Genetics

[Chatha]

I have never really believed that all people originated from Africa, much less the fact that white people came from black people.
There is a thread here on segregation in America so I decided to take a fun tour of the origins of race. There is a theory going
on that all people including white people originated from an African tribe 50,000 years ago, then some people migrated
outwards towards Southwest Asia and lower Europe. The particular tribe of all tribes is the saun tribe in central Africa.
Now here are my reasons disputing this identified theory

* Migration and migration away from the species goes against the instincts of living being, there is survival in numbers.
Being such primitive men the only reason why they must have migrated was for depleting food and shelter, perharps they were bannished by
stronger members of the tribe. However it sure wasn't to discover a "new world". Away from their tribe and natural home they were prey for disaster.

* My second item is foreign diseases. Humans have a natural immune for indegenous diseases not foreign diseases. Millions
of native indians sadly were killed due to the foreign diseases the explorers brought with them, which they themselves were immune to.
So how could a group of namadic premitive humans survive the harsh new world of a new enviroment? Very baffling

*Also the theory states 50,000 years ago in Africa. Thats such a little time for the earliest modern humans and and even shorter time for the evolution of white people.
In a calendar year thats like saying earliest known humans originated on december 20th and white peple originated december 28th.

*Recessive gene. If white people came from black people there will be more recessive to black people. But I know interacial couples with children that look
very white, of cause they are other instances in the reversal. This factor also throws out any preconcieved notion of recessiveness; its not particular to any race.

*Finally, mapping method. I watched this documentary on TV a few nights ago. The sun tribe still exists today, some say you can see the pwople fo the world in them. You can see the high cheek bones of the monguls, the slanty eye of the asians, and the fair skin of the caucasian. The mapping was done by geneticists, and was based on the method of mutation, tracing the mutations back to a hand full of people that had the fewest or no mutations at all, I guess. But there is a problem with mutation. First of all, just because a group of people have the fewest amount of mutation does not mean they are the final destination by any means. Its like going backwards on a black tar road and coming to a folk, one folk is made of black road while the other has white road. Obviously the reasonably road to choose at that time is the black road, leaving a hge question mark on where the white road leads. But you see when you are not interested in the facts or origin you always rest on the best available notion, which in this case is Africa. If all the conditions for the emergence of humans were present everywhere in the world, why would it choose central Africa alone. However some other theory suggest that certain ancestral tribes lived in south west Asia as well. Who knows? for now though I think I'd just believe that all people originated from Africa.

 

[S.A.M.]

The font is too big

 

[spuriousmonkey]

* Migration and migration away from the species goes against the instincts of living being, there is survival in numbers.

Dispersion is natural.

* My second item is foreign diseases. Humans have a natural immune for indegenous diseases not foreign diseases. Millions
of native indians sadly were killed due to the foreign diseases the explorers brought with them, which they themselves were immune to.
So how could a group of namadic premitive humans survive the harsh new world of a new enviroment? Very baffling

They did not come in contact with another group of humans with a very distinct history. Just neighbours.

*Also the theory states 50,000 years ago in Africa. Thats such a little time for the earliest modern humans and and even shorter time for the evolution of white people.

White people are not the culmination of evolution. Neither is 50.000 too little for major changes. Moreover, there hardly any differences between human populations.

*Recessive gene. If white people came from black people there will be more recessive to black people. But I know interacial couples with children that look
very white, of cause they are other instances in the reversal. This factor also throws out any preconcieved notion of recessiveness; its not particular to any race.

Very wrong. We have been through this already in several other threads. Skin colour is determined by multiple genes and black not white is dominant, but the alleles behave in incomplete dominance fashion.

