New Type of Ancient Human Found—Descendants Live Today?

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

Hi, Jon. I would argue that it does contradict the MH model.The multiregional model focuses on local sources of genetic diversity, while the available DNA evidence indicates a very minor role for local sources in human genetic diversity.Since nobody expects either hypothesis to be the absolute truth of the matter, it would be unscrupulous to afford out-of-Africa no error in the amount of interbreeding that may have occurred. So, OOA should not be treated as denying that any interbreeding took place.The proper way to evaluate competing hypotheses is to determine which is closer to the truth. Since DNA from African populations is overwhelmingly the majority of modern H. sapiens DNA in nearly all modern populations, and local sources of genetic diversity are rare; then, rather than argue for the success of the MH model---which is only required to explain a tiny portion of the data, while being totally superfluous to nearly all of it---it would seem appropriate to grant victory to the out-of-Africa side, while acknowledging the few exceptions with footnotes.Likewise, if it was discovered that God actually created millipedes, but everything else evolved, then the divine origin of millipedes would just be a footnote in a textbook that otherwise discusses only the Theory of Evolution.

---

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)Darwin loves you.

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

Hi, Jon. What's the difference, exactly?How do genes move without the people that carry them?----- The out-of-Africa hypothesis also makes predictions. It predicts that human gene pools across the planet will be dominated by genetic signatures from African lineages.So, to compare the predictions:MH predicted a variety of regional populations of humans with diverse origins. We see a little bit of that.
OOA predicted predominance of African genetic lines in populations around the globe. We see a whole frickin' lot of that.Furthermore, MH predicted that the traits that are common across all populations would be traits that are useful in all environments. I have no idea what the status of this prediction is.Meanwhile, OOA predicted that the traits that are common across all populations would be traits that arose in Africa. This prediction is upheld very strongly by the genetic evidence.So, how does OOA not win the prediction game?----- You can't have genetic flow without population flow.How could a population whose gene pool is 95% of African origin not be an "out-of-Africa" population? Those African genes had to have come from an African population. Whether the "genetic takeover" involved killing off the locals or simply swamping their genes out through interbreeding, the population is still an "out-of-Africa" population.

---

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)Darwin loves you.

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

Hi, Jon. This is wrong. Modern refinements of the theory can be traced to the information gathered from population genetics studies in the last two decades, but the idea that H. sapiens originated in Africa and migrated out from there is many decades older than that, and it has been essentially the consensus view for most of that time.----- What does this have to do with anything?Language is not strictly hereditary. Genetics are. If your parents are genetically English (let's pretend that's possible for now), then you are also genetically English. If you are born to parents who are H. sapiens, then you are also H. sapiens, regardless of whether or not there used to be H. erectus in your population.----- What is the difference?At some point, some African, or somebody with African genes, has to leave Africa in order to get African genes into Asian gene pools. Surely this is not controversial.And, at some point, the H. sapiens in a population have to outnumber the H. erectus in the same population in order for the population's gene pool to be dominated by H. sapiens genes. Surely this is also not controversial.And, at some point, the H. erectus in a population have to go extinct and be replaced by H. sapiens in order for the population to become entirely H. sapiens. Surely this is also not controversial.Whether by conquering, by outcompeting, or by outbreeding, H. sapiens replaced H. erectus in Asian gene pools. Replacement is replacement. And replacement is the out-of-Africa hypothesis.

---

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)Darwin loves you.

And genetically?Please refer to Human Y-chromosome DNA haplogroup - WikipediaAlso, please feel free to follow the whole story through all haplotypes.Mine (or at least my first cousin's), for example is R1b1b2a1c.From the Wiki article:

quote:

---

Y-chromosomal Adam is the name given by researchers to a theoretical male who is the most recent common patrilineal (male-lineage) ancestor of all living humans.

---

Please elaborate on what the Multiregional Hypothesis means to you as I am concerned we may be talking past each other. For example, humans have sequences from viruses incorporated into their DNA due to genetic transfer, therefore it is no surprise to me that there is a slight bit of Neanderthal DNA showing up as well, likely from a bit of genetic transfer from a little more than getting Neanderthal flu.However both the Y-Chromosome and the Mitochondrial evidence indicates the Out of Africa hypothesis is not only likely but also close to irrefutable, as per my definition of the term. Otherwise we would see multiregional sources of both mitochondrial and Y DNA.Perhaps you are working with different definitions than the ones I am working with, as per Omni's previous post and my previous readings.

