Study: 'Eve' Came From East Africa

Discover News ^ | 4-24-2003 | Jennifer Viegas

[Dog Gone]

I think Australia is the least likely place, based entirely on the distinct development of the fossil record and wildlife which inhabit that continent. It appears to me that man was a relatively late arrival. But I certainly am no expert in such matters.

Your other suggestions for the origin are definitely in the running, IMO.

[blam]

(This article is somewhat dated. Mungo Man has been re-dated to 47,000yo)

Ancient Aussie

11:43 09 January 01

A man who died about 60,000 years ago in Australia could force a rethink of our theory of human origins.

Researchers in Australia have accomplished the extremely difficult feat of extracting DNA from his skeleton and were astonished to find the sequence is unique, matching nothing seen before.

The DNA is the oldest ever recovered from human remains. It shows that while the man is completely anatomically modern, he came from a genetic lineage that is now extinct. This finding challenges the prevailing theory that all modern humans are descended from a group of people who migrated from Africa around 100,000 years ago.

"It's remarkable - totally unpredicted," says anthropologist Alan Mann of the University of Pennsylvania.

Alan Thorne of the Australian National University in Canberra, who led the new research, says: "A simplistic 'Out Of Africa' model is no longer tenable."

But not all experts agree. "The genetic evidence is equivocal," says Colin Groves, of the ANU. "The African origin model stands or falls by the fossil evidence. In my opinion, it stands."

The new research contradicts a recent study of mitochondrial DNA, which supported the Out of Africa theory (New Scientist online, 6 December 2000).

Family trees

The remains of Mungo Man were found on the shores of Lake Mungo in south-eastern Australia in 1974.

In 1995, a team led by Thorne began an attempt to extract genetic material from the remains. Gregory Adcock and his colleagues at CSIRO Plant Industry managed to replicate and sequence a single gene from Mungo Man's mitochondria. The small genome of these cell powerhouses is passed down the female line.

Simon Easteal, an evolutionary geneticist at ANU, then set about analysing the sequence and comparing it with sequences of the same gene from nine other early Australians - ranging in age from 8,000 to 15,000 years - as well as 3,453 contemporary people from around the world, chimpanzees, bonobos and two European Neanderthals.

According to Easteal's evolutionary tree, the line that led to the most recent common ancestor of contemporary people, includes the ancient Australians but excludes Mungo Man.

"We can say with a high degree of confidence that modern people arrived in Australia before the new lineage [of the most recent common ancestor] arrived," Easteal says.

[blam]

"Are these the pictures?? "

Those aren't the ones I was thinking about.

[Dog Gone]

Even the Bible sets out the story of a common ancestor. If you choose to continue giggling, it's fine with me. But don't pretend you know what you're laughing at.

[ALS]

Don't pretend you understood me if you plan on assigning such interpertations of my laugh.

[Publius6961]

"African Eve," the female ancestor of all humans, likely hailed from East Africa, according to a recent study.

Again?
LOL

[DaGman]

Very interesting. This seems to support the family "bush" theory rather than the family "tree" of humans. In the bush theory, there were many lines of pre-homo sapiens that didn't survive and became extinct while one survived through it all. Maybe Mungo Man and those line him were one of the off shoots that didn't make it.

[jim_trent]

There is a liberal-left professor in the State University here that actually made the following argument against reparations (paraphrasing):

"Forget reparations. All life originated in Africa. The US patent office allows the patenting of life. Blacks should patent themselves and collect royalties on every birth in the world."

I am absolutely sure he was not making a joke.

[blam]

"Very interesting. This seems to support the family "bush" theory rather than the family "tree" of humans. In the bush theory, there were many lines of pre-homo sapiens that didn't survive and became extinct while one survived through it all. Maybe Mungo Man and those line him were one of the off shoots that didn't make it."

OR! As I believe, modern humans could have developed numerous times/places from a common source. This could account for the three distinct races of today. Imagine three (maybe more) isolated groups of modern humans (related by a common ancestor) and over the milliniums there was continuous, slow but continuous interchange of genes. That's called the 'multi-regional' theory.

[Consort]

...Eve Arden?

[Verginius Rufus]

This can't be right. All the pictures I've ever seen of Adam and Eve, they're white.

[LiteKeeper]

Please read The Fallacy of Racism

[Pan_Yans Wife]

Wow... were they digital pictures, or old-fashioned, tin-types?

[blam]

"Please read The Fallacy of Racism"

Nothing racist going on here.

[Bernard Marx]

I think Australia is the least likely place, based entirely on the distinct development of the fossil record and wildlife which inhabit that continent. It appears to me that man was a relatively late arrival.

There's a clear record of at least 50,000-60,000 years of continuous human habitation in Australia, and recent discoveries (as yet relatively unexamined) tend to push that frontier back much further than that. This is a continent that's almost untouched archaeologically and paleontologically. I'm not pre-judging, just wondering.

[Bernard Marx]

I replied to Dog Gone before I read your response, but Mungo Man is who I had in mind.

I've always had an open mind in regard to an African genesis but have also found it almost cloