The Chinese evolved from Indians: Study

Originally posted by wayno
reply to post by Indigo_Child

 

There could in fact have been multiple strands of human ancestry, but I would imagine that there was plenty of opportunity for interbreeding -- even between Neanderthal and us for example.

Well... yes and no. When you look at the phylogenetic tree for human evolution (basically a tree of hominid ancestors) you see that there were some dead ends, and there was some co-eveolution (for lack of a more accurate term). One can interpret this as a lot of potential for various strands of human ancestry, however, you have to keep in mind that Homo sapiens are the soul outcome of our evolutionary history. Neanderthals didn't make it, but they came close... in a sense...

It was not possible for Homo neanderthalensis to interbreed with any other member of the Homo genus (as for any other genus... I can't say for sure). That possibility was explored, and was disproven... for all intents and purposes anyway.

of course this stuff is difficult to discuss with 100% accuracy... especially since I am just a student still.

[edit on 15-12-2009 by one_enlightened_mind]

[edit on 15-12-2009 by one_enlightened_mind]

Originally posted by Indigo_Child


Okay, but how do we test this? Do we actually have any evidence showing Africans evolving into Indians, Indians into Chinese and into Europeans? I would like to see it.

Sure we do. Plenty of genetic and archaeological evidence. See for instance the Genographic Project

In order to understand that you're going to need to understand the definition of a species. A common definition is that of a group of organisms capable of interbreeding and producing fertile offspring of both genders, and separated from other such groups with which interbreeding does not (normally) happen. This means that when an animal evolves into a certain species it can only reproduce with members of it's own species and nothing else. Dogs with dogs, cats with cats, birds with birds; you get the idea.

Now, what does that have to do with humans? Well humans are classified under the Genus Homo and species sapien. In other words we are all Homo sapiens. We are all one species, and we can all interbreed with one another.

I accept that cats cannot breed with dogs etc. However, in the case of humans it does not appear to be as clear cut. I was reading some articles on anthropology and it believed that different hominoid species did interbreed such as the Neanderthals with Sapiens:

See: news.nationalgeographic.com...

There is also debate among anthropologists on what exactly constitutes a new species in the homo genus. Thus maybe it it possible in the case of humans, that different groups belonging to the homo genus can interbreed.

What that means is that across our genome, is a staggeringly low level of of human genetic variation. We are all one species, and science has proven it again and again.

Genetic evidence is problematic to me and far from conclusive, especially considering that new research is showing that genes may not actually exist: www.physorg.com...

Apparently humans have 98% genetic similarity with a chimp, 80% genetic similary with a cow, 60% genetic similarity with a fruit fly and 90% genetic similarity with a cat. And a cat has 79% genetic similarity with a chimp.

www.eupedia.com...

What does this mean and what does it prove?

[edit on 15-12-2009 by Indigo_Child]

I have found examples of interspecial breeding which seems to contradict your definition of a species:

liger = male lion + female tiger
tigon or tiglon = male tiger + female lion

mule = male donkey + female horse
hinny = male horse + female donkey (jenny)

zorse = zebra + horse
zonkey or zebrass = zebra + donkey (ass)
cama = camel + llama
catalo or beefalo = buffalo + cattle
yakalo = yak + buffalo
wholphin = whale + dolphin (specifically a false killer whale and a bottlenose dolphin)

Toast of Botswana = goat + sheep
Obviously this deserves some clarification. While a sheep can be impregnated by a goat, the kid/lamb is always stillborn... except in one case in the early 1990s. This animal was nicknamed the Toast of Botswana. Since it was the only one ever known to have lived, no other name has been given to a goat/sheep combination.

humanzee - there have been numerous reports of human/chimpanzee combinations, but none of these have been confirmed
several species of cats can be bred including: lion/leopard, lion/jaguar, puma/leopard, bobcat/lynx, caracal/serval
several species of canines including domestic dog/wolf, coyote/wolf, domestic dog/coyote
several species of monkeys and apes can interbreed
several species of deer and antelope can be interbred
several species of snakes can be crossbred
wild and domestic pigs can crossbreed
African elephant and Asian elephants are known to have bred once in the past

everything2.com...