*Finally, mapping method. I watched this documentary on TV a few nights ago. The sun tribe still exists today, some say you can see the pwople fo the world in them. You can see the high cheek bones of the monguls, the slanty eye of the asians, and the fair skin of the caucasian. The mapping was done by geneticists, and was based on the method of mutation, tracing the mutations back to a hand full of people that had the fewest or no mutations at all, I guess. But there is a problem with mutation. First of all, just because a group of people have the fewest amount of mutation does not mean they are the final destination by any means. Its like going backwards on a black tar road and coming to a folk, one folk is made of black road while the other has white road. Obviously the reasonably road to choose at that time is the black road, leaving a hge question mark on where the white road leads. But you see when you are not interested in the facts or origin you always rest on the best available notion, which in this case is Africa. If all the conditions for the emergence of humans were present everywhere in the world, why would it choose central Africa alone. However some other theory suggest that certain ancestral tribes lived in south west Asia as well. Who knows? for now though I think I'd just believe that all people originated from Africa.[/SIZE]

Please reformulate this drivel so it makes sense.

 

[Chatha]

Very wrong. We have been through this already in several other threads. Skin colour is determined by multiple genes and black not white is dominant, but the alleles behave in incomplete dominance fashion.

Okay, I get this.

Dispersion is natural.

I guess, but it still goes against natural instincts. Very rarely does any group of animal migrate without returning. However its possible depleting food source was the reason for permanemt migrations.

They did not come in contact with another group of humans with a very distinct history. Just neighbours.

Can you eleborate. Thanks. They did not have to. Many ailments are carried by water, air, animals, and food.

Please reformulate this drivel so it makes sense

Each human has a mutated gene, mutated gene multplies as time goes on. The way to find your ancestors is to go back down the gene pool, you go down by looking for fewer mutations until you get to a point of very little mutation. The point of very little mutation is traced to Africa. There is nothing wrong with this method, just that it can only give us the best available answer, and very prone to errors. Here is the kicker. Ancestorial trees are like any other type of trees; just because you are heading towards what looks like the main branch of the tree does not mean that main branch may not possibly be another extension towards another main branch. Get it? If you believe that all people came from Africa you will find it easier to go towards that node. My biggest problem and why I will never really believe that all humans came from one particular region is that if the conditions for human emergence and evolution was present all over the world, why was Africa special?
Another item I want to note is Monkeys, man's closest cousins. Monkeys can be found all over the world, and many monkeys are native to many different parts of the world. Monkeys basically survive like early and modern humans, and there are lots of similarities we share. How did these monkeys get to where they are today, was it migration?

 

[D H]

Very rarely does any group of animal migrate without returning. However its possible depleting food source was the reason for permanemt migrations.

Humans have migrated without return and continue to do so today. For example, all humans in the Americas are immigrants who did not return.

Another item I want to note is Monkeys, man's closest cousins. Monkeys can be found all over the world, and many monkeys are native to many different parts of the world. Monkeys basically survive like early and modern humans, and there are lots of similarities we share. How did these monkeys get to where they are today, was it migration?

First of all, monkeys are not "man's closest cousins". Apes are man's closest cousins, and apes are not monkeys. A little about monkeys: The monkeys in the new world are quite distinct from those in the old world. The mammals in South America (including primitive monkeys) evolved distinctly from those in the old world because South America finally split completely from Africa in the Paleocene era. Bottom line: New world monkeys didn't get to South America by migration. South America migrated with the monkeys on board.

 

[spuriousmonkey]

Each human has a mutated gene, mutated gene multplies as time goes on. The way to find your ancestors is to go back down the gene pool, you go down by looking for fewer mutations until you get to a point of very little mutation. The point of very little mutation is traced to Africa. There is nothing wrong with this method, just that it can only give us the best available answer, and very prone to errors. Here is the kicker. Ancestorial trees are like any other type of trees; just because you are heading towards what looks like the main branch of the tree does not mean that main branch may not possibly be another extension towards another main branch. Get it? If you believe that all people came from Africa you will find it easier to go towards that node. My biggest problem and why I will never really believe that all humans came from one particular region is that if the conditions for human emergence and evolution was present all over the world, why was Africa special?
Another item I want to note is Monkeys, man's closest cousins. Monkeys can be found all over the world, and many monkeys are native to many different parts of the world. Monkeys basically survive like early and modern humans, and there are lots of similarities we share. How did these monkeys get to where they are today, was it migration?

