Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
All living human trace both their maternal and paternal lines to very recent migrations from Africa. "Out of Africa" is what the data support.
First of all, I believe the "out of Africa" theory will probably end up being basically correct.
But here's the problem I have with the "definitiveness" of some of the statements some of you are making. Take any given time in the last 100 years, and you might very well be being definitive about whatever the thinking was at the time. Most of which turned out to be wrong, or at best, only a small part of the puzzle. Several of you are acting as if the "out of Africa" theory -- as it stands today -- is the final word. Book closed. And trust me, it's not. At the very least, the timelines are almost certainly not accurate -- and I say that only because, in the past, our timelines for almost every step in evolution have been wrong.
I was simply correcting the previous poster who claimed that:
"All living human trace both their maternal and paternal lines to very recent migrations from Africa."
Most people living in Africa today do not trace their ancestry to migrations from Africa, thus the divergence between African and non-African populations.
All living human trace both their maternal and paternal lines to very recent migrations from Africa. "Out of Africa" is what the data support.
When humans left Africa, they mated with at least two other hominid species, Neanderthals and Denisovans. The mitochondrial and Y chromosome DNA no longer exists from those days of interbreeding, but the evidence of the introgression occurs in the nuclear DNA of non-Africans.
It's a false statement to say that all humans trace their maternal and paternal ancestry to recent migrations from Africa. At some point after humans left Africa, there were people alive whose parents were Neanderthals or Denisovans.
And yet humans share 98% of the genome with the chimps.
And gorillas and chimps only share 97%.
The chimps are closer to humans than to gorillas.
Please, this does not mean chimps evolved to humans.
With over 90% of human DNA labeled "junk DNA" (read: science has yet to determine what that DNA does, so it ignorantly (or arrogantly ) dismisses it as irrelavent, there is no 98% sharing involved here ...
Fact is, in comparing the small percentage of DNA for which it's purpose and function has been identified (allegedly), there isn't a great deal of difference between a human and an oak tree. Of course, that ought to be a big clue regarding how clueless science is in this area of study, given the rather stark and obvious differences between your mother-in-law and a damn tree. Again, we are asked to believe what we are told rather than analyze what we can clearly see.
It's a false statement to say that all humans trace their maternal and paternal ancestry to recent migrations from Africa.
Actually it isn't, and here is why...
Quote:
At some point after humans left Africa, there were people alive whose parents were Neanderthals or Denisovans.
This is just silly, there ancestors migrated from Africa and their parents were Neanderthals or Denisovans. How did their "parents" become Neanderthals or Denisovans and it process lose all trace of any genetic traces of Homo sapiens sapiens? Especially when you consider that the highest percentage of Neanderthal or Denisovans lineage in any given modern humans is 4% meaning that 96% of the genetic profile is the same as the Out of Africa Population!?!? And let's us further muddy the waters by pointing that Neanderthal genes HAVE been detected in sub-Saharan populations, meaning that in all probability many who left Africa at some point of another returned. Human migration out of Africa wasn't simultaneous or a one-way trip.
You should read about the Human Genome Project, which led to Haplogroup classification of Y-DNA and mitochondrial-DNA. This has establish the common ancestry of all living humans. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup
My last post touched upon that. But to elaborate a bit, I really can't take the findings too seriously when the vast majority of DNA is labeled "junk". Rather than the DNA being junk, methinks the science is.
The biggest problem here comes into play when one accepts an unproven and seriously flawed baseline assumption (common ancestry of ALL living things), only to then apply that same formula to an individual species, conflating similarity with common ancestry.
We could apply that same level of reasoning to declare that an automobile and an airplane share so many similarities that they too must share a common ancestor. They both are constructed of many of the same materials, both have wheels and tires, engines, windshields, cockpits, passenger compartments ... and look, see, if you open both doors of the car, they do appear to be similar to the wings of the more evolved airplane. Viola, there is the evidence.
Now we know how absurd that really is, right, ? Or do we? I mean, if you believe that a bacteria can, through countless mutations, evolve into a wall street stock broker, then I don't believe we can take anything off the table.
This is just silly, there ancestors migrated from Africa and their parents were Neanderthals or Denisovans. How did their "parents" become Neanderthals or Denisovans and it process lose all trace of any genetic traces of Homo sapiens sapiens? Especially when you consider that the highest percentage of Neanderthal or Denisovans lineage in any given modern humans is 4% meaning that 96% of the genetic profile is the same as the Out of Africa Population!?!? And let's us further muddy the waters by pointing that Neanderthal genes HAVE been detected in sub-Saharan populations, meaning that in all probability many who left Africa at some point of another returned. Human migration out of Africa wasn't simultaneous or a one-way trip.
Not very long ago, evolution science claimed neanderthal was the intermediate to modern humans, until coexistence was proven. So was born the "Island Theory" to address that pesky inconvenience. You see, it was postulated that one group of neanderthals migrated and later evolved into modern humans, while another group of neanderthals remained isolated somehow, from these evolutionary processes, avoiding such changes. Later still, the evolved neanderthals, now modern humans, returned to their ancestral origins, meeting back up with their un-evolved neanderthal ancestors!
This is just silly, there ancestors migrated from Africa and their parents were Neanderthals or Denisovans. How did their "parents" become Neanderthals or Denisovans and it process lose all trace of any genetic traces of Homo sapiens sapiens? Especially when you consider that the highest percentage of Neanderthal or Denisovans lineage in any given modern humans is 4% meaning that 96% of the genetic profile is the same as the Out of Africa Population!?!? And let's us further muddy the waters by pointing that Neanderthal genes HAVE been detected in sub-Saharan populations, meaning that in all probability many who left Africa at some point of another returned. Human migration out of Africa wasn't simultaneous or a one-way trip.
You aren't really clear about what point you are trying to make, so I'm unsure about what you understand and what you don't. What is it that you find to be silly? That homo sapiens interbred with Neanderthals?
Yes, modern non-Africans are only about 1-4 percent Neanderthal. But it would be better stated that non-Africans have 1-4 percent of their genes which are uniquely Neanderthal. Since Neanderthals were a sister species, they shared most of their genes in common with homo sapiens. The majority of genes gained from a pairing with Neanderthals were no different than the genes homo sapiens already carried.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
