Evidence Challenges the Out of Africa Theory of Evolution

originally posted by: bjarneorn
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.

Continents do move around, and seas appear and disappear. 4000 years ago, the North Sea didn't exist. 10000 years ago, there was an ice sheet that covered most of Europe. That would have meant the equator would have been hotter. Go back millions of years and there were giant forests growing where the Arctic now is.

Africa at that time would have had lush forests. Then as the ice sheet retreated, the rainfall would have become less and the forests turn to open pasture, meadows and desert. Perhaps the first Europeans were albino people who had to flee the continent for fear of being turned into voodoo ingredients.

originally posted by: peter vlar

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.

It is all pretty interesting and if humans in general where not dwindled down to about 10,000 during the last ice age we might have seen a wide verity of humans much like monkeys...

As it is, all humans today are extremely close in relationship compared to other species types.

a reply to: Jukiodone

Thanks for pointing those inaccuracies out! I almost did until I saw your reply.

I am curious about one thing you said,

"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."

Which part(s) of Plate tectonics are in question? Not trying to start a debate honestly just curious

a reply to: Xtrozero

Yes, very much so. Especially compared to our closest pro
Are relatives chimps and bonobos. They can no longer mate and have offspring whereas the genetic bottleneck we faced 70,000 bpe really screwed us all over in terms of genetic diversity in my opinion.

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?

Most of that has to do with humans moving to an area and do to a combination of things such as environment, yearly sun exposure, median temperature, wildlife caused the humans in the area to adapt slightly to those differences. The different human races are more or less the beginnings of humanity branching off into different species. If it wasn't for humanity reuniting all the races in global unity like we have, and they had all stayed isolated for much longer, we'd have different intelligent races running around instead of just one.

a reply to: moresco

Look up "unresolved questions in Plate tectonics"- there are many.

In relation to the argument of Human origin- if our understanding of the timing plate tectonics is just a bit wrong- then we have an easy to understand mechanism for monkeys to arrive in south America (rates of shift were different- meaning the 2 continents were much closer).

If Plate Tectonics timing is right then we have to accept all Monkeys arrived in South America on "rafts" after a long transatlantic crossing OR that there was a world wide distributed common ancestor and our understanding of Human evolution is severely flawed.

a reply to: Jukiodone

Thanks Ill check it out

the out of africa can not be dismissed since the first two branches out of Adam (MRCA) haplogroup A (pigmies of Botswana) and Haplogroup B( Uganda) are both in Africa.
A as Cain and B as Abel.
all other human branches came from B (Abel) like C D E F (G H I J K(L M N O P Q R))

a reply to: Starbucks

Y-haplogroup A, the most diverse or oldest-diverging Y haplogroup transmitted purely by patrilineal descent, is today present in various Khoisan groups at frequencies of 12-44%, and the other Y-haplogroups present have been formed by recent admixture of Bantu male lineages E3a (18-54%), and in some groups, noticeable Pygmy traces are visible (B2b). The Khoisan also show the largest genetic diversity in matrilineally transmitted mtDNA of all human populations. Their original mtDNA haplogroups L1d and L1k are one of the oldest-diverging female lineages as well.

Additionally the oldest known evidence of the Y chromosome is dated back approx 338,000 years. I really do encourage you to do some research, it would benefit you greatly. www.sci-news.com...


It's nice to see you making up your own data on the fly in multiple threads, keep up the good work!

no the latest dna MRCA found Adam older trhan eve by thousand 80 k years only.
your studies are trash science.
that study of yours is few years old and is not accepted by dna consortium. in the guy blood was two signatures meaning he used the cotton tip on his cheek and another friend of his that is all.

the consortium still conserve a and B as the oldest branches out of adam.
the other studies counting the MRCA through reverse mutation is 80 years old but only by using the fraudelant so called "Evolutionary mutation rate .007 not the observed mutation rate at .04 , so the real MRCA is 40k or even 25 k years ago, the time of the man all humans branched from just 25 thousand years ago.


