This is more in line with my ideas/opinions than most articles on the subject.
1 posted on
08/11/2005 6:13:52 PM PDT by
blam
To: blam
blam, your link is pointing to FR's posting page.
To: PatrickHenry
9 posted on
08/11/2005 6:38:59 PM PDT by
Junior
(Just because the voices in your head tell you to do things doesn't mean you have to listen to them)
To: blam
Blam, this is a pretty important bit of research. Thanks for the post. Looks like I have some study to do this evening.
Evidence of ancient nuclear DNA sequences in Asian populations, much of it dating to between 1 million and 500,000 years ago, reflects the genetic contributions of species such as H. erectus to modern humanity as populations diffused across the Old World.
I always wondered how the line traits (shovel-shaped incisors, etc.) wound up in Peking Man. This is the first good explanation which fits with the modern theories.
==============
For the ID folks: Yes, that's older than 4004 B.C. Sorry.
or...
Just ignore it, its all theory anyway. Move on.
10 posted on
08/11/2005 6:41:11 PM PDT by
Coyoteman
(Is this a good tagline?)
To: blam
What about DNA corruption by interbreeding, incest, inter family pedophilia and pedogogy.?. Can't be good for the gene pool.. and spread to succesive generations geometrically..
11 posted on
08/11/2005 6:51:43 PM PDT by
hosepipe
(This Propaganda has been edited to include not a small amount of Hyperbole..)
To: blam
The two populations then evolved in isolation for hundreds of thousands of years before interbreeding, perhaps in Africa, with other Homo species.Homo in the doghouse for 100,000 years.... thats cold!
To: blam
Release a drop of red food coloring into a glass filled with water. Watch the drop slowly spread until it imbues the water with a rosy tint. Then, add a drop of blue coloring and observe the boundaries of purple expand. According to Vinayak Eswaran, this process, known as diffusion, reflects how, over the past 200,000 years, people evolved to have the relatively thin bones, small jaws, and other distinctive aspects of their current physical form. Ohhhhh-kayyyyy. So who is dropping the food coloring into the glass of water?
Or should I say Who?
15 posted on
08/11/2005 7:05:02 PM PDT by
Texas Eagle
(If it wasn't for double-standards, Liberals would have no standards at all.)
To: blam
This theory is incorrect. All non-African humans are descendant from the same woman, called L1, who left Africa 80,000 years ago. All modern humans are descendant from a woman who has been named "Eve" who lived in Africa 250,000 years ago. This has been definitively proved via mitochondrial DNA analysis.
Correlative studies on Y chromosome inheritance, (a non-sexual process that traces the male line) match the mitochondrial DNA studies. L1's descendents spread out pretty quickly when the left Africa, covering the world. They have remained surprisingly stationary since.
17 posted on
08/11/2005 7:06:46 PM PDT by
strategofr
(What did happen to those 293 boxes of secret FBI files (esp on Senators) Hillary stole?)
To: blam
I more inclined to believe Excoffer's theory than the others. I just don't buy the idea of widespread miscegenation with Homo Erectus. Why would sane person mate with something that has a brain less than 3/4 the size of a human's?
I am much more inclined to believe miscegenation with Neaderthals, but even there the evidence is that there was very little, if any.
To: blam
I just finished reading Oppenheimer's The Real Eve and this article seems to contradict it on several points. Oppenh seems to think modern humans started about 200kya and spent the first 150k almost strictly as beachcombers who came out of Africa 85kya and started turning inland into Asia and Europe about 60-50kya. Reading between the lines, advanced toolmaking came not from advanced intelligence but from necessity to adapt to the new inland terrain. IOW, they didn't need intricate tools to gig flounder and pry open oysters, etc; even though they had the intelligence to adjust when necessary
Oppenheimer says no way to cross breeding with earlier erectus/neanderthal etc. This article seems to strongly suggest that the crossbreeding did go on which seems more likely to me.
Another problem I have with Oppenh is that all his routes seem to go one way with little or no backtracking except when forced by ice ages. Humans had all ready evolved as perpetual long distance runners and quite capable swimmers well before 200kya and living on the shores gave them practically unlimited opportunity to run & swim both ways.
To: blam
Good article, can be related to with Milford H.Wolpoff and Rachel Caspari's Race and Human Evolution in some aspects.
32 posted on
08/11/2005 8:49:30 PM PDT by
JimSEA
To: blam; FairOpinion; Ernest_at_the_Beach; StayAt HomeMother; 24Karet; 3AngelaD; asp1; ...
41 posted on
08/11/2005 10:22:05 PM PDT by
SunkenCiv
(Down with Dhimmicrats! I last updated by FR profile on Tuesday, May 10, 2005.)
To: blam
Important article, thanks Blam
To: blam
The trend continues. Even as homo sapiens our inbreeding continues. For 99.9% of human history the vast majority of humans lived and died in little villages where, after generations had passed, all the residents were cousins. We joke about "what happens when cousins marry" but what happens is us.
47 posted on
08/12/2005 2:47:30 AM PDT by
muir_redwoods
(Free Sirhan Sirhan, after all, the bastard who killed Mary Jo Kopeckne is walking around free)
To: blam; PatrickHenry
Eswaran's solution: Evidence of ancient nuclear DNA sequences in Asian populations, much of it dating to between 1 million and 500,000 years ago, reflects the genetic contributions of species such as H. erectus to modern humanity as populations diffused across the Old World. Since mutations accumulate much more slowly in nuclear DNA than they do in mitochondrial DNA, nuclear DNA lineages go back further in time. I've been saying things like this all along. Mitchondrial DNA can't be used to prove you're related to your own father. You get half your nuclear genes from your father.
50 posted on
08/12/2005 5:55:17 AM PDT by
VadeRetro
(Liberalism is a cancer on society. Creationism is a cancer on conservatism.)
To: blam
Sixty-five posts and not one crank has shown up to object that God created man out of dust 6,000 years ago, and that the whole article is a Satanic lie.
Maybe the tide on FR is finally turning? ;)
66 posted on
08/12/2005 10:37:58 AM PDT by
Mr. Jeeves
("Those who do not industrialize become hewers of wood and haulers of water." -- Alexander Hamilton)
To: blam
I bought three National Geographic kits, gave one to my husband, one to my mother, and one is for my father.
So far only my husband's results are done - he's haplogroup R1b (m343), which is western Europe, 90% plus of the male population in western Ireland, Portugal and western Spain have this haplogroup.
Googling around, the neat thing is that all the new DNA research, including National Geographic, is being generated incredibly fast now that these tests are relatively cheap and easy.
All will become known soon. Patience.
Well, except for any groups that died out without leaving genes in the living population. Those will remain a mystery until and unless their remains are processed for mDNA.
74 posted on
08/12/2005 1:42:22 PM PDT by
CobaltBlue
(Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice. Moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue.)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson