New Type of Ancient Human Found—Descendants Live Today?

No; it didn't. The key to MH is that it supposes the regional populations remained genetically linked to one another and so evolved as something of a single 'world population'. If so, we should find some regional genetic links between past homo varieties and modern h. sapiens native to those same regions.That is why this finding adds support to MH, since it shows that past and present homo varieties were not only capable of breeding, but did breed. The one-off African origin (of h. sapiens) proposed by OOA is simply not adequate for explaining this continuation of regional variations into present human linesat least some aspects of modern humanity must have evolved outside of Africa prior to 50-60 kya.JonEdited by Jon, : Clarifications

---

Check out No webpage found at provided URL: Apollo's Temple!
Ignorance is temporary; you should be able to overcome it. - nwr

The replacement model is simply not accurate. This finding supports the notion that h. sapiens mixed with the earlier populations rather than merely replaced them. This is something predicted by MH; OOA proponents, on the other hand, have not been able to make these predictions, and have resorted to constant alterations of their model to explain new and contradictory evidencein similar fashion to the epicycles of geocentrism.JonEdited by Jon, : clarity

---

Check out No webpage found at provided URL: Apollo's Temple!
Ignorance is temporary; you should be able to overcome it. - nwr

That seems to be a pretty reasonable summary, yes. There are other things that I'd argue to be true about the relation of h. sapiens to critters like erectus and such, but I don't believe those things to be a necessary part of the usual MH description.Jon

---

Check out No webpage found at provided URL: Apollo's Temple!
Ignorance is temporary; you should be able to overcome it. - nwr

I agree; that's one of the parts I found a little problematic in the summary. However, I think the problems I find with this point stem from reading it a little too narrowly. I'd say most likely a majority of the genetic material contributing to h. sapiens evolved in Africa and spread from there. This seems reasonable as Africa would have had a high concentration of pre-sapiens.And, obviously, if MH supposes a continuity between past erectus and modern sapiens populations, all humans could not derive from the species erectus that left Africa; modern Africans would clearly derive, physically, from the species that stayed in Africa. Yes; this doesn't contradict the MH model, though. Not at all. We know that evolution does not stop simply because a population becomes spread out geographically; we also know that major genetic mutations can spread over vast geographical distances. Supposing that both of these happened in the move from erectus to sapiens isn't an appeal to magic; it's simply reasonable hypothesizing based on what we know of evolution and the human propensity to attempt coitus with anything that moves. Both hypotheses suppose a single origin of 'modern' humanity; where they differ (at least in terms of their classifications) is in where they put that cutoff for 'modern'. As far as MH is concerned, erectus and sapiens (and any middlemen you can throw in there) are members of the same species.JonEdited by Jon, : No reason given.

---

Check out No webpage found at provided URL: Apollo's Temple!
Ignorance is temporary; you should be able to overcome it. - nwr

I think we're talking about different things here. At least, as far as I know, MH isn't overly concerned with the issue of local genetic diversity vs. species-wide genetic diversity. In fact, MH accepts the data that point to various origins and movements of genetic material; the issue is in making the leap from 'the genes started here and spread' to 'the people started here and spread'. What validates that leap? Prior to these discoveries there wasn't anything in OOA that made any statements regarding interbreeding. OOA, like any hypothesis, certainly can change as new evidence comes to light, and it does just that; MH, however, has predicted evidence of interbreeding as part of its very framework. An hypothesis that can make predictions is a stronger hypothesis than one which cannot. MH is of the former variety; OOA appears to be of the latter. Again, we must ask ourselves what authorizes us to make the leap from genetic flow to population flow. I have agreed (and so does MH, as far as I'm aware) that the majority of the genetic material making up present sapiens originated in Africa. But, this is only a model of gene flow; it doesn't address (validly, at least) the issues of the actual movements of individuals.JonEdited by Jon, : No reason given.

---

Check out No webpage found at provided URL: Apollo's Temple!
Ignorance is temporary; you should be able to overcome it. - nwr

I speak English, but I'm not from England. I don't think that is accurate. It is the domination of the African genetic signatures that gave rise OOA. It is a little disingenuous to say that such distribution of genetic information is part of a 'prediction' of OOA. But even so, it could only validate the genetic aspects of OOA. I don't see this as a prediction of MH at all, at least not in genetic terms. Again, there is no one attempting to disagree with the current model for the origins of the traits. Of course you can. Genetic information can move to certain places without the originators of that information moving to those places. Imagine three linearly-distributed neighboring populations that interbreed with each other on their peripheries. Do you believe a person from population A really has to move through two other populations for his genetic information to end up in population C? I think the problem is that the model that the genetic evidence actually supports is of a different phenomenon than the model dealt with in MH. There really needn't be any conflict between the different types of evidence; together they show us a reality of the development of genetic information and the populations that carried it.Jon

---

Check out No webpage found at provided URL: Apollo's Temple!
Ignorance is temporary; you should be able to overcome it. - nwr

This statement continues to be made, but I still don't see any evidence offered that would prove a certain amount of genetic flow must necessarily indicate an equal amount of population flow. I am well aware of its status in the scientific community. But that is not relevant to the accuracy of the model. Agreed. The mechanisms of transfer are different, but the models of transfer are more or less similar. In either case, genetic origin doesn't necessarily indicate a physical origin. The difference is between Mr. Smith's tribe going from A to C and Mr. Smith's tribe's genes going from A to C. The difference is in the population movements; the genetic movements probably aren't too affected. But how does that help OOA? But how does that help OOA? OOA supposes a very specific type of replacement, not just a kind of 'gene replacement'. If all we have is gene replacement, then OOA is essentially refuted as a model of population movements. And, of course, I've never disagreed that the majority of the sapiens genes originated in Africa.Jon

---

Check out No webpage found at provided URL: Apollo's Temple!
Ignorance is temporary; you should be able to overcome it. - nwr

Genetically speaking, modern sapiens are of African origin. I do not wish to dispute this. The issue is concluding physical origin on the basis of genetic origin. This is a conclusion I do not find overly validated by the information available.Jon

---

Check out No webpage found at provided URL: Apollo's Temple!
Ignorance is temporary; you should be able to overcome it. - nwr

Of course not. How could it possibly be? They may have the same effect, but they are not the same thing. OOA makes specific claims about population movements; these claims cannot be supported by the current evidence. Here is Wikipedia on OOA:

quote:

---

Wikipedia on Out of Africa:

​

Some 70 millennia ago, a part of the bearers of mitochondrial haplogroup L3 migrated from East Africa into the Near East.

​

Some scientists believe that only a few people left Africa in a single migration that went on to populate the rest of the world,[32] based in the fact that only descents of L3 are found outside Africa.
...

​

From the Near East, these populations spread east to South Asia by 50,000 years ago, and on to Australia by 40,000 years ago, Homo sapiens for the first time colonizing territory never reached by Homo erectus. Europe was reached by Cro-Magnon some 40,000 years ago. East Asia (Korea, Japan) was reached by 30,000 years ago. It is disputed whether subsequent migration to North America took place around 30,000 years ago, or only considerably later, around 14,000 years ago.

---

A key part of OOA is claims about population movementsmovements of actual people, not just their genes. You cannot brush this off as an inessential part of the OOA model; if you do, you've nothing but the model for gene flow, which is entirely consistent with the MH model of populations.Do you believe OOA makes no claims about movements of actual people?Jon

---

Check out No webpage found at provided URL: Apollo's Temple!
Ignorance is temporary; you should be able to overcome it. - nwr

This is not what OOA claims, and not what I mean when I say 'population flow'. As the Wikipedia article I linked you to phrases is, OOA makes claims about 'migration'; this is the kind of thing I am talking about with 'population flow'. Genetic swamping alone is simply not the claims made by OOA. In as much as I am interpreting that statement with the meaning I believe you intended, I don't agree with any of it. What I disagree with is the claim that for genetic information from group A to get to population X a thousand miles away that some members of A must have traveled all the way to X and mated with some of X's members. This is one way for the genetic information to travel, but it is not the only way, and so reconstructing a pattern of genetic movement should not lead us to believe we are also reconstructing a pattern of actual people movement. A statement you've yet to support with any evidence. 'Fraid not. So long as the populations are connected on their peripheries, then there is no reason that any members of them should have to move more than what they would in their day-to-day lives for A-genes to get into C-population. There are more than two options.Jon

---

Check out No webpage found at provided URL: Apollo's Temple!
Ignorance is temporary; you should be able to overcome it. - nwr