[edit on 15-12-2009 by Indigo_Child]

Originally posted by Indigo_Child
I accept that cats cannot breed with dogs etc. However, in the case of humans it does not appear to be as clear cut. I was reading some articles on anthropology and it believed that different hominoid species did interbreed such as the Neanderthals with Sapiens.

The information you've read is outdated. Homo neanderthalensis never bred with any hominid ancestor that lead to Homo sapiens. Of course it can be very confusing with science continually changing it's story. I can definitely understand that.

Rest assured that Homo neanderthalensis is a completely separate species... as is evident by the nomenclature I'm using.

There is also debate among anthropologists on what exactly constitutes a new species in the homo genus. Thus maybe it it possible in the case of humans, that different groups belonging to the homo genus can interbreed.

Not so. The problem with that reasoning is that another line of ancestry would have to have survived to live amongst the Homo sapiens. This is not the case. Homo sapiens are the only species in our line of evolution to make it to the 21st Century. Even if another ancestor had viable offspring is highly questionable. Offspring could very well be infertile, like mules.

Genetic evidence is problematic to me and far from conclusive, especially considering that new research is showing that genes may not actually exist: www.physorg.com...

The link to the article is interesting... but I feel it's more pseudoscience than anything. In my own view, geneticists couldn't spend their lives studying something that doesn't exist.

Our genes are real.

Apparently humans have 98% similarity with a chimp, 80% genetic similary with a cow, 60% similarity with a fruit fly and 90% similarity with a cat. And a cat has 79% similarity with a chimp.

True. What does that mean? To be honest I'm not sure if science is fully aware of it's meaning. Humans are 98% similar to chimps... and yet... we're an entirely different species all-together. I don't know what it is really supposed to mean. What I do know is that understanding it's meaning can only come from studying it. The true scientific method can allow us to understand it one day.

Pseudoscience will only confuse.

[edit on 15-12-2009 by one_enlightened_mind]

[edit on 15-12-2009 by one_enlightened_mind]

[edit on 15-12-2009 by one_enlightened_mind]

[edit on 15-12-2009 by one_enlightened_mind]

Michael Cremo in his book "Forbidden archaeology" talks about the possibility of Homo sapiens coexisting with Homo erectus and others in the past. He discussed flaws in dating number of species found in China, how often conclusions are drawn from inconclusive evidences, and how the dogma of “out of Africa theory” held by the mainstream Paleoanthropology may affect studies to overlook other possibilities.

He sounds rather convincing when he uses the example such as the famous Shennongjia Wildman and other cases in China and around the world, arguing that since these creatures still coexist with human, it’s not so preposterous to assume that they coexisted with human in the past as well.

Still, there are some (especially among Chinese paleoanthropologists) would consider the possibility that some Homo erectus may have evolved locally, as oppose to “recent single-origin hypothesis" .
And they believe there are enough tentative evidences found in China support their hypothesis.

Such as the Dali fossil remains
en.wikipedia.org...(fossil)

It seems the debate is far from over.

And speaking of genetics,
en.wikipedia.org...

Autosomal markers
Kivisild et al. 2003 emphasize that the combined results from mtDNA, Y-chromosome and autosomal markers suggest that "Indian tribal and caste populations derive largely from the same genetic heritage of Pleistocene southern and western Asians and have received limited gene flow from external regions since the Holocene" [22]

In a 2009 study of 132 individuals, 560,000 SNPs in 25 different Indian groups were analyzed, providing strong evidence in support of the notion that modern Indians are a hybrid population descending from two ancient, genetically divergent populations, one of which resembled the modern Middle Easterners, Central Asians, and Europeans, while the other's closest modern match are the indigenous Andaman Islanders. According to the study, the former type of ancestry ranges from 39–71% in most Indian groups, and is generally more prevalent in traditionally upper caste and Indo-European-speaking groups.[23]

According to the above study, the Indians themselves are hybrid population with Middle Easterners, Central Asians, and Europeans connections, while the predominant Y-DNA among Chinese population is haplogroup O3 which is distinct from the above mentioned groups, then wouldn’t it be necessary to also establish that the Middle Easterners, Central Asians, and Europeans are partial ancestors to the Chinese since these groups contribute to the Indians which is the control group used to draw conclusion for Chinese ancestry?

Hence, it seems this study offered more questions rather than answers, since there are still inconsistencies and contraditions among genetic studies.

Besides, according to certain studies, prehistorical groups carrying haplogroup O3 went across the Himalayas and repopulated parts of modern day India.

"Y chromosome haplotypes reveal prehistorical migrations to the Himalayas"

hpgl.stanford.edu...

If the reported study here was based considerably on samples from these Sino-Tibetan groups in India, then one might have drawn such conclusion easier, but then again there are others who think it’s the other way around.

Then it begs the question what exactly it means by “Indian”.

[edit on 16-12-2009 by sunsky]

reply to post by sunsky


Great post, just what I needed to hear actually. I have intuitively had a problem wiith the single-origin hypothesis for a long time or Out of Africa theory as it is called. It seems to be a modern version of the biblical single-origin account. I do not accept this theory as proven, but only as a hypothesis. I still think it is possible that there have been multiple origins of humans around the world and that different species may have co-habited and interbed. I think the notion that interspecial breeding is impossible has now been laid to rest.

I understand why Michael Cremo is etertaining the hypothesis that homo-erectus and homosapians may have co-habited. It is because being a Hare Krishna follower, he is aware of the Ramayana account which is dated to have taken place millions of years ago. It describes several different species of humans existing at the time alongside sapians, one which is very similar in description to homoerectus. There are other descriptions in this text which are striking to say the least.

It describes a bridge connecting India and Sri Lanka. This bridge actually exists in the timeframe the Ramayana was said to be taken place.

It describes a four-tusked elephant. This elephant actually exists in the timeframe the Ramayana was said to taken place.

Originally posted by one_enlightened_mind

Originally posted by wayno
reply to post by Indigo_Child

 

There could in fact have been multiple strands of human ancestry, but I would imagine that there was plenty of opportunity for interbreeding -- even between Neanderthal and us for example.

Well... yes and no. When you look at the phylogenetic tree for human evolution (basically a tree of hominid ancestors) you see that there were some dead ends, and there was some co-eveolution (for lack of a more accurate term). One can interpret this as a lot of potential for various strands of human ancestry, however, you have to keep in mind that Homo sapiens are the soul outcome of our evolutionary history. Neanderthals didn't make it, but they came close... in a sense...

It was not possible for Homo neanderthalensis to interbreed with any other member of the Homo genus (as for any other genus... I can't say for sure). That possibility was explored, and was disproven... for all intents and purposes anyway.

of course this stuff is difficult to discuss with 100% accuracy... especially since I am just a student still.

[edit on 15-12-2009 by one_enlightened_mind]

[edit on 15-12-2009 by one_enlightened_mind]

It is not disproved at all. All they "proved" is that there is no mtDNA that cannot be accounted for in the current sapiens tree.

This presumes that mtDNA strains were not shared. It in no way touches Y-DNA, nor nDNA.

It is presupposed that there would be mtDNA contribution from a co-species that could not be traced to a sapiens antecedent. The number of assumptions that could be wrong about the conclusion drawn is enormous and frankly illogical.

Popular, but illogical.

It is true that they can currently place all the mtDNA on the sapiens tree.

That is ALL it proves.

Those mtDNA came from a common ancestor to begin with. Meaning that similar groups of mtDNA could very well have been in our cousin species.

mtDNA in no way touches nDNA at all. It is totally possible for nDNA contributions to survive where mtDNA and YDNA contributions do not.

********************************

As to "races" and trait differences.

Humans came from Africa and into Asia and Europe and the Middle East in multiple excursions. Various groups went back of forth, mostly following herds and the ice recessions and then the ice returns. Glacial periods. Some groups would have been isolated into areas until the return of other humans in the next glacial recession. Pockets of habitats that were good enough for them to survive in.

These groups would have quickly developed significant differences due to population narrowing effects, and adaptation.

