Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Does this study nullifies the african origin hypthesis?

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

  • #16
    Originally posted by GregKiroKH
    I like the word "trellis," still it might be premature to debunk the family tree as was done with Aristotle's ladder. Simply speaking, species can interbreed with species, and no one knows what happened to the ancient humans. We just assume hunter-gathers began modern ancient tribal vicious conflicts.
    Only because the hunter-gatherers insist on living with everyone ,esp. people they aren't remotely related to,which in turn in ,causes a confilct.I mean,if my hunter-gatherer group would have a nation for THEMSELVES then there would be no conflict-but the fools,if they are to blame,are extermely disjointed,and depend on their arch enemies for all their needs.The white man's burden is just to survive amongst all his enemies whom he denies exists.I wouldn't kill or deprive other folks,but I sort of like a separate management for each tribal clan like true civilized people have.Many nations don't mix all of their things with other people like hunter-gatherers do.They don't do it blatently,but they don't manage all of their own things in a responsible,comprehensive way,so that only they possess their own items,like many other nations do.There should be trade ,but not dependence,and distructive mixing up,no scribbling,messing.

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by M.O'Connor
      as far as my understanding goes...

      our dna shows it's earliest variation in Africa.

      aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

      Did monkeys come out of Africa? maybe a study is needed on the out of Africa Monkey?
      Monkies didn't evolve into man so what difference does it make what country they came from? There are Monkies all over the planet but they have yet to turn into a hunter-gatherer,or any other Homo Sapien,for that matter.

      Comment


      • #18
        First, most of Templeton's work and conclusions apply to early hominids prior to our mitochondrial Eve of 150,000 years ago. Such hominids are interesting but irrelevant to most of us, who are interested specifically in Homo sapiens. The traditional religious view, which many of us espouse, is that species other than Homo sapiens did/do not have immortal souls and are thus best classified as "smart animals," not "dumb humans."

        Second, Templeton seems to be confused even as to the history of Homo sapiens. From his earlier paper:

        http://cogweb.ucla.edu/ep/Templeton_02.html
        ---
        The predicted large genetic impact of African populations explains the results of Takahata et al. that about 90% of the haplotype trees in the nuclear genome appear to be rooted in Africa. These results37 also falsify a total replacement hypothesis, which predicts that all haplotype trees with coalescent times greater than 100,000 years must be rooted in Africa. All of the haplotype trees considered have expected coalescent times greater than 100,000 years, so 100% of such old trees should have African roots under complete replacement, and not the observed 90%.
        ---

        He is using an expansion point of 100,000 years ago. But mtDNA and yDNA give us two different expansion points: an earlier one perhaps 130,000 years ago, and a later one about 60,000 years ago. Archeological digs in the Middle East indicate that between those years, humans did leave Africa and temporarily wrest the Middle East away from the Neanderthals. But then, perhaps due to a cooling climate (perhaps the volcanic winter caused by the massive eruption of Mount Toba), humans actually retreated back into Africa (or, put another way, were pushed out of the Middle East by the resurgent Neanderthals). Only later did humans begin their final, unstoppable march out of Africa and around the world.

        Third, notice what his own data says. 90% of the haplotype trees he studied were rooted in Africa. Only 10% were not, and--by his own words--could simply have originated from humans in the Middle East and other nearby Eurasian areas in the millennia between 100,000 and 130,000 years ago. At most, he is claiming that a small amount of interbreeding occurred between ancient humans and other related species.

        We must continue to emphasize that:

        1) All humans are descended along their strict maternal line from mitochondrial Eve. Thus, "Eve is the mother of all the living [humans]."

        2) All humans are descended along their strict paternal line from Y-chromosome Noah, and farther back from a Y-chromosome Adam who lived at the same time as mitochondrial Eve. Thus, "All men are sons of Adam."

        Some rare interbreeding with other hominids does not nullify the two statements above.

        EDIT: It now occurs to me that Templeton's evidence may actually be totally meaningless as far as modern humans are concerned. Is he simply saying that interbreeding between Africa and Eurasia occurred in the period between 1.9 million years ago and 150,000 years ago? If so, that is totally irrelevant to the history of Homo sapiens.

        EDIT: Some scientists would claim that some hominid populations prior to 150,000 years ago were indeed Homo sapiens, though not Homo sapiens sapiens. If you prefer such terminology (which is debatable at best), then read my statements above as referring to Homo sapiens sapiens.
        Last edited by lgmayka; 11 April 2006, 09:47 PM.

        Comment

        Working...
        X