Skip to comments.New analysis shows three human migrations out of Africa, Replacement theory 'demolished'
Posted on 02/10/2006 2:54:05 AM PST by PatrickHenry
A new, more robust analysis of recently derived human gene trees by Alan R. Templeton, Ph.D, of Washington University in St Louis, shows three distinct major waves of human migration out of Africa instead of just two, and statistically refutes — strongly — the 'Out of Africa' replacement theory.
That theory holds that populations of Homo sapiens left Africa 100,000 years ago and wiped out existing populations of humans. Templeton has shown that the African populations interbred with the Eurasian populations — thus, making love, not war.
"The 'Out of Africa' replacement theory has always been a big controversy," Templeton said. "I set up a null hypothesis and the program rejected that hypothesis using the new data with a probability level of 10 to the minus 17th. In science, you don't get any more conclusive than that. It says that the hypothesis of no interbreeding is so grossly incompatible with the data, that you can reject it."
Templeton's analysis is considered to be the only definitive statistical test to refute the theory, dominant in human evolution science for more than two decades.
"Not only does the new analysis reject the theory, it demolishes it," Templeton said.
Templeton published his results in the Yearbook of Physical Anthropology, 2005.
A trellis, not a tree
He used a computer program called GEODIS, which he created in 1995 and later modified with the help of David Posada, Ph.D., and Keith Crandall, Ph.D. at Brigham Young University, to determine genetic relationships among and within populations based on an examination of specific haplotypes, clusters of genes that are inherited as a unit.
In 2002, Templeton analyzed ten different haplotype trees and performed phylogeographic analyses that reconstructed the history of the species through space and time.
Three years later, he had 25 regions to analyze and the data provided molecular evidence of a third migration, this one the oldest, back to 1.9 million years ago.
"This time frame corresponds extremely well with the fossil record, which shows Homo erectus expanding out of Africa then," Templeton said.
Another novel find is that populations of Homo erectus in Eurasia had recurrent genetic interchange with African populations 1.5 million years ago, much earlier than previously thought, and that these populations persisted instead of going extinct, which some human evolution researchers thought had occurred.
The new data confirm an expansion out of Africa to 700,000 years ago that was detected in the 2002 analysis.
"Both (the 1.9 million and 700,000 year) expansions coincide with recent paleoclimatic data that indicate periods of very high rainfall in eastern Africa, making what is now the Sahara Desert a savannah," Templeton said. "That makes the timing very amenable for movements of large populations through the area."
Templeton said that the fossil record indicates a significant change in brain size for modern humans at 700,000 years ago as well as the adaptation and expansion of a new stone tool culture first found in Africa and later at 700,000 years expanded throughout Eurasia.
"By the time you're done with this phase you can be 99 percent confident that there was recurrent genetic interchange between African and Eurasian populations," he said. "So the idea of pure, distinct races in humans does not exist. We humans don't have a tree relationship, rather a trellis. We're intertwined."
LOL. I knew there was a catch to this.
Once again the rest of the world would do well to follow the example of the United States.
As I have read, red hair and blue eyes are a genetic marker of the Neanderthal. My former wife had red hair and blue eyes. LOL.
Maybe it's because you're old and tired :)
A good looking woman from anywhere is a wonderful thing.
"And the dawn comes up like thunder outer Chinas cross the bay"
Yes! Stop history now, I'm finally right about something!
PS: Pittsburgh stole the Super Bowl via the referees.
And fierce! Yes, most definitely.
It's the same here. We have the Christian Socialists and the Social Democrats (operating under aliases).
Well until you showed up it was just a science thread.
However it is interesting that Creats think they have something to contribute without understanding anything of the evidence or arguments involved.
The only way we will ever know for sure if we mixed with the Neanderthals is if we find a well enough preserved mummy to get some DNA. Until then, to each his own.
I think it likely, but that is hardly based on anything but guess work.
|Send FReepmail if you want on/off GGP list
Marty = Paternal Haplogroup O(2?) (M175)
Nat'l Geographic Genographic Project
Sorenson Molecular Genealogy Foundation
|The List of Ping Lists|
Gravity, it's just a theory.
"Just wanted to make sure you'f seen this..."
Thanks. No suprise here.
"The new theory is that it's 700,000 years ago and you just emigrated from Africa, it's a Saturday night and there's nothing on cable. So you go out and suddenly see this hot chick that looks exotic. She gives you the eye, you give her the eye, next thing you know you got three kids and the in laws living in your cave.
Nature being nature the second one sounds the most plausible. It still goes on today."
Yes, the new theory sounds a LOT more probable.
Really we know this from medieval history, if we think about it.
Are the Irish "Celts", the English "Anglo-Saxons", the French "Latins", and the Normans "Vikings"? You'd think so if you read the history books and took the replacement of one people or language by another completely seriously.
But if you think about it only a little bit harder, you realize it was Viking MEN getting on longboats and going here and there. Olaf may have stormed ashore at Caen, but Helga didn't come with him. Olaf's kid was with Madeline, and was neither wholly Viking nor wholly French.
And the Anglo-Saxons? Yep, they came ashore and conquered England. Does that mean that every red-headed Celtic lass in England perished under the sword? Ummmm...gee...do male warriors EVER behave like that? No. It means that the English are as Celtic as they are Germanic.
Because a conquering warrior might kill as many menfolk as he can git his hands on, but what's the POINT of conquest if you don't get to keep the women? And it's the women wot makes the the babies...who then end up being not Vikings or Saxons, but half Irish and half Saxon. Etc.
Really, we ought to be able to look at Northwestern Europe and the Caribbean within historical memory and know that human invaders don't wipe out the natives when they conquer them, because wiping them out means killing the women, and 20-year old warriors have better things to do with women than killing them. Obviously.
"Among the rest of the thinking and educated America, evolution is as accepted as the theory of gravity. "
But I'd also suggest the debate is still viable for intelligent design - if you believe evolution is following a specific gravitational track down a potential gradient.
Nah. That had to wait on the development of cities. People who have to kill their own food don't waste time on the BS.
Stranger In A New Land
(Republic Of Georgia, 1.75 million years ago)
"The theory of evolution is not controversial here. .." ~ DaGman
Which theory of evolution are you talking about?
"...What is the significance of such a theory? To address this question is to enter the field of epistemology.
A theory is a metascientific elaboration distinct from the results of observation, but consistent with them. By means of it a series of independent data and facts can be related and interpreted in a unified explanation. A theory's validity depends on whether or not it can be verified; it is constantly tested against the facts; wherever it can no longer explain the latter, it shows its limitations and unsuitability. It must then be rethought.
Furthermore, while the formulation of a theory like that of evolution complies with the need for consistency with the observed data, it borrows certain notions from natural philosophy.
And, to tell the truth, rather than the theory of evolution, we should speak of several theories of evolution.
On the one hand, this plurality has to do with the different explanations advanced for the mechanism of evolution, and on the other, with the various philosophies on which it is based. Hence the existence of materialist, reductionist, and spiritualist interpretations. What is to be decided here is the true role of philosophy and, beyond it, of theology.
Consequently, theories of evolution which, in accordance with the philosophies inspiring them, consider the spirit as emerging from the forces of living matter or as a mere epiphenomenon of this matter are incompatible with the truth about man. Nor are they able to ground the dignity of the person. ..."
Theories of Evolution http://www.firstthings.com/ftissues/ft9703/articles/johnpaul.html
John Paul II
Copyright (c) 1997 First Things 71 (March 1997): 28-29.
Address to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, October 22, 1996
Humans left the African Paradise, went to Europe and immediately ruined the earth's climate, twice.
Very intersting article. It just goes to show that as we understand more about genetics, the more we understand about our anthopological and biological history.
Skin color is a local adaptation to sunlight (darker skin preferred) and vitamin D production in the skin (lighter color preferred). Mediterranean groups with tanning ability split the difference, and can adjust to the annual cycle.
So he's not disputing the "out of Africa" part? Wonder what he would say to the argument that everyone in the U.S. is an African-American and eligible to check one of those little boxes under the Census department's self-identification policy.
There would actually be a factual basis for people to do this, as compared to Ward Churchill checking Native American.
Decide? That would spoil all the fun. Spread the blood absorbent sawdust on the floor and let the anthropological gladiatorial contests (re)begin!
Uh, actually, no, at least as to the article itself. It's about certain competing hypotheses within evolutionary anthropology.
I don't think there's any genetic evidence that any homo sapiens produced offspring with homo neanderthalensis.
At least, not yet.
If you get put onto Patrick Henry's ping list (see above) you can watch the fight on the right here on Free Republic -- the three camps are pretty clear -- there are science types who believe in evolution, "Religious Right" types who believe in literal Biblical interpretation, and a lot of people in between trying to make sense of it all.
My impression is that the "Religious Right" types split off from England in colonial days and came to the US in order to have religious freedom, so there aren't many left on your side of the pond.
On this side of the pond, they achieved quite a bit of temporal power before having been beaten back by the forces of modernity and secularism, which they hate, and call leftism.
If you disagree with them, you'll be accused of being a liberal troll and worse (Communist, Nazi).
All over the provenance of a few bones.
Well, notice that the guy is at Brigham Young university, which is run by the Mormons, who are way in the forefront on population genetics. I think this is for religious reasons, they believe in post-mortem baptism, so are looking for ancestors to baptize.
I have a freebie genetics kit fom a Mormon group asking me to give them a DNA sample and my family tree -- several branches of which I can trace back ten, eleven, twelve generations, and pretty much every branch back to one country or another in Europe. But I wonder what else they'll do with it? Makes me just a tiny bit paranoid. If I give them a sample, who owns my DNA?
Correction, the main author is at Washington U. at St. Louis, it's the genetics computer program guys who helped him who are at Brigham Young.
Yeah, I had those same concerns -- but threw caution to the winds and submitted a sample anyway.
Huh, just noticed that if you give them the freebie test they will give you a coupon for a discounted for-pay test.
Now that's an incentive. Course if they are going to do something funky with my DNA, I am selling my birthright for a mess of pottage or something. ;^)
February 10, 2006
The CrevoSci Archive
Since June 25, 1999
CrevoSci Threads for the Past Week
This week in CrevoSci History
Deleted, Locked, or Pulled Threads
The "theories" comes in when one tries to research the various ways or modalities in which evolution plays out, as in survival of the fittest, et al.
Neither. It assumes evolution. It's about a longstanding controversy within evolutionary theory: the result of a new study that favors one side of the debate.
Can someone please explain the significance in layman's terms?
You need to understand some background first. The earliest "ape-men" are all found only in the continent of Africa. Following these you have creatures that are classified in our genus, "Homo". One of the first, Homo habilis, is still very ape-like and also found only in Africa. Then, however, you get a form called Homo erectus. It has a smaller brain than modern humans (although not by much) and it's skull, especially the face, still looks pretty "apeish," but it's lower body is very similar to that of modern humans.
Homo erectus does something no previous human ancestor did. It migrates beyond Africa. It's found in Africa, Asia (all the way to China and Southeast Asia) and some parts of Europe.
After Home erectus the next universally recognized species is Homo sapiens (i.e. us, modern humans) although in between you have a variety of "archaic sapients" (including Neanderthals but others as well) as distinguished from "anatomically modern" humans.
Now, here's the thing: The first "anatomically modern" humans appear in Africa. Both sides of the debate we're considering agree on this point. So you have modern humans appearing in Africa, but at the same time you already have those Homo erectus, and various "archaic sapients", spread around the world outside of Africa. This was the situation around 700 thousand years ago.
So the question is how did we arrive at the current state of affairs, with modern humans everywhere and everything else extinct. At the extremes there are two possible answers:
The "Out of Africa" hypothesis says that the modern humans migrated from Africa and simply replaced all the archaic forms (killed them, out-competed them, whatever). It denies that the various "archaic" forms in Asia and elsewhere contributed in any significant way to modern populations. Anatomically modern humans only evolved once, and in one place (Africa).
The other extreme position is the "Regional Development" hypothesis. It claims that populations of Homo erecuts and/or archaic sapients in Asia and other places each evolved independently into modern humans.
The "Regional Development" hypothesis was rather quickly moderated to something that might be called "Regional Development with Gene Flow". This position admitted that the migration of modern humans from Africa was significant, but only because the moderns interbred with local populations and thereby introduced modern traits. It's still the local populations that evolved, albeit with some outside help, into the modern form.
Of course various other intermediate views are possible. Then it becomes a matter of emphasis, whether on migrants replacing or local populations evolving.
When this debate first began -- back in the late 80's or early 90's IIRC -- both sides claimed evidence from the fossil record, but generally speaking the DNA evidence was considered to favor "Out of Africa". Advocates of "Regional Development" initially based their case almost completely on details of morphology which they interpreted to link modern populations with archaic or erectus fossils from the same regions.
"Regional Development" advocates also critiqued the DNA evidence for the "Out of Africa" view in various ways, but the significance of the present study is the claim that DNA evidence now provides positive support for Regional Development (with gene flow).
Thanks for the ping!
Even more dramatic is the Norse(ish) conquest of China(ish), the descendants of whom looked wholly Asian when they came back west.
The global changes of 1,500,000 and 700,000 years ago were Bush's fault.
A precept apparently held since early Biblical times:
13 Moses, Eleazar the priest and all the leaders of the community went to meet them outside the camp.
14 Moses was angry with the officers of the armythe commanders of thousands and commanders of hundredswho returned from the battle.
15 "Have you allowed all the women to live?" he asked them.
16 "They were the ones who followed Balaam's advice and were the means of turning the Israelites away from the LORD in what happened at Peor, so that a plague struck the LORD's people.
17 Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man,
18 but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.
No. Homo erectus. Like this:
Discovered By: B. Ngeneo, 1975 (1)
Estimated Age of Fossil: 1.75 mya * determined by Stratigraphic, faunal, paleomagnetic & radiometric data (1, 4)
Species Name: Homo ergaster (1, 7, 8), Homo erectus (3, 4, 7), Homo erectus ergaster (25)
Gender: Female (species presumed to be sexually dimorphic) (1, 8)
Cranial Capacity: 850 cc (1, 3, 4)
Information: Tools found in same layer (8, 9). Found with KNM-ER 406- A. boisei (effectively eliminating single species hypothesis) (1)
Interpretation: Adult (based on cranial sutures, molar eruption and dental wear) (1)
See original source for notes:
As the fossil record and the 'Out of Africa' replacement theory are in such conflict, this makes sense. Rocks can't lie.
Darwinism is more deeply in chaos than it has ever been. Darwins' grand mullahs of materialism keep trying to bury Gould's "hopeful monsters," recognizing as they do, that to recognize them is to admit evolution is bankrupt and wholly unable to explain anything but small variations in species.
Gravity: Just a Theory
One website that has this neat essay is at
There was a site where IDers tried to answer this, but I can't find it now. Anyone know? I understand the author provided his answers explaining the spoof, but I can't find it (probably a pdf file on my hard drive, but lost).
Don't bet the rent money on it.