The Forgotten Exodus: The Into Africa Theory of Human Evolution

Laura

Administrator
Administrator
Moderator
FOTCM Member
I once hitched a ride with a guy, picking up a pony in Exmoor, involved in horse-breeding. He was telling me in the equine-pedegree world its ok for fathers to mate with daughters, but NOT mothers with sons because the offspring go doolally. No full-blood siblings either, but, apparently, half-siblings can if they don't stem from same mother(?)...
The gist i got was direct womb-link regards in-breeding is a defo no no. It got me thinking about the Old Testament and Lot and his daughters continuing the progeny, and Abraham and his half-sister Sarah among others. Although post-Law bans all incest, it would seem mother-son incest is considered the worst of all such examples, though such a sinful relationship never explicitly exampled pre-Law (though I'm sure there were).

Well, that got me to thinking. I've heard similar things, too. And since we do occasionally breed our "purebred" dogs, I've had to do a little research on who goes with who. Usually, the kennel clubs keep track of that and if you are unsure, you can ask.

But, back to the mother-son thing; aside from evincing a strong "yuck" in the Western psyche, there may actually be a medical/genetic reason for it and somebody may have noticed a consequence way back when. What I have read is that dna from the child a woman is carrying finds its way into her system and persists there. It's probably not so bad if one is carrying a female child, but what about a male child? Some of that male child's dna is floating around in her body somewhere. If there are sex-linked mutations that are harmful, the mother carrying a child by that same son might have problems. Of course, I'm just speculating, but you never know.
 

Gaby

SuperModerator
Moderator
FOTCM Member
But, back to the mother-son thing; aside from evincing a strong "yuck" in the Western psyche, there may actually be a medical/genetic reason for it and somebody may have noticed a consequence way back when. What I have read is that dna from the child a woman is carrying finds its way into her system and persists there. It's probably not so bad if one is carrying a female child, but what about a male child? Some of that male child's dna is floating around in her body somewhere. If there are sex-linked mutations that are harmful, the mother carrying a child by that same son might have problems. Of course, I'm just speculating, but you never know.

I was talking about something related yesterday with a nurse. She had a friend who had 6-8 abortions and people were telling her not to worry, that she would not abort once she gets pregnant with a baby girl and that all previous abortions were probably boys. Sure enough, her first and only full term baby was a girl. This comes from a relatively isolated population with a high rate of consanguinity who probably noticed this pattern repeating enough times as to become local wisdom: abortions happen when it is a boy, girls will survive though.
 

mrtn

Dagobah Resident
What I have read is that dna from the child a woman is carrying finds its way into her system and persists there.
Wow! I didn't know that. It's apparently called "fetal-maternal microchimerism".
Children’s cells live on in mothers
  • Fetal cells are probably sprinkled throughout a mother’s brain. A study of women who had died in their 70s found that over half of the women had male DNA (a snippet from the Y chromosome) in their brains, presumably from when their sons were in the womb. Scientists often look for male DNA in women because it’s easier than distinguishing a daughter’s DNA from her mother’s. If DNA from daughters were included, the number of women with children’s cells in their brains would probably be even higher.
  • When the heart is injured, fetal cells seem to flock to the site of injury and turn into several different types of specialized heart cells. Some of these cells may even start beating, a mouse study found. So technically, those icky-sweet Mother’s Day cards may be right: A mother really does hold her children in her heart.
  • Fetal cells circulate in a mother’s blood. Male DNA turned up in blood samples from women who were potential stem cell donors. That result may have implications for stem cell transplants. This cell swapping may make parents better donor candidates for their children than strangers, for instance.
If GMO products can alter your DNA then that's probably even more likely for living cells from an organism living inside the body. I wonder if of two childs of a mother, from different fathers, the second child could carry DNA from its older sibling?
 

Laura

Administrator
Administrator
Moderator
FOTCM Member
Wow! I didn't know that. It's apparently called "fetal-maternal microchimerism".
Children’s cells live on in mothers

If GMO products can alter your DNA then that's probably even more likely for living cells from an organism living inside the body. I wonder if of two childs of a mother, from different fathers, the second child could carry DNA from its older sibling?