As for monkeys see the previous post. As for why humans evolved in africa see the fossil record. That's just how it is.

 

[Molecule_X]

Today the monkeys and the humans are from different branches.You can't expect from gorilla to become a human


Sorry, if my English isn't good.

 

[Chatha]

DH,
Humans have migrated without return and continue to do so today. For example, all humans in the Americas are immigrants who did not return.
First of all, monkeys are not "man's closest cousins". Apes are man's closest cousins, and apes are not monkeys. A little about monkeys: The monkeys in the new world are quite distinct from those in the old world. The mammals in South America (including primitive monkeys) evolved distinctly from those in the old world because South America finally split completely from Africa in the Paleocene era. Bottom line: New world monkeys didn't get to South America by migration. South America migrated with the monkeys on board.

*Thanks. But here is my problem. Migration by primitive animals who use basic survival instincts is not the same as the modern human. Every instinctual animal today that migrates, whether its the birds, the deers, or the entelop, always returns. Its sort of like a cycle, Antelopes for example feed in the summer and migrate in the winter, then they are back in the summer. Perharos the reason for the permanent migration was lack of adequate habitat. I checked on the Paleocene era. It was a time when South Americs was sill drifting away from Africa. And I am confused, are you saying Apes and monkeys emerged from Africa? Because it seems to me that if South America was part of Africa its hard to differenciate where they originaly emerged from?

 

[Chatha]

As for monkeys see the previous post. As for why humans evolved in africa see the fossil record. That's just how it is

What about the many fossil discoveries in China, America, and Europe? For example
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peking_Man
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/08/060824222042.htm
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/08/060825103718.htm
It seems to me that if the continents have been shifting for years how can one be sure man originated at a particular continent? How can we be sure that primitive man did not originate somewhere and moved to another place, which we mistakenly use as point of origin? And if the conditions for man was everywhere, why is one continent said to be the origin?

This one is actually lot more than 50,000 years old. Found in Europe
http://www.sciencedaily.com/encyclopedia/Homo_cepranensis

 

[spuriousmonkey]

Unfortunately your references are not on topic. The fossil record of homo sapiens shows an origin in Africa. So do molecular phylogenic studies.

 

[Chatha]

Okay, can you give me a clear definitive explanation? Thank you

 

[Chatha]

I guess I'd just have to accept that the oldest known fossil was found in Africa so humans originated from Africa. Thanks anyways

 

[spuriousmonkey]

do a pubmed search

for instance:
http://www.journals.royalsoc.ac.uk/...q6/contributions/w/1/3/1/w131828p115x6mmm.pdf

No specific archaic-recent regional relationships are indicated in the shape analyses, nor in separate examinations of patterns of regionality, which indicate a recent origin for present day regionality. The Skhul-Qafzeh sample provides an excellent shape intermediate between the archaic and recent samples.

 

[Fraggle Rocker]

Migration and migration away from the species goes against the instincts of living being, there is survival in numbers.

You are confusing migration, which is seasonal, with dispersion, which is permanent. All successful species disperse because of population pressure. Generally they must disperse to a region with the same climate to which they are already adapted. This explains why many species have vast ranges in Eurasia, which allows east-west travel, but not in the Americas, which do not. Nonetheless eventually the separated populations may evolve into different species which slowly adapt to more disparate climates, so we have the Arctic lynx and the African jungle cat.

Furthermore... some species are so robust that they disperse widely with only minor adaptation that does not require evolving new species. The no-brainer example of this phenomenon is Passer domesticus, the House Sparrow. A mere 125 years ago a homesick Englishman had eighty pairs shipped from his homeland and set them loose in New York's Central Park. Since then they have bred prolificly, outcompeted many native species, and dispersed to every corner of the Americas, from the Arctic Circle to Tierra del Fuego. The desert dwellers are thin and tan, the denizens of the tundra are fat and white, and that's about all the differentiation they needed to adapt. This bird that almost every inhabitant of North and South America sees almost every day is a pretty convincing refutation of your hypothesis.

