Namibia Bushmen were first people in ‘Garden of Eden’

The Garden of Eden may not have looked much like its traditional image of a lush, fertile corner of the Earth.

Instead, a genetic study of Africa suggests that the origin of humanity lies in a sandy, inhospitable region near the coastal border of Namibia and Angola.

The area is populated by the Bushmen, or San people, who may be the closest thing to a biblical Adam and Eve. The study even gives the co-ordinates as 12.5° E and 17.5° S.

Scientists suggest that the clicking sounds characteristic of the San’s language may be a remnant of original human speech.

The conclusion emerges from the largest study of African genetics yet, conducted by an international team led by Sarah Tishkoff, of the University of Pennsylvania.

Researchers studied genes from more than 3,000 people in 121 of 2,000 population groups in Africa. The study demonstrated that there was more genetic diversity in Africa than anywhere else on Earth, and found that modern African populations evolved from 14 ancestral ones.

Dr Tishkoff said that the study had traced the origin of mankind on the assumption that the oldest population would have the greatest genetic diversity. That diversity decreases as populations migrate away from the origin. “The source area for migration within Africa was in that area that represents today the San homeland,” she said. “What it’s really reflecting is the high level of diversity we are seeing in the San populations. It’s consistent with other studies that those populations have the most ancient lineages.”

She left open the possibility that the San may have themselves migrated at some point from a Garden of Eden somewhere else. “It’s very possible that those populations may have migrated from another region, such as eastern Africa. If that’s the case, 50,000 years

In other words, we sampled 8% of population groups, started with a flimsy premise and leapt to a conclusion.

There is a reason I don't normally respond in cases like this but I think an important point needs to be made.

1) Do you have any experience in statistics or statistical analysis such that you can reliably say that an 8% sample is insufficient to draw a conclusion?

2) You call the premise "flimsy" but present no counterthesis or any significant criticism of the premise.

The only reason I bring this up is because this a fine example of the sort of emotional reasoning (something is true not because I have facts or data or reason but because I feel it to be true) that is costing our society dearly.

>>In other words, we sampled 8% of population groups, started with a flimsy premise and leapt to a conclusion.
There is a reason I don't normally respond in cases like this but I think an important point needs to be made.

1) Do you have any experience in statistics or statistical analysis such that you can reliably say that an 8% sample is insufficient to draw a conclusion?

2) You call the premise “flimsy” but present no counterthesis or any significant criticism of the premise.

Normally, I too would not respond but I will answer you.

1) Yes, I do have some experience in statistical analysis. My master's thesis in Business was on Cluster Analysis. I have done simulations and statistical analysis throughout my career. Selecting 121 groups out of 2,000 introduces sampling error and bias, unless it was totally random (using random number generator tables, for example). The sample size WITHIN each group is sufficient.

2)The scientific method requires that you prove the null hypothesis, not a preconceived notion. The null hypothesis , in this case, would be “There is no genetic diversity”.

3. The conclusions reached - ascertaining the precise latitude and longitude of the Garden of Eden, while allowing for the population having been elsewhere by 50 thousand years hardly inspires confidence (one of the statistical terms is confidence level, as in “I am confident in my conclusions within X%” - usually 95% or 99%.

4. As for a counter proposal, I don't have grant money to go to Africa and I think there are better uses for grant money than the precise latitude and longitude of the Garden of Eden. Maybe finding a cure for AIDs or “world peace”.

The null hypothesis , in this case, would be “There is no genetic diversity”.

I think you misread the article or something because the point of the study was to find a population with the greatest genetic diversity. The "assumpution" is that populations with the greatest genetic diversity are probably ancestral because as group migrate away they take only a part of the original populations genetic diversity with them - that is, the farther you are from an ancestral group the less genetic diversity you have. I'm sure you're heard of the "founder effect". Only question then is whether or not this is a reasonable assumption.

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.

· join list or digest · view topics · view or post blog · bookmark · post a topic ·
	Gods Graves Glyphs	Just adding to the catalog, not sending a general distribution. To all -- please ping me to other topics which are appropriate for the GGG list. GGG managers are SunkenCiv, StayAt HomeMother, and Ernest_at_the_Beach
·Dogpile · Archaeologica · ArchaeoBlog · Archaeology · Biblical Archaeology Society · · Discover · Nat Geographic · Texas AM Anthro News · Yahoo Anthro & Archaeo · Google · · The Archaeology Channel · Excerpt, or Link only? · cgk's list of ping lists ·