Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Re-examining the "Out of Africa" Theory research paper

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Re-examining the "Out of Africa" Theory research paper

    See here... http://www.scirp.org/journal/PaperIn...?paperID=19566

  • #2
    Interesting but not surprising.

    Originally posted by rdegnen View Post
    This substantiates my instincts about the overall distinct varieties of humans. I think that we will begin to see an even more sophisticated approach very soon.

    Thanks for the link.

    Comment


    • #3
      Well I am hardly an anthropologist but it seems to me the title of the article could easily be written:

      Re-Examining DNA Genealogy and the Origin of Europeoids (Caucasoids) based on the "Out of Africa" Theory.
      It seems to me that their is far more evidence , other than DNA , to support the theory.

      Comment


      • #4
        I think that what has really happened is that geneticists have discovered that y-DNA haplogroup A is a lot older & diverse than originally thought. The original split was perhaps 150,000 years ago or more, with a number of subclades that branched off afterward.

        The next generation y-haplotree should reflect all of this & will be very interesting to study.

        Timothy Peterman

        Comment


        • #5
          Oh Pleeeeeeeease!

          I'll say this again and again.....There is NOT enough evidence available. Not enough living have been tested to form **any type** of hypothesis and more importantly, not enough of the ancient dead have been tested to fill in the blanks. It's all very interesting but there's just not enough of a sampling to draw any conclusions.
          Last edited by Darren; 5 June 2012, 11:23 AM. Reason: Edited for content

          Comment


          • #6
            Really?

            My two cents:
            I googled the authors on google scholar and found that their articles have been cited only by themselves. Not a good sign. Then I read the article and it struck me as a bit raw. I have published myself on scholarly journals and detected some common unresolved problems of dealing with in-text citations with End Note. This means I've had the same problems when submitting the manuscript for publishing.
            The editors of the journals I've published have diligently pointed out these deficiencies and asked me to correct them before publishing the piece. Anatole Klyosov and Rozhanskii did not. I know this is not itself a strong argument against the paper, but it shows haste.
            Now, as for the argument, the Out of Africa theory is not a chimera, but a theory built first on the basis of continuous paleo physical evidence (early human remains to modern humans) in Eastern and Southern Africa.
            We have not yet found any hint, in terms of physical remains, of older human populations evolving outside Africa and migrating to Africa. There's no trail of remains that leads from, say, Turkey to Central Congo. Quite the opposite.
            Finally, the terminology (Negroid, Caucasoid, etc) is reminiscent of physical anthropology's dark ages.
            I don't see why these guys should be taken seriously.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Nomatches View Post
              My two cents:
              Snipped...
              I don't see why these guys should be taken seriously.
              And hopefully they won't be....

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by T E Peterman View Post
                I think that what has really happened is that geneticists have discovered that y-DNA haplogroup A is a lot older & diverse than originally thought. The original split was perhaps 150,000 years ago or more, with a number of subclades that branched off afterward.

                The next generation y-haplotree should reflect all of this & will be very interesting to study.
                In fact, we now know that A is not a haplogroup at all, but rather a catch-all term for all lineages not belonging to BT (which is indeed a proper superhaplogroup).

                Here is the latest published top-level haplotree. Keep in mind that almost all the Y-DNA outside Africa belongs to the superhaplogroup CT. If we construct a line of descent from Y-Adam down to CT, we notice the following sequential branch-offs:
                1) A0 branches off, leaving A1
                2) A1a branches off, leaving A1b
                3) A1b1 branches off, leaving BT
                4) B branches off, leaving CT.

                Notice that these first four branch-offs are all African, whereas only CT is predominantly non-African.

                The logical, Ockham's-razor hypothesis from this is that the modern human race began in Africa and expanded multiple times within that continent. Eventually, the CT lineage left Africa and expanded throughout the rest of the world.

                One recent variation, suggested by recent archaeological and genetic discoveries, is that the BT expansion may have actually occurred in Arabia, across the Red Sea from East Africa. B and E re-entered Africa while C, D, and superhaplogroup F expanded across Eurasia.

                Also keep in mind that research in this area is ongoing, primarily via Walks Through the Y (WTYs).

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Nomatches View Post
                  I googled the authors on google scholar and found that their articles have been cited only by themselves.
                  ...
                  Finally, the terminology (Negroid, Caucasoid, etc) is reminiscent of physical anthropology's dark ages.
                  Although their numerical work is basically sound--indicating that Y-Adam is much older than the 60,000 years often previously quoted--some of their conclusions are baseless, and in previous Russian-language publications, were utterly ridiculous and downright offensive. I am glad that they have scaled down their conclusions and cleaned up their discussion for English-speaking ears.

                  This is a recent Russian-language publication of theirs dealing with the same topic. The two most offensive paragraphs are on pages 1968 and 1969:

                  ---
                  Место образования предка современного человека (альфа-гаплогруппа) 160-136 тысяч лет назад остается неизвестным, но условно примем его для целостности картины как Русская равнина. Последующие исследования позволят согласиться с таким предположением, или внести коррективы. Примерно 85 тысяч лет назад от альфа-гаплогруппы отделилась гаплогруппа А, и по сухопутному мосту состоялась первая волна миграции в Африку. Носители гаплогруппы А ушли с Русской равнины в Африку через Ближний Восток, где обнаружен антропологический материал, архаичный и вместе с тем содержащий признаки человека современного типа.
                  ...
                  Оставшиеся на Русской равнине люди к 50-му тысячелетию назад развились в человека современного типа (фрагментарно сохраняя древние антропологические признаки) и сформировали верхнепалеолитические культуры. «Африканская» популяция, отрезанная от основного пространства и чрезвычайно малая по численности, оставаясь в антропологическом отношении близкой к людям Русской равнины, на начальном этапе деградировала до ашельских культур и в результате смешивания с архаичными африканскими популяциями сменила облик на негроидный.
                  ---

                  Although I am not a professional translator, I can read Russian well enough to improve Google's translation, yielding:
                  ---
                  The place of formation of the ancestor of modern man (the alpha-haplogroup) 160-136 thousand years ago remains unknown, but we will conditionally accept for the integrity of the picture the Russian Plain. Follow-up studies will agree with this suggestion, or make adjustments. Approximately 85,000 years ago haplogroup A separated from the alpha-haplogroup, and across a land bridge the first wave of migration into Africa took place. Carriers of haplogroup A exited the Russian Plain into Africa through the Middle East, where anthropological material has been found, archaic and yet containing features of modern-type man.
                  ...
                  The people remaining on the Russian Plain until 50,000 years ago evolved into modern-type man (fragmentarily preserving ancient anthropological characteristics) and formed the Upper Paleolithic culture. The "African" population, cut off from the original area and extremely small in number, remaining anthropologically close to the people of the Russian Plain, initially degraded into the Acheulian culture and as a result of mixing with archaic African populations changed in appearance to Negroid.
                  ---

                  In other words, the authors' original hypotheses were:
                  - The modern human race developed on the East European Plain (which they call the Russian Plain).
                  - "Negroidism" is the result of a mixture between early modern man (arriving from Russia) and archaic hominin species already present in Africa.

                  I am glad that the authors have toned down these alarming and absurd hypotheses for their English-language readers.
                  Last edited by lgmayka; 4 June 2012, 05:11 PM.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    They are basically doing the nationalistic thing of declaring that, no matter what the data really shows, their country is the point of origin for all humans. This becomes a given & all other anthropologists are asked to bend their theories into conformation. The only basis for the given is something of a local mythology. Many cultures have made the same claim: some Native Americans, Australian Aborigines, the Chinese, the Russians, etc.

                    Timothy Peterman

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by T E Peterman View Post
                      They are basically doing the nationalistic thing of declaring that, no matter what the data really shows, their country is the point of origin for all humans. This becomes a given & all other anthropologists are asked to bend their theories into conformation. The only basis for the given is something of a local mythology. Many cultures have made the same claim: some Native Americans, Australian Aborigines, the Chinese, the Russians, etc.
                      On other forums I note that anything published by Anatole Klyosov is only taken seriously and supported by a small number who want to believe his theories for reasons you suggest.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by lgmayka View Post
                        In fact, we now know that A is not a haplogroup at all, but rather a catch-all term for all lineages not belonging to BT (which is indeed a proper superhaplogroup).
                        That's the clearest explanation of A that I've read to date.

                        Comment

                        Working...
                        X