I gave an example already, but allow me to elaborate:Genetic information can flow from population A to population C (through B) even if none of the members (or their offspring) make a trip from A to C. If A's members are breeding with B's on the peripheries (where their populations meet/overlap), then A-genes get mixed with B-genes such that the peripheries contain an AB hybrid. Anyone breeding with these hybrids also takes on hybrid genes, this means any more internalized B-members who breed with some of the hybrid peripheral members. This process continues until there are members now on the B-C frontier who are AB hybrids, at which point these hybrids breed with peripheral Cs to create an ABC hybrid. The same process moves B's genes to A, C's to B, etc. without anyone having to journey any further than the house next door.But this is not the sort of migration OOA supposes; if we reduce the OOA population movement statements to what I've laid out above, then we really no longer have the OOA model as currently proposed by mainstream science, we've just got MH, albeit with a flair.Jon

---

Check out No webpage found at provided URL: Apollo's Temple!
Ignorance is temporary; you should be able to overcome it. - nwr

Combining replies to Message 29 & Message 30: Indeed, but OOA still uses a migration model to explain the spread of sapiens. This means daddy and mommy set out on an adventure, have kids along the way, die, and let the kids continue the adventure. Notice the reference to numbers of people who left Africa in the Wikipedia article I linked. OOA is not just about gene flow between neighboring populations; it is about the migration of a new species, fully sapiens, from some point of origin outward to other places. The number of generations doesn't change the model; it just changes the timescale. I'm not sure I understand the question. Perhaps if we are defining the physical in terms of the genetic, then a separation would be impossible. Generally, though, genetic information can travel without a corresponding travel of the originating body.Jon

---

Check out No webpage found at provided URL: Apollo's Temple!
Ignorance is temporary; you should be able to overcome it. - nwr

How is it a migration model? What's migrating?Jon

---

Check out No webpage found at provided URL: Apollo's Temple!
Ignorance is temporary; you should be able to overcome it. - nwr

Replies to Message 35 & Message 36: Yes; people must travel. The issue is how far they travel and the kind of travel they do. I already explained one possible scenario.

quote:

---

Jon in Message 32:

​

Genetic information can flow from population A to population C (through B) even if none of the members (or their offspring) make a trip from A to C. If A's members are breeding with B's on the peripheries (where their populations meet/overlap), then A-genes get mixed with B-genes such that the peripheries contain an AB hybrid. Anyone breeding with these hybrids also takes on hybrid genes, this means any more internalized B-members who breed with some of the hybrid peripheral members. This process continues until there are members now on the B-C frontier who are AB hybrids, at which point these hybrids breed with peripheral Cs to create an ABC hybrid. The same process moves B's genes to A, C's to B, etc. without anyone having to journey any further than the house next door.

---

Again, the issue is the type of movement. Yes, only your descendants can carry your genes to a new location, but this doesn't mean any of them must travel further than they otherwise would in the course of their regular lives. Of course it can. Africa being the origin of pre-sapiens (who, of course, did migrate) and the location of the greatest population density, we would naturally expect Africans to make the highest contribution to the world-wide population gene pool. It would be ridiculous to expect less dense, peripheral populations to contribute an equal amount of genetic material to the world population (which includes themselves) as the denser, central populations. I guess it depends on how you define an 'African'. This is most likely the type of network that existed. Remember, these folk were mostly nomadic hunter-gatherers. The space needed to live and the distances covered on daily excursions was likely large. What is more, this model is to be expected given the supposed patterns of dispersal from Africa of earlier pre-sapiens. What sort of isolation are you talking about? There's little need to get personal. There were clearly folk moving back and forth between various geographical locationsit was part of how they survived; the super exodus proposed by OOA, however, is just not one of the type of movements likely to have taken place. Even the gradual expansion that characterized the first wave of movements out of Africa is unlikely, as the areas to be moved into were already populated and we've no evidence, as far as I'm aware, of sapiens and pre-sapiens existing simultaneously in serious geographical proximity.Happy New Year!Jon

---

Check out No webpage found at provided URL: Apollo's Temple!
Ignorance is temporary; you should be able to overcome it. - nwr

Okay. That explains the 'what'. And the 'how'?Happy New Year!JonEdited by Jon, : Awaiting reason...

---

Check out No webpage found at provided URL: Apollo's Temple!
Ignorance is temporary; you should be able to overcome it. - nwr