Evidence Challenges the Out of Africa Theory of Evolution

Scientists are making discoveries which pre-date the supposed migration date out of Africa some 60,000 years ago. This is not my realm of expertise so I'll leave it in the hands of ATS to disect.

A closer look at the genetics also suggests there was an earlier migration. Recently, Katerina Harvati of the University of Tubingen in Germany and her colleagues tested the classic "out of Africa at 60,000 years ago" story against the earlier-exodus idea. They plugged the genomes of indigenous populations from south-east Asia into a migration model. They found that the genetic data was best explained by an early exodus that left Africa around 130,000 years ago, taking a coastal route along the Arabian peninsula, India and into Australia, followed by a later wave along the classic route (PNAS, doi.org/tz6).

I find this interesting. While there still seems to be a consensus that Homo-Sapiens originated in and migrated from Africa, this new information is making scientists change timelines.

io9.com...

I think the headline/thread title is a little misleading. It doesn't challenge OOA as much as it simply supplies additional evidence for the multiple migrations of anatomically modern humans leaving Africa separately. H. Erectus for example has definitively been shown to be in the Caucuses region, specifically what is now Georgia, at least 1.8 MYA. Neanderthal and our newest family member Denisovans, likewise left several hundred thousand years ago or evolved from the existing Erectus populations and there have been waves of modern humans leaving Africa for approximately 200,000 years. We have been rather ingenious world travelers for a very, very long time.

I believe there was three very distinct out of Africa timelines...

One is very pronounce with the advance tools they had that further out of Africa migration did not have. Also there are like three very distinct races that make up what we are today.

a reply to: Xtrozero

Not only that but genetic evidence seems to indicate that there is also an as yet undiscovered hominid race that had its origin in Africa as well. This came about after DNA analysis of the Georgian Erectus skulls dated to 1.8 MYA. And considering that Denisovans were only discovered in the last few years I won't be shocked to find a couple more surprises lurking in the branches of out family tree.

a reply to: lostbook

All of these models are wrong. Because they are "religious" by definition, and try to make the Adam and Eve concept stick. It doesn't stick.

First of all, Africa is not the center of anything. Any "explotion" theory of evolution, would have an epic center ... Africa is not an epic center, migration from it is ... a no brainer. Secondly, mitocondria having the largest diversity in Africa, does not fit natural selection theory. Cro-Magnon and Neanderthal had to give way for the Human species. Natural selection taking it's course, ruling out the oldest ... which means, even the female gene would also be selected out, just as the male one. Thus, Africa is most likely the "youngest" continent, and not the oldest. When migration is concerned. It also makes no sense, at all ... that the oldest continent, has the least evolved population ...

That, just don't compute.

So, out of africa ... is like plate tectonics theory. It's a religious mumbo jumbo.

A much more likely theory, would be that the human race is not from a single source, but from many sources and that there is no one adam and eve. This would fit the wars, and conflicts, because the many different species are fighting for dominance. It would also fit the different languages, which are in reality explained by different evolution of vocals, and hearing. And the genetic common denominator, comes from "raping" done by the victors ... which in previous history, would probably have been quite beastly.

a reply to: lostbook

Fascinating stuff, though it doesn't really refute OOA models as much as further the possible understanding of it IMO. This seems consistent with migration of modern humans into Australia, which could have began possibly up to 75k yrs ago with later migration at around 40k yrs ago. Could explain the cultural mythology of the Aboroginals, that there was already another race in Australia when they arrived. At any rate, there is a lot to be discovered regarding the subject.

This one is still fascinating.

I find the ideas put forward here and here quite fascinating also, which afaik not only conflicts with the current model but offers the possibilty that the Orang-utan, rather than the Chimp gives us our closest evolutionary relationship. Though obviously not accepted by most scientists as the claims have other possibly more realistic explanations (some discussion here), it is good that people are actually exploring and looking outside of the box, IMO.

originally posted by: bjarneorn
a reply to: lostbook

All of these models are wrong. Because they are "religious" by definition, and try to make the Adam and Eve concept stick. It doesn't stick.

First of all, Africa is not the center of anything. Any "explotion" theory of evolution, would have an epic center ... Africa is not an epic center, migration from it is ... a no brainer. Secondly, mitocondria having the largest diversity in Africa, does not fit natural selection theory. Cro-Magnon and Neanderthal had to give way for the Human species. Natural selection taking it's course, ruling out the oldest ... which means, even the female gene would also be selected out, just as the male one. Thus, Africa is most likely the "youngest" continent, and not the oldest. When migration is concerned. It also makes no sense, at all ... that the oldest continent, has the least evolved population ...

That, just don't compute.

So, out of africa ... is like plate tectonics theory. It's a religious mumbo jumbo.

A much more likely theory, would be that the human race is not from a single source, but from many sources and that there is no one adam and eve. This would fit the wars, and conflicts, because the many different species are fighting for dominance. It would also fit the different languages, which are in reality explained by different evolution of vocals, and hearing. And the genetic common denominator, comes from "raping" done by the victors ... which in previous history, would probably have been quite beastly.

Dude, your version of reality does not compute for a number of reasons:

The models are really not not based on Adam and Eve.
It's Epicentre- not "EPIC CENTER"
Studies find increased diversity of Mitochondrial DNA- not Mitochondria
Natural selection does not have some sort of "sell before date" that means anything "in date" supersedes it
A continents age is described using the age of the rocks that make it up in it's current position
"Least evolved population" - I know an African who knows the above- should I assume he is more evolved than you?
Plate Tectonics is not "religious mumbo jumbo" - I'm not saying it is entirely correct but it is not based on religion- in any way.

Do some reading before you embarrass yourself any more.

There are a number of (intelligent) theories that you can adopt to suit your agenda but your above summary seems like it was written by a child.

a reply to: Cogito, Ergo Sum

Another religous fanatic ... wanting "adam and eve" to be a reality.

How stupid is it, to think that people would migrate out of Africa, to an Icy plateu. Why should anyone in the Universe, want to leave the hot and warm places of Africa, and walk over the ice. Where, they would most likely die of hunger and inabilty to survive.

If you want to have an "explosion" theory of evolution ... you must have an epic centre. This centre must have an explosion evolution ... not just people, deciding to move away from plenty ... willingly into the open nothing.

The entire theory, is ... and always will be ... nonsense. Saying that people walked an icebridge to new continents, out of africa ... is just ... idiotic no brainer. The people who walked this bridge, have no idea of the continent on the other side. So why would they walk the ice bridge ... why should anyone, leave Africa, where there is plenty of everything ... just to enter the cold and frozen tundras, where there is not much of anything. Maybe they were folloging "GOD", who told them that "The promised land was on the other side of the ice bridge".

That doesn't make any sense, what so ever ... except in a religous mind, who just needs to find a way to make his "adam and eve" stupidity, stick. Who can't accept, that evolution created several species that were alike, not because they evolved from Adam and Eve, but because they evolved in a similar era, and similar environments. Meaning the diversity was limited, by the environment.

Tell me, WHY should mitocondria or any other living organism, pop from a single source ... the planet is a huge ball. The only reason, for this "search" for one denominator. Is the search for support of the GOD THEORY. Once you have ONE SOURCE, it was God who created ... Adam and Eve.

And by that, the theory can be dismissed as crap.

originally posted by: bjarneorn
a reply to: lostbook

All of these models are wrong. Because they are "religious" by definition, and try to make the Adam and Eve concept stick. It doesn't stick.

I'm not sure I understand what you're getting at here. Are you implying that Anthropology in and of itself is a science based religion or that anthropological theorems are attempting to validate the Abrahamic religions of the M.E.?

First of all, Africa is not the center of anything. Any "explotion" theory of evolution, would have an epic center ... Africa is not an epic center, migration from it is ... a no brainer. Secondly, mitocondria having the largest diversity in Africa, does not fit natural selection theory.

just the opposite of what you are implying is true. Much like how in history, the old adage is that "all roads lead to Rome", the same holds true when you follow the "roads" paved by the human genetic code" The oldest lineages are in South and East Africa, precisely where we find the oldest hominid fossils and the greatest amount of genetic diversity with the Khoisan people.

Cro-Magnon and Neanderthal had to give way for the Human species. Natural selection taking it's course, ruling out the oldest ... which means, even the female gene would also be selected out, just as the male one. Thus, Africa is most likely the "youngest" continent, and not the oldest. When migration is concerned. It also makes no sense, at all ... that the oldest continent, has the least evolved population ...

considering that HSS( the human populations living on earth today) is a direct derivation of CroMagnon, they ARE us. Neanderthal were closely enough related that AMH were able to breed with them going back 100,000 years. You claim it makes no sense but don't give any rationale as to why you believe this to be so. Is this simply your personal belief or is it based on some sort of science?

That, just don't compute.

So, out of africa ... is like plate tectonics theory. It's a religious mumbo jumbo.

A much more likely theory, would be that the human race is not from a single source, but from many sources and that there is no one adam and eve.

In terms of Anthropology and paleoanthropology, nobody postulates that there was one adam or one eve. If there were multiple sources for HSS, what and where then are those origins? How are we able to effortlessly breed with one another if this is indeed the case?

This would fit the wars, and conflicts, because the many different species are fighting for dominance. It would also fit the different languages, which are in reality explained by different evolution of vocals, and hearing. And the genetic common denominator, comes from "raping" done by the victors ... which in previous history, would probably have been quite beastly.

again, is this just some pet hypothesis of yours or do you have some sort of genetic or scientific backing for this that you would care to cite?

60,000 yrs?

aren't the native australians logged in about 70,000yrs there?

originally posted by: bjarneorn
a reply to: Cogito, Ergo Sum

Another religous fanatic ... wanting "adam and eve" to be a reality.

???

I think you might have responded to the wrong post?

originally posted by: tsingtao
60,000 yrs?
aren't the native australians logged in about 70,000yrs there?

Not sure of the latest in this area of science, but afaik it is thought that modern humans could possibly have arrived in Australia between 62-75k yrs ago. Not a definite though. They were certainly there between 40-50k yrs ago.

originally posted by: bjarneorn
a reply to: Cogito, Ergo Sum
How stupid is it, to think that people would migrate out of Africa, to an Icy plateu. Why should anyone in the Universe, want to leave the hot and warm places of Africa, and walk over the ice. Where, they would most likely die of hunger and inabilty to survive.

Nowhere near as stupid as trying to refute the standard model based on not actually having an iota of knowledge pertaining to climate models from the last 300,000 years. Neanderthal were in Europe at least 300,000 BPE. HSS didn't start wandering out of Africa until the climate was somewhat more hospitable to them. Get yourself a library card because it would do you wonders as your current assumptions are just a bit off the mark.

If you want to have an "explosion" theory of evolution ... you must have an epic centre. This centre must have an explosion evolution ... not just people, deciding to move away from plenty ... willingly into the open nothing.

What the hell is "explosion evolution"? I must've missed that in grad school when they were teaching me about epicenters instead of epic centers. Is an Epic Center like Epcot Center near Disney World? if so I'd love to check it out.

The entire theory, is ... and always will be ... nonsense.

the only nonsense is your sordid misunderstanding of modern evolutionary synthesis and its subsequent migration models.

Saying that people walked an icebridge to new continents, out of africa ... is just ... idiotic no brainer.

I agree. Thankfully that's not what any migration models postulate.

The people who walked this bridge, have no idea of the continent on the other side. So why would they walk the ice bridge ... why should anyone, leave Africa, where there is plenty of everything ... just to enter the cold and frozen tundras, where there is not much of anything. Maybe they were folloging "GOD", who told them that "The promised land was on the other side of the ice bridge".

I strongly encourage you to familiarizing yourself with the concept of bottleneck events and the aftermath of the Toba even 70,000 BPE

That doesn't make any sense, what so ever ... except in a religous mind, who just needs to find a way to make his "adam and eve" stupidity, stick. Who can't accept, that evolution created several species that were alike, not because they evolved from Adam and Eve, but because they evolved in a similar era, and similar environments. Meaning the diversity was limited, by the environment.

Library card and citations...two items you really need to invest time and effort into exploring

Tell me, WHY should mitocondria or any other living organism, pop from a single source ... the planet is a huge ball. The only reason, for this "search" for one denominator. Is the search for support of the GOD THEORY. Once you have ONE SOURCE, it was God who created ... Adam and Eve.

You're a bundle of joy aren't you? The vast majority of anthropologists are agnostics and god, adam, eve, none of it plays into evolutionary theory. Only the fossil record and genetic evidence. It's kind of like CSI, we follow where the data leads us. We don't try to figure out how to work a hypothesis around someone else's preconceived notions

And by that, the theory can be dismissed as crap.

show some citations that support your hypothesis. I'm open minded enough to admit I could be wrong.

a reply to: peter vlar

I know you are very much better inform ed that I am on some of this but I am very curious about one part of our evolution which we seem rarely to discuss. Does anything exist in the fossil record that you have found that indicates why we have swuch different types of humanity - we have Eskimo through to Asian through to African - such different looking people must have had a different start in my mind or, did we adapt via our leaving Africa (something I am still not completely convinced about as the only seat for homo sapiens) after we had been in different climates?

One thing's for sure; Epic Centre Man's forefathers (wherever they came from) faced and overcame many intellectual challenges -all seemingly in vain.

^ Regarding the above post.
There are no different types of Human. There are only different phenotypes of Human.
Once the outer layer is stripped away- all parts are virtually indistinguishable between Eskimos, Zulus and Frenchmen except for the phenotypic expression coming from many generations of sexual selection passed on to them by their lineage.

Regarding Out of Africa:

Africa doesn't need an Ice bridge, it is, and always has been for the purpose of studying human migration, attached to to Arabia, which is attached to Eurasia.

That means, that as a species, given enough time, it is entirely feasible to walk to Siberia, the Philippines or Norway from Africa if the environmental conditions allowed it

The African pump theory seems to be a good candidate for likely suspect as it suggests Human migration does generally not occur within defined generations but is instead a constant process of genetic entanglement.

Seems to me that genetics starts as many augments as religion! I read some time ago that a researcher in genetics came up with the theory that all modern humans sprung from just eight females! due to one of the periodic 'culls' of humans due to famine, disease, natural disaster.

originally posted by: pikestaff
Seems to me that genetics starts as many augments as religion! I read some time ago that a researcher in genetics came up with the theory that all modern humans sprung from just eight females! due to one of the periodic 'culls' of humans due to famine, disease, natural disaster.

I think you mean the population bottleneck theory.
One of the tragedies of statistics is that they are generally misleading if taking out of context.

The whole daughters of Eve/Population bottleneck is using statistical expression to demonstrate data trends- it doesnt mean there were only ever 8 female humans on the planet.

read up about Most Recent Common Ancestor on wiki.

originally posted by: peter vlar
I think the headline/thread title is a little misleading. It doesn't challenge OOA as much as it simply supplies additional evidence for the multiple migrations of anatomically modern humans leaving Africa separately. H. Erectus for example has definitively been shown to be in the Caucuses region, specifically what is now Georgia, at least 1.8 MYA. Neanderthal and our newest family member Denisovans, likewise left several hundred thousand years ago or evolved from the existing Erectus populations and there have been waves of modern humans leaving Africa for approximately 200,000 years. We have been rather ingenious world travelers for a very, very long time.

Quite so.

In addition, there have been the relatively recent discovery of anatomically modern Human remains in the Middle East / Israel region, dated to around 400,000 YA...so really, the timelines for the movement of Humanity needs a serious revamp to bring it in line with current findings.

My guess is there has been many and repeated migrations and immigrations where Humanity and Africa is concerned.

For all we know, there may have been Human immigrations TO Africa, perhaps long before any of the accepted migration timelines FROM Africa. IOW, Humans may have developed and thrived elsewhere, on any continent and may have ventured into Africa following a calamity or other event which forced Humans to seek refuge or find the necessities of life in Africa.

Africa may have been a destination long before it became a departure point.

originally posted by: Shiloh7
a reply to: peter vlar

I know you are very much better inform ed that I am on some of this but I am very curious about one part of our evolution which we seem rarely to discuss. Does anything exist in the fossil record that you have found that indicates why we have swuch different types of humanity - we have Eskimo through to Asian through to African - such different looking people must have had a different start in my mind or, did we adapt via our leaving Africa (something I am still not completely convinced about as the only seat for homo sapiens) after we had been in different climates?

Hey Shiloh, it's definitely a valid question. The various morphological features you see aren't indicative of different types of humanity. Though if they were all to have remained isolated from one another for another couple of hundred thousand years, what we are seeing currently could be the early stages of speciation but as technology has progressed that's a moot point and a totally different conversation. Anyway, before I digress farther, what you see as differ types of humanity are morphological adaptations as a result of their native environmental niches. Tall, skinny East Africans for example are adapted to a warmer drier climate. Compare them to another of your examples, the Inuit(Eskimos) who are shorter, stockier and have more body fat on average because it is a beneficial body type for conserving heat. An analogy I would use with a different mammal is the fox. Look at the differences between an arctic fox vs a kit fox. The arctic fox has a thicker more dense coat, brown in the summer and white in the winter to help camouflage it. It's also got a more compact rotund body to minimize heat loss similarly to the Inuit. The kit fox on the other hand is more slender and is one of the smallest of the fox we see across the world. It has exceptionally large ears that help it to disperse heat more easily and tends to be more nocturnal hunting at night when its cooler. The kit fox, similarly to the East Africans I mentioned earlier, has a high degree of sexual dimorphism. What that means is there are obvious size differences between males and females with the males being a bit larger and bulkier. I opposition to that, the actic fox, like the Inuit, displays a lesser degree of sexual dimorphism.

There's likely not a whole lot I can say or cite that will convince you that the OOA theory is the holy grail of anthropology. Personally, I'm a staunch supporter of it. Based on the fossil record and the genetic data we've accumulated the last 15 years or so, which is increasing daily, everything points to east Africa as the most likely point of origin for humanity and its ancestors.

Let me be the first to say though that my opinion of this is based on the entirety of data and physical evidence we currently have. I'm always skeptical yet open minded enough to be able to alter my opinion if new data were to present itself. There is always the possibility that humanity began elsewhere, perhaps Asia. I just haven't come across anything to convince me of such at this point. Just to stir the pot a little, a fact most people are not aware of is that the first primates did in fact originate in Asia. It is also entirely possible that some early human populations that had left Africa and at some point later, returned to breed with the humans who had never left. We simply don't have enough dna profiles to say one way or the other at the moment.

I know that in most cases, people who have studied anthropology, archaeology, evolutionary biology, paleontology etc... Approach the matter as if everything is completely settled science. What we are truly describing is what we know right now, based on the best information and data we currently have. Believe it or not there really is a lot of back and forth, brain storming and debate. It's how we keep ourselves honest as well as come up with new ideas or new directions to search in. When it comes to the science we are for the most part, when answering questions, going to stick to things we can back up and say for certain with a degree of veracity.

I hope I at least somewhat answered your question, if not I'm more than happy to attempt to clarify anything or answer additional questions I may have provoked. I won't bull# you and if I don't know an answer ill admit it.

originally posted by: MysterX


Quite so.

In addition, there have been the relatively recent discovery of anatomically modern Human remains in the Middle East / Israel region, dated to around 400,000 YA...so really, the timelines for the movement of Humanity needs a serious revamp to bring it in line with current findings.

My guess is there has been many and repeated migrations and immigrations where Humanity and Africa is concerned.

For all we know, there may have been Human immigrations TO Africa, perhaps long before any of the accepted migration timelines FROM Africa. IOW, Humans may have developed and thrived elsewhere, on any continent and may have ventured into Africa following a calamity or other event which forced Humans to seek refuge or find the necessities of life in Africa.

Africa may have been a destination long before it became a departure point.

I fully agree with you on te mu,triple migrations OUT of Africa. I will concede that its a possibility for an origin point somewhere else, perhaps Asia. I'm just not seeing any actual data to support it beyond some interesting speculation. A skeptical as I am ant the possibility, I'm open minded enough to accept that the possibility exists and will be the first to admit I was wrong if that data or fossil record were to present itself. It's also possible that after Erectus left Africa that some eventually found their way back which would have introduced some interesting genes to the original population. But again, that's ugly speculative. The thing about anthropology is that I'm far more interested in questions and answers than I am in being right. Unlocking the secrets of our past as a people is far more interesting to me and what makes it all fun. At heart I'm just a little kid looking for answers but when backed into a corner, I'm only going to say what I'm confident in based on the fossil record we currently have and the most recent data at hand and leave the speculation on the back burner if tat makes sense.