When the next incursion from the larger genetic sources came through the same area again, they would have interbreed. Willingly or not. These adaptive traits would have been folded into the new group in that area.

The adaptations of the isolated group are advantageous. It would be instinctual for a group to do what it took to incorporate those environmentally advantageous changes.

(this is also an argument as to why sapiens would have interbred with Neanderthals in Europe or isolate groups of Erectus in Asia. Taking on some of the traits of the area would have been advantageous - proven out by the fact that numerous previous incursions of sapiens from the Middle East and Asia into Europe simply died out over and over leaving few modern descendants.)

This process speeds trait changes from source groups.

That being said, there is certainly the possibility that common ancestry of late homo into areas that were then isolated from one another could still all have similar mtDNA, and Y-DNA with them having common patterns of development. Similar habitats in isolation will tend to give rise to the same advantageous changes. Of which there are modern examples of in the mtDNA of humans - where the same mutations have occurred in the same places in similar manners in isolation from each other.

Niche analogues.

A good example of the entire population of the planet moving from one set of traits to a new set of traits without population replacement is the change from old homo sapiens (cro magnon) to modern humans. While it is all homo sapiens, there is a common set of skeletal traits that were found everywhere and slowly were replaced with modern human traits in every human population, often in isolation from each other.

No incursion from a single source of modern humans into every continent to replace the previous type of human, as is pretty much always theorized about how changes occur in populations.

[edit on 2009/12/16 by Aeons]

Originally posted by one_enlightened_mind

What you see as a "race" is a socially constructed concept and has no scientific meaning.

I would argue from a pedantic point. "Race" - or at least, ethnicity - is very obviously in existence. Africans share a majority of their phenotypes with other Africans, Europeans with other Europeans, East Asians, Native Americans, etc. Clearly the "social construct" has tangible, measurable origins that can be studied and examined.

Race clearly exists, and is the genesis of the social implications from it.

However from a standpoint of genetics and human biology, Race is functionally useless. Humans' ability (and honestly, eagerness) to mix up the assorted races ensures that there will never be any sort of "pure" measure which could be scientifically useful. Every individual in the world has at least one foreign ancestor that could throw off any studies into the field.

In other words, there's a difference between meaningless and useless. As you say below, humans' racial characteristics are the result of adaptations to their environment. This is incredibly meaningful both in terms of historical and linguistic study, and in such fields as medicine and agriculture.

Unfortunately, it's going to be a long time before we can look at the subject without it's pseudoscientific taint from people pressing a political agenda with it.

reply to post by Indigo_Child


Huge problem with that? This thing called "genetics." Every human being outside Africa is the descendant of a very small group of emigrants from East Africa a few hundred thousand years ago. This is traceable and verifiable, and is backed up by the fact that Africa has more human genetic diversity than the rest of the world combined - In fact if we were to divide humans into races exclusively by genetic variation, probably two thirds of such "Races" would exist in Africa.

By a similar token, there is no evidence of crossbreeding with other species of humans in our genome. we have the Neanderthal Genome in our hands, and there is no overlap between the two species beyond the basics for "human." If Sapiens didn't end up bedding down with the very similar and dominant human species in western Eurasia, it's incredibly unlikely that they ever did the deed with the very different and rapidly declining Erectus in eastern Eurasia.

Interestingly, while you're talking about the Indian Land Bridge... Modern humans didn't leave Africa via the Near East. Whether because the environment was too harsh or because Neanderthals were already well-established can't be said. but it seems more likely that ancient humans left Africa by crossing the red sea between Somalia and Yemen, followed the Indian Ocean coast, and then finally struck "inland" somewhere in the modern Iran / 'Stan region.

I don't really subscribe to genetics to be honest. Partly, because I don't understand it, so I am in need of very solid explanations to establish its validity. And partly because there are so many contradictions, conflicting conclusions and controversies in the field of genetics. I have seen genetic evidence to establish both the thesis of something abd the antithesis, and that is really confusing!

As far as I am concerned, based on my current knowledge, it is not impossible that modern humans have been on this planet much longer(perhaps millions of years ago) than current estimates based on what seems to me to be dubious extrapolations on little real evidence(fossils remains and genetics) and which constantly seems to be changing when new fossil or genetic discoveries are made. I think it is possible that there have been multiple origins and not just a single origin and that different species, such as what the Ramayana suggests, did co-habit alongside modern humans. I will revise my view if I am given real evidence that shows why this has to be impossible.

By the way can you tell me how we know the genome of the neanderthal?

[edit on 16-12-2009 by Indigo_Child]

reply to post by Indigo_Child


Why would I waste my time telling you how we obtained the genome of a neanderthal, to someone who just stated they don't believe that genetics actually exists? I mean really, it's like trying to teach an Amish dude how to drive, what's the point?

You want to find out, look up the Neanderthal Genome Project.

reply to post by TheWalkingFox


Ah, you are getting tetchy now. I don't think I said that I don't believe genetics does not exist, I said that it is dubious to me because of the contradictions, conflicting theories and controversies within this field. I cannot accept it as reliable and valid in proving Out of Africa theory, until there is a solid and valid explanation which shows why it is impossible based on genetics that various species of humans could not have lived million of years ago and co-habited and/or that there were multiple origins.
I think this is reasonable to be honest, else I would simply be taking your word for it.

Also there is no point asking me to go read on genetics to understand it because genetics is a vast field and I wouldn't know where to begin to find answers to my doubts. I am still waiting for somebody to explain it beyond a reason of doubt.



[edit on 16-12-2009 by Indigo_Child]

OMG!? What did they teach in science when you were at school?

DNA, from the begining.

Also

Because DNA collects mutations over time, which are then inherited, it contains historical information and by comparing DNA sequences, geneticists can infer the evolutionary history of organisms, their phylogeny.[128] This field of phylogenetics is a powerful tool in evolutionary biology. If DNA sequences within a species are compared, population geneticists can learn the history of particular populations. This can be used in studies ranging from ecological genetics to anthropology; for example, DNA evidence is being used to try to identify the Ten Lost Tribes of Israel.[129][130] DNA has also been used to look at modern family relationships, such as establishing family relationships between the descendants of Sally Hemings and Thomas Jefferson. This usage is closely related to the use of DNA in criminal investigations detailed above. Indeed, some criminal investigations have been solved when DNA from crime scenes has matched relatives of the guilty individual.

en.wikipedia.org...

We can track the movements of humans in a similar fashion to how cops catch criminals with DNA from a crime scene. It's pretty basic really.

Originally posted by LordBaskettIV
OMG!? What did they teach in science when you were at school?

DNA, from the begining.

Well that is just it, I do not just take for granted what I learned at school

So far whatever I have read and heard about genetics, what constitutes a species, what constitutes a gene has been very contradictory and confusing. I am not going accept something as hard fact, simply because somebody says it is - because somebody else is saying something totally different:

Take a look at this:

Scientists Find No Genetic Evidence For Evolution
by Bill Sardi

Critics of Darwin's theory of evolution point to flaws in the fossil record (no new species, no missing links) as evidence that the theory is false. But in the 1960s scientists discovered genetic material called DNA and were quick to suggest that the rate of change in DNA is evidence that confirms Darwin's theory of evolution.

While it is convenient for evolutionary biologists to assume that various DNA proteins evolve at a fixed rate, a recent study blows a hole in this theory. The September 25 issue of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, geneticist Francisco Rodriguez-Trelles and colleagues at the University of California, Irvine, indicate the idea of a molecular clock may be hopelessly flawed. "It may be ripe for the pawnshop" say Menno Schilthuizen, writing in Science Now.

Calculating the different mutation rates for three well-known genes for 78 species, researchers found widely different mutation rates even for closely related species. "Molecular clocks are much more erratic than previously thought and practically useless to keep accurate evolutionary time," says Schilthuizen. The authors of the research conclude that the neutral theory of molecular evolution (predictable or constant rates of change) is flawed and that changes in the rate of variation are left to the vagaries of natural selection (randomness). With no evidence to confirm the neutral theory of molecular evolution, scientists say this amounts to a "denial of there being a molecular clock."

www.lewrockwell.com...

