Posted on 07/14/2004 8:53:47 AM PDT by blam
New twist on out-of-Africa theory
Judy Skatssoon
ABC Science Online
Wednesday, 14 July 2004
Homo erectus, the species thought to be the first to leave Africa for Eurasia in the out-of-Africa model of human origin (Image: Science)
Early humans made love, not war, according to new DNA analysis presented at a genetics conference that gives a new twist on the out-of-Africa hypothesis of human origins.
U.S. researcher Professor Alan Templeton of Washington University, St Louis, debunks the prevailing version of the out-of-Africa hypothesis, which says early humans migrated from Africa and wiped out Eurasian populations.
Instead, they bred, he told the Genetics Society of Australia's annual conference in Melbourne this week.
Templeton said his evidence didn't support the so-called replacement theory in which African hominids caused the extinction of other Homo species.
Instead, he said his analysis of the human genome showed prehistoric gene-swapping created a single evolutionary lineage beginning in Africa and ending where we are today.
He looked at mitochondrial DNA, as well as DNA on a range of chromosomes including X and Y.
"The genetic legacy of current humans is predominantly of African origin," he said.
Templeton is the first to suggest expansion out of Africa occurred in three waves: 2 million years ago, 800,000 years ago and 100,000 years ago.
The alternative view suggests that expansion out of Africa occurred twice and caused the genetic extinction of existing populations, with the colonisers later diversifying into separate races.
What about races?
But Templeton said this extinction never happened and a combination of movement and interbreeding meant diversification of races didn't occur.
"We really have to abandon the idea of race. It actually does not reflect the genetic differences we can now measure in an objective fashion."
Templeton said the differences between human populations today were based on geography not genetics.
This meant a Norwegian would be more closely related than a Fijian to someone from sub-Saharan Africa.
"We do see differences in different regions of the world but the best indicator of those differences is simply geographical distance and not things like skin colour."
Templeton said his data was inconclusive on whether interbreeding also occurred with Neanderthals.
But he said there was fossil evidence that this probably occurred, which would imply a bit of Neanderthal could live on in us all.
Australian geneticist Associate Professor Philip Batterham from the University of Melbourne said the research showed humanity was far more closely related that previously thought and that race was a cultural phenomenon.
Templeton's research was published in the journal Nature in March 2002.
I think that biology will be develop into something very specific in terms treating disease. Not sure how that will happen as people don't like their DNA being tinkered with. I'm sure one day that medicine will be taking a designer pill just for your own problem.
"Two blacks marry, their child will be black. Two green-eyed people married, and you have no idea what color the children's eyes will be.
A white and a black marry, and the child will be black.
Next question?"
PING
This is a "Gods, Graves, Glyphs" -- Archeology/Anthropology/Ancient Cultures/Artifacts/Antiquities, etc. PING list.
Please FREEPMAIL me, if you want on or off this list.
I just got the list from farmfriend, so those of you who haven’t been pinged lately, please check the link above, where you can find the links to the more recent articles.
LOOKING FOR volunteer to take the ping list and the ping task over. I took it temporarily, to continue it, but I am becoming very busy and there may be days when I am not available. Please FReepmail me, if you would be interested. On the average it’s only a ping a day or so. (Some days more, then for a few days there may be nothing). In the meantime I’ll do it, but you may get some pings a little late.
Something for you to read,cyborg.:-)
hehehe I'm glad to be on the ping list... I may have missed it if someone else didn't ping me to it before. Lots of interesting things to read in the study of evolution. I still don't believe in the theory of evolution but I read them anyway.
I don't believe in evolution and I don't believe that " out of Africa " junk either.
it's an honor to get pinged by you ;-) I am skeptical about a lot of things, and 'Out of Africa' is one of them. If I am to go by what I read in the news, it seems like they find a skeleton older here and there, not just Africa. It's confusing. I'd like to see a definative nailed down location for these origin studies.
I don't remember just when it was;however,I do remember that not too long ago,a skeleton/s about as old as LUCY, was found in China.That blows the "out of Africa" junk out of the water completely!
There are three races...that's it! If evolution and the "out of Africa" stuff were both true,then why didn't some parents in China,let's say,ever have a Negroid looking child?
That's why I think it's all 'iffy' right now as far as origin theories are concerned. So human beings have a penchant for classsifying people, and athropologically I've always read that there are three anthropological races. Most scientists say that Australian aborigines are 'caucasian'. In today's modern society there are lots of mixing of cultures but I don't think much of that was going on in the Ice Age *LOL*
Yes,the Caucasoid classification of Australian aborigines is a head scratcher,but it is what it is.:-)
It's not accurate to say "many biblical scholars say...."
They don't. There are fringe groups which teach weird things. The best thing is to take whatever your group is teaching you, and do as the Apostle Paul called "noble": compare everything taught you daily with what is actually in the Word (Acts 17:4). Also, study objectively what the historic positions of Christianity are on the foundational beliefs. Then compare those to what your group is teaching you, or the books you're reading. Ask the Lord to give you wisdom, and be open to truth.
The brown of brown horses is HAIR color, not skin color. And, no, we do not consider blonde caucasians to be a different race from brunette caucasians.
Ever see that excellent PBS-TV show that had all the many different breeds of dawgs?
Tested them for intelligence and basic smarts?
One simple test was putting a towel of the dawg's head and counting in seconds how long it took for each breed to toss it off.
Some sat there confused like box of rocks.
Others flipped it off every time in a flash. Others were always puzzled and confused and hesitated, then removed the towel from their heads. Then there were those that took forever; even seeming too......give up!
The border collies always tested right up top.
Trying to recall the incredibly "slow" and "challenged" mutts.
They were consistently at the bottom of the pond.
Then there were those in the middle.
We had a standard Hollywood collie named "Heather".
Great guard dawg and wonderful with kids, took on a little orphaned kitten with her own litter once. Loved to run in the Sout Florida surf and swim across the Incoastal Canal and back too with me. Terrific hunter, ran with our horses and would round up our cattle with a whistle.
Our hound dawg was sharp and friendly and and protective also.
But I recall a little cocker spaniel that had the sense of many people we see and shake our heads at.
That PBS-TV dwg series was not very PC. Imagine them slowing various [races of?] people from around the globe and testing them for intelligence, alertness, basic sense.......
Genetics.
I guess a Shetland pony and a Thorobred and a draft horse are all just like different shades of hair.
Has the author of this theory finally got that silly towel off his head yet?
The purebreds are too closely bred into near generations and it shows with them having the sense of a mutt.
Unto the penultimate generation?
Evolutionary theory says that they wouldn't. So you've answered your own question.
Race is not a property of a person but a category that one is assigned to. There are no characteristics that uniquely identify race. Classification may be useful forensically but so is how one is dressed.
That is what's commonly called, an evolutionary dead end.
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.