'Out of Africa' Seriously Debunked?

Discussions unearthing human history including cultural anthropology, linguistics, etc.

'Out of Africa' Seriously Debunked?

Postby Mossling on November 25th, 2015, 12:10 am 

There are a number of different sources of "evidence" being thrown around these days that refute the 'Out of Africa' hypothesis. It seems that it is now fashionable to say humans interbred with a variety of other Neanderthal-type species and this idea about becoming 'modern' in Africa before spreading across the globe is old-fashioned - for the 1990's "PC crowd".

Here is an example paper that some people cite:

Re-Examining the “Out of Africa” Theory and the Origin of Europeoids (Caucasoids) in Light of DNA Genealogy
Advances in Anthropology
2012. Vol.2, No.2, 80-8

Anatole A. Klyosov*, Igor L. Rozhanskii
The Academy of DNA Genealogy, Newton, USA
The finding that the Europeoid haplogroups did not descend from “African” haplogroups A or B is supported by the fact that bearers of the Europeoid haplogroups, as well as all non-African haplogroups do not carry either SNPs M91, P97, M31, P82, M23, M114, P262, M32, M59, P289, P291, P102, M13, M171, M118 (haplogroup A and its subclades SNPs) or M60, M181, P90 (haplogroup B), as it was shown recently in “Walk through Y” FTDNA Project (the reference is incorporated therein) on several hundred people from various hap- logroups.


China seems to be pretty big in asserting their racial independence from African ancestry, with a recent claim to have found humanoid remains from ~1 million years ago, for example.

Of course there can be nationalistic agendas for countries to assert racial independence and any related genetic superiority (just like the Nazis had).
User avatar
Mossling
Active Member
 
Posts: 1171
Joined: 02 Jul 2009
Blog: View Blog (54)


Re: 'Out of Africa' Seriously Debunked?

Postby wolfhnd on November 25th, 2015, 1:48 am 

Here is more

"The continuity of the 'Eurasian dental pattern' from the early Pleistocene until the appearance of upper Pleistocene Neandertals suggests that the evolutionary courses of the Eurasian and the African continents were relatively independent for a long period and that the impact of Asia in the colonization of Europe was stronger than that of Africa," the researchers wrote in the new report. "This finding does not necessarily imply that there was no genetic flow between continents, but emphasizes that this interchange could have been both ways."

http://www.scientificamerican.com/artic ... heory-out/

"Australian scientists say analysis of the oldest DNA ever taken from skeletal remains challenges the theory that all modern humans can trace their recent ancestry to Africa.

What our evidence shows is that the situation is much more complicated than any of these supporters of Out of Africa would have imagined

Dr Alan Thorne, Australian National University
The study is based on the 60,000-year-old so-called Mungo Man skeleton, which was unearthed in New South Wales in 1974, and nine other anatomically modern Australian individuals who lived 8-15,000 years ago."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/1108413.stm

The out of Africa theory always seemed a bit too neat and tidy to me. Dates based on DNA are likely to have large margins of error. However

"There is no evidence here that the ancestry of these Australian fossils goes back a million or two million years, which is the multi-regional prediction."

I'm anxiously awaiting the response from someone with the background to adequately examine the data.

In the mean time it would be nice if evidence for Convergent evolution in humans was found because while it would unfortunately support some people with racist agendas it would more importantly redefine what being human means.
User avatar
wolfhnd
Resident Member
 
Posts: 4336
Joined: 21 Jun 2005
Blog: View Blog (3)
Scruffy Nerf Herder liked this post


Re: 'Out of Africa' Seriously Debunked?

Postby Mossling on November 25th, 2015, 3:18 am 

Interesting
User avatar
Mossling
Active Member
 
Posts: 1171
Joined: 02 Jul 2009
Blog: View Blog (54)


Re: 'Out of Africa' Seriously Debunked?

Postby wolfhnd on November 25th, 2015, 3:44 am 

Guess I will be waiting a while longer hint hint
User avatar
wolfhnd
Resident Member
 
Posts: 4336
Joined: 21 Jun 2005
Blog: View Blog (3)


Re: 'Out of Africa' Seriously Debunked?

Postby vivian maxine on November 25th, 2015, 10:12 am 

An anthropologist could contribute. Maybe a good supporting idea is to take a look at animals in Australia that exist nowhere else. Natively, that is. We have, of course, transported some to other continents but they are found naturally only in Australia.

Europe? A few years ago, someone came out with a report about research which shows that a low percentage of current homo sapiens have some Neanderthal DNA. If true, from where did they Neanderthals come?

And do we yet know what/who was on North and South America before that skinny little land bridge and Kon Tiki happened?
vivian maxine
Resident Member
 
Posts: 2837
Joined: 01 Aug 2014


Re: 'Out of Africa' Seriously Debunked?

Postby wolfhnd on November 25th, 2015, 10:47 am 

vivian maxine » Wed Nov 25, 2015 2:12 pm wrote: from where did they Neanderthals come?


Exactly, convergent evolution or ? :-)
User avatar
wolfhnd
Resident Member
 
Posts: 4336
Joined: 21 Jun 2005
Blog: View Blog (3)


Re: 'Out of Africa' Seriously Debunked?

Postby wolfhnd on November 25th, 2015, 2:04 pm 

bumping for additional comments
User avatar
wolfhnd
Resident Member
 
Posts: 4336
Joined: 21 Jun 2005
Blog: View Blog (3)


Re: 'Out of Africa' Seriously Debunked?

Postby Paralith on November 25th, 2015, 4:35 pm 

Well, as with most competing hypotheses at opposite ends of a spectrum, the truth is likely somewhere in between, making both hypotheses in their purest form incorrect.

The pattern of human neutral genetic diversity in different parts of the world paints a very strong picture of a very old population in Africa, and successively younger populations in Europe, Asia, and the Americas. But of course, groups who splintered off from the first ancient human populations and left Afrida ran into a myriad of hominin species already living in the areas they were expanding into. It makes sense that they would interbreed with these groups, and we now have definite genetic evidence that they did. A lot of recent discoveries of ancient hominins outside of Africa are showing us that those populations may have been more diverse and thriving than we long thought, and their contribution to the genetic make up of the humans they encountered is a new and important area of study. And also of course, once ancient humans splintered off from African populations, they began some of their own independent evolution.

I suppose it could be argued that, given how much other hominins may have contributed to modern humans outside of Africa, whether or not it can really be said that humans outside of Africa truly originated in Africa is up for discussion. Unfortunately, some good old modern human racism has been and probably still is exerting influence on this discussion, as Mossling mentioned. To argue against a pure out-of-Africa hypothesis is basically arguing against something that no one is advocating anyway. A more nuanced, in-between view is more the consensus these days.
User avatar
Paralith
Resident Expert
 
Posts: 3160
Joined: 04 Jan 2008
Blog: View Blog (2)


Re: 'Out of Africa' Seriously Debunked?

Postby wolfhnd on November 25th, 2015, 10:33 pm 

Thank you Paralith

So we can remove seriously and maybe debunked but I'm still wondering if we have underestimated the amount of divergent evolution in humans. In this case is seems it may not be so much a case of restricted gene flow but of various admixtures. In fact despite some evidence to the contrary it seems gene flow is not as restricted as some models previously assumed.

One thing that has always bothered me was the idea that small differences in genetics between subspecies can have dramatic effects. To counter racism people will often talk about how small the genetic differences between various groups of humans are. One of the arguments for out of Africa is the lack of genetic diversity outside Africa compared to the diversity within African groups which is a better argument against racism than simple diversity.

The fact that there seems to be no true subspecies of humans has much to with rapid colonization and movement across various geographies and the speed of human evolution. Over the last two hundred thousand years we have seem a rapid increase in brain volume and over the last ten thousand years a significant reduction in brain volume both almost exclusively tied to culture. Culture I would argue is the most defining human characteristic. Just as we could not exist without the symbiotic relationship with bacteria we would not be human in a very real sense without culture. In the case in point the spread of culture seems more important than genetics in defining difference "subspecies" of humans.

One of the dangers in trying to dispel old prejudices related to "race" by pointing out genetic similarities is that there is a temptation to apply the same logic to culture. Our shrinking brains already demonstrates the relative unimportance of even significant genetic differences. Culture is evolving rapidly and a failure to focus on differences in fear of repeating the mistakes made over the relationship between genetics and "race" should not stop us from critique. Understanding that there are good and bad elements of culture just as there are positives and negative genetic mutations stopping it's evolution is neither desirable nor possible. Considering the importance of culture to being human the idea that all are equally valid is regressive and not a positive development in the human story.

