The Forgotten Exodus: The Into Africa Theory of Human Evolution

Martina

Jedi Master
I' reading the paper in PDF from this page Modern human origins: multiregional evolution of autosomes and East Asia origin of Y and mtDNA
Modern human origins: multiregional evolution of autosomes and East Asia origin of Y and mtDNA

Dejian Yuan, Xiaoyun Lei, Yuanyuan Gui, Zuobin Zhu, Dapeng Wang, Jun Yu, Shi Huang
Abstract
Recent studies have established that genetic diversities are mostly maintained by selection, therefore rendering the present molecular model of human origins untenable. Using improved methods and public data, we have revisited human evolution and derived an age of 1.91-1.96 million years for the first split in modern human autosomes. We found evidence of modern Y and mtDNA originating in East Asia and dispersing via hybridization with archaic humans. Analyses of autosomes, Y and mtDNA all suggest that Denisovan and Neanderthal were archaic Africans with Eurasian admixtures and ancestors of South Asia Negritos and Aboriginal Australians. Verifying our model, we found more ancestry of Southern Chinese from Hunan in Africans relative to other East Asian groups examined. These results suggest multiregional evolution of autosomes and replacements of archaic Y and mtDNA by modern ones originating in East Asia, thereby leading to a coherent account of modern human origins.
 

Approaching Infinity

Administrator
Administrator
Moderator
FOTCM Member
I' reading the paper in PDF from this page Modern human origins: multiregional evolution of autosomes and East Asia origin of Y and mtDNA
Modern human origins: multiregional evolution of autosomes and East Asia origin of Y and mtDNA

Dejian Yuan, Xiaoyun Lei, Yuanyuan Gui, Zuobin Zhu, Dapeng Wang, Jun Yu, Shi Huang
Abstract
Recent studies have established that genetic diversities are mostly maintained by selection, therefore rendering the present molecular model of human origins untenable. Using improved methods and public data, we have revisited human evolution and derived an age of 1.91-1.96 million years for the first split in modern human autosomes. We found evidence of modern Y and mtDNA originating in East Asia and dispersing via hybridization with archaic humans. Analyses of autosomes, Y and mtDNA all suggest that Denisovan and Neanderthal were archaic Africans with Eurasian admixtures and ancestors of South Asia Negritos and Aboriginal Australians. Verifying our model, we found more ancestry of Southern Chinese from Hunan in Africans relative to other East Asian groups examined. These results suggest multiregional evolution of autosomes and replacements of archaic Y and mtDNA by modern ones originating in East Asia, thereby leading to a coherent account of modern human origins.
In one of the comments for this paper, there was a link to this one:

Carriers of mitochondrial DNA macrohaplogroup L3 basic lineages migrated back to Africa from Asia around 70,000 years ago.

That matches with what Bruce has been saying. The authors still think humans originally came from Africa 125kya, however.
 

Jones

Dagobah Resident
FOTCM Member
Even if we take the artificial deformation for granted, there are a couple of anomalies which might suggest a genetic mutation of some sort: the extra crests around the foramen magnum and the anomaly in the temporal bone. The entire article is available on the link below, I'll just extract some quotes.

Human remains from Ali Kosh, Iran (2017)
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/322930502_Human_remains_from_Ali_Kosh_Iran_2017



View attachment 26688

View attachment 26689
The crests in the foramen magnum could be to protect clear passage for cerebrospinal fluid. I'd imagine that there'd be a fair bit of caudal force with the weightier brain and that could possibly mean that the brain had a tendency to sag and possibly cause issues with CSF flow. It would be interesting to see a midline saggital view to compare the other bony structures at the base of the skull around the foramen magnum - I couldn't find one though.
 

seek10

The Living Force
FOTCM Member
In one of the comments for this paper, there was a link to this one:

Carriers of mitochondrial DNA macrohaplogroup L3 basic lineages migrated back to Africa from Asia around 70,000 years ago.

That matches with what Bruce has been saying. The authors still think humans originally came from Africa 125kya, however.
I am not sure whether it is related or not, but 125K and 70K reminds me of this.
5/31/1997
Q: Were the Jews that were genetically engineered and then planted in the Middle East... what year was this?
A: 130,000 years ago.

Q: Good grief! Have they managed to retain any racial purity for that long?

A: No.

Q: Cayce talks about the division in Atlantis between the "Sons of One" and the "Sons of Belial." Was this a racial division or a philosophical/ religious division?

A: It was the latter two, and before that, the former one.

Q: When it was a racial division, which group was it?

A: The Sons of Belial were the Kantekkians.
---
2005-10-20
Q: (Galahad) In reading through the transcripts in the 9/11 book, I was confused about the genetic tweak that was made 130,000 years ago. Was that a tweak that was done to all the Semites, so it wasn’t only the Jews?
A: Question is what is a Semite?
Q: (Galahad) You make a remark that this thing with Hitler goes off planet. So was this something that was going on on Kantek before it exploded?
A: Yes.
Q: (Galahad) So, when we’re looking at a replay, we’re REALLY looking at a replay!

A: Yup.

Q: (Discussion of who are the Semites) (Galahad) So the real Semites are the Aryans?

A: You got it!

Q: (L) So that means that the rank and file of Jews that have carried the tradition, the Arabic types, just took on the tradition and carried it... They were just intermediaries. They stole the significator of the original Semites and applied it to themselves. (Perceval) Semites is like Middle Eastern, isn’t it?

A: Is it? Was it?

Q: (Galahad) Then the genetic tweak, was it made in the Aryan Semites or was it made in the Jews that we know as Jews today?

A: Aryan. Reason for destruction of Jews of the “Abrahamic” line.
 

Laura

Administrator
Administrator
Moderator
FOTCM Member
I've started a thread about the book "Evolution 2.0" by Perry Marshall: Evolution 2.0 . I think it is essential reading for everyone, but most especially those interested in human origins. He describes all the most interesting discoveries in cell biology, genetics, and more, which are NOT reported in all the books I've read thus far or which are discussed here. E 2.0 makes it abundantly clear how humans evolved. There is a review of his book by an idiot here: Our DNA as Proof for God's Existence?, Review of Perry Marshall's "Evolution 2.0: Breaking the Deadlock Between Darwin and Design", Frank Visser that actually includes the mechanisms that Marshall highlights as being the real elements of evolution so I will borrow the list, but ignore the ignorant twists of the writer in the remainder of the hit piece:

  1. Transposition - a mutation in which a chromosomal segment is transferred to a new position on the same or another chromosome. Building on Barbara McClintock's work on genetic changes in maize, for which she received the Nobel Prize in 1983, Marshall claims mutations are not (always) random, but a case of "natural genetic engineering" (a term used by her collaborator James Shapiro).
  2. Horizontal gene transfer - the movement of genetic material between unicellular and/or multicellular organisms other than via vertical transmission. Cells, both of bacteria and of complex organisms, can exchange DNA material with other cells, which fundamentally changes our idea of the Tree of Life. Carl Woese, who discovered the archaea class of bacteria, saw this as the dominant mode of evolution for single-cell organisms.
  3. Epigenetics - the study of stably heritable traits (or "phenotypes") that cannot be explained by changes in DNA sequence. Contrary to orthodox theory cells can change their DNA by turning on or off their genes. Environmental pressures cause these changes. It turns out that (some of) these genetic changes can be passed on to offspring, producing different cell types in fetal development. (Most genes in a cell are turned off).
  4. Symbiogenesis - an evolutionary theory of the origin of eukaryotic cells from prokaryotic organisms. Largely due to the work of Lynn Margulis it is now common knowledge that the mitochondria and chlorophyll in animals and plants were free-living bacteria in the dim past before they got "swallowed up" (but not digested) by one-celled amoebas. Thus the animal, plant and fungal kingdoms have become possible because of bacteria.
  5. Genome Duplication - cells and organisms are those containing more than two paired (homologous) sets of chromosomes. Japanese geneticist Susumu Ohno was the first to point out that genome duplications, sometimes followed by another duplication, caused early vertebrates to grow more complex. These duplications fuelled sudden, radical transformations of body plans, giving rise to new species.
  6. Transduction - when our genome was sequenced, not only was it discovered to be shockingly simple (only 10 times more complex than bacteria), but large fragments of viral DNA were discovered that turned out to be vital for the evolution of all organisms. Marshall bases himself here on the work of Frank Ryan, author of the book Virolution (2009).
 

Laura

Administrator
Administrator
Moderator
FOTCM Member
Didn't see this one posted before. Maybe it is of interest. Published yesterday in "The Independent":

Mysterious ancient humans with brains like modern people prompt rethink of early evolution
The problem with all they are saying about Homo Naledi is that it isn't so amazing considering the dating of the critters:

"Prior to dating, initial judgement based on archaic features of its anatomy favoured an age of roughly two million years old. In 2017, however, the fossils were dated to between 335,000 and 236,000 years ago, long after much larger-brained and more modern-looking hominins had appeared."
 

Jeffrey of Troy

Padawan Learner
"In analysing DNA barcodes across 100,000 species, researchers found a telltale sign showing that almost all the animals emerged about the same time as humans "

Sweeping gene survey reveals new facets of evolution

It is textbook biology, for example, that species with large, far-flung populations -- think ants, rats, humans -- will become more genetically diverse over time.

But is that true?

"The answer is no," said Stoeckle, lead author of the study, published in the journal Human Evolution.

For the planet's 7.6 billion people, 500 million house sparrows, or 100,000 sandpipers, genetic diversity "is about the same," he told AFP.

The study's most startling result, perhaps, is that nine out of 10 species on Earth today, including humans, came into being 100,000 to 200,000 years ago.
 

Altair

Ambassador
Ambassador
FOTCM Member
"In analysing DNA barcodes across 100,000 species, researchers found a telltale sign showing that almost all the animals emerged about the same time as humans "
The study above was conducted at Rockefeller University so I think it should be taken with a grain of salt.
 

mkrnhr

SuperModerator
Moderator
FOTCM Member
The study above was conducted at Rockefeller University so I think it should be taken with a grain of salt.
It depends of the soundness of the arguments and the evidence put forward. Here is the full paper: https://phe.rockefeller.edu/news/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/Stoeckle-Thaler-Final-reduced.pdf
Genetic diversity within a species is viewed here through mitochondrial DNA.
Here is another summary: Far from special: Humanity's tiny DNA differences are 'average' in animal kingdom
 
Last edited:

itellsya

Ambassador
Ambassador
FOTCM Member
It depends of the soundness of the arguments and the evidence put forward. Here is the full paper: https://phe.rockefeller.edu/news/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/Stoeckle-Thaler-Final-reduced.pdf
Genetic diversity within a species is viewed here through mitochondrial DNA.
Here is another summary: Far from special: Humanity's tiny DNA differences are 'average' in animal kingdom
I'm not sure we should discount it just because it's from the Rockefeller Uni (and another author from Basel Uni, Switzerland). The dating is probably off, and since we still don't fully understand DNA's properties and role that could be iffy too, but i think some of the authors findings could be of interest. It's up on SOTT already and i've highlighted what caught my eye in that article:


Is a catastrophic event 200,000 years ago responsible for most of the life on our planet today?

Marlowe Hood
Phys.org
Mon, 28 May 2018 19:18 UTC

For the planet's 7.6 billion people, 500 million house sparrows, or 100,000 sandpipers, genetic diversity "is about the same," Mark Stoeckle from the Rockefeller University in New York told AFP

Who would have suspected that a handheld genetic test used to unmask sushi bars pawning off tilapia for tuna could deliver deep insights into evolution, including how new species emerge?

And who would have thought to trawl through five million of these gene snapshots-called "DNA barcodes"-collected from 100,000 animal species by hundreds of researchers around the world and deposited in the US government-run GenBank database?

That would be Mark Stoeckle from The Rockefeller University in New York and David Thaler at the University of Basel in Switzerland, who together published findings last week sure to jostle, if not overturn, more than one settled idea about how evolution unfolds.

It is textbook biology, for example, that species with large, far-flung populations - think ants, rats, humans - will become more genetically diverse over time.

But is that true?

"The answer is no," said Stoeckle, lead author of the study, published in the journal Human Evolution.

For the planet's 7.6 billion people, 500 million house sparrows, or 100,000 sandpipers, genetic diversity "is about the same," he told AFP.

The study's most startling result, perhaps, is that nine out of 10 species on Earth today, including humans, came into being 100,000 to 200,000 years ago.

"This conclusion is very surprising, and I fought against it as hard as I could," Thaler told AFP.

That reaction is understandable: How does one explain the fact that 90 percent of animal life, genetically speaking, is roughly the same age?

Was there some catastrophic event 200,000 years ago that nearly wiped the slate clean?

Simpler, cheaper

To understand the answer, one has to understand DNA barcoding. Animals have two kinds of DNA.

The one we are most familiar with, nuclear DNA, is passed down in most animals by male and female parents and contains the genetic blueprint for each individual.

The genome-made up of DNA-is constructed with four types of molecules arranged in pairs. In humans, there are three billion of these pairs, grouped into about 20,000 genes.

But all animals also have DNA in their mitochondria, which are the tiny structures inside each cell that convert energy from food into a form that cells can use.

Mitochondria contain 37 genes, and one of them, known as COI, is used to do DNA barcoding.

Unlike the genes in nuclear DNA, which can differ greatly from species to species, all animals have the same set of mitochondrial DNA, providing a common basis for comparison.

Mitochondrial DNA is also a lot simpler, and cheaper, to isolate.

Around 2002, Canadian molecular biologist Paul Hebert - who coined the term "DNA barcode" - figured out a way to identify species by analysing the COI gene.

"The mitochondrial sequence has proved perfect for this all-animal approach because it has just the right balance of two conflicting properties," said Thaler.

'Neutral' mutations

On the one hand, the COI gene sequence is similar across all animals, making it easy to pick out and compare.

On the other hand, these mitochondrial snippets are different enough to be able to distinguish between each species.

"It coincides almost perfectly with species designations made by specialist experts in each animal domain," Thaler said.

In analysing the barcodes across 100,000 species, the researchers found a telltale sign showing that almost all the animals emerged about the same time as humans.

What they saw was a lack of variation in so-called "neutral" mutations, which are the slight changes in DNA across generations that neither help nor hurt an individual's chances of survival.

In other words, they were irrelevant in terms of the natural and sexual drivers of evolution.

How similar or not these "neutral" mutations are to each other is like tree rings-they reveal the approximate age of a species.

Which brings us back to our question: why did the overwhelming majority of species in existence today emerge at about the same time?

Darwin perplexed

Environmental trauma is one possibility, explained Jesse Ausubel, director of the Program for the Human Environment at The Rockefeller University.

"Viruses, ice ages, successful new competitors, loss of prey-all these may cause periods when the population of an animal drops sharply," he told AFP, commenting on the study.

"In these periods, it is easier for a genetic innovation to sweep the population and contribute to the emergence of a new species."

But the last true mass extinction event was 65.5 million years ago when a likely asteroid strike wiped out land-bound dinosaurs and half of all species on Earth. This means a population "bottleneck" is only a partial explanation at best.

"The simplest interpretation is that life is always evolving," said Stoeckle.

"It is more likely that-at all times in evolution-the animals alive at that point arose relatively recently."

In this view, a species only lasts a certain amount of time before it either evolves into something new or goes extinct.

And yet-another unexpected finding from the study-species have very clear genetic boundaries, and there's nothing much in between.

"If individuals are stars, then species are galaxies," said Thaler. "They are compact clusters in the vastness of empty sequence space."

The absence of "in-between" species is something that also perplexed Darwin, he said.
 

Jeffrey of Troy

Padawan Learner
I'm not sure we should discount it just because it's from the Rockefeller Uni (and another author from Basel Uni, Switzerland). The dating is probably off, and since we still don't fully understand DNA's properties and role that could be iffy too, but i think some of the authors findings could be of interest. It's up on SOTT already and i've highlighted what caught my eye in that article:
Sorry, I hadn't made the connection that it was the same study that the earlier SOTT post had already talked about.
 
Top Bottom