Being such primitive men the only reason why they must have migrated was for depleting food and shelter, perharps they were bannished by stronger members of the tribe. However it sure wasn't to discover a "new world". Away from their tribe and natural home they were prey for disaster.

Recent linguistic analysis made possible by massively parallel computing has arguably reduced the number of language families to two, and shows promise of ultimately placing all human language into one family. This would mean that we developed language before we left Africa. It could be that language was the key technology that made the diaspora possible. A quantum improvement in our ability to communicate, remember and plan would certainly have made the difference in the ability to cross into unfamiliar ecosystems and not simply survive but prosper.

Man is an omnivore and curiosity is a common trait in omnivorous species. It promotes opportunistic feeding and the discovery of new food sources. Scavengers are the most opportunistic feeders of all, and at least among the warm-blooded animals they tend to be the leaders in intelligence, curiosity, and dispersion. Bears, crows, raccoons, grosbeaks, rats...

Considering what a powerful force curiosity has been during historical times, it's not remarkable to assume that it was the same 75,000 years ago when, with the power of speech at their disposal, humans looked to the northeast and wondered what was up there.

 

[Chatha]

I have been doing some reading across the internet on where humans first appeared. It’s sort of like the theory of what cam first, the egg or the chicken? Obviously the chicken didn't appear overnight but was actually a gradual process. I think the theory of origin of man from Africa is a matter of convenience, people sort of always want something definitive, and they want someone or something to point to. 55 million years ago, the first primitive primates evolved near the dinosaurs, but there is no exact theory on where. Fast forward to 3.5 million years ago, "Lucy", specimen of Australopithecus afarensis, was found in Ethiopia and this gives impetus to origin of man from Ethiopia. But 3.2 million years is a lot further than 55 million years, anything could have happened by then, including immigration from Europe or who knows where. I think the whole theory of origin of man from any particular place is based on convenience certainly in the case of Africa based on my assessment. Does this make sense to me?

 

[spuriousmonkey]

Does this make sense to me?

Don't know. It doesn't make much sense to me.

 

[Chatha]

(laughs) why anybody even bothers with me sometimes is a mystery.

 

[Fraggle Rocker]

We have enough paleontological evidence (fossils) of various hominids in various parts of the globe to get a reasonably detailed view of their distribution. We have enough archeological evidence (bones and artifacts) of the most recent species to determine that H. sapiens and H. neanderthalensis were/are the most widespread. And we have enough anthropological evidence (language etc.) to plot the diaspora of H. sapiens.

Science never says that the probability of something is zero because it always allows for even the most well-supported theories to be challenged by new evidence. But it works with Occam's Razor and requires assertions which become increasingly extraordinary as time passes to be supported by increasingly extraordinary substantiation. The probability of Homo sapiens having originated somewhere other than Africa is so small that to speak of it in any context other than pure philosophical speculation is not productive.

I will let one of the real biologists here explain articulately why the common gene in all modern humans can be traced to a single individual who lived millions of years ago in Africa. I read the popularized reports at the time and with my modest scientific background I was convinced of the validity of the research and the conclusion, but I'm not qualified to teach on this subject.

But assuming the validity of that research, what we're saying is that mankind's common ancestor from three million years ago lived in Africa and therefore her descendants, by definition, are of African origin.

Her bloodline may not have a bottleneck in it like ours does. Her species may be the descendant of a long mixed line of ancestors who migrated in and out of disparate locations. But our species is not. The first Homo sapiens lived in Africa.

As I pointed out on another thread (or maybe it was this one), this is hardly remarkable. Every House Sparrow in North and South America is the descendant of 80 pairs that were shipped from England about 125 years ago by a homesick expat. He turned them loose in Central Park and they were so wildly successful in their new ecosystem that they outcompeted the native species and established themselves in every climate zone from the Artic to Tierra del Fuego within one human lifetime. For modern humans to have spread out from a single point into a modestly larger area in a substantially longer time does not require a suspension of Occam's Razor.

 

[J.B]

 

[J.B]