The other distinct memory I have of this lecture was his suggestion that Neanderthals pretty much resembled Fred Flintstone. I chuckle about that one to this day :-) 
Posted on 03/07/2002 3:27:07 AM PST by johnandrhonda
Theory on origin of man gets genetic overhaul
By Dan Vergano, USA TODAY
Modern man evolved from a mixture of ancient African immigrants and primitive humans elsewhere, suggests a genetic analysis released today that raises new questions about long-held theories of human origins.
For decades, archaeologists, paleontologists and genetics experts have argued about the evolution of modern man. While the various disciplines had remained divided, the weight of genetic studies had recently favored the "Out of Africa" theory. It says modern-looking humans originated in Africa and spread worldwide about 100,000 years ago, slowly replacing Neanderthals and other evolutionary dead-end humans elsewhere.
Now, however, genetics expert Alan Templeton of Washington University in St. Louis reports that a wide-ranging sample of 11 different types of DNA found in human populations today shows archaic humans, known as Homo erectus to scientists, freely mixed their genes among African, European and Asian populations for the past 600,000 years.
Rather than being wiped out by African immigrants, genes from those archaic humans appear in eight of the DNA regions in the study, Templeton says.
And rather than one migration out of Africa, he reports in the journal Nature, at least two such expansions took place, one about 600,000 years ago and the other about 95,000 years ago, based on the study's DNA samples.
"The most recent out-of-Africa expansion event was not a replacement event," Templeton says.
While most of humanity's genetic legacy traces from Africa, he says, "over a long time, there was sufficient genetic interchange to ensure that all humanity evolved as a single species."
Proponents of the "multiregional" theory of human evolution, which says modern Homo sapiens sprang from the shared evolution of more primitive Homo erectus humans worldwide, can feel "vindication" in the results, paleontologist Milford Wolpoff of the University of Michigan-Ann Arbor says.
Past genetic studies of human origins examined too few genes to reveal the influence of archaic humans, Wolpoff says.
But in a commentary published along with the study, geneticist Rebecca Cann of the University of Hawaii-Manoa cautions that "perhaps Templeton was over-ambitious in the scale of his analysis." Some of the genetic samples in the study came from only 35 people, she notes, too few to be definitive.
And despite calling the paper a "significant advance," paleontologist Christopher Stringer of London's Natural History Museum suggests the fossil record still supports the notion that modern-looking humans evolved solely in Africa.
Perhaps human genes diversified in Africa over the past 600,000 years and were carried outward by waves of immigrants starting about 130,000 years ago, he suggests. Wolpoff says the study won't settle the long-running disagreement between the various human-origins camps, but he's confident that future studies will support his views. "The next generation of scientists will forget this one and move on to their own big debates," he says.
Oh, you want to know where you came from? Immigrants and primitive humans elsewhere! That explains a lot.
March 7, 2002
A Different Take on Human Origins
By JOHN NOBLE WILFORD
In a new genetic study of modern human origins, an American scientist has found what he says is substantial evidence that could reshape the prevailing "out of Africa" theory. Among his findings, he says, is the likelihood that genes from Neanderthals and other species live on in present-day humans.
The findings apparently do not undermine the "out of Africa" theory, which holds that there was a relatively modern founding migration of human ancestors into Asia and Europe from Africa.
But they do suggest that there were at least two migrations rather than one — the first about half a million years ago, the other, as in the "out of Africa" theory, beginning some 100,000 years ago. The study found that the two evolutionary links to Africa were clearly imprinted in the genes of people today. But it also detected another trace of family history in the genes of modern Homo sapiens: on their migrations, the more modern people from Africa did some interbreeding with the less modern people they encountered.
If this is correct, it means that contrary to standard "out of Africa" theory, the newcomers from Africa did not completely replace the local populations — and that the Neanderthals of Europe and western Asia, and similar nonmodern people throughout Asia, escaped complete extinction. That in turn would mean that a few Neanderthal genes must survive in Europeans and those of European ancestry, and that a few genes of some descendants of Homo erectus carry on in Asians.
The new research, likely to shake up the contentious field of human evolution studies, was conducted by Dr. Alan R. Templeton, a population biologist at Washington University in St. Louis. The results are reported in today's issue of the journal Nature.
"It looks very, very convincing," said Dr. John H. Relethford, an anthropologist at the State University of New York at Oneonta, who has advanced his own revised version of the standard "out of Africa" model.
Most previous studies of modern human evolution have been confined to one or two genetic trees. Dr. Templeton included those two with eight other DNA sources. They were analyzed using a computer program developed with the help of Dr. David Posada and Dr. Keith Crandall, both of Brigham Young University.
Of the 10 DNA lines of evidence, Dr. Templeton said, eight bear traces from well before 100,000 years ago — that is, before the beginning of the most recent migration out of Africa. And those eight gene regions yield statistically significant data that are incompatible with a total genetic replacement model for nonmodern humans, the researcher concluded.
