Homo sapiens: 'Out of Africa' three distinct times, new analysis shows
Posted on 02/10/2006 2:54:05 AM PST by PatrickHenry
A new, more robust analysis of recently derived human gene trees by Alan R. Templeton, Ph.D, of Washington University in St Louis, shows three distinct major waves of human migration out of Africa instead of just two, and statistically refutes — strongly — the 'Out of Africa' replacement theory.
That theory holds that populations of Homo sapiens left Africa 100,000 years ago and wiped out existing populations of humans. Templeton has shown that the African populations interbred with the Eurasian populations — thus, making love, not war.
"The 'Out of Africa' replacement theory has always been a big controversy," Templeton said. "I set up a null hypothesis and the program rejected that hypothesis using the new data with a probability level of 10 to the minus 17th. In science, you don't get any more conclusive than that. It says that the hypothesis of no interbreeding is so grossly incompatible with the data, that you can reject it."
Templeton's analysis is considered to be the only definitive statistical test to refute the theory, dominant in human evolution science for more than two decades.
"Not only does the new analysis reject the theory, it demolishes it," Templeton said.
Templeton published his results in the Yearbook of Physical Anthropology, 2005.
A trellis, not a tree
He used a computer program called GEODIS, which he created in 1995 and later modified with the help of David Posada, Ph.D., and Keith Crandall, Ph.D. at Brigham Young University, to determine genetic relationships among and within populations based on an examination of specific haplotypes, clusters of genes that are inherited as a unit.
In 2002, Templeton analyzed ten different haplotype trees and performed phylogeographic analyses that reconstructed the history of the species through space and time.
Three years later, he had 25 regions to analyze and the data provided molecular evidence of a third migration, this one the oldest, back to 1.9 million years ago.
"This time frame corresponds extremely well with the fossil record, which shows Homo erectus expanding out of Africa then," Templeton said.
Another novel find is that populations of Homo erectus in Eurasia had recurrent genetic interchange with African populations 1.5 million years ago, much earlier than previously thought, and that these populations persisted instead of going extinct, which some human evolution researchers thought had occurred.
The new data confirm an expansion out of Africa to 700,000 years ago that was detected in the 2002 analysis.
"Both (the 1.9 million and 700,000 year) expansions coincide with recent paleoclimatic data that indicate periods of very high rainfall in eastern Africa, making what is now the Sahara Desert a savannah," Templeton said. "That makes the timing very amenable for movements of large populations through the area."
Templeton said that the fossil record indicates a significant change in brain size for modern humans at 700,000 years ago as well as the adaptation and expansion of a new stone tool culture first found in Africa and later at 700,000 years expanded throughout Eurasia.
"By the time you're done with this phase you can be 99 percent confident that there was recurrent genetic interchange between African and Eurasian populations," he said. "So the idea of pure, distinct races in humans does not exist. We humans don't have a tree relationship, rather a trellis. We're intertwined."
You're right. Discrimination if I ever saw it.
But you know, wolves are either extinct or on life support in most of the US, but coyotes dine regularly on Beverly Hills housepets!
Quoting: "Numbers 31:13-18
13 Moses, Eleazar the priest and all the leaders of the community went to meet them outside the camp.
14 Moses was angry with the officers of the army—the commanders of thousands and commanders of hundreds—who returned from the battle.
15 "Have you allowed all the women to live?" he asked them.
16 "They were the ones who followed Balaam's advice and were the means of turning the Israelites away from the LORD in what happened at Peor, so that a plague struck the LORD's people.
17 Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man,
18 but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man."
Reply: Hmm, and some say the 10 Commandments are the basis of all morality!
This was after the Commandments were given to Moses, isn't it? It is not a happy scene for unborns, newborns, and toddlers who need a mother. Nor for young girls given over to God-sanctioned rape. "Kill all the boys"--even those at 2, 4, 6 years of age? What a monsterous dictate.
One wonders where anti-evo, pro-Noah's Flood posters will come down on this. Predicably, when caught in hypocrisy they ignore.
He's been waiting for his Acme Protest Kit to arrive?
Quoting: "Darwinism is more deeply in chaos than it has ever been. Darwins' grand mullahs of materialism keep trying to bury Gould's "hopeful monsters," recognizing as they do, that to recognize them is to admit evolution is bankrupt and wholly unable to explain anything but small variations in species."
Reply: I was looking for the satire tag. Perhaps you are serious?
1. There is nothing in science called 'Darwinism'. There is a theory of evolution, and some 200,000 scientists have contributed to this understanding over the last 150 years. Are you confused with Marxism?
2. Major religious leaders have accepted the Germ Thory of Disease, the Theory of Plate Tectonics, the Theory of Evolution, and other evidence from the community of scientists, many of who hold to failth beliefs.
3. "Darwins' grand mullahs of materialism"--a cute phrase, but the priests of "intelligent design" (Phillip Johnson, Michael Behe, William Dembski) have never made a single observation of a fossil, not a single contribution to medical science, not a single contribution to taxonomy; not a single contribution to morality.
They just send out fancy words "irreducible complexity; specified complex information". Nothing to do with religious experience, nothing to do with science. Nothing to do with faith or salvation.
Frauds. Their agenda.
I don't deny that following the 10 Commandments will make one a better person. A lot of the Bible does serve a good basis for a moral code to live by, I believe (we shouldn't throw out the baby with the bathwater). Yes, there are attrocities and absurdities, but also a great deal of wisdom within its pages.
I just think one has to remember that the Bible also contains a bloodier dark side and one should use their God-given brains in discerning the context in which these things were written before using them as either a checklist of facts or an example of how to lead his/her life.
