Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Fresh debate over human origins
BBC News ^ | 24 December 2002 | staff

Posted on 12/26/2002 8:02:36 AM PST by PatrickHenry

The theory that we are all descended from early humans who left Africa about 100,000 years ago has again been called into question.

US researchers sifting through data from the human genome project say they have uncovered evidence in support of a rival theory.

Most scientists agree with the idea that our ancestors first spread out of Africa about 1.8 million years ago, conquering other lands.

What happened next is more controversial.

The prevailing theory is that a second exodus from Africa replaced all of the local populations, such as Europe's Neanderthals.

Some anthropologists, however, advocate the so-called multiregional theory, that not all the local populations were replaced.

They think some of these ancient people interbred with African hominids, contributing to the gene pool of modern humans.

The new evidence, published online in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, is based on an analysis of data from the human genome project - the effort to map the entire human genetic blueprint.

Blood and bones

Researchers led by Henry Harpending, professor of anthropology at Utah University, studied small differences in human DNA known as single nucleotide polymorphisms.

Studying when these mutations appeared gives a window into the ancient past, allowing scientists to trace the rise and fall of early humans in different parts of the world.

"The new data seem to suggest that early human pioneers moving out of Africa starting 80,000 years ago did not completely replace local populations in the rest of the world," he says. "There is instead some sign of interbreeding."

The study suggests that there was a bottleneck in the human population when ancestors of modern humans colonised Europe about 40,000 years ago.

This is a puzzle because earlier human genetic studies have backed the idea that a rapidly expanding African population spread globally and replaced all local populations.

One possibility is that there was limited interbreeding between humans migrating from Africa and local populations in Europe and elsewhere.

'Open question'

Commenting on the research, Professor Chris Stringer, Head of Human Origins at London's Natural History Museum, said that in the last few years the multiregional model of human evolution had been called into question by new data, much of it genetic, showing our species had a recent African origin.

He told BBC News Online: "Arguments now centre on whether we are recently and entirely Out of Africa, or just mainly so.

"Some replacement models, and some genetic data, suggest no interbreeding at all with archaic peoples outside of Africa, while other replacement models allow limited interbreeding with the locals over the short time scale in which they overlapped.

"This new research suggests there could have been some interbreeding, but as the authors recognise, it could have been limited, and whether it happened at all is still an open question."


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Miscellaneous; Philosophy
KEYWORDS: archaeology; creationism; crevolist; evolution; ggg; godsgravesglyphs; history; multiregionalism; neandertal; origins
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100101-120 next last
To: jwalsh07
>How did nothing without any catalyst result in an ever >expanding universe?

God must have created it.
61 posted on 12/26/2002 6:54:38 PM PST by Gary Boldwater
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry
Shutting down placemarker.
62 posted on 12/26/2002 7:00:09 PM PST by PatrickHenry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: Gary Boldwater
bi unconnected polar...evolutionism!
63 posted on 12/26/2002 7:03:47 PM PST by f.Christian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: gore3000
bttt
64 posted on 12/26/2002 8:33:28 PM PST by f.Christian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry
They think some of these ancient people interbred with African hominids, contributing to the gene pool of modern humans.

The evidence denies the above. Both archaeological and DNA evidence - from actual DNA found in three separate locations - shows that our closest possible ancestors - the Neanderthals - could in no way have intermixed with Homo Sapiens and produced viable offspring. What we have here is much nonsense from the evolutionists trying to talk away the facts.

The new evidence, published online in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, is based on an analysis of data from the human genome project - the effort to map the entire human genetic blueprint.

The above shows it to be total nonsense. There is no reference point. The only non Homo-Sapiens DNA that has been found is from Neanderthals and that one has been shown to be too far from ours for any intermixing or any ancestor/descendant relationship to have been possible. This is junk science - just like most of the garbage written by evolutionists.

65 posted on 12/26/2002 8:55:57 PM PST by gore3000
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Aric2000
I read this book - where the guy figured humans came from -like, life boats, from a damaged starship.

These life boats hit Earth, like all over - and because they could not build to their level of tech - a bunch died - but a bunch didn't......and they are here to today, or at least their children, you know, like the dolphins.

A really cool book...now if we could only find the dried remains of the starship lifeboats.......more fun.
66 posted on 12/26/2002 8:59:03 PM PST by ASOC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Focault's Pendulum
450 mg of eskalith CR about eighteen times a days oughta do the trick.

LOL
I'm always amazed at the responses on the evo threads.

67 posted on 12/26/2002 9:30:59 PM PST by stanz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: gore3000
The evidence denies the above.

And yet the professionals -- the guys who actually know what they are talking about and do the actual work -- don't think the evidence denies it. It's a wonder you're even on this thread, as neither side being debated assumes the validity of Biblical creation or ID and are approaching the problem from a purely scientific point of view.

68 posted on 12/27/2002 4:31:11 AM PST by Junior
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: ASOC
The only problem with the "man came from another star" scenario is our obvious relatedness to all other critters on this planet (LBB's protestations notwithstanding). Chimps are at least 95 percent identical and we even share genetic code with the lobster (not a lot, but more than enough to rule out humans coming from another world).
69 posted on 12/27/2002 4:34:36 AM PST by Junior
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: Junior
and we even share genetic code with the lobster ....