If the nonmodern people had been wiped out and replaced, Dr. Templeton explained, the genetic signatures of the older migration and of older recurrent gene flow would not be showing up in people today from various parts of the world.
In the journal article, Dr. Templeton said the results seemed to agree with recent estimates that about 90 percent of the human gene trees appeared to be rooted in Africa. By e-mail from Israel, where he is a visiting professor, Dr. Templeton explained that the research showed that "human populations in Africa and Eurasia have not been genetically isolated from one another, but rather have been interchanging genes for at least 600,000 years." The genetic interchange, he continued, "was restricted, primarily by geographical distance, which meant that local populations could and should show genetic differences, as they do today."
"But over a long time," he added, "there was sufficient genetic interchange to insure that all humanity evolved as a single species." Dr. Templeton's findings fall somewhere between two much-debated theories of modern human origins.
Since the 1980's, molecular biologists have produced strong DNA evidence that people living today stem from a common genetic source in Africa about 150,000 years ago or more. That research underpins the "out of Africa" theory, favored by most anthropologists.
But a few stalwarts, led by Dr. Milford Wolpoff of the University of Michigan, have continued to argue the case for multiregional origins. They contend that humans evolved around the world in different regions about the same time, often living in isolation but not without occasional infusion of outside genes. These early humans were descendants of the protohuman Homo erectus, which first migrated from Africa about 1.7 million years ago.
In the sense that the genetic legacy of humanity is disproportionately from Africa, Dr. Templeton said, the "out of Africa" model still stands, but with modification: the two waves of migration out of Africa did not completely replace the local populations.
Commenting in another article in Nature, Dr. Rebecca L. Cann, a molecular biologist at the University of Hawaii who participated in the early studies of humanity's African genetic traces, saluted Dr. Templeton's research as "strong genetic support for describing the geographical center of our species as African."
But on the issue of interbreeding with local populations, Dr. Cann seemed to avoid a direct comment. She suggested that "perhaps Templeton was overambitious in the scale of his analysis," and concluded that it would take more study "before we can settle on how to interpret the varied signals uncovered by Templeton's analysis on a global scale."
If changes have to be made in the theories, several scientists said, the result could resemble the "mostly out of Africa" model proposed recently by Dr. Relethford, of SUNY Oneonta. "My reading is that we are mostly out of Africa," Dr. Relethford said this week. "We don't replace, but rather mix to some extent with groups that were already in existence." Such changes, said Dr. Bernard Wood, an anthropologist at George Washington University, make the "out of Africa" theory "more pragmatic, more understandable."
Dr. Wood noted that paleontological and archaeological findings were already pointing to the likelihood of several "migration pulses" from Africa. "The notion," he said, "that you had a pulse out of Africa 100,000 years ago and there was not sharing of a single gene between the modern and nonmodern members of the species just doesn't make a lot of sense."
Yup. Wolpoff is my guy too. (He my have a 'touch' of Neanderthal in his family, lol.)
Is this april fools all your life? Wet behind the ears kiddees?
Since we have only recent humans to extract DNA from, how can science establish where humans came from or what percentage of us came from what type of human? Sounds like they are taking another guess and "creating" the evidence to support their assertions (guesses).
Oh well, in ten years they will think of something else that will change all these preconceived notions, and start chasing their tails again, and then again, and again.
The other distinct memory I have of this lecture was his suggestion that Neanderthals pretty much resembled Fred Flintstone. I chuckle about that one to this day :-)
And how 'bout that: you, me and Wolpoff agree--how could we be wrong?
01: Site that debunks virtually all of creationism's fallacies. Excellent resource.
02: Creation "Science" Debunked.
03: Creationi sm and Pseudo Science. Familiar cartoon then lots of links.
04: The SKEPTIC annotated bibliography. Amazingly great meta-site!
05: The Evidence for Human Evolution. For the "no evidence" crowd.
06: Massi ve mega-site with thousands of links on evolution, creationism, young earth, etc..
07: Another amazing site full of links debunking creationism.
08: Creationism and Pseudo Science. Great cartoon!
09: Glenn R. Morton's site about creationism's fallacies. Another jennyp contribution.
11: Is Evolution Science?. Successful PREDICTIONS of evolution (Moonman62).
12: Five Major Misconceptions about Evolution. On point and well-written.
13: Frequently Asked But Never Answered Questions. A creationist nightmare!
14: DARWIN, FULL TEXT OF HIS WRITINGS. The original ee-voe-lou-shunist.
The foregoing was just a tiny sample. So that everyone will have access to the accumulated "Creationism vs. Evolution" threads which have previously appeared on FreeRepublic, plus links to hundreds of sites with a vast amount of information on this topic, here's Junior's massive work, available for all to review:
The Ultimate Creation vs. Evolution Resource [ver 15].
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.