---

The idea of the sacred is quite simply one of the most conservative notions in any culture, because it seeks to turn other ideas - uncertainty, progress, change - into crimes.
Salman RushdieThis rudderless world is not shaped by vague metaphysical forces. It is not God who kills the children. Not fate that butchers them or destiny that feeds them to the dogs. It’s us. Only us. - the character Rorschach in Watchmen

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

Hi, Jon. What else could it possibly indicate?If population A and B interbreed, and population B eventually becomes saturated with immigrant genotypes from A, such that the genetic signature of B is essentially extinct, isn't this the same thing as population A "flowing" into the region occupied by population B and taking over?This is the scenario the population genetics evidence is showing us: takeover by H. sapiens, with the possibility that some H. erectus integrated and interbred with the immigrants.How is this not "population flow"?----- Well, you're right of course. But, neither is your comment relevant to my claim that elephants can be trained to play mancala.I mentioned the status of the model to point out that OOA did indeed predict the discoveries of population genetics, rather than simply emerge as a result of them.To that point---and only that point---it is extremely relevant. I don't see why it should have to be relevant to any other point we were discussing.----- Nonsense. There is no evolutionary significance to distinguishing between migratory and reproductive replacement: both still result in population replacement, and both likely contributed to the final result to some extent.OOA is a population model, not an individual model. It doesn't talk about what happens to individuals, but only to populations. It is equally compatible with conquest, disease, ecological competition and saturating gene pools. In fact, I think its likely that every proponent of OOA thinks all four of these mechanisms were probably involved in the H. sapiens takeover to some extent. I find it equally likely that very few researchers think only one of these mechanisms accounts for the takeover entirely by itself, and that very few researchers would be willing to state the any one of these mechanisms did not play a role.If we find a handful of populations in which interbreeding occurred, and in which some H. erectus genetic signatures remain to the present, this is equally devastating to OOA as the discovery of a H. erectus tribe that was murdered by a H. sapiens tribe is to MH---that is to say, not at all.Conquerors rape and lovers murder. We shouldn't be surprised to see a little of either happening when the other is the dominant trend, nor should we discredit the dominant trend just because we see a little bit of the subordinate trend alongside it.

---

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)Darwin loves you.

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

Hi, Jon. Because population A used to only inhabit one location. Now, after swamping out population B, it inhabits two locations.If that's not "population flow," what is?----- Jon, any time a gene moves from one population to another, it's because an actual person moved.Do you disagree with any part of that?----- You're not making any sense, Jon!Movement of genes requires movement of people.It does not require any individual person to walk from population A to population C.It does however, at the very least, require somebody of population-A origin to move from population A to population B, and somebody of population-A origin to subsequently move from population B to population C.This is what the out-of-Africa hypothesis is: a gradual migration of people from Africa into and across Asia over several generations, interacting with and replacing whatever populations of H. erectus they encountered.Now, replacement of population B by population A requires something more. It either requires immigrants from A to outnumber natives from B, or requires that all of A's genes are superior to all of B's, such that natural selection causes A's genes to be the only ones that survive. That second option is obviously farfetched, so let's just assume that the first is correct. What the new data shows is that the replacement of former types of humans by modern humans proposed by OOA was imperfect in one case. And, by "imperfect," I mean, "individuals in one population retain 5% of the pre-sapiens gene pool."So, instead of "all humans are descended entirely from African sources," we have, "all humans are descended entirely from African sources, with the exception of a few traces of Neanderthal and Denisovan sprinkled in."I don't see that as a major change to the theory.

---

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)Darwin loves you.

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

How can physical origin be separated from genetic origin? Are the genes not part of the body, or indeed, the instruction set for the body?I am still confused as to what the Multiregional Hypothesis means to you.

---

The idea of the sacred is quite simply one of the most conservative notions in any culture, because it seeks to turn other ideas - uncertainty, progress, change - into crimes.
Salman RushdieThis rudderless world is not shaped by vague metaphysical forces. It is not God who kills the children. Not fate that butchers them or destiny that feeds them to the dogs. It’s us. Only us. - the character Rorschach in Watchmen

Is this what the MH is about to you?Obviously genetic replacement does not depend upon some individual or group traveling some 12k miles from Egypt to Siberia to replace the genome of some hominid outlier within one generation. It would take hundreds of generations along with an entire population, kind of like geologic or astronomic processes require a longer timescale than most are familiar with in their daily life.Sign me still confused as to what you mean.Edited by anglagard, : clarity

---

The idea of the sacred is quite simply one of the most conservative notions in any culture, because it seeks to turn other ideas - uncertainty, progress, change - into crimes.
Salman RushdieThis rudderless world is not shaped by vague metaphysical forces. It is not God who kills the children. Not fate that butchers them or destiny that feeds them to the dogs. It’s us. Only us. - the character Rorschach in Watchmen