Ah; that explains my latent fear of small dishes filled with warm butter....

70 posted on 12/27/2002 6:13:18 AM PST by longshadow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: Junior
The only problem with the "man came from another star" scenario is our obvious relatedness to all other critters on this planet (LBB's protestations notwithstanding).

At least a year ago, I posted a scenario where a ship of interstellar castaways ends up the "adam & eve" of their world, and their distant descendants (ignorant of their origins) try to figure it all out. As soon as they realize that they are related to nothing on their world, they would conclude either that they were castaways, or that they were magically created in situ. But we don't have that problem. Everywhere we look we see that we are part of a great inter-related web of life on Earth.

71 posted on 12/27/2002 6:25:55 AM PST by PatrickHenry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: Sentis
I make no secret I am an Atheist Conservative

You've hit on the route problem in discussing religion with supernaturalists.
They don't believe you can be a conservative,
unless you've bought in their particular supernatualist belief system.
Naturalists on the other hand believe supernatualists can't be real conservatives since they've demonstrated a belief in magic, (a liberal trait.)
It's really a waste of time even trying to carry on a conversation between the two groups, as there is no common ground..

72 posted on 12/27/2002 6:53:08 AM PST by ASA Vet
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: ASA Vet
I agree but I think I just stumbled onto a way to debate the creationists.

First get them to tell you how old the Earth and the Universe is.


If they say they universe is 6000 years old. Then ask them if they have ever looked in a telescope. If they have, they can see further back in time than 6000 years actually just looking into the sky itself allows them to see further back than that. Since you can see no God out in the Universe creating the suns that are 6000 light years away then that particular mythology is either a lie or their God Lies to its creation by creating a universe whose physical laws do not coorespond with observed phenomenon. That God isn't the Christian God as he is suppossed to be the God of truth so we suggest a God that is prone to tell lies to its creation such as that Islamic God :)
73 posted on 12/27/2002 7:00:25 AM PST by Sentis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: gore3000
Oh no Gore3000 you didnt but your head into this debate now I got you. You are stateing that we have DNA from the Neanderthal. HMMM you believe that the Earth is a little over 6000 years old. Hmmm how can we have that DNA when Neanderthals died out before your God created the Earth? In fact the fact you believe that Neanderthals exist at all disproves your antievolutionist rants. Oh you messed up big time here. You see by suppossing that Neanderthals are not Human and can not breed with Humans you suppose that Neanderthals are a separate species from Human . This supposition means that there were other species of Humans that are not your "Children of God" and that they died out. How can you justify that? How can you argue that there is no evolution and that God created the Earth as it is when you admit that the Human tree has other branches such as the Neanderthal? Where did these other Humans come from were they mistakes made by God and if they were mistakes how can an omnipotent God make mistakes. Trust me Now that I have caught you weighing in on this thread your post will find its way over to the other.
74 posted on 12/27/2002 7:08:28 AM PST by Sentis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: Sentis
You will not convince the target of your remarks, but please be assured that your posts are fine, and your efforts are much-appreciated.
75 posted on 12/27/2002 8:26:19 AM PST by PatrickHenry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: f.Christian
FR extreme left wing whacks...

Does this mean if someone believes in Evolution (Or at least the possibility of the theory) that they're a "Left Winger"?

76 posted on 12/27/2002 8:32:37 AM PST by Johnny Shear
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Gary Boldwater
Who created God?

The answer, as I learned in Catholic school is, "He always was, is, and always will be". He has no beginning and no end.

I always thought that was a pretty convenient answer myself. Of course I guess they call it "Faith" for a reason. (But don't say that to a fundementalist, it makes them mad!!)

77 posted on 12/27/2002 8:39:41 AM PST by Johnny Shear
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry
I dont care if I convince the target of anything he is far too far gone. I do feel a need to point out his lies because he could mislead others into his sick perversion. Look at fchristian. I think it's sick that a person who professes his moral superiority as a Christian has the audacity to outright lie.
78 posted on 12/27/2002 8:41:33 AM PST by Sentis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]

To: Johnny Shear
Thanks! I wonder why others beat around the bush on this question.
79 posted on 12/27/2002 8:50:49 AM PST by Gary Boldwater
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]

To: Junior
Chimps are at least 95 percent identical and we even share genetic code with the lobster (not a lot, but more than enough to rule out humans coming from another world).

Hmm. Just for the sake of debate, it could be argued that any creature, anywhere in the universe, has developed from a DNA infrastructure; that reproductive life in an atmosphere such as earth's can only exist with a DNA genetic structure. Furthermore, with all of the thousands of physical constructs observable, either past or present, on this planet, the most sentient, clever and creative construct is that of the hominid. The best of that group is homo sapiens sapiens.

Therefore, one could argue that no matter where the planet is in the universe, if it has the same elements and atmospere available, life development will be similar genetically.

80 posted on 12/27/2002 9:06:39 AM PST by Thommas
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100101-120 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson