Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,820 Year: 3,077/9,624 Month: 922/1,588 Week: 105/223 Day: 3/13 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Multiregionalism and Diversity
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 1 of 12 (397045)
04-24-2007 3:12 AM


I've just finished my report on diversity and how it relates to 'Out of Africa' vs. Multiregionalism. It's a PDF, ~12 pages, single spaced, 12 pt. Times New Roman.
[link removed]
Abstract:
quote:
The human population has relatively low levels of racial and regional diversity when compared with other species. In this report, I look at that phenomenon through the lenses of two opposing theories of human evolution: 'Out of Africa' theory, and Multiregional theory. I will first introduce an hypothesis of diversity that is based on the latter theory, and then explain each theory briefly. Next, I will present evidence regarding genetic studies and the fossil record in an attempt to show Multiregionalism to be correct. Having shown Multiregionalism to be the correct theory, I will conclude that the hypothesis of diversity presented in the introduction is more plausible than the one accepted by 'Out of Africa' proponents. The report will finish with an analysis of my research, and address minor problems in the diversity hypothesis and this report.
I do not want to discuss whether the report 'sucks' or not, but instead the issues that it brings up. We can perhaps start with the genetic aspects, and then move on from there.
Regards,
Jon
Edited by Jon, : Formatting.
Edited by Jon, : Added purpose.
Edited by Jon, : Formatting II.
Edited by Jon, : (link removed)
Edited by Jon, : (quotes fixed)

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by Nuggin, posted 04-24-2007 3:31 AM Jon has replied
 Message 12 by Brad McFall, posted 05-12-2007 10:55 AM Jon has not replied

  
AdminPhat
Inactive Member


Message 2 of 12 (397046)
04-24-2007 3:14 AM


Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

  
Nuggin
Member (Idle past 2493 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 3 of 12 (397049)
04-24-2007 3:31 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Jon
04-24-2007 3:12 AM


Multiregionalism and the Great Bottleneck
Haven't read the paper yet, this just got posted, but its a topic I've been thinking about recently.
Do you think/have you considered the roll of the Toba volcano and the subsequent genetic bottleneck in the lack of diversity?
Could we be looking out a scenario where we see Out of Africa movement spreading out across the land, followed by this disaster resulting in just a few isolated groups.
From these multiregional survivors spring forth our limited, albeit present, diversity - ie the "races".
Just musing without any research. Thought I'd throw it out there.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Jon, posted 04-24-2007 3:12 AM Jon has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by Jon, posted 04-24-2007 2:15 PM Nuggin has not replied

  
Doddy
Member (Idle past 5910 days)
Posts: 563
From: Brisbane, Australia
Joined: 01-04-2007


Message 4 of 12 (397078)
04-24-2007 9:49 AM


Ginger genes
Ginger Gene
The ginger gene is found in modern European peoples and is responsible for the red hair-freckles combination. This gene was present in H. neanderthalensis in Europe roughly 100 thousand years ago.8 For the ”Out of Africa’ theory to be correct, the gene would have to have originated in both H. neanderthalensis and H. sapiens separately as the latter spread to Europe and replaced the former. It is unlikely that the trait evolved independently twice, and the more likely scenario is as concluded by Dr. Rosalind Harding: that H. sapiens and H. neanderthalensis could breed with each other, and the ginger gene was passed from H. neanderthalensis on to H. sapiens through breeding.
This "ginger gene"...that would be the melanocortin-1 receptor gene, right?
If so, then you do know that it occurs in all sorts of mammals, right? The same gene is dominant in primates such as orang-utans, macaques, lion tamarins and red ruffed lemurs. In fact, it's that gene that causes ginger tabbies and red foxes to have their fur colour.
Therefore, I don't find this piece of genetic evidence compelling, as it is likely that there is a more simple explanation for the occurrence of this gene than interbreeding.
References:
N.I. Mundy, J. Kelly. (2003) "Evolution of a pigmentation gene, the melanocortin-1 receptor, in primates" American Journal of Physical Anthropology 121 (1) p67-80

Help inform the masses - contribute to the EvoWiki today!
Contributors needed for the following articles: Pleiotropy-Metabolism-Promoter-Invertebrate-Meiosis-DNA-Transcription-Chromosome-Tetrapod-Fossil-Phenotype-Messenger RNA-Mammals-Appendix -Variation-Selection-Gene-Gametogenesis-Homo erectus and others.
Registration not needed, but if desired, register here!

