Posted on 05/14/2005 1:49:00 PM PDT by LibWhacker
The first humans who left Africa to populate the world headed south along the coast of the Indian Ocean, Science magazine reports.
Scientists had always thought the exodus from Africa around 70,000 years ago took place along a northern route into Europe and Asia.
But according to a genetic study, early modern humans followed the beach, possibly lured by a seafood diet.
They quickly reached Australia but took much longer to settle in Europe.
Dr Martin Richards of the University of Leeds, who took part in the study, says the first humans may have moved south in search of better fishing grounds when stocks in the Red Sea dwindled due to climate change.
"That might have been the push that set them off," he told the BBC News website.
DNA clues
When the first modern humans evolved in Africa, they lived mainly on meat hunted from animals. But by 70,000 years ago, they had switched to a marine diet, largely shellfish.
The new research suggests they moved along the coasts of the Arabian peninsula into India, Indonesia and Australia about 65,000 years ago. An offshoot later led to the settlement of the Middle East and Asia about 30 to 40,000 years ago.
The data comes from studies by two teams of scientists on the DNA of native people living in Malaysia and on the Andaman and Nicobar Islands between India and Burma.
Scientists can estimate how closely related we are by studying the DNA of the energy producing parts of the cell, our mitochondria.
Thank you for your kindness, but I will still say I was out of order. I could have expressed my thoughts in a different way or not expressed them at all knowing how you feel.
National Geographic is currently conducting research on this and has invited the public to participate. You have to pay for the DNA kit. I signed up and am waiting to hear something.
They also have an interactive map on their site which is interesting and shows the common theory of ancient humans migrating to Europe and parts of Asia, then Siberia to North America, etc.
I have not heard of the possibility of debunking a common ancestor but if anyone is researching this, I'd like to know more.
EXACAT? My EXACAT theory? I thought that word looked strange before I posted, but I couldn't figure out what it was. It looks like a good word. Maybe I can invent a meaning to it in the near future.
And I'm still one of those goofs that thinks the Sasquatch is one of the few surving Neanderthals! But then I don't have a custom-made tin foil hat either. :-))
This does not add up, cellularly.
Here's a link to the Bradshaw interactive map. I recommend exploring it completely, including the popup explanations indicated by the small "book" icons shown after each stage.
http://www.bradshawfoundation.com/journey/
Wow, THAT'S interesting, thanks! Think I'll participate. But if they classify me as non-human and put me in a zoo, you've gotta come and get me out, deal? ;-)
It sounds to me like they're saying the first wave of migrants moved into that region after Toba. But that's totally wrong, I think (at least from what little I know about it).
Do I have to bring you home too??
I will certainly do that and greatly appreciate the link.
Thank you. Yes, I remember reading that article with great interest since I personally do not swallow the theory humans as we know them today came out of Africa. I don't know where we started other than La La Land/Disney World, but neither does anybody else. At least that article was a good start in debunking the Africa theorists.
Yes. And feed him/her very well please.
SUVs?
Only if the howling won't bother you! :-)
Lol, thank you. :-)
Origin of phrase, "The coast is clear".
The first thing I thought of when I read about an Asian origination of homo sapiens -- and this doesn't reflect my opinion at all because I HAVE no opinion! -- is that people who have been to any place in Asia generally tell the same tale of how racist Asians are to anyone who is not Asian. And also how they believe they are the superior race, but a fascinating find and theory nontheless.
It would make sense, in that vein, that they would want to prove that all of humankind originated in the Orient. Also, there have been lots of extinct human species (Peking man) that did not evolve or crossbreed with homo sapiens.
Interesting stuff, and we may never have the answer. It's like putting together a 5 million piece jigsaw puzzle. You have to admit, a LOT of pizza and beer would be required for that project! :-)
Disclaimer: I have no prejudice against Asians as I have known a few very fine Asian folk for whom I've had the highest regard. (How do you spell Michelle Malkin?) I only related something above I was told which came to mind as I read LibWhacker's link. (end of PC disclaimer)
"...The most empirical anthropologist is here as limited as an antiquary. He can only cling to a fragment of the past and has no way of increasing it for the future. He can only clutch his fragment of fact, almost as the primitive man clutched his fragment of flint. And indeed he does deal with it in much the same way and for much the same reason. It is his tool and his only tool. It is his weapon and his only weapon. He often wields it with a fanaticism far in excess of anything shown by men of science when they can collect more facts from experience and even add new facts by experiment. Sometimes the professor with his bone becomes almost as dangerous as a dog with his bone. And the dog at least does not deduce a theory from it, proving that mankind is going to the dogs-or that it came from them. For instance, I have pointed out the difficulty of keeping a monkey and watching it evolve into a man. Experimental evidence of such an evolution being impossible, the professor is not content to say (as most of us would be ready to say) that such an evolution is likely enough anyhow. He produces his little bone, or little collection of bones, and deduces the most marvelous things from it. He found in Java a piece of a skull, seeming by its contour to be smaller than the human. Somewhere near it he found an upright thigh-bone and in the same scattered fashion some teeth that were not human. If they all form part of one creature, which is doubtful, our conception of the creature would be almost equally doubtful. But the effect on popular science was to produce a complete and even complex figure, finished down to the last details of hair and habits. He was given a name as if he were an ordinary historical character. People talked of Pithecanthropus as of Pitt or Fox or Napoleon. Popular histories published portraits of 'him like the portraits of Charles the First and George the Fourth. A detailed drawing was reproduced, carefully shaded, to show that the very hairs of his head were all numbered. No uninformed person looking at its carefully lined face and wistful eyes would imagine for a moment that this was the portrait of a thigh bone; or of a few teeth and a fragment of a cranium. In the same way people talked about him as if he were an individual whose influence and character were familiar to us all. I have just read a story in a magazine about Java and how modern white inhabitants of that island are prevailed on to misbehave themselves by the personal influence of poor old Pithecanthropus. That the modern inhabitants of Java misbehave themselves I can very readily believe; but I do not imagine that they need any encouragement from the discovery of a few highly doubtful bones...."
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.