Religious notions are like all other ideas. All ideas are open for critiques and acceptance. A religious idea is not protected, just because it it "religious" to some group. This leads us toward "heresy, blasphemy", and prohibited ideas.
As we know over the centuries, one man's heresy is another man's truth. How many "revealed truths" are we willing to accept--631 creation myths? The Genesis account is then only one; at equal probability, just 0.0016% of being right. (Probability works both ways for the creationists) Who do we trust to get the "revelation"?
There are oodles of priests, shamans, pastors claiming to "know the one and only truth". Rejecting one set of "revealed truths" is not blasphemy--it is in the tradition of the enlightment--no idea is so sacred that it cannot be questioned. There have been so many who claim to "know God's truth" with slick words and no evidence.....
It is dangerous territory if we allow religious leaders--with their own agendas, unelected, and tax-exempted--to get to decide what is blasphemous.
And in the discussion of ideas, all of satire, ridicule, parody are recognized as forms of expression of ideas. There is no exemption because an idea is described as "religious". I say there is nothing that is "blasphemous" Worry about affronting some ancient text or some god is mere superstition. (It used to be thought that the affronted god would send lightning strikes--this from Roman mythology; this does not seem to occur in modern times.) All ideas, whether pro-religion or anti-religion, have equal status.
Science has shown a great success in advancing human understandings and lives. ID has shown nothing.
If religious faiths like ID want to use science to support their beliefs, they have to use the same standard we all do. What is the evidence? What makes sense?
Sorry I wasn't clear. On the affirmative action form that Churchill abused, it was not a matter of self-identification. The form set forth an explicit definition of Native American. Churchill checked Native American even though he didn't meet the description.
If it had not been for the definition I agree, you and I both could have checked Native American. What I most like to do on these odious forms is check the box for "other." Then on the blank line they give you to specify what the "other" race is write "HUMAN."
It seems to me that the USA has been getting along quite well for more than 200 years without having any 10 Commandments or 538 Commandments in the Old Testament. It seems to me that that the USA has succeeded quite well before we had politicians wrapping themselves around god. And without hypocritical displays of piety and religiosity.
It is useful to remember that Abraham Lincoln, George Washington, Thomas Jefferson never recited any pledge. Certainly not with one "under God". They never said any pledge.
Some ritual recantation of words is a poor substitute for meaningful patriotic and civic values.
This religous rite-ism. If we carry out the rite, then we are saved. Egyptians, Greeks, and others believed this; Judaics, Vaticanists. Anyone can go through with carrying out the rites. It leads to hypocrisy, go through the rituals without a true belief.
Social religious communities often reject evolution. Not on the basis of evidence or understanding, but on the basis that those who accept evolution as a description of what we know are "of the other".
However, I can agree with what you are saying.
When I first began posting to the creation/evolution threads I tended to post creation stories; I have a large collection, from Native American to African, and everything in between.
You might go back and read some of the crevo threads (as they are called). Junior keeps a nice list, and posts the whole thing occasionally.
But back to your subject:
Of all the strange "crimes" that human beings have legislated out of nothing, "blasphemy" is the most amazing - with "obscenity" and "indecent exposure" fighting it out for the second and third place.Robert A. Heinlein, Time Enough for Love, 1973
Re: [Welcome to FR]
I read 2005 for 2006. Sorry (its late and I haven't shaved).
Ah HA!
So, there is a new scientific theory that finds the previous theory as false! See? Even science itself finds evoluton false! In fact, the fact the previous theory was false proves that science has proven science itself to be false!!
(/Standard CRIDer "logic")
;)
Suuuuure it was. That's why PatrickHenry pinged the whole Evo group, right?
Come on, just a little intellectual honesty . . . please!
Suuuuure it was. That's why PatrickHenry pinged the whole Evo group, right?
The Evolution ping list includes a lot of scientists. They are routinely pinged on evolution-related subjects.
How many real scientists, and how much real science, supports ID?
[Read The Wedge Strategy lately?]
There's no secret how the EVO ping list operatars. PH explains on his home page
Then I started using the list for science threads in addition to evolution -- like cosmology, astronomy, physics, SETI, and very little else (but I've pinged for crop circle threads because they're soooooo stupid). There are science ping lists maintained by other freepers; but this one is limited to my peculiar tastes. I usually don't ping for cloning, stem cell research, engineering developments, etc.
Some evolution thread regulars don't care for (and didn't sign on for) the non-evo science topics, so to spare them unwanted pings I've been using only the first half of the list for non-evo science pings; however, this remains primarily an evolution list, so the whole list gets pinged for evo threads. List members have a choice: (1) If you want non-evo and my usual evo pings, tell me and I'll place your name in the [elite] first half of the list; (2) if you want to be "evo-only," tell me that and I'll keep your name out of the first half. If you don't specify, I'll decide for you, based on the type of thread you're in at the time you contact me. Either way, please be aware that most pings are for evolution threads.
For those who don't like the bickering in the evolution threads, and who want to be pinged only for non-evo science threads, that's a problem. It would require keeping two separate but overlapping lists, and that's too much work. The best I can do is put you in the first half of my list for non-evo pings; and then -- although you'll get evo pings too -- you can ignore the evo threads.
Pings for Science(including evolutionary science) and for the Creationist sideshow. We who are pinged are supposed to work out the difference.
This was about a long running debate between scienntists (no mention of Creationsm there.
Also (nothing to do with Creationism either)
And like Drs Groves and Thorne, we could have gone on quite happily arguing amongst ourselves, even if you hadn't shoiwn up
/Raving Looney Mode
When did lack of evidence ever discourage an evolutionist?
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.