" new ancient mtDNA study on Antarctic penguins shows that the evolutionary and germline mutation rates over a period of 37,000 years are not significantly different!
Time-dependent evolutionary mutation rate? Adélie Penguins say no

dienekes.blogspot.com...

evolutionary mutation rate isn't even mutation rates, but rather measurements (supposedly) of the rate at which variance (aka haplotype diversity) accumulates in a population under some very specific conditions"


Maternal DNA come whole from the mother. Neanderthal can not have input in Maternal DNA of homosapiens!! the fact the 3% of whites DNA have Neanderthal but all races on the earth now have that socalled Neanderthal DNA means all the descendents of Adam 80 years ago all of them went to siberia and intermarried with the neanderthal even thought it is known as a fact that homosapiens did not leave africa only recently (15 k years ago) way after Neanderthal supposedly died. hence no possibility but that the Neanderthal DNA is just Homosapiens and that Neanderthals were a branch of the Adam 70k years ago.

end of the story

Inheriting mtDNA

Whenever an egg cell is fertilized, nuclear chromosomes from a sperm cell enter the egg and combine with the egg's nuclear DNA, producing a mixture of both parents' genetic code. The mtDNA from the sperm cell, however, is left behind, outside of the egg cell.

So the fertilized egg contains a mixture of the father and mother's nuclear DNA and an exact copy of the mother's mtDNA, but none of the father's mtDNA. The result is that mtDNA is passed on only along the maternal line. This means that all of the mtDNA in the cells of a person's body are copies of his or her mother's mtDNA, and all of the mother's mtDNA is a copy of her mother's, and so on. No matter how far back you go, mtDNA is always inherited only from the mother.

If you went back six generations in your own family tree, you'd see that your nuclear DNA is inherited from 32 men and 32 women[1]. Your mtDNA, on the other hand, would have come from only one of those 32 women.--

www.pbs.org...#

a reply to: Starbucks

so where's your evidence? your citation? You keep making unsupported claims and have the brass to say I'm using fraudulent trash science in multiple threads yet fail to support a single claim you make. it's pathetic, laughable and devoid of intellectual honesty and any logic. The citation I used is from The American Journal of Human Genetics, 28 February 2013 Show me something the disputes it and is more recent. You will not do so though will you?

Every time you attempt to dispute the data your date changes as well, nothing like constantly moving the goal posts while your running your Gish Gallop.

The geneticists, led by Carina M Schlebusch from Uppsala University, analysed around 2.3 million single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) from a sample of 220 southern Africans from 11 ethnic groups for genetic variations. The result was a noticeable split between the group who we now know as the Khoisan and the rest of humanity dating back 100,000 years.

www.wired.co.uk...

no the diversity of humans out of africa is so little from africans that they left africa only recently after all neanderthals supposedly died out.
the so called neanderthal dna is found in all current human races including africans (1.5%) this means all humans intermarried with neanderthal, even though neanderthal did not come to africa nor africans (a and b ) ever leave africa.

Not to mention the Maternal dna supposedly found in Neanderthal can not intermix with maternal dna of homosapiens (all or nothing)
as reported in the refs above in my last post

a reply to: Starbucks

Your link regarding Neanderthals from PBS is a dozen years old, its worthless and anachronistic. My references are all much more recent and are comprised of newer and more comprehensive data. You are wrong on every single point youve made and prove as much with your completely out of date data. Ill give you credit for finally providing any sort of citation but you're still running a Gish Gallop.

sorry your perception of victory is so short lived.

you are probably slow, but I can help you go through step by step.

here we go...

all current humans are homosapiens and branched from one man who lived 70 thousand years ago.

the dna diversity of out of africa humans to africa humans is so low that it means humans came of africa recently 20 thousand years at most.
the africans A and B never left africa.

The evolutionists claim 3% of current Whites have Neanderthal DNA.,.. ( good so far for you to understand?)

and that Chinese have 2% of Neanderthal DNA ( good do far?)
and african have 1% of Neanderthal DNA (good so far for you?)

Now you see all current humans have 1% to 3% of Neanderthal DNA.

Africans never left africa (no traces of african dna outside of africa )

Neanderthal found in Northern Europe and Northern Asia (siberia).

so how did Neanderthal DNA in Africans, but in all (ALL!!!!) humans????

Even the out of africa humans (homosapiens) left africa at earliest 20 thousand years ago, while Neanderthal died 40 thousand years ago.

So how did they get married???

Also Maternal DNA does not get mixed, it pass solely from mother to child without intermixing.

The DNA found in Neanderthal bones are Maternal DNA ( are you still with me so far??)

so how come only 3% of maternal dna of neanderthal found in current humans not 100% 0r 0%., cant be mix of the two

originally posted by: Starbucks
sorry your perception of victory is so short lived.

you are probably slow, but I can help you go through step by step.

here we go...