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by Jon, posted 04-24-2007 10:16 AM Doddy has not replied

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 5 of 12 (397085)
04-24-2007 10:16 AM
Reply to: Message 4 by Doddy
04-24-2007 9:49 AM


Re: Ginger genes
Doddy,
Thank you for your reply. As a noted limitation of my paper, I based much of it off the research of others.
quote:
Dr Harding's research which she is presenting at a conference of the Human Genome Organisation later this week suggests the two species interbred for the ginger gene to survive.
quote:
The two species overlapped for a period of time and the Oxford research appears to suggests that they must have successfully interbred for the 'ginger gene' to survive.
However, that research all seems to support the idea that the gene as found in modern H. sapiens came from Neanderthal-sapiens breeding.
Regards,
Jon
_________________
Kendall, Paul. ””The ginger gene Why Evans may owe his red hair and pale skin to Neanderthal man.’’ 1st ed. Daily Mail London (UK), April 17, 2001. http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?did=71440247&sid=1&Fmt=3&c...
Are Neanderthals Connected With Humans? | Physics Forums (3rd post shows source)
Edited by Jon, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Doddy, posted 04-24-2007 9:49 AM Doddy has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by kuresu, posted 04-24-2007 1:37 PM Jon has replied
 Message 9 by sfs, posted 04-24-2007 2:45 PM Jon has replied

  
kuresu
Member (Idle past 2514 days)
Posts: 2544
From: boulder, colorado
Joined: 03-24-2006


Message 6 of 12 (397119)
04-24-2007 1:37 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by Jon
04-24-2007 10:16 AM


Re: Ginger genes
haven't read the paper yet, but quick question:
as to the ginger gene research you did. did you look what the other side had to say? i sure hope you did. otherwise you're only looking for answers that prove your hypothesis.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Jon, posted 04-24-2007 10:16 AM Jon has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by Jon, posted 04-24-2007 2:17 PM kuresu has not replied

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 7 of 12 (397123)
04-24-2007 2:15 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by Nuggin
04-24-2007 3:31 AM


Re: Multiregionalism and the Great Bottleneck
Nuggin,
I brought up the Wiki article on what you are refering to. According to the article, it is known as the 'Toba Catastrophe Theory' According to that article, the theory says:
quote:
[A] massive volcanic eruption severely reduced the human population ... around 70-75,000 years ago [when] the Toba caldera in Indonesia underwent an eruption of category 8 (or "mega-colossal") on the Volcanic Explosivity Index. ... [reducing] the average global temperature by 5 degrees Celsius for several years and [possibly triggering] an ice age.
[Stanly] Ambrose postulates that this massive environmental change created population bottlenecks in the various species that existed at the time; this in turn accelerated differentiation of the isolated human populations, eventually leading to the extinction of all the other human species except for the two branches that became Neanderthals and modern humans.
The article continues with an addressing of the genetic diversity of other species, saying:
quote:
[that] most recent common ancestors traced via large sets of different genes lived anywhere from 2 million to 60,000 years ago. The complete picture of gene lineages does not support the theory of a human population bottleneck.
As the article concludes, there is little liklihood of this theory being correct, since these much older species show no signs of the bottlenecking postulated with this theory. Furthermore, the claim that:
quote:
...humans once again fanned out from Africa after Toba when the climate and other factors permitted.
... doesn't address the dating problems. According to this graphic:
Map of Human Migrations (from Wikipedia :: Human) H. sapiens were moving out of Africa at least 130 kya, and had populated Australia by at least 60 kya. This source, as you can tell, is pro-'Out of Africa.' In this case, the Toba Catastrophe Theory and 'Out of Africa' Theory seem to disagree.
The Toba Catastrophe Theory doesn't seem to agree with the genetic evidence, nor is it consistent with either of the competing human evolution models. It is perhaps safe to say that the Catastrophe Theory is unsubstantiated, and even irrelivant”at least in regards to the two theories.
Regards,
Jon
__________________
Note to Creos who might want to quote mine me: the word theory is used loosely here, and in my opinion (and perhaps in the opinions of others) is a misrepresentation of this idea, which is really just an hypothesis.
Edited by Jon, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Nuggin, posted 04-24-2007 3:31 AM Nuggin has not replied

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 8 of 12 (397126)
04-24-2007 2:17 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by kuresu
04-24-2007 1:37 PM


Re: Ginger genes
Kuresu,
This is an excellent point to bring up. From all appearances, the source I cited in my paper regarding the ginger gene is pro-'Out of Africa,' as it talks about Neanderthals being a dead-end species (though capable of interbreeding), and claims they died out due to their lack of technological inovativeness.
Regards,
Jon

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by kuresu, posted 04-24-2007 1:37 PM kuresu has not replied

  
sfs
Member (Idle past 2534 days)
Posts: 464
From: Cambridge, MA USA
Joined: 08-27-2003


Message 9 of 12 (397129)
04-24-2007 2:45 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by Jon
04-24-2007 10:16 AM


Re: Ginger genes
There are many problems with your handling of the genetic data in your paper, the most important one being that you ignore most of data. In the case of the ginger gene, you are basing your argument on essentially nothing: you're using a newpaper article as your source, for research that has never been published. Until it's been published, the work has no scientific weight at all. And since the report is six years old and the work is still unpublished, it's a good bet that it never will be.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Jon, posted 04-24-2007 10:16 AM Jon has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by Jon, posted 04-24-2007 5:17 PM sfs has replied

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 10 of 12 (397144)
04-24-2007 5:17 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by sfs
04-24-2007 2:45 PM


Re: Ginger genes
Sfs,
Can you, please, address the actual point? This entire post of yours contains NO information whatsoever relevant to the debate. All you've done is taken a cheap stab at my research technique. Furthermore, if you had bothered looking into the matter in even the least bit, you would've seen that there are many sites that talk about the ginger gene, a deal of which are from universities, etc.; not to mention that the research which came to this conclusion was undertaken at a credible university (Oxford), by an expert in molecular medicine, who just so happens to be pro-'Out of Africa.'
Now, would you like to address the evidence itself, or just retract what you said?
Regards,
Jon

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by sfs, posted 04-24-2007 2:45 PM sfs has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by sfs, posted 04-24-2007 9:48 PM Jon has not replied

  
sfs
Member (Idle past 2534 days)
Posts: 464
From: Cambridge, MA USA
Joined: 08-27-2003


Message 11 of 12 (397190)
04-24-2007 9:48 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by Jon
04-24-2007 5:17 PM


Re: Ginger genes
Jon,
No, I cannot address the point, because without seeing the published study I can't evaluate the work -- I can't tell what the authors did, can't tell how certain they are of their results, and can't see if there are any potential problems with it. That's why any significant research has to be published for other scientists to use it. The fact that the work was done by a good researcher at a good institution tells me nothing particular. The fact that the good researcher hasn't published the work in six years does suggest something, even though it isn't conclusive: the work probably didn't pan out. That's something that happens all the time.
As for your paper as a whole, my main problem with it is that it does not weigh the genetic evidence for and against Out of Africa and come to a conclusion. Instead, it considers a small fraction of the evidence, and only pieces that might reflect badly on an OoA model. I suggested two specific kinds of evidence you'd neglected in a post on a previous thread: first, the overall diversity level of humans (which is low enough to be extremely difficult to reconcile with an evolving multiregional population), and second, the many nuclear loci that show evidence for a genetic origin in Africa (see the Takahata and Satta paper I cited there).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Jon, posted 04-24-2007 5:17 PM Jon has not replied

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5033 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 12 of 12 (400332)
05-12-2007 10:55 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Jon
04-24-2007 3:12 AM


A spatial perspective
John Grehan has released a pre-print copy of paper on Human Spatial Change which he is co-authoring which I have uploaded to
http://aexion.org/product.aspx
/Documents/GrehanMan.doc
The authors were discussing :
quote:
DISCUSSION
Our morphological analysis does not support the widespread molecular assumption that greater molecular similarity is a necessary measure of closer phylogenetic relationship. Our support for the monophyly of humans and orangutans to the exclusion of African apes is corroborated by our support for the monophyly of orangutans, hominids, and various Miocene fossil apes to the exclusion of African apes.
.
I critcize the reasoning somewhat from the perspective of "What would Grandma say" here on EvC while perpendicularizing the diretum of a track(edit to appear momentarily).
EvC Forum: Childhood Memories
.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Jon, posted 04-24-2007 3:12 AM Jon has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024