So while DNA evidence maybe reliable to catch a criminal based on the DNA evidence they leave behind, the reliability and validity of this method to tell us stuff in the distant past is strongly in question.

Now look at this.

Here is a genetic study that proves that Indo-Aryans(North Indians) invaded India, posted on the white-supremist website Stormfront

History of Ancient Indian Conquest Told in Modern Genes, Experts Say
Robert Cooke, Newsday

Like an indelible signature enduring through a hundred generations, genes that entered India when conquering hordes swooped down from the north thousands of years ago are still there, and remain entrenched at the top of the caste system, scientists report. Analyses of the male Y chromosome, plus genes hidden in small cellular bodies called mitochondria, show that today's genetic patterns agree with accounts of ancient Indo-European warriors' conquering the Indian subcontinent.
The invaders apparently shoved the local men aside, took their women and set up the rigid caste system that exists today. Their descendants are still the elite within Hindu society.

Here is a genetic study that proves that there was no invasion, posted on a pro-Indian website: www.archaeologyonline.net...

Here is an interesting quote from the above

Since the 1990s, there have been numerous genetic studies of Indian populations, often reaching apparently divergent conclusions.

It appears genetic studies can be used both to prove x and disprove x. It is similar to many studies where garlic can be shown to be good for heart disease and bad for heart disease. This is why scientific case studies are on the most part unreliable and their neutrality in serious question. To not acknowledge these factors and the conflicting studies in the field of genetics is hardly a scientific attitude.

[edit on 16-12-2009 by Indigo_Child]

The contradictions you think you are hearing are not genetics, and not even really science.

It is the conclusions that are drawn from the data. Often, the conclusions given, particularly to the public, are not exactly correct.

Sometimes this is due to the biases of the people doing the study. Sometimes is a bias towards a theory. Sometimes it is just over confidence. And sometimes it is just pure hookem.

I've read research studies that when you got to the end of them, the conclusion written out actually seemed to say the opposite of what the data said. The conclusions drawn actually weren't saying what they seemed to say - the sentences were very well written. They seem to say that product A is not as good as product B, but in reality if you read the paragraphs over several times they actually say that there is no difference between them. Some of those people writing out those research conclusions are very talented writers of near fiction.

This is why I started looking beyond the conclusions being presented. First of all, one has to trust that a journalist is interpreting it right. And I don't know about you, but I've known some journalists and the guy who literally goes to the journalists den for a whiskey sour at 8am and has to uses his tie to hold his drink into his shaking hand doesn't inspire my confidence.

Then you have to trust that people let the data speak for itself. When it comes down to it, that is rarely the case. Again, generations of innovators being hounded by "logical thinking minds" doesn't inspire ones confidence that all scientific minded people approach their views without ego.

Scientists are just people. Journalists are just people. Prone to all the usual foibles.

The data speaks - but it doesn't always speak in the same tone of singular rectitude the person writing it up does.

Originally posted by one_enlightened_mind

Originally posted by Agent_USA_Supporter
When will there be a study that says we as a people actually came from Atlantis?

Tell you what; prove Atlantis existed and Anthropologists will no doubt look into all of the possibilities where human ancestry is concerned.

Just, uh... wait a few years to prove it. I would very much like to be one of the Anthropologists who do that...

You would like to be one of those Anthropologists who could pitch that study in the event they do find Atlantis? Or would you like to be able to laugh upon recollection of this discussion?

They didn't come from Atlantis, ever thought that maybe they came from Africa to Atlantis? Aww snap there's a new one.

reply to post by Indigo_Child


Why are you so hung up on the time scale? There were probably many different migrations out of Africa. Plenty of time for the total human population to expand and contract leaving isolated groups. These groups would seem to be "new" or separate when contacted again, but the fact remains they can and probably do come from the same place originally.

Also, your Bill Sardi quote says nothing except that the rate of mutations in different species may be different. Doesn't disprove evolution, dna, natural selection, or anything else except that we may not know exactly when organisms diverged from a common ancestor.