Another important side issue is how rapid human evolution and the lack of selection for non cultural reasons has left humans with significantly higher risk of genetic disease than our relatives. I would argue that we are now forced by our understanding of this issue and the inhumane nature of selection to adopt genetic engineering which means a moral obligation to expand sophisticated technology as rapidly as possible.
User avatar
wolfhnd
Resident Member
 
Posts: 4336
Joined: 21 Jun 2005
Blog: View Blog (3)


Re: 'Out of Africa' Seriously Debunked?

Postby Eclogite on November 26th, 2015, 3:59 am 

wolfhnd » Wed Nov 25, 2015 9:33 pm wrote:So we can remove seriously and maybe debunked but I'm still wondering if we have underestimated the amount of divergent evolution in humans.
The bushlike nature of human evolution (in contrast to a very linear progression) has become the accepted view over the last couple of decades. I suspect you are being influenced by now dated viewpoints. I recommend you read anything and everything by Ian Tatersall.
Eclogite
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 1388
Joined: 07 Feb 2007
Location: Around and about


Re: 'Out of Africa' Seriously Debunked?

Postby wolfhnd on November 26th, 2015, 6:03 pm 

Eclogite » Thu Nov 26, 2015 7:59 am wrote:
wolfhnd » Wed Nov 25, 2015 9:33 pm wrote:I suspect you are being influenced by now dated viewpoints. I recommend you read anything and everything by Ian Tatersall.


Well I'm pretty dated :-)

A quick review of Tatersall's work seems to indicate to me that many topics are still hotly debated. When you say branching do you mean before or after 60 thousand years ago?
User avatar
wolfhnd
Resident Member
 
Posts: 4336
Joined: 21 Jun 2005
Blog: View Blog (3)


Re: 'Out of Africa' Seriously Debunked?

Postby Eclogite on November 26th, 2015, 6:13 pm 

Largely before. Of course there is much debate. There is much debate about evolution amongst biologists. That does not mean that biologists doubt evolution.
Eclogite
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 1388
Joined: 07 Feb 2007
Location: Around and about


Re: 'Out of Africa' Seriously Debunked?

Postby wolfhnd on November 26th, 2015, 7:54 pm 

Eclogite » Thu Nov 26, 2015 10:13 pm wrote:Largely before. Of course there is much debate. There is much debate about evolution amongst biologists. That does not mean that biologists doubt evolution.


Since the out of Africa theory is based on a recent migration and the most common date given is around 60 thousand years ago older dates are not relevant.
User avatar
wolfhnd
Resident Member
 
Posts: 4336
Joined: 21 Jun 2005
Blog: View Blog (3)


Re: 'Out of Africa' Seriously Debunked?

Postby doogles on November 27th, 2015, 5:13 am 

Life’s funny in a way. Just when we put our faith in Santa Claus, our parents finally affirm our suspicions that it’s a world-wide ‘con’ to make us feel good for a while. And as we get older, our beliefs in many of the working theories that explain our existence become debunked one by one.

And here goes another – ‘Out of Africa’.

In addition to the references supplied by Mossling and wolfhnd, the skeletons being excavated here in Australia appear to be rising from their graves to be throwing more confusion into the story.

Mungo Man (In New South Wales) so far appears to be standing up to his story that he was hanging out about 60,000 years ago and that he was a genuine Homo sapiens sapiens.

But a couple of other skeletons are throwing spanners into the works from their graves. On the following web site, you can see a claim that Australian Aborigenes arose 400,00 years ago from two distinct lineages. http://www.ancient-origins.net/opinion- ... pleiades-0 . This is an extract -

“Rebecca Cann decided to delve deeper and sample the Australian Original mtDNA genes herself (which is passed on from generation to generation by women). What she found literally turned the whole Homo sapien sapiens tree upside down. Based on a mitochondrial DNA sampling “of 112 humans, including twelve Australian Aborigines” she had no choice but to contradict their earlier paper conceding that “mitochondrial DNA puts the origin of Homo sapiens much further back and indicates that the Australian Aborigines arose 400,000 years ago from two distinct lineages, far earlier than any other racial type”. Instead of exhibiting one third the genetic diversity of other races, which was a crucial element of their earlier paper’s self-regulation, it would seem their initial comparison to the African race was wrong by a factor of 30.

"What she found was that the “Australian racial group has a much higher number of mutations”, and that this trend runs contrary to a predicted rate of one third to that of any other race. Moreover, “by the same theory, the Mongoloids originated about 100,000 years ago, and the Negroid and Caucasian groups about 40,000 years ago”. Employing Cann’s calculations we now find that the Original people came into existence 400,000 years ago, eight times earlier than what they proposed in their paper, and instead of exhibiting one third the genetic diversity of the Africans they actually have a mutation rate ten times greater than the Africans. This amounts to a genetic miscalculation by a factor of 30, and the timing mechanism of their molecular clock, if Cann’s research was valid, is now in tatters.”


To complicate the picture further, we have this report of a colony of aboriginals at Kow Swamp in north western Victoria on http://austhrutime.com/kow_swamp.htm .

“By 1972 the skeletons of nearly 40 individuals had been uncovered around the edge of Kow Swamp, mostly along the eastern shore, in a narrow belt of lake silt. This silt was partially overlain by a crescentic sand dune (lunette). Radiocarbon dates from bone and charcoal associated with the burials, show that the burials span a period from about 13000 to 9500 BP.

”The enigma of Kow Swamp is that the skulls are younger than those at Keilor and Willandra Lakes, but appear much more archaic. The people at Kow Swamp had large, long heads with very thick bone, up to 13 mm thick. Their faces were large, wide and projecting, with prominent brow ridges and flat, receding foreheads. From above they show a pronounced inward curvature behind the eye sockets, giving the skull the appearance of a flask. They had enormous teeth and jaws, some even larger than Java Man, Homo erectus (Previously called Pithecanthropus, from the middle Pleistocene of Sangiran.

“The appearance of the skulls at Kow Swamp suggest they were physically similar to those at Cohuna and Talgai (These were nearby –my comment). This contrasts strongly with the more gracile appearance of the inhabitants of Keilor and WLH 1 (LM1) & WLH 3 (LM3). The gracile people lack the flat, receding foreheads, pronounced brow ridges, massive jaws and thick bone of the Kow Swamp people.”


One anthropologist claims that only two skulls were reconstructed somewhat intact and that most of the above claims of similarities with earlier species were due to artefactual misshaping over time. I would personally think that the 13 mm-thick bone would take some explaining.

I’m happy to leave it to the anthropologists to argue about, but it looks as if we could have had a sizeable colony of humanoids with primitive skull features still surviving in Victoria during relatively recent millennia.

I’m fascinated by this.

In your imagination, just picture that there were about 250 separate language groups of aborigines in Australia when it was first colonised. Each language group consisted of about 200 people (with 15 to 20 separate family groups in each) occupying areas of approximately 100 by 100 miles (10,000 square miles). Generally they appeared to all stay within their own areas. If the above evidence of the existence of a group with unusually thick-boned skulls and etc is true, I can’t help but wonder what attitude the neighbouring language groups would have towards them.
doogles
Member
 
Posts: 861
Joined: 11 Apr 2009


Re: 'Out of Africa' Seriously Debunked?

Postby wolfhnd on November 27th, 2015, 5:56 am 

doogles normally I ignore a single example such as the one that suggests aboriginals have a 400,000 year old origin but Mossling asks a legitimate question and he deserves a better answer than what the text books offer. I think you are right in illustrating the extreme variation in theories with this example.

There seems to be some consensus that the original out of Africa hypothesis is misleading in terms of dates, admixtures, etc. but there is a bewildering variety of modifying theories even if you ignore the extreme example of aboriginals.

Perhaps Forest_Dump can offer some helpful insights because at this point I just see a lot of controversy and nothing I find convincing.
User avatar
wolfhnd
Resident Member
 
Posts: 4336
Joined: 21 Jun 2005
Blog: View Blog (3)


Re: 'Out of Africa' Seriously Debunked?

Postby wolfhnd on November 27th, 2015, 7:47 am 

The Oxford Handbook of the Archaeology and Anthropology

I was reading part of this book in a preview and I think it would be handy to have but it is $200.