Awww... did I strike a nerve? Sarcasm is after all the last refuge of a weak mind and lowest form of irony. Compound that with condescension and you've got a recipe for sloppiness and disaster.

all current humans are homosapiens and branched from one man who lived 70 thousand years ago.

Make up your mind, one time it was 50,000 years, another it was 60,000, last time it was 20 or 25,000 years now its 70,000 BPE Either way, it is a false statement that you have repeated roughly a half dozen times and have yet to support the statement in any of innumerous incarnations with a single citation.

the dna diversity of out of africa humans to africa humans is so low that it means humans came of africa recently 20 thousand years at most.

Actually you've got that wrong again, sub-Saharan Africans have the greatest amount of genetic diversity of anyone on the planet. They have 0% Neanderthal DNA not 1% as you go on to claim later

the africans A and B never left africa.

and your evidence for this is what?

The evolutionists claim 3% of current Whites have Neanderthal DNA.,.. ( good so far for you to understand?)

Does this level of condescension get you very far in every day life? it certainly isn't supporting any of your claims, it only supports your lack of understanding of modern evolutionary synthesis and your bitterness towards me for calling you out repeatedly for your errors and inaccuracies. It's really quite pathetic and childish. but the claim is actually between 1 and 4% of HNS DNA in Eurasians

and that Chinese have 2% of Neanderthal DNA ( good do far?)

About 66 percent of all Southern Chinese contain genes that can be traced back to Neanderthals, according to the results of the study. This region of DNA includes some 18 genes from the Neanderthal genome including one gene, called HYAL2, which is related to UV light (sunlight) adaptation.

usa.chinadaily.com.cn...

and african have 1% of Neanderthal DNA (good so far for you?)

Oh I'm good but you are wrong.

Now you see all current humans have 1% to 3% of Neanderthal DNA.

well, its not all humans and it can be as much as 4% depending on geography as well as which part of the genome you are referring to.

additionally-

The difference between where Neanderthal DNA is plentiful and where it's absent may help scientists understand what in our genome "makes humans human," said University of Washington genome scientist Joshua Akey, lead author of the paper in Science.Harvard researcher Sriram Sankararaman, the lead author of the Nature study, said the place where Neanderthal DNA seemed to have the most influence in the modern human genome has to do with skin and hair. Akey said those instructions are as much as 70 percent Neanderthal.

"We're more Neanderthal than not in those genes," Akey said

Africans never left africa (no traces of african dna outside of africa )

The last interglacial period was a crucial time for early modern humans, who first appear in the fossil record nearly 200,000 years ago in Ethiopia. Bones from the Qafzeh and Es Skhul caves in Israel show that modern humans reached the eastern Mediterranean by about 110,000 to 100,000 years ago.

Neanderthal found in Northern Europe and Northern Asia (siberia).

you're confusing HNS with Denisovan in this instance

so how did Neanderthal DNA in Africans, but in all (ALL!!!!) humans????

not in all humans though. None in Khoisan people

Even the out of africa humans (homosapiens) left africa at earliest 20 thousand years ago, while Neanderthal died 40 thousand years ago.
So how did they get married???

There is plenty of evidence that Homo Sapiens and HNS not only lived in the same vicinity at the same time, but in the same villages and were buried together indicating a close, familial relationship. This occurred over a period of 50,000 years in the Levantine Valley of Northern Israel up into Central Lebanon. As I showed you above, H. Sapiens were in the middle East over 100,000 BPE not 20,000 as you claim.

Besides, you don't need to be married to make a baby.

And the most recent HNS remains recovered is between 24,000 and 28,000 not 40,000. The citation for that is in a prior post of mine and you commented on it so Im not sure where the confusion comes into play unless you're simply trolling the thread

Also Maternal DNA does not get mixed, it pass solely from mother to child without intermixing.

it has been shown that HNS did not contribute mtDNA to HSS which indicates that it was HNS males mating with HSS females

The DNA found in Neanderthal bones are Maternal DNA ( are you still with me so far??)

