", "description" and "facination" - rather than "politics", "prejudism" and "racism".)

To explain the history of the variations of the human specie, as adaptions to specific climates and continents - we will also need a bit more than a daft 1000 generations from A common origin as a specie. Just think about the time it will take to transfrom the entire chromsomes of an African before his body and temper is completly adapted to the macro- and micro-levels of the Arctic hemisphere? Moreover, to explain the arctic population of the palefaces you may also need a complete arctic biosphere in place - first...

In 1998 traces from a dwelling-site of modern man was discovered at the Pechora-bassin, straigth north of Moscov.  Among other tissues a carvd bone of mammoth was found and dated - to be 36.000 Cyr BP. It seems that the guys from Africa have already been predated - long before they would have a chance to have mutated into straigth-haired, blonde, blue-eyed mutatant - normally called "Caucasian".

It seems that these "Caucasians" had another history - in some god-forsaken refugia, where they were left in isolani for enough generations to make them all adapt to an high-arctic climate, where the sun takes a nap during the entire month of midwinter. As we know this pculiar climate-zone have developed a complete set of plants and animals that are nowadays named "arctic" or "sub-artic". A characteristic of several arctic animals are white fur - or skin. The characteristics of the "palefaces" have obviously been developed to enhance the efficency of absorbing the sunligth - as it returned with the spring.

From the demography of the present world we can still identify - and thus characterize - the variety of the major etnic groups. So - that's our herritage, as a specie - and nothing to worry about,  but rather to care about. Since the awareness of our etnic roots along with our mother-tongues seen to forms the basic tools in our personal quests for identity and purpose in life. This can be easily observed in the years of childhood and youth - when our personalities are formed...

Thus it can be learned that the mythic part of some religions - claim we're all from one and the same couple of A First Man and Woman. Consequently we are one and the same specie and thus, duely related to each other. Since the genetic expertise seems to agree we have to ask how this correct version to our orgin could be preserved - as a story - from early man to Moses?!

The proto-caucasians seem to come out of their refugia at the end of the ast ice-age, 10.000 years ago. Since then they have poplated the arctic and sub-arctic climate-zone, spread agriculture and connected to all the tropical populations - that existed as different races on different (sub-) continents already since "time orgin".

We still do not know when or where this "time origin" happened. Only to explain the latest branch - the "icemen" of the north - and the Caucasian metamorfism, we have to 
go back at least to the warm climate of the Eem-period (120.000 BP). That may explain a possibile origin of "a limited group getting isolated", since there are three different sites from this period found in Scandinavia. Consequently we have started to suspect that the "climatic refugia" - that led to the Caucasian kind and culture - may have happened at the top of the Gulf-stream in those days;  the shores of Scandinavia and the Baltic Sea...

In retrospect I think its ample to claim that the "origin of man" was tropical. Thus it is clear that we shall look for the "first origin" in a tropical/temperated circumstance. But it doesnt have to be Africa - and it is definitly more than 1 million years ago, since it produced offsprings in both Spain and China about that time. Me thinks Spencer Wells still have some serious reconsiderations in the waiting...


 

Originally posted by calvo By DNA mutation mark testing, it has been demostrated that ALL human beings everywhere in the world shared the same female ancestor between 200,000-500,000 years ago

Were all descended from Adam and Eve or as scientists put it, were all descended from one female and guy if we go back far enough.

Only thing is that the two of them never met. And MtDNA Eve is Y-Adam's great great great...well etc............. grandmother. MtDNA Eve is said to lived about 120,000 years ago, while Y-Adam is said to live around 40-60,000 ago if I remember right.  

Another human male. It's what scientist have come to a conclusion to by studying our DNA. Just as they can look at people from Mongolia and find that they have what is believed to be Ghenghis' genetics. Y-Adam is just the last human male that EVERY human has as a common ancestor, it doesn't mean other lineages didn't exist before that point, because they did.

Edited by SearchAndDestroy - 18-Jan-2009 at 04:56

Well, this in away explains evolution, in that genetics change from random mutations. I may have the exact same Y as my father and alot of generations back,(if I understand genetics right thus far) but if my son has a mutation, now if his children  children carry a new Y that can be marked. And if all lineages die except for my sons, his lineage becomes the last known Y as explained above.

So our common female ancestor waited 60,000 to reproduce, humans must have lived a long time in those days.

It must be remembered that the "Eve" and "Adam" we're talking about here are not actually individual people, but genetic markers.

A useful analogy for mtDNA Eve and y-chromosome Adam I've heard used is to think of them as family names. In some communities that remain isolated (at least genetically) for many generations, eventually everyone ends up with the same family name. This happens not because they all had the same name to begin with, but because over time, as some families have more children than others, or adopt the children of other families, or (assuming the names are passed down patrilineally) have a higher proportion of boys than other families, one family name ends up marking the entire community.

The reason why the mtDNA and y-chromosome markers don't match up to a single contemporaneous pair is that they are equivalent to two family names, one passed down through men and the other passed down through women. Both markers were passed down through the chance elimination of competitors, until one male marker marked all males and one female marker marked all females. Because the dying out of competing names is a very chancey process, there is a low probability either that the successful markers would happen to be those of a coupled man and woman, or that it would happen to take the same amount of time for both processes to finish.

It's probably also worth pointing out that y-chromosome markers seem to multiply and die out more often. This is probably because the probability of some men having many more children than other men is higher than the probability of some women having many more children than other women.

"To create a new specie you need two offsprings from the same parental origin able of sucessful reproduction".

Which means that the monkey and the missig link made children that was able to speak
- and to reproduce with each other.

That's what this question is about; when did the first male AND female occur - able to produce linguistic sounds, to accurately and clearly express focused thougths, - as well as associations and intents?

Your speculations and theories can't start with bending that very pre-requisite for creating a new primate specie - such as the human being. The above suggetion about two distinctly different creations (separated by 60.000 years) is a mere suggestion, created to explain an anomaly discovered within the research on the present DNA. That does NOT mean that this theory is - in any way - scientifically proven but a mere suggestion...  

Thus I also commented (above) on the analyzis and maps doen by Spencer Wells and the team at NG. As a growing number of genetic and archeological results differ or (even) disagree with the OoA-theory, it's clear that Wells & Co still have some principal RE-considerations to do.  




Edited by Boreasi - 20-Jan-2009 at 02:48

I tend to support Wolpoff's Multiregional Hypothesis based on the fact the humans have maintained genetic continuity and species cohesiveness. There are multiple, not one, migrations out of Africa, beginning of course with H. erectus. Genetic drift quarantees persistence of regional populations that are further away from the 'center' of radiation (Africa). In these cases, interbreeding takes place; elsewhere replacement is possible. Big question: does interbreeding happens with Neaderthals? Recent DNA extracted from nead. says no. But in Asia local populations persist.