From the portion I was able to read at least this book places a lot of caution on DNA dating. What was more interesting I suppose is that it also seems to suggest that it is misleading to assume that "Modern Human" can be defined biologically. This is pretty much the same argument I have been making but it of course is much better written. While I would think it is self evident that your genes are not who you are I'm not sure it is something many people appreciate in it's full ramifications. I'm sure that there will now be suggestions that it is dangerous to replace racial prejudice with cultural prejudice I don't think Oxford is likely to make that mistake.
User avatar
wolfhnd
Resident Member
 
Posts: 4336
Joined: 21 Jun 2005
Blog: View Blog (3)


Re: 'Out of Africa' Seriously Debunked?

Postby vivian maxine on November 27th, 2015, 10:05 am 

Doogles, when Rebecca Cann - or any anthropologist - surmises that the Australian, Mongoloid, Negroid and Caucasions originated at different times, does she mean independently? Or, does she mean there was migration with new mutations?

I am trying to remember a book I read long ago - "The Seven Daughters of Eve" by Bryan Sykes. I must re-read that. He does say, though, that native Australians are very reluctant to participate in genetic testing, thus only a few mitochondrial sequences are known.

There is also "The Neanderthal's Necklace" by Juan Luis Arsuaga. Scanning just now I found this: "The Australian Kingdom comprises Australia and Tasmania, places that primates never migrated to." Of course, he didn't say none originated there. And dates of discoveries would matter. When did Rebecca Cann make her discoveries? These books were published in 2001 and 2002 respectively. By research standards, that is a long time ago.

A very interesting topic.
vivian maxine
Resident Member
 
Posts: 2837
Joined: 01 Aug 2014
doogles liked this post


Re: 'Out of Africa' Seriously Debunked?

Postby doogles on November 28th, 2015, 6:06 am 

Vivian Maxine, thank you for your comments. Like you, I take a sort-of passing interest in these things.
The group of 112 mitachondrial DNA samples that Rebecca Cann and her associates examined, apparently represented samples from 12 Australian aborigines, 19 people of African descent, 35 of Asian descent and 45 from Europe, North Africa or the Middle East (that’s 111; the report is confusing, but another may have been from a cell line.).

My interpretation as a lay person in this field, and which may be completely wrong, is that they were able to identify “the presence or absence of cleavage sites at 441 locations in the mitochondrial DNA”. They found that 287 of the sites were the same in all samples, but that 163 were polymorphic in that some had genes and others didn’t. (It must have been a bit complicated because the figures do not add up to 441).

Apparently there are ‘established’ formulas now (?) that equate the ratio of the numbers of invariate cleavage sites relative to the number of mutations with the time that the line of mitochondrial DNA has existed. Obviously the 12 ‘Australian’ samples must have shown a significant difference from the other 100 and the formulas suggested that their line had existed for 400000 years.

As you suggest, this doesn’t mean that their origin was in Australia – only that they may have, could have, maybe – existed in some sort of isolation from the rest of the lineages sampled for that long.

Re the reluctance of Australian aborigines to participate in sampling studies – I’ve not come across this one way or another.

Rebecca Cann’s work may still be ongoing. I’ve seen a 2006 study. The one I quoted from was published circa 1987.

As you point out, the absence of fossilised non-human primates amongst the huge array of fossils found in Australia to date, does tend to preclude Australia as an ultimate source of hominids. That was a very good point in the discussion.

What a shame, vivian maxine, that our ancestors failed to develop a written language. They would have saved us a lot of guesswork.
doogles
Member
 
Posts: 861
Joined: 11 Apr 2009


Re: 'Out of Africa' Seriously Debunked?

Postby vivian maxine on November 28th, 2015, 7:44 am 

Thank you, doogles. This really has my attention because I have often wondered if there could not have been several different evolutions into "homo sapiens" - more than one Adam, so to speak. I look at the Americas the same way. If I have my time line right, these continents had been well-separated by the time of Homo sapien appearance.

One little extra that a friend and I mentioned yesterday is the element of linguistics. In Europe, among the Basques, there was a language that did not relate to any other in Europe. They've found that it does connect to a group in the Steppes. From there? Eastward to the Asian Orientals? It's just a thought.
vivian maxine
Resident Member
 
Posts: 2837
Joined: 01 Aug 2014


Re: 'Out of Africa' Seriously Debunked?