I told people that you don't feel like the same person after you have a baby; and I had five, and felt distinctly different after each. And a couple of my pregnancies were pretty awful. But I am a very introspective/sensitive person so maybe not everybody feels this.
 

Gaby

SuperModerator
Moderator
FOTCM Member

As I understand it, these ancient genomes spread pretty much everywhere around the last glacial maximum and might explain "Caucasian" characteristics of the first Amerindians that are not due to trans-Atlantic trips from Iberia, but rather are due to migration through Beringia.

It might also explain the underwater ancient city in Japan that seems to be related with the Ainu people in North East Asia and their worship of the bear, just like some ancient European cultures and their bear cult. Northern regions of Korea still retain this bear worship too.

Hmm, I'll just have to read Reich's book, specially since my copies of Wolpoff and others have not arrived yet.

Stringer does provide that handy chart on p 12 of his book showing how some ancestral DNA can be eliminated completely from a person's genome, that is, the percentage of the ancestors back to given generations have contributed to a person's make-up; it starts getting iffy at 7 generations and declines exponentially from there. So how they ever came up with that Eve nonsense I'll never understand. (But hindsight is 20/20.)

Typo. I think this is the wrong David. David Stringer's Origin of Our Species has no such graph in his book. It would be David Reich's Who We Are and How We Got Here. Or at least I think this graph refers to the one on location 632 of the kindle version which reads:

"Figure 4. The number of ancestors you have doubles every generation back in time. However, the number of stretches of DNA that contributed to you increases by only around seventy-one per generation. This means that if you go back eight or more generations, it is almost certain that you will have some ancestors whose DNA did not get passed down to you. Go back fifteen generations and the probability that any one ancestor contributed directly to your DNA becomes exceedingly small."
 

Laura

Administrator
Administrator
Moderator
FOTCM Member
Typo. I think this is the wrong David. David Stringer's Origin of Our Species has no such graph in his book. It would be David Reich's Who We Are and How We Got Here. Or at least I think this graph refers to the one on location 632 of the kindle version which reads:

"Figure 4. The number of ancestors you have doubles every generation back in time. However, the number of stretches of DNA that contributed to you increases by only around seventy-one per generation. This means that if you go back eight or more generations, it is almost certain that you will have some ancestors whose DNA did not get passed down to you. Go back fifteen generations and the probability that any one ancestor contributed directly to your DNA becomes exceedingly small."

Yup, wrong David. It's Reich, not Stringer, who has the chart. I fixed it in my original post and hope nobody was confused!

Meanwhile, Carleton Coon's book arrived today and I'm glad I got over my hesitation and ordered it. I took a break from the other just to check it out and it is just LOADED with insightful material. And, based on the latest material such as Stringer and Reich, Coon doesn't seem to have been that far off. It's a shame that the "social anthropologists" who pushed the PostModernist deconstruction line made so much noise about it that people may be put off from reading it. There's an relatively inexpensive reprint available.
 

Adaryn

The Living Force
"Figure 4. The number of ancestors you have doubles every generation back in time. However, the number of stretches of DNA that contributed to you increases by only around seventy-one per generation. This means that if you go back eight or more generations, it is almost certain that you will have some ancestors whose DNA did not get passed down to you. Go back fifteen generations and the probability that any one ancestor contributed directly to your DNA becomes exceedingly small."

About the above issue (quoted from an article read online):

Each generation we go back is expected to halve the amount of autosomal genetic material an ancestor gives to you. As this material inherited in chunks, we only have to go back ~9 generations until it is quite likely that a specific ancestor contributed zero of your autosomal material to you (see previous post). This process is inherently random, as the process of recombination (the breaking of chromosomes into chunks) and transmission are both random sets of events. […] Your number of genetic ancestors will not grow linearly forever. If we go far enough back your number of genetic ancestors will get large enough, on order of the size of the population you are descended from, that it will stop growing as you will be inheriting different chunks of genetic material from the same set of individuals multiple times over. At this point your number of ancestors will begin to plateau. Indeed, once we go back far enough actually your number of genetic ancestors will begin to contract as human populations have grown rapidly over time.
How many genetic ancestors do I have?
 

Mr.Cyan

The Living Force
FOTCM Member
But, back to the mother-son thing; aside from evincing a strong "yuck" in the Western psyche, there may actually be a medical/genetic reason for it and somebody may have noticed a consequence way back when. What I have read is that dna from the child a woman is carrying finds its way into her system and persists there. It's probably not so bad if one is carrying a female child, but what about a male child? Some of that male child's dna is floating around in her body somewhere. If there are sex-linked mutations that are harmful, the mother carrying a child by that same son might have problems. Of course, I'm just speculating, but you never know.

Just adding my 2 cents. In some cultures in Southern India, where arranged marriages are still practiced - they consider it perfectly fine if a man marries his sister's daughters. Its not allowed if its his brother's daughters, because they are apparently "blood" relations, but sister's daughter's are not considered blood relations. I never understood why, but in light on the discussions in this thread, maybe its related to male child dna.
 

Altair

Ambassador
Ambassador
FOTCM Member
Typo. I think this is the wrong David. David Stringer's Origin of Our Species has no such graph in his book. It would be David Reich's Who We Are and How We Got Here. Or at least I think this graph refers to the one on location 632 of the kindle version which reads:

"Figure 4. The number of ancestors you have doubles every generation back in time. However, the number of stretches of DNA that contributed to you increases by only around seventy-one per generation. This means that if you go back eight or more generations, it is almost certain that you will have some ancestors whose DNA did not get passed down to you. Go back fifteen generations and the probability that any one ancestor contributed directly to your DNA becomes exceedingly small."

Yes, it must be this graph from Who We Are and How We Got Here by David Reich:
 

Attachments

  • Figure 4.jpg
    Figure 4.jpg
    196.2 KB · Views: 51

BlackCartouche

Jedi Master
What I have read is that dna from the child a woman is carrying finds its way into her system and persists there. It's probably not so bad if one is carrying a female child, but what about a male child? Some of that male child's dna is floating around in her body somewhere. If there are sex-linked mutations that are harmful, the mother carrying a child by that same son might have problems.
I second @mrtn: "Wow!"... I didn't know that either!
That may also have something to do with why sons sleeping with his father's concubines was considered incest too - as any potential progeny produced through said concubine is the also potential mixing of DNA of the father/son seed. I always put it down to zealous patriarchy, but looks like there may well indeed have been genuine biological reasons behind it - much the same way as @Mr.Cyan's concluded observation.
 

Laura

Administrator
Administrator
Moderator
FOTCM Member
Well, a new glitch for the ROOA theory:

Butchered rhino carcass and Stone Age tools reveal early humans settled in the Philippines 600,000 years earlier than thought
  • A near-complete rhino skeleton was found alongside 60 ancient stone tools
  • The bones date back to 709,000 years ago and show signs of butchering
  • Remains have evidence of cut marks and bashing to remove the marrow
  • Early humans likely arrived on the islands accidentally on crude watercraft

By Harry Pettit For Mailonline

Published: 18:09 BST, 2 May 2018 | Updated: 20:13 BST, 2 May 2018

Ancient rhino bones that shows signs of butchering suggest early humans colonised the Philippines as early as 709,000 years ago.

The near-complete rhinoceros skeleton was found alongside nearly 60 ancient stone tools by scientists excavating a site on the island of Luzon.

The discovery could push back our estimates for when hominins first arrived in the Philippines by almost 650,000 years.

The discovery has left scientists baffled as tho who these ancient humans were and how they crossed the deep seas to reach Southeast Asia.

Experts suggest the ancient hominids likely arrived on the islands accidentally after sailing from Africa aboard crude watercraft, but they have no proof of this.

[...]
Stone tools and the remains of mysterious large animals were discovered in separate research at Cagayan Valley in the 1950s.

The finds hinted that the Philippine island may have been colonised by early humans any time between 781,000 and 126,000 years ago.

But for the past 60 years scientists have struggled to find reliably dated evidence of this early settlement.

Until now, the oldest definitive evidence of hominins in the Philippines came from a single foot bone, found in the Sierra Madre mountains, dated to 67,000 years ago.

The exact species of the stone tools’ owners remains a mystery. [...]


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-5679337/Ancient-rhino-bones-suggest-early-humans-lived-Philippines-early-709-000-years-ago.html
 

BlackCartouche

Jedi Master
As I understand it, these ancient genomes spread pretty much everywhere around the last glacial maximum and might explain "Caucasian" characteristics of the first Amerindians that are not due to trans-Atlantic trips from Iberia, but rather are due to migration through Beringia.
I remember reading something years ago about the Kyrgyz people's "The Manas" - an oral tradition to that of the Iliad but far more expansive - having long been aware of ancestral back and forth migrations across the 'land bridge' thousands of years ago over the frozen northern seas into the new world. I can't find anything pinning that down as yet, but I came across this I thought quite interesting:

Manas Epic: Yeniseian and Na-Dene article from Plos One (March 12, 2014)

I got very into the whole Silk Road fascination when I was younger, and the first thing that struck me was how much migratory shifting of nomadic peoples back and forth all over the great plains and steppes of Eurasia from Europe to the Far East going on for so many millennia - and how the Altaic languages are so mixed up and can be found all over the northern realms including English through the Huns and Indo-Aryans.
Mongoloid-based 'Amerindian' features could be said to be found in Uyghur 'Slavic' Caucasians too.
 

mrtn

Dagobah Resident
What boggled my mind was the claim that Neanderthals made such and such kinds of tools for something like 100K years with almost no change in the technology. But, of course, that tech was pretty impressive if you've ever tried to knap stones! It struck me that it's sort of like the saying "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." Do we really know what ELSE they (and other early peoples) were doing since very little survives time and planetary processes? Maybe what they were doing with stones was just a small aspect of their reality and stayed the same for all that time because it worked for what it was supposed to do?
Just yesterday i read on a german site
Wie der Wissenschaftsjournalist Andrew Lawer aktuell im Fachjournal „Science“ (DOI: 10.1126/science.360.6387.362) berichtet, deuten jüngste Ausgrabungen auf Inseln im Mittelmeerraum auf seefahrende Neandertaler vor mindestens rund 130.000 Jahren hin.
As the scientific journalist Andrew Lawer currently reports in the journal "Science" (DOI: 10.1126/science.360.6387.362), recent excavations on islands in the Mediterranean region point to seafaring Neanderthals at least 130,000 years ago.
But i see that you were not just thinking about woodcraft, like building boats.
 

BruceF

The Force is Strong With This One
Hi Laura,

Very good to connect, thank you for this reply.

Keep in mind here that Stringer's comment "...new genetic data have emerged to show that we Homo sapiens are not purely derived from a recent African origin", refers only to him eventually accepting the fact that modern humans have archaic DNA, largely from Neanderthals. It took him a very long time to even make this small concession. He still places all of the events leading to modern humans squarely in Africa - he has indicated he might be open to Western Asia playing some role in the story but that is it for him at most.

Stronger now advocated multiregionalism, but only with different regions of Africa.

When it comes to archaic hominin DNA you make a great observation about the way the modern human genome has selected against DNA from archaic humans such as Neanderthals. We really do not know how much of the human genome was Neanderthal material 50,000 years ago, to say we are 2-3% Neanderthals gives the misleading impression that no much mixing occurred - we really do not know that at all as so much material may have been selected against over that time.

Humans seem to go back at least 3 million years in a form readily recognisable to us, before that we might struggle to see them as anything other than another primate relative. But then, we really do not know if we have found any fossils from our ancestors beyond 3 million years ago, scientists are growing more sceptical about this and many doubt Australopithecus is a direct ancestral genus to Homo. We may simply not have found any fossils from humans much beyond the era of Homo erectus and Homo habilis - perhaps they looked pretty much like these species. I made a very different argument in my book, suggesting Australopithecus were perhaps early Homo, I would remove that in a future edition.

It does seem that our ancestors lived by the mantra of "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." We can assume either what they had was sufficient for their needs and wants, they had other technology that has not survived in the archaeological record or they lacked mental dexterity to move beyond the tools they had conjured up. This raises the question of why they then did change tool technology, either the situation conspired to bring about new needs or their brains changed in some significant way and they were able to think in new directions. Could this be deliberate upgrades by external forces (such as a meddling ET visitor)? I rather suspect you are correct though, that stone tech was "just a small aspect of their reality" we just can't know what else they were doing/using.

Laura said:
There seem to be a lot of clues in Cremo's book and I'll get back to reviewing it again soon; I want to get all the stuff that mainstream and off-to-the side mainstream are saying right now. At some point, if I live that long, I'll start assembling the data, point, counterpoint, and see if I can make sense of it. Right now, it's just in my head and in the notes, I write here on the forum.

It is interesting you mention Cremo's book, I have had it flagged t me many times over the years, and again since publishing the book. I finally downloaded a pdf version a couple of weeks ago and skimmed it to get a feel for the sources he uses. What I noticed right away was that despite being published in 1993, almost every source he used came from research done between 1800 - 1950, a period on which there was wild speculation by fantasists passing for scientists, mostly ideologically driven racists and religious nuts, all sharing from the same lack of meaningful training and absence of scientific dating methods. That Cremo chose to base his 1993 boo on these out of date and spurious reports suggests he was agenda driven. He could have referred to work carried out between 1980 and 1993 and I would excuse him, we have to conclude he wanted to use wacky reports that made wild baseless claims and these mostly exist if you look back 100 years or so. As you know, I did everything possible to use entirely cutting-edge studies, I did not try to build a case from long-abandoned models and speculations. I consider Cremo's book worthless on this basis and entirely written to support his stated Hindu beliefs. This is sad because that book is so revered and very often promoted to be the best in the field of non-academic human origins research!

I have read material from Alan Thorne and Xinzhi Wu on-line and will look for some good articles or papers, certainly, comments from Wu have appeared regularly in the recent press concerning controversial finds of modern human fossils in China. China is offering some of the best finds and it is there we are seeing the death of recent out of Africa being hastened most rapidly, at least in conjunction with Australia perhaps.

Hope some of this is useful!

Moderator Edit: Placed Laura's text in quotes.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

BruceF

The Force is Strong With This One
I think there's something about womb-creativity as fundamentally the most prominent of the STO-expression 'giving' aspect of creation-force through the individuated human mini-cosmos within 3D physicality... Therefore, to actively 'seed' the very cosmos (womb) from whence the very same seed sprang forth - would be the ultimate inversion-perversion life-force 'creativity' abomination because of its twisting back in on itself - kind of an expression of STS constriction... I see it like the representation of the snake eating its own tail - and even 4D STS want to avoid that practice when laying down foundations for their 'chosen' whilst establishing their 'order' on planet 3D because its too corrupting tantamount to chaos.

I will need to read Reich's book at some point, but as it stands, I define the ultimate 'purity' of any race to be genetically held to one's own parents and full-blood siblings... with identical twins the purest race of all (to each other). To mate with blood relatives is to be the snake eating its own tail - therefore NOT branching out into the wider gene-code pool ie away from one's own specific ethno-racial genome-pool, is a mild form of STS constriction.

It is interesting that STS beings in our world tend to be obsessed with inbreeding bloodlines, whether of dogs, horses or their own families. It does seem a bit like spitting in the eye of God/Goddess, to do that which nature seemingly abhors and clearly does everything to avoid, even 'punishing' such behaviour with severe mutations and genetic conditions. I suppose they hope to get around the problems by using technology such as CRISPR and finally allow full-on inbreeding (parent-child) without consequence?
 
Top Bottom