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.
Think about this. You could walk down the streets 20 years ago in Los Angeles and take a few hundred DNA samples and you would determine that Los angeles was Caucasian with a little African thrown in. Today a mere 20 years later it would show that Los Angeles is mainly Latin with a little African and Caucasian thrown in. So who would you determine are the Californians? Latins or Caucasians. The answer depends on the time and place.
What the data you provided seems to say to me is that Caucasians most probably originated from Africa.
It is not really likely that people tried to reenter africa from Europe. People in general protect what they have and people they dont know are invaders and are generally treated as such. People looking for a better life would go to where no one lives. If the leaders of the culture were of a specific race it is most likely that they are the original peoples.
And like I said: consistency of results over dozens or tests from different samples, with no opposing results. It paints a very clear picture.
There are no absolute "facts" in science, only some measurement +/- some level of error. True, many of the studies quoted have small sample sizes, thus, large error ranges, reducing our confidence in any single study, but, as Cachi- suggests, the large number of studies with similar conclusions increases our confidence in the concept.
Another aspect to consider is that "migration" in prehistoric times should not be confused with an "Oregon
Trail- pack up everything and invade a new territory 2000 miles away" paradigm, but more an expansion of territorial boundaries by a growing population. Back-migration would be common when it meant marrying the girl you left behind last year on the other side of the river, and less common the further away your clan got from its origin 2 centuries earlier. It was a continuum back in the day when travel was only by way of the Ten Toe Express.
Also consider that "slavery" is a way of life that helped H. sapiens survive. We originated as small clans competing for hunting grounds and commonly took hostages, helping to increase the gene pool of individual clans. That story is perpetuated by all the grad B western movies where female pioneers were kidnapped by the Indians. The flow of genes would be forward and backward as the clans clashed at their frontiers.
Dont get me wrong. I dont necessary think is impossible. Just unlikely. Have you ever been to Egypt?
It makes little sense that anyone would want to cross the Eastern Desert or the Sinai. It is highly inhospitable and even today you would probably die before you made it. It wasent untill the advent of the horse. That it became feasible to cross. And when the horse did come, the Assyrians made good use of it and crossed the desert and took over Egypt. There was much more welcoming places to the north and east and people being people will go for the lush green instead of the desert brown. Wouldnt you?
Anyhow Ive traveled all the way down the Nile from lake Tana to the delta. There are much more hospitable places to set up agriculture than anywhere in Egypt. The Ethiopian Highlands for one. And being that people have always found that going down stream sure beats going upstream so it is much more likely that the farmers of Egypt came down from the south instead of crossing the deadly desert. At least until the horse came along.
Presence of Caucasian DNA in Ancient Egyptians could mean only a couple of things. Either Caucasians evolved in Africa and all europeans are decedent from them (makes sense) or the DNA tests involved mainly Nobility who found the trickle of Caucasian women who did arrive from the north appealing and had kids with them.
I thought it was concluded (already) that ALL LIFE began in Africa.........
Oh well!
All life?
No, the current, and extremely well supported theory, that proto-human hominids and the species Homo sapiens originated in Africa is widely accepted, but all life on earth? No.
The earliest fossil organisms discovered, about 4 billion years old, have been found in what is now northern Quebec.
This is literally several billions of years before the first fish swam around, much less a lizard scurried, and way before the first furry little rodent appeared, much less a primate, much less a hominid, much less a dude named George.
No, the current, and extremely well supported theory, that proto-human hominids and the species Homo sapiens originated in Africa is widely accepted, but all life on earth? No.
The earliest fossil organisms discovered, about 4 billion years old, have been found in what is now northern Quebec.
This is literally several billions of years before the first fish swam around, much less a lizard scurried, and way before the first furry little rodent appeared, much less a primate, much less a hominid, much less a dude named George.
No dear. The supported theory is that ALL LIFE began in Africa. Africa being the "cradle of civilization." Mind you, I wrote no theses, papers, did any research, I am not in any field of Egyptology, I am not an archeologist. I just read and have read what leading authorities have concluded.
I won't do the research for you ~ you'll need to do that on your own.
Nothing in this study is that surprising honestly. Genetic studies of modern Egyptians have found that much of the Sub-Saharan African ancestry is from West Africa, and can clearly be dated to the Muslim era, meaning it's a result of the Islamic slave trade.
That said, there should be a few caveats:
1. These results are from the New Kingdom and afterward. There may have been shifts in ancestry from the Predynastic period to the New Kingdom. I think this is unlikely to have had a major effect, but I do think it's possible.
2. All of the samples are from Lower Egypt (e.g., the north of the country, closer to the Mediterranean). It may well be that SSA admixture was higher in ancient Egypt the further south you got.
3. Ancient DNA has found that shifts towards the modern West Eurasian phenotype happened slowly over time. For example, Mesolithic Western Europeans actually had dark brown skin, dark hair, and blue eyes. The samples tested in this particular case seem to have a similar skin color to Bronze age Phoenicians recently studied - swarthier than modern Europeans, but not dark brown. Since there seems to have been genetic selection towards lighter skin across much of Europe and the Middle East, as you travel back further in time it may well have been the case that even though ancient Egyptians weren't "black" by ancestry, they might have been pretty "black" in terms of skin color.
Quote:
Originally Posted by caribny
Quite true. Egypt was a kaleidoscope of peoples as diverse as what one will see in today's Egypt. Evidence of this is in the art work that can be found.
This. I don't get why people just can't accept the research that has been done over and over again. I guess if it doesn't fall in line with their belief then it must be false or "white-washing" history.
The supported theory is that ALL LIFE began in Africa. Africa being the "cradle of civilization." Mind you, I wrote no theses, papers, did any research, I am not in any field of Egyptology, I am not an archeologist. I just read and have read what leading authorities have concluded.
I won't do the research for you ~ you'll need to do that on your own.
Bless your heart. I think you are confused as to the definition of "life". Humans are not the only form of life on earth. The scholarship points to Africa as the cradle of human life, not all life.
And civilization is a human invention that arose ~10,000 years ago, about 190,000 years after the emergence of Homo sapiens and ~4.5 million years after the first verifiable hominid species appeared in Africa. Civilization has no more do with the emergence of humans than the invention of the internet. Humans were around for hundreds of thousands of years before either.
Here is some recent research for you on the research into the earliest life on earth: Stalks of iron-rich minerals, each a fraction the size of an eyelash, may be evidence of the earliest life-forms to inhabit the newborn planet Earth. The tiny hematite tubes are as much as 4.28 billion years old, according to the scientists announcing the find, and they are stunningly similar to structures produced by microbes living around undersea hydrothermal vents.
Discovered in slices of rock recovered from northern Quebec, the microscopic metallic detritus—plus chemical signatures associated with ancient metabolisms—could push back the date at which life arose on Earth. If verified, these fossils would surpass 3.7-billion-year-old microbial mats found in Greenland as the oldest known traces of life.
Bless your heart. I think you are confused as to the definition of "life". Humans are not the only form of life on earth. The scholarship points to Africa as the cradle of human life, not all life.
And civilization is a human invention that arose ~10,000 years ago, about 190,000 years after the emergence of Homo sapiens and ~4.5 million years after the first verifiable hominid species appeared in Africa. Civilization has no more do with the emergence of humans than the invention of the internet. Humans were around for hundreds of thousands of years before either.
Here is some recent research for you on the research into the earliest life on earth: Stalks of iron-rich minerals, each a fraction the size of an eyelash, may be evidence of the earliest life-forms to inhabit the newborn planet Earth. The tiny hematite tubes are as much as 4.28 billion years old, according to the scientists announcing the find, and they are stunningly similar to structures produced by microbes living around undersea hydrothermal vents.
Discovered in slices of rock recovered from northern Quebec, the microscopic metallic detritus—plus chemical signatures associated with ancient metabolisms—could push back the date at which life arose on Earth. If verified, these fossils would surpass 3.7-billion-year-old microbial mats found in Greenland as the oldest known traces of life.
Again, the subject matter being discussed here is humans. So why would I contribute anything herein that would not speak to that? ALL HUMAN LIFE BEGAN IN AFRICA.
"....The first genetic evidence consistent with the OoA model was provided by the study of mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) phylogenetic trees, which identified Africa as the source of human mtDNA gene pool.11,16–18 It was shown that all mtDNA haplogroups outside of Africa can be attributed to either the M or N haplogroups, which arose around 60–65 kya in South Asia19 and are thought to descend from the L3 haplogroup postulated to have arisen in East Africa around 80 kya.20 This was supported by further studies of mtDNA,21–23 Y chromosome,24–26 and autosomal regions27–30 that suggested the existence of a common African ancestor. More recently, multilocus studies of genome-wide data have demonstrated that genetic diversity decreases as a function of geographic distance from East or South Africa, for example, as shown by an approximately linear decrease in heterozygosity and increase in linkage disequilibrium (LD),31,32 a finding consistent with the OoA model.
Several further replacement models exist, which differ in their emphasis. Harding and McVean, for example,33 proposed a more complex meta-population system for the origins of the first AMH. The authors highlight evidence suggesting that the ancestral African population from which modern humans arose was genetically structured,34–37 so that extant populations at the time contributed unequally to the gene pool of individuals migrating out of the continent.33,38 The effects of ancient population structure on patterns of modern day genetic variation have also been suggested in several more recent papers,39–41 which assess the impact of ancient hybridization on modern day genetic diversity through modeling and data-driven analyses. In addition to genetic studies, structure in the ancestral African population has also been supported through archeological and palaeoenvironmental models.42,4"
Since I am not a scholar in any shape form or fashion in this regard, we will have to agree to disagree. I will stand by my conclusion until enough supported evidence points otherwise. For now, the overwhelming belief (theory) is that all human life began in Africa.
Bye.....I won't engage you further on this topic because it's not up for discussion on what "I" believe.
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.