Postby Mossling on November 30th, 2015, 6:43 am 

In a book from Cambridge University Press by Renée Hetherington (University of Victoria), Robert G. B. Reid (Emeritus Professor of Biology at the University of Victoria, British Columbia), titled: The climate connection: climate change and modern human evolution (2010), one finds the following:
px-xi wrote:The story of the growing knowledge of the geologically earliest hominins, and of
the discoveries, the interpretations, the premature and disputed conclusions that led to
scientific recognition of the genus Homo and its several species; of the influence of the
dominant personalities who led the thinking in this subject, is well told, in the light of
current discoveries and new techniques of analysis. After a century and a half of
controversy, the studies of human fossils and of the evidences of human behaviour and expression – tools, habitations, art, indications of language – together with the
evidence of dispersion of early humans to widely scattered locations in Africa, Asia,
Australia, Europe, the Americas and Polynesia, especially in the last 135 000 years,
make a coherent picture. The issues of whether ‘out of Africa’ or multiple origins
explains the sources of humankind and of the role and distribution of other species
(Homo erectus, Homo ergaster, Neanderthal Man, and the others including our late
little relative Homo floresiensis) fall convincingly into place in this larger perspective.
Having reviewed the evidence and our progressive understanding of early
humans, the authors address the question of the changes of climate during the last
135 000 years, since the time when our direct ancestors, Homo sapiens, left Africa
and began forays which would take them throughout the world.


This thread lead me to that. I've been out of touch with such developments for a while (5 or 6 years), so thanks everyone. Very interesting developments. Interbreeding hmm..... I wonder what light this sheds on the results we see for 'genetic health' of 'mixed-race' offspring - normally much healthier.
User avatar
Mossling
Active Member
 
Posts: 1171
Joined: 02 Jul 2009
Blog: View Blog (54)


Re: 'Out of Africa' Seriously Debunked?

Postby wolfhnd on November 30th, 2015, 7:53 am 

Out of Africa seems to be a Eurocentric idea to begin with and as someone else pointed out the Chinese have there own weird theory. I'm still trying to figure out why I'm interested in this topic because the evidence is so limited. Perhaps I'm missing something or maybe most of the theories are overstated. In the end I guess everyone wants to know what being human means.

We should keep this thread going because it is interesting if controversal.
User avatar
wolfhnd
Resident Member
 
Posts: 4336
Joined: 21 Jun 2005
Blog: View Blog (3)


Re: 'Out of Africa' Seriously Debunked?

Postby Mossling on December 1st, 2015, 5:20 am 

I think it is also important to mention, however, that the scientific consensus still seems to be that hominids all have their roots in Africa.

For example:

Image
Stringer, C. (2012). "What makes a modern human". Nature 485 (7396): 33–35


Image
"Figure 5. Temporal and Geographical Distribution of Hominid Populations Redrawn from Stringer (2003)" (edited from source), in Reed, David L.; Smith, Vincent S.; Hammond, Shaless L.; et al. (November 2004). "Genetic Analysis of Lice Supports Direct Contact between Modern and Archaic Humans"


As far as I am concerned, this keeps 'Out of Africa' - if only as an over-arching theme, still quite alive.
User avatar
Mossling
Active Member
 
Posts: 1171
Joined: 02 Jul 2009
Blog: View Blog (54)
Scruffy Nerf Herder liked this post


Re: 'Out of Africa' Seriously Debunked?

Postby vivian maxine on December 1st, 2015, 5:41 am 

Scientists chart what they have discovered and therefore think may be true. That doesn't mean there won't be new discoveries some day that can require totally new charts. Isn't this why they keep searching?
vivian maxine
Resident Member
 
Posts: 2837
Joined: 01 Aug 2014


Re: 'Out of Africa' Seriously Debunked?

Postby Mossling on December 1st, 2015, 6:37 am 

vivian maxine » December 1st, 2015, 6:41 pm wrote:Scientists chart what they have discovered and therefore think may be true. That doesn't mean there won't be new discoveries some day that can require totally new charts. Isn't this why they keep searching?

Sure, but with the oldest discovered hominid fossils only in Africa, until other evidence replaces that, we just 'go with the flow', right? In Occam razor fashion.
User avatar
Mossling
Active Member
 
Posts: 1171
Joined: 02 Jul 2009
Blog: View Blog (54)


Re: 'Out of Africa' Seriously Debunked?

Postby vivian maxine on December 1st, 2015, 6:42 am 

Go with the flow but don't declare it a done decision. Agreed? Don't you think there could be other possibilities? No evidence of them yet but possibilities not to be tossed in the bin?
vivian maxine
Resident Member
 
Posts: 2837
Joined: 01 Aug 2014


Re: 'Out of Africa' Seriously Debunked?

Postby wolfhnd on December 1st, 2015, 7:47 am 

Mossling » Tue Dec 01, 2015 9:20 am wrote:As far as I am concerned, this keeps 'Out of Africa' - if only as an over-arching theme, still quite alive.


I think that if out of Africa hadn't been Eurocentric there would be less controversy, there is no debate of Africa being the geographical location were humans first evolved. Out of Africa only refers to a recent migration. When I say it is Eurocentric I mean that the evidence for waves of migration comes primarily from Asia and the Pacific.

Even within Europe the data isn't consistent with linear migration with diversity decreasing as the same group move future away from the source. Which I think implies waves of migration out of Africa instead of a single migration and some lack of isolation once they arrived in Europe.

I'm not sure at this point if I understand the data all that well but the 60,000 bp date for a single or limited migrations means that the out of Africa hypothesis is probably wrong. The theory should never have been called out of Africa in the first place and is now almost always predicated by recent.
User avatar
wolfhnd
Resident Member
 
Posts: 4336
Joined: 21 Jun 2005
Blog: View Blog (3)
vivian maxine liked this post


Re: 'Out of Africa' Seriously Debunked?

Postby vivian maxine on December 1st, 2015, 8:05 am 

Wolfhnd, I agree about your Eurocentric hypothesis. History and location almost demanded that decision. Perhaps even attitude.

I don't now if I'd use the word "probably" wrong; maybe "Possibly"? There are other possibilities and they shouldn't be swept under the rug. Someone is sure to lift up the rug. We keep an open mind?
vivian maxine
Resident Member
 
Posts: 2837
Joined: 01 Aug 2014


Re: 'Out of Africa' Seriously Debunked?

Postby zetreque on December 8th, 2015, 2:08 am 

wolfhnd Ever check your PMs?
User avatar
zetreque
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 3171
Joined: 30 Dec 2007
Location: Paradise being lost to humanity
Blog: View Blog (6)


Re: 'Out of Africa' Seriously Debunked?

Postby wolfhnd on December 8th, 2015, 3:07 am 

I messed up my inbox.
User avatar
wolfhnd
Resident Member
 
Posts: 4336
Joined: 21 Jun 2005
Blog: View Blog (3)


Re: 'Out of Africa' Seriously Debunked?

Postby SkyLightsFactor on December 9th, 2015, 6:13 am 

These are very interesting developments - especially with the mitochondrial DNA trees getting re-evaluated. If this trend holds, it may reconcile the older concepts, from the (pre-genetic/intuition-oriented) "old school" physical anthropology, with the newer ones that derive from population genetics.
Before the ascendency of the newer approach, it was widely believed that the "Australiforms" exhibited the most "archaic" morphology (thickest cranial bones, largest browridges, etc.), and that they are closest, the reasoning went, to the first (proto-morphic) "Modern Sapiens"; their ancestors are thought to have inhabited southern parts of Asia, from there they are thought to have migrated to Oceanic islands and Australia. If judging from the physical appearance of some of the fossil human remains from Europe (some estimated to be in the 200,000 - 500,000 years age range!), the "Australoid" look may possibly characterise some, at least, of the European and Asian fossil specimen that may show definite signs of advanced "sapienisation" if
compared with the more "primitive" (Erectus-stage) forms. Of course, the issue remains whether these human populations were early offshoots radiating from the (theorized common) African sapienisation center, that left Africa at some point, OR that these were indigenous developments: that would either lead to sending migrants TO Africa later, or would lead to the emergence of modern "sapient" forms, in Europe and/or Asia, as a parallel to the Africa-based, converging process
SkyLightsFactor
Forum Neophyte
 
Posts: 17
Joined: 11 Aug 2014


Next

Return to Archaeology

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests