Did we originate in Africa?

Dr Strange · 08-10-2010 3:51pm

OK folks, the thread has been re-opened. Please continue the interesting discussion in a civil manner. Thanks.

Yitzhak Rabin · 08-10-2010 6:18pm

Ok, to kick this off again, for those who doubt the Out of Africa theory. What is it that leads you to believe it is erronous?

One thing that is for sure is that we all have a common ancestor at one point, and that, that ancestor came from Africa. The likelihood that we all evolved paralell to each other is a near impossibility.

Even if the Multi-region hypothesis was correct, it would mean that gene transfer between all the groups would have had to occur, making us related anyway.

rccaulfield · 08-10-2010 9:24pm

@ Sligopark et al- heres a recent documantary on Spencers Wells' work. Denying genetic evidence is hard to do unless your that way inclined.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nBJDGzzrMyQ

Also scientific knowledge and political knowledge are not the same thing.

Mahatma coat · 08-10-2010 11:36pm

Bonkey, I put the word Revisionist in Quotes to highlight pretty much what you just said, Scientist are open to revisions all the time, the 'revisionists' I'm talkin about there arent Scientific but Political, So instead of looking at the science and drawin a conclusion they will look at thescience andtry to foce their conclusions from it.

Does that mak it any clearer.

Wibbs · 10-10-2010 10:58am

I'd be more a multiregionalist with a basic out of africa structure behind it. Being a "pure" multiregionalist has serious problems with it. Ditto for out of Africa. In the latter case, modern populations have clear traits that appear to show strong continuity from early hominids of the same geographical location. There are a couple of genes that show up that are earlier than the age of sapiens moving from Africa. A lot earlier. Then there is the evidence in culture. The geographical spread of tool technology doesnt fit with the DNA.

The DNA evidence is dodgy in a couple of areas. DNA/Genetics is very "fashionable" at the moment and while an absolutely brilliant tool, the tendency is to over rely on it. The other tendency in this are of human origins is the tendency to ascribe higher value to the results than they deserve, or even to big up the evidence from slim sources. Neanderthal DNA as an example. A couple of years ago, geneticists were dismissive of any interbreeding. Claimed we were too far apart in the genes and claimed that there was no evidence. Case closed for many. Grand until you dug deeper and found that at the time they had actually sequenced less than 1% of the mitochondrial DNA of Neanderthals. They based all of that on 1%. Luckily some dug further and started on nulcear DNA and so far have found up to 4% common genes in Europeans(dropping off towards Asia, none in Africa) and they still have only scratched the surface.

Another aspect of DNA and modern populations is that we vary by about 0.1% in our individual DNA worldwide. We are very closely related, but while 0.1% may seem tiny, the differences between us and a chimp is around 1% and look how much a difference that makes.

However I don't buy the Chinese theory of parallel evolution in their case. That localised erectus evolved locally into moderns in an exclusive way. I suspect their theory is as much about notions of "master race" guff going on as they Sabre rattle their cultural purity along with their current economic strength and self confidence.

Now erectus did continue to evolve locally over the 2 million odd years they were around, which seems to be left out of the equation by many. Which makes no sense. The current notion is that erectus left africa and stayed evolutionary pickled for the million years or so until "we" show up. Neanderthals clearly disprove this, at least in Europe. They evolved in Europe, outside of African influence from an earlier erectus. So far they're unique and the only example of this we know of. The new finger bone found in Russia http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100324/full/464472a.html may be a bit of evidence of another human that continued to evolve locally from earlier hominids. I beleive there are more to be found.

We can sometimes get the impression that we know so much, but in fact our evidence is pretty scant. Human fossils are very rare. Incredibly so. A whole population of Asian "neanderthal/evolved erectus" could have existed and then died off and left no trace.

My personal take would be this(in very thumbnail sketch form); Erectus left Africa in a couple of early waves. At least one took off. Then those erectus evolved locally. To varying degrees depending on local evolutionary pressures. Europe would have had the highest over time(outside of Africa), so Neanderthals sprung up and continued to evolve until they went extinct(as a distinct population). In Africa pressures caused erectus to evolve into an early version of us(they looked more robust and archaic than we do today). In Asia they also evolved locally, but not to the cultural or physical degree as in Europe or Africa(cultural because the stone tools show a continuity and little innovation). The african erectus/sapiens had the wanderlust and moved out. They encountered their cousins that had evolved locally and mated with them back and forth to some degree. Because of this jiggy jiggy, the earlier localised late erectus/proto sapiens left their localised traits in the modern populations. Sapiens with neanderthals in europe(now proven), sapiens with late erectus in Asia, sapiens with other late erectus in Africa.

There's more back and forth and dead ends etc going on, but like I say thumbnail sketch time. Where do I reckon we should look for the asian evidence? Not in Asia funny enough, but in Australia, new Guinea and Tasmania. That's where Id be looking anyway.

looksee · 10-10-2010 2:08pm

This is an interesting thread, though I don't know much about the theories. What I do find interesting is the apparent tendency to try and prove theories that suit modern circumstances, politics and attitudes.

Why is it 'good' to have racial purity? Surely in-breeding creates populations with medical issues? Why the concern that some races are superior to others? If you go back into African history there is considerable evidence of sophisiticated lifestyles long before the white races were doing anything worthwhile.

If the argument could start with facts and reasonable theories, as against what people would like to believe it would be a lot more useful.

Wibbs · 10-10-2010 4:35pm

looksee wrote: »

This is an interesting thread, though I don't know much about the theories. What I do find interesting is the apparent tendency to try and prove theories that suit modern circumstances, politics and attitudes.

Yep and it has always been thus. I suspect some of the adherents to a full out of Africa hypotheses are doing similar, albeit from a more positive direction. IE removing the whole "races are different".

Why is it 'good' to have racial purity? Surely in-breeding creates populations with medical issues?

Yes indeed, if the numbers start to get smaller and smaller. Even so you could build a viable population from only a couple of 100 individuals(if not less).

Why the concern that some races are superior to others? If you go back into African history there is considerable evidence of sophisiticated lifestyles long before the white races were doing anything worthwhile.

There is evidence of the earliest abstract thinking among early humans in Africa 100,000 years ago, then it seems to die out or not propogate, probably down to the size of the population and then springs up again worldwide 60,000 years ago.

If the argument could start with facts and reasonable theories, as against what people would like to believe it would be a lot more useful.

Agreed. But then of course what does one define as "facts" or "reasonable"?

studiorat · 12-10-2010 4:52pm

Cavehill Red wrote: »

Dr Julie Cormack, of Mount Royal University in Canada, who was involved in the discovery, is coincidentally the biographer of Davidson Black, who discovered Peking Man.
Black asserted that Peking Man was a separate hominid species, but other researchers proved it was in fact merely a sub-species of homo erectus.
I wonder if perhaps Dr Cormack isn't getting similarly carried away here with her own Chinese discovery.

There's your conspiracy right there. Black's research was funded by the Rockefeller Foundation; sure there's probably martians buried in there an all...

Of course there could also have been two or more distinct migrations out of Africa...

Wibbs · 12-10-2010 5:12pm

studiorat wrote: »

Of course there could also have been two or more distinct migrations out of Africa...

Quite likely. Actually IIRC there is evidence for two as it stands. The first didnt progress beyond the middle east. It was the second one that did it. Plus I would at least argue that erectus was continuing to evolve elsewhere anyway and that we're not as "out of Africa" as we think or at least to the degree currently being posited

ScumLord · 13-10-2010 1:23am

I'm surprised to hear of the Chinese theory about humans and Neanderthals popping up, I thought that theory had been put to bed.

I watched a BBC documentary (ok so it's TV but I thought the BBC where fairly reliable) called "the incredible human journey" a while back and they went to China and said the theory was disproved by genetics.
They also said that Neanderthals where very different to humans in that they didn't have the exchange of culture we had. While they where as smart as us they stuck to clans and didn't exchange culture which just meant large human colony's pushed them out of their habitats. They also said there was no interbreeding but I had always thought that the humans just bread with the Neanderthals which is where you get Europeans from. They went into detail on the subject.

Mahatma coat · 13-10-2010 5:28am

I'd be interested to see what the levels of neanderthal present in modern Europeans is, and more importantly I believe you can trace genetic markers back through the ages as to whether its mostly male or female that it comes from, I'd expect to see a larger amount of Neanderthal dominated Male markersand Erectus Dominated Female markers, makes the most sense to me.

I do think the First wave of early humans DID get all the way to Asia, and evolved.

Wibbs · 13-10-2010 9:43am

ScumLord wrote: »

I'm surprised to hear of the Chinese theory about humans and Neanderthals popping up, I thought that theory had been put to bed.

Well the multiregional theory held sway for a fair while. I don't think anyone doubted that humans first evolved in Africa. The issue came with what happened when they left. The evidence in the "bones and stones" left behind showed a fair few signs of local evolution that left marks in modern populations(incisor shape, one example) Then DNA came along and promised us the whole deal. It seemed to show complete continuity in all modern humans with no mixture from others. Indeed to suggest so, made one out as a bit of a fossil academically. There were even accusations of racism thrown around(warranted in a few cases).

I watched a BBC documentary (ok so it's TV but I thought the BBC where fairly reliable) called "the incredible human journey" a while back and they went to China and said the theory was disproved by genetics.

Only if you dont look close enough. There are gene's carried by modern Asians(and Europeans) that are older than this posited move out of Africa of modern humans.

They also said that Neanderthals where very different to humans in that they didn't have the exchange of culture we had. While they where as smart as us they stuck to clans and didn't exchange culture which just meant large human colony's pushed them out of their habitats. They also said there was no interbreeding but I had always thought that the humans just bread with the Neanderthals which is where you get Europeans from. They went into detail on the subject.

I think the image of Neanderthals still suffers a bit from bad early PR. Depending on who you read, they were exactly like us, even more cultural than us, or they were slow brutes. Even the reconstructions vary.

On the cultural front this "prejudice" even applied to evidence on the ground. Jewelry and pigments found on one site was assumed to be sapiens because of "well we did that, they didnt". Turns out when the age was double checked it couldnt have been us as it was before the time we showed up. They buried their dead(first humans to do so) and had jewelry(we did in Africa too, but the quality goes up when we get to europe. Maybe we copied them?). And a sophisticated toolkit. And controlled fire. Some modern humans into the near present couldnt funny enough. When Andaman islanders were first contacted and reported, they had fire, but they collected it after lightning strikes and carried it as embers. They couldnt make it.

The no interbreeding thing goes out the window with this latest DNA evidence anyway. I suspect more will come out elsewhere too. The woman's DNA found in Russia that appears to be an entirely different human for one. The problem with all of this is the evidence on the ground. The lack of it because of the rarity of sites and where those sites tend to be. There are more fossils in Africa, because we're looking there more and the preservation is better due to geology. We are missing huge chunks of the picture.

Look at the recent discoveries around Flores man(the hobbit) in indonesia. Here was a pygmy homo erectus that lasted up to 12,000 years ago(maybe even later). On an island that for the last 6 million years was separated from nearby islands by treacherous currents. Homo erectus got there. That requires open sea travel, which requires sophisticated thinking, probably speech and group cooperation. A million years ago. It also makes us look at brain size again. they had tiny brains. Not much bigger than a chimps, even allowing for their small stature, yet they had the same toolkit as erectus elsewhere.

Yet we're expected to believe that modern humans came into areas in europe and asia that these people had lived and thrived in for at least a million years and just replaced them in entirety? It makes no sense.

ScumLord · 13-10-2010 11:55pm

Wibbs wrote: »

On the cultural front this "prejudice" even applied to evidence on the ground. Jewelry and pigments found on one site was assumed to be sapiens because of "well we did that, they didnt". Turns out when the age was double checked it couldnt have been us as it was before the time we showed up. They buried their dead(first humans to do so) and had jewelry(we did in Africa too, but the quality goes up when we get to europe. Maybe we copied them?). And a sophisticated toolkit. And controlled fire. Some modern humans into the near present couldnt funny enough. When Andaman islanders were first contacted and reported, they had fire, but they collected it after lightning strikes and carried it as embers. They couldnt make it.

The evidence they put forward to say humans had culture interchange where Neanderthals didn't was that human sites across Europe had the same icons showing up indicating that humans travelled great distances and exchanged icons and artefacts, whereas a Neanderthal site in the south of Spain would have a completely different and unique set of icons to Neanderthals in say North France.

The Theory does provide a very plausible explanation for why humans are around and Neanderthals aren't, because with that theory humans could advance at a vastly faster rate than Neanderthals that are depending on their own smarts and incites. It would be the edge that we'd need to overcome what was essentially our main competitor.

They also said that the human arm was better than Neanderthals, apparently according to that show Neanderthals couldn't throw like we could, they didn't have the same overhead range of motion that we did that allowed us to throw spear weapons. They reckoned the Neanderthals where an ambush predator which meant they where up close to their prey with a greater risk of injury. Even without weapons the human of the time would rarely need to go near their prey to kill it.

Wibbs · 14-10-2010 10:44am

ScumLord wrote: »

The evidence they put forward to say humans had culture interchange where Neanderthals didn't was that human sites across Europe had the same icons showing up indicating that humans travelled great distances and exchanged icons and artefacts, whereas a Neanderthal site in the south of Spain would have a completely different and unique set of icons to Neanderthals in say North France.

Well not so much completely different. Their tools were pretty consistent across europe. But yes there is an element of that alright. It may have little to do with a cultural difference though. More a population difference. Early sapiens in Africa were very similar in this. You see it in cultural stuff like jewelry and pigment use. Little bursts of culture bounded on either side in time by nada. Their populations were too small, so this stuff had a lower transmission rate. Between disparate groups and within their own. When the populations increases this cultural explosion kicks off. It seems it needs numbers to do so and there appears to be a critical mass thing going on. Isolated groups can have sudden leaps of culture, but they burn out much faster. Andaman islanders a good example. Very "primitive" culturally, but 2000 odd years ago they were making pottery to a high standard for hunter gatherers, but now they dont. The practice burnt out. Now there may be other factors like a sudden genetic change involved too. I've a mad theory on that one, but for another day

Some recent discoveries in Spain seem to suggest that neanderthals were slightly ahead of sapiens in europe anyway on the cultural front. They are making jewelry and refining and utilising pigments for cultural use before us and more consistently. The shells used for the jewelry had been missed, partly because they assumed these were food residue. Until a researcher spotted that the shells were deep water species that would have washed up on shore with the meat long washed away. So they selected them for their decorative use. Then careful analysis of the shells themselves showed pigments purposely painted on to enhance the look of the shells.

The Theory does provide a very plausible explanation for why humans are around and Neanderthals aren't, because with that theory humans could advance at a vastly faster rate than Neanderthals that are depending on their own smarts and incites. It would be the edge that we'd need to overcome what was essentially our main competitor.

They also said that the human arm was better than Neanderthals, apparently according to that show Neanderthals couldn't throw like we could, they didn't have the same overhead range of motion that we did that allowed us to throw spear weapons. They reckoned the Neanderthals where an ambush predator which meant they where up close to their prey with a greater risk of injury. Even without weapons the human of the time would rarely need to go near their prey to kill it.

Yep their shoulders were different. We have a greater range in the shoulder. It gives us a throwing advantage but funny enough leaves us open to injury. Gym goers may be aware or have had rotator cuff injuries to the shoulder. Neanderthals couldnt get that. Indeed they would be the ultimate powerlifter.

The ambush thing also like you said massively increased the chances of injury. Nearly every skeleton of theirs found has broken bones. Consistent with being thrown off large animals(their injuries are almost identical to rodeo riders). Their bones healed though and there is evidence of setting of the bones. There is also evidence that they were cared for after by their family/clan. One guy has a withered useless arm, that he lived with for a long time. he also was arthritic with a bollocksed spine too. His skeleton is where we get the popular image of the bent over "caveman". His family clearly saw him as valuable to them and cared for him.

They're the first example in the record of that. They're also the first to bury their dead. The first tentatively identified musical instrument(bone flute) is also theirs. I suspect if you went back 100,000 years in a time machine, you may well have laid bets on the neanderthals and not us. I would not be closed to the idea that the major jump in cultural practice in europe and the near east 50,000 years ago may be partially explained because of both cultural contact with them and genetic mixture with them. often when two cultures meet, one will lose out in the long run, but the one that "wins" usually gets some benefits of the one that doesnt.

JuliusCaesar · 21-10-2010 10:30pm

Wibbs wrote: »

Human fossils are very rare. Incredibly so.

I think Bill Bryson said that the entire amount of human fossils in the world would comfortably fit into a van.

Yitzhak Rabin · 22-10-2010 1:10am

I saw a great documentary on this the other night, but unfortunately I only got to half see it, because I had an eight month old baby girl crawling all over me (who incidentally is proof enough that we evolved from monkeys and apes!

)

I caught it about half way through. It was an English girl who was interviewing different paleoanthropologists from around the world. Including the main proponent of Multi-regionalism.

There was some very interesting stuff, like the marked difference between the tools that we used in different parts of the world. The ones in Europe were very "modern" whereas they used the much more primitive handaxe (a favourite of Erectus) over in Asia. Although a possible explanation for that could be that they fashioned their more precise tools from bamboo rather than stone.

It also showed some of the marked similarities between the skull structure of Erectus and Asian moderns.

I only got to see about 1/3 of it I think, but it was about 2 hours long I think. If anyone else knows if its online, I'd love to watch it properly.

Yitzhak Rabin · 22-10-2010 1:57am

This clip casts some serious doubts on the multiregional hypothesis. Its actually from the documentary I saw the other night.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PslArtceg9w

recedite · 23-10-2010 12:42am

yekahs wrote: »

This clip casts some serious doubts on the multiregional hypothesis.

Heres the flaw in her reasoning; ...genetic marker first appeared 80kya in Africa...... (OK) ......anyone alive today carrying it has recent (within 80k years) African ancestry (again OK) ..........therefore modern Chinese not descended from local H. Erectus ;WRONG ;not proven by aforesaid evidence.

Anyway, most likely as hominids moved around they tended to swop, pick up, and retain useful genes. Isolated populations such as Andaman Islands, missed out on this to a greater or lesser extent.

Perhaps we need to re examine what is racism and what is specie-ism.
A normal definition of "species" in the animal kingdom is; "A species is often defined as a group of organisms capable of interbreeding and producing fertile offspring".
Scientists are fond of labelling and pigeonholing, and so we have numerous "species" of Homo in ancient times, but only "races" in modern times. However, it is now proven that at least in some cases the ancient "species" interbred, and the fact that we carry a few of those genes proves that the offspring were fertile. In some cases not only fertile, but fitter in an evolutionary sense, (the microcephalus gene).

But what of the future? Cultural values suppressed the survival of the fittest rule about 100 years ago. Now the fittest (or wealthiest?) contribute social welfare and aid to the others, thus allowing the less able to reproduce at a faster rate than the more able.
The next stage in our evolution is about to dawn; Genetic Engineering and the Genetically Enhanced human. H. Enhancus is likely to have the legs of Usain Bolt, the brain of Albert Einstein and shovel teeth (being most probably Made in China).

looksee · 23-10-2010 12:55pm

I think some of the people following this thread are thinking in terms of early man looking like current Africans who somehow magically morphed into white Europeans.

Presumably the early 'Africans' did not look like either Negros or Caucasians, but the appearance of the various races changed as they separated and evolved in different areas.

Yitzhak Rabin · 23-10-2010 1:28pm

recedite wrote: »

Heres the flaw in her reasoning; ...genetic marker first appeared 80kya in Africa...... (OK) ......anyone alive today carrying it has recent (within 80k years) African ancestry (again OK) ..........therefore modern Chinese not descended from local H. Erectus ;WRONG ;not proven by aforesaid evidence.

Well it proves that they didn't evolve independently from H. Erectus in China.

I suppose that still doesn't prove they didn't interbreed with H. Erectus, but it does prove that pure Multiregionism is wrong.

Perhaps they should be looking for a gene which is older than the first modern out of africa migration, that Asian populations have, but that others don't.

Wibbs · 24-10-2010 11:10am

looksee wrote: »

I think some of the people following this thread are thinking in terms of early man looking like current Africans who somehow magically morphed into white Europeans.

Presumably the early 'Africans' did not look like either Negros or Caucasians, but the appearance of the various races changed as they separated and evolved in different areas.

Quite possibly. The earliest African sapiens fossils are north east african in origin. They're not from sub Saharan Africa so they may not have looked like "Africans" of today. So when reconstructions are done of black Africans as the first Europeans, they use sub Saharan west African actors/models and it may have been quite different. They may have looked more like San Bushmen. Indeed that may be more likely. They've the oldest modern genes currently surviving of sapiens, they're paler than surrounding populations and also have the eyelid fold of Asian populations(not present in other "black" African populations), which may explain that feature getting to Asia.

The white skin thing is an interesting one. The obvious explanation is that Europeans rapidly lost the melanin in the skin because of the need to absorb Vit D in the higher latitudes. Very plausible. One thing that throws that idea a bit is Tasmania, which also has a higher latitude climate http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tasmania#Climate The indigenous population of Tasmania was black and they were there for at least 35,000 years(probably closer to 40 odd thousand). Why didn't they adapt in a similar way with similar evolutionary pressures to do so? Of course researching their genetic heritage is a tad problematic today as Europeans wiped them out by the turn of the 20th century.

yekahs wrote: »

Well it proves that they didn't evolve independently from H. Erectus in China.

I suppose that still doesn't prove they didn't interbreed with H. Erectus, but it does prove that pure Multiregionism is wrong.

I think pure multiregionalism is wrong too. But I think pure out of Africa origin of modern man is also wrong. The problem at times with science is that two opposing factions dig in their heels and stick like glue to their patch. That and relying on fashionable diagnostic techniques like DNA at the moment, while ignoring the evidence in the stones and bones that paints a more complex picture. Pure out of Africa is clearly wrong now as the recent discoveries of Neanderthal genes in modern Europeans proves. Early Europeans successfully interbred with Neanderthals. Which on the basic definition of species means they were the same species. I'd put money sapiens also interbred with erectus in Asia(and in Africa too, where the north eastern Sapiens got busy with existing late erectus in other parts of Africa) .

Like I said before there is the impression given that Africa was the only place the homo species ever really evolved in and then moved out from staying largely staitic until an improved African came along again. Clearly untrue. In somewhat isolated Europe they evolved into the much more sophisticated Neanderthal. At the same time Erectus continued to evolve in Africa and came up with the basic template of "us". Yet we're supposed to believe that in the hugely variable geography, climate and isolation of all Asia they stayed as they had for 2 million years? Sorry don't buy it. Where's the Asian "Neanderthal", the Asian "sapiens", the locally evolved Erectus? Clearly they could and did evolve locally as the Hobbit's show us.

I suspect there were Erectus mark 2 in Asia. We've just not found them yet. And those Erectus interbred with the sapiens who moved in later on. Well I believe we have found them. This may explain some of the findings in Asia like the jawbone fragment Chinese boffins got all excira about and considered to be "modern". I don't think it is. I think it's more exciting than that. It does have more of a chin and looks more modern and if the age is right it's unlikely to be African backpackers as they hadn't spread that far yet. One skull goes even further back and throws the whole thing into dissarray http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8107882 http://www-personal.une.edu.au/~pbrown3/jinniush.html That's 250,000 years plus old and that lady has a brain capacity within the range of modern humans. Erectus didnt. Here's another page of Asian skulls way older than the posited out of Africa replacement model http://www.chineseprehistory.com/pics5.htm They're older, yet look more modern in many respects than the early African sapiens. IMHO what excites me and I feel you're looking at there is the Asian "Neanderthal/Erectus mark 2". And they interbred with the newcomers from Africa, like Neanderthals did with the newcomers into Europe, which explains in all populations today, in Europe, Asia and Africa the continuation of older erectus bone features from earlier populations.

Perhaps they should be looking for a gene which is older than the first modern out of africa migration, that Asian populations have, but that others don't.

AFAIR there are a couple of problematic genes like that alright. One that goes back 400,000 years. That doesnt negate out of africa in general though, just proves what I've believed for years that we interbred with locals already there.

Yitzhak Rabin · 24-10-2010 11:34am

I think another thing that muddies the water is the tendancy to have to classify the ancient homo fossils into distinct groups. Like how, we have H. Erectus.... then next that branches into H. Neanderthal or H. Sapien. Whereas the reality is that it is much more organic than that. There was so many in between that to try and lump them into one category or the other is pointless.

I am speaking from ignorance here, but isn't it more likely that H. Neanderthal is more likely descended from 'us' rather than Erectus as we know it? What I mean is, it is more likely that a human, more like us than Erectus spread into Europe, they then due to the severe climate differences adapted quickly to become neanderthal, rather than H. Neanderthal, and H. Sapien both evolving independently.... and by chance to such a degree that they could mate?

Another thing that is probably wrong, is the whole singular migration thing. Humans seem to have an unquenchable wanderlust. Why would they just decide every now and again to launch off on these epic journey's. They were probably constant migrations back and forth for 100,000s of years, and the associated gene transfers that go with it. I don't buy that one group decided to leave, and we all decend from this one adventurous group. They had to be constant back and forth migrations imo.

Also, seeing as H. Sapien and H. Neanderthal successfully interbred, doesn't that mean that we are the same species, and were they alive today, they would just be another race?

recedite · 24-10-2010 2:00pm

yekahs wrote: »

it is more likely that a human, more like us than Erectus spread into Europe, they then due to the severe climate differences adapted quickly to become neanderthal, rather than H. Neanderthal, and H. Sapien both evolving independently.... ?

Would he be called Archaic H. Sapiens?

yekahs wrote: »

Also, seeing as H. Sapien and H. Neanderthal successfully interbred, doesn't that mean that we are the same species, and were they alive today, they would just be another race?

Technically, that seems to be the case. Perhaps they could be referred to as a subspecies? In which case they should be reclassified as Homo Sapiens Neanderthalensis.
If Dawkins is right in this discussion, we might be able to interview the Neandertal himself some day, and get a better idea of that.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ICpefMbpvK4&feature=player_embedded#at=25

I would guess that the Chinese will now accept that they have some African lineage, but will now focus on proving that they also have an exclusive link to locally evolved H. Erectus. For whatever political reasons, they have been teaching in schools for some time now that they are a unique type, and they are unlikely to suddenly drop that idea completely. The genetic evidence is most likely to be found in the teeth. As well as the shovel incisors, there is an extra cusp to be found on the molars compared to caucasians. I don't know what the Neandertal molar was like; it would be interesting to see.
http://www.ijdr.in/article.asp?issn=0970-9290;year=2010;volume=21;issue=1;spage=16;epage=19;aulast=Mosharraf

Wibbs · 24-10-2010 2:41pm

yekahs wrote: »

I think another thing that muddies the water is the tendancy to have to classify the ancient homo fossils into distinct groups. Like how, we have H. Erectus.... then next that branches into H. Neanderthal or H. Sapien. Whereas the reality is that it is much more organic than that. There was so many in between that to try and lump them into one category or the other is pointless.

Oh there is defo an element of that. Another element is the lack of diversity in what we've discovered so far in remains. You could have only on incomplete fossil for a type. It may not tell you much. If there was sexual dimorphism(Like the georgian erectus fossils show) then if all you discovered happened to be female examples of skulls, you may conclude that they were a more gracile species. If all male you you would figure more robust. Without the pelvis you'd be out on a diagnostic limb. You may find an atypical example. EG Modern humans vary a lot in height. Now because we have modern humans around we can have a start and end pint wherein the range of modern humans lay and anyting outside that is an outlier. With one or two fragmented skulls and massively incomplete skeletons you simply can't. You may make an educated guess but beyond that...

I am speaking from ignorance here, but isn't it more likely that H. Neanderthal is more likely descended from 'us' rather than Erectus as we know it? What I mean is, it is more likely that a human, more like us than Erectus spread into Europe, they then due to the severe climate differences adapted quickly to become neanderthal, rather than H. Neanderthal, and H. Sapien both evolving independently.... and by chance to such a degree that they could mate?

The mating thing doesnt throw me that much as far as genetic distance goes(which was the reasoning). Wolves/dogs and coyotes are over a million years distant, are different "species" and have viable young. Like you say it's very hard to pin down local diffs on the evidence. Culturally and within in the range of erectus found so far, the early European erectus that made it as far as the UK 600,000 years ago looks like an erectus. It fits into that range. Culturally though they did have some diffs. For a long time it was noted that the UK ones had their own unique tool inventory. Clactonian. Which didnt use the swiss army knife of the other erectus hand axes. The handaxe was the tool of Erectus, but for some reason the english lads didnt use it. So even at that stage culture locally was playing out.

As for them being more our line? very possible if the african line that eventually led to the early sapiens was an isolated group of erectus in africa and the others died out. Maybe this wanderlust is evidence of that? That it only arose in that group. First when erectus left africa, then again when the african erectus morphed into sapiens? I think we could only begin to be sure if through some miracle(and it would need one) we found erectus DNA. The hobbits might help there as they survived nearly into historic times so some may survive in teeth etc.

Another thing that is probably wrong, is the whole singular migration thing. Humans seem to have an unquenchable wanderlust. Why would they just decide every now and again to launch off on these epic journey's. They were probably constant migrations back and forth for 100,000s of years, and the associated gene transfers that go with it. I don't buy that one group decided to leave, and we all decend from this one adventurous group. They had to be constant back and forth migrations imo.

Agreed. Which then gave us what appears to be this homogenous looking DNA today. The African parts as much by chance as anything are the ones left the most. It can happen quite quickly too. Like I said in another thread on the subject, if(roughly speaking) I as a European have two sons with an African women they'll carry my euro Y line. If they both have kids with two Asian women, their sons will be euro Y line and their daughters will be Asian mtDNA. In that short time if all you tested was the Y and mtDNA you wouldnt see African. Imagine similar over a million years. You could have a huge chunk missing from the DNA picture.

Also, seeing as H. Sapien and H. Neanderthal successfully interbred, doesn't that mean that we are the same species, and were they alive today, they would just be another race?

Like recedite says more sub species. Their genetic diffs would be enough of a significance to take them out of the "race" part I reckon.

recedite wrote:

For whatever political reasons, they have been teaching in schools for some time now that they are a unique type, and they are unlikely to suddenly drop that idea completely.

True. Though it may have daft undercurrents, I'm glad that they will continue as there is enough of a grey area in the current out of Africa theory that I wouldnt like it to be unchallenged. They may find more good evidence, simply because the funds will be thrown at it and they'l be looking.

The genetic evidence is most likely to be found in the teeth. As well as the shovel incisors, there is an extra cusp to be found on the molars compared to caucasians. I don't know what the Neandertal molar was like; it would be interesting to see.

AFAIR the Neandertal(kudos on the correct spelling

) molars are similar to European and African molars of today and erectus molars in those regions in the past. They do show up in asian erectus and the ones I prefer to call Asian Erectus version 2.

Yitzhak Rabin · 26-10-2010 10:46am

Originally posted by Marco Polo over on the palaeontology forum.

Marco Polo wrote:

Thiught this was best placed in here.

Scientists have discoved hominid fossil remains in the Zhiren Cave in south China that are at least 100,000 years old and appear to show a mixture of modern and archaic features. Should the discovery hold up it would moves the earliest known date for moderns in the region by about 60,000 years.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/10/101025172924.htm

More details and a few images on Nat Geo.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2010/10/101025-oldest-human-fossil-china-out-of-africa-science/

Very interesting find! Can't wait to hear more about it!

Mahatma coat · 27-10-2010 10:48pm

SO Now the Question gets even more befuddled

http://www.news.com.au/breaking-news/teeth-find-links-ancestors-to-asia/story-e6frfku0-1225944471679

Did the Original 'Monkey' that we evolved from come from Africa or Asia????

recedite · 28-10-2010 12:59pm

Never mind the Original Monkey, what about the Original Fish? Which ocean did it evolve in

Mahatma coat · 29-10-2010 3:50am

ah now, tis all one Ocean, but If I had to pick a region most likely to be the point of Origin of Life, I'd be pickin some of the Shallower islands of the Indian ocean, something like Ashmore reef. Probably not Ashmore itself, altho that'd be cool, but if you'ver ever seen stromatalites thats the kind of environment they like

Did we originate in Africa?

Comments