"Don't forget, I was *born* in Africa, and, uh, whoops, uh, never mind..."
Posted on 05/02/2009 9:38:13 AM PDT by nickcarraway
Locations for the Garden of Eden have been offered many times before, but seldom in the somewhat inhospitable borderland where Angola and Namibia meet. A new genetic survey of people in Africa, the largest of its kind, suggests, however, that the region in southwest Africa seems, on the present evidence, to be the origin of modern humans. The authors have also identified some 14 ancestral populations.
The new data goes far toward equalizing the genetic picture of the world, given that most genetic information has come from European and Asian populations. But because it comes from Africa, the continent on which the human lineage evolved, it also sheds light on the origins of human life.
The origin of a species is generally taken to be the place where its individuals show the greatest genetic diversity. For humans, when the new African data is combined with DNA information from the rest of the world, this spot lies on the coast of southwest Africa near the Kalahari desert, the research team, led by Sarah Tishkoff of the University of Pennsylvania, said in journal Science.
The area is a homeland of the Bushmen or San people, whose language is distinguished by many click sounds. But the San in the past might not have been restricted to where they are now, she said. The San are thought to have once occupied a much larger area, one that probably stretched from southern Africa up the east coast to as far as present-day Ethiopia.
Since the geneticists’ calculations refer to people, not geography, the San - and therefore the site of greatest human diversity - might have been located elsewhere in the past. Tishkoff’s team has also calculated the exit point from which a small human group - maybe a single tribal band of 150 people - left Africa some 50,000 years ago and populated the world. The region is near the midpoint of the African coast of the Red Sea. Tishkoff and her colleagues found that the 14 ancestral African populations they detected are now highly mixed, with the exception of the Bantu speakers.
Ping
Btt
What an odd mixture of science and religion.
|
|
|||
Gods |
Thanks nick. Decimon, my knee-jerk response to this is, more tourist trap activity, like the "tunnel" in that "pyramid". ;') |
||
|
· Discover · Nat Geographic · Texas AM Anthro News · Yahoo Anthro & Archaeo · Google · · The Archaeology Channel · Excerpt, or Link only? · cgk's list of ping lists · |
|||
They had globull warming back then too?
Did apples grow there in 4004 B.C.?
Gee, I don’t know. If our “leaders” were restricted to making clicking sounds...
I realize that when groups breed within themselves, certain characteristics will prevail, but I can't understand how the ancestors of Africans can be so different in appearance from Africans in just 50,000 years. To me, it seems like a short period of time for so many variations to occur.
I am sure that geneticists understand this and can explain it.
Yes, but it was only one apple. And due to the predation of man, or in this case, woman, they immediately became extinct in that part of the world.
take a look at dogs
"Don't forget, I was *born* in Africa, and, uh, whoops, uh, never mind..."
INTREP - the Biblical Garden of Eden was destroyed by the Biblical Flood. You can’t have one without the other. And both are actual historical events and places.
Namibia Bushmen were first people in ‘Garden of Eden’
The Times | 5/2/2009 | James Bone in New York
Posted on 05/01/2009 10:19:20 PM PDT by bruinbirdman
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2242559/posts
Good point. Maybe texting will replace the spoken language. Not that the Prez is short of speech, mind you.
Webster's: "history"
1: TALE, STORY
2 a: a chronological record of significant events (as affecting a nation or institution) often including an explanation of their causes...
3: a branch of knowledge that records and explains past events (medieval history)
4 a: events that form the subject matter of a history. b: events of the past.
You know, it's a very curious thing I'd never realized before. According to Webster's, for something to be historical it does not necessarily HAVE to be literally true. It just has to be "a record of significant events."
Funny, I never knew that.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