The have found both mtDNA and nuclear DNA in HNS so what exactly is your point?

so how come only 3% of maternal dna of neanderthal found in current humans not 100% 0r 0%., cant be mix of the two

Why can't it be an admixture? you've shown nothing to support that at all and I've shown copious evidence contrary to your supposition. It is not a hard and fast, strict 3% of HNS genome in Eurasians, it fluctuates between 1 and 4% depending on geographical location and different areas of the genome can have a tremendous amount of HNS DNA you're quote mining and using the Gish Gallop and not citing anything. It's a massive amount of intellectual dishonesty and cognitive dissonance, I'm sorry.

originally posted by: peter vlar
a reply to: Xtrozero

Yes, very much so. Especially compared to our closest pro
Are relatives chimps and bonobos. They can no longer mate and have offspring whereas the genetic bottleneck we faced 70,000 bpe really screwed us all over in terms of genetic diversity in my opinion.

wouldn't that bottleneck just make us more inbred?

oh, i get it now, that's why we are so messed up!

like kenny, the white tiger with down's syndrome.

a reply to: tsingtao

yes, precisely so. its why all humans aside from the Khoisan in sub Saharan Africa have very low genetic diversity. The Khoisan on the other hand have the highest degree of genetic diversity of any people on the entire planet indicating that their particular geographic niche was somehow lucky enough to at least avoid the worst of the affects of the Toba eruption 70,000 BPE

And poor Kenny... it's such a shame that they overbred and inbred them so much to force those recessive traits to appear with regularity.

"it has been shown that HNS did not contribute mtDNA to HSS which indicates that it was HNS males mating with HSS females"

very good of you you said that.
then the maternal dna of the neanderthal is the maternal dna of current humans!

then it is 100 % that of current humans not 3%.
even if we agreed they found nuclear dna in neanderthal bones which is hardly believable, the nuclear dna is just a drop in basin compared to amount and availability of maternal dna, so they found 1% of the dna is nuclear dna and the rest is maternal dna, so which of the 3% of neanderthal dna is found in humans currently living?
I give you change to chose any lie you want.

all humans have neanderthal dna 1 to 4% of their dna including all africans minus the Khoisan (barely half a million out a billion africans).

so how did the Neanderthal have sex with all homosapien women even those in africa which neanderthal did not visit?

the african homosapiens who left africa are called the out of africa humans, they can not include the africans of african maternal and paternal ancestry who never left africa other wise they would have left their signature outside africa.

the dna does not lie it is much precise than thumbprints. If DNA decided that you and another person is father and a son then it is so.

the maternal dna of african never left africa, the ones who left are known as the out of africa like L3, M, N < R etc, while L1, L2, L3 never left africa.
also male ancestry haplogroup A and B and most E never left africa.

also humans of out of africa have dna similarity to africa humans 87% while they only differ by 12% (so all humans out of africa combined (6 billions ) only differ by 12% which translates that all of them were together in africa untill recent time (between 10k and 40k)
even though homosapiens branched from that one man (50 to 200k years ago) still they only left recently (by DNA evidence which beats any other bone reading and looking at).

so the conclusion the 3% of neanderthal dna found in current humans is because the neanderthal were homosapiens, descendent of the same Most Recent common ancestor of current humans (aka the homosapiens). in a nutshel, the neanderthal were homosapiens and also came from the same man, and not from any other man, because of the existance of neanderthal dna in all current humans (which is actually current human dna found in neanderthals who were fully homosapiens and descendents of the same MRCA.
the fossil looking at and imagining things and bla bla dating according to bla bla is wrong because it differ with dna evidence so they all thrown in the garbage bin.

It's all incredibly interesting and fascinating! But don't you agree that it also shows us how much we don't know? It's like everytime we discover one piece, two different ones appear. Human history, wait, history of the world has already had so many theories and so many *sure things* yet we still argue, uncover mysteries and try to understand. I agree on Khoisan people too Something to take into consideration to even enhance the discussion:
www.southafrica.net...www.scienceclarified.com... ion.htmlweb.cocc.edu...

originally posted by: peter vlar
a reply to: tsingtao

yes, precisely so. its why all humans aside from the Khoisan in sub Saharan Africa have very low genetic diversity. The Khoisan on the other hand have the highest degree of genetic diversity of any people on the entire planet indicating that their particular geographic niche was somehow lucky enough to at least avoid the worst of the affects of the Toba eruption 70,000 BPE

And poor Kenny... it's such a shame that they overbred and inbred them so much to force those recessive traits to appear with regularity.

i like to think kenny is a happy tiger, as much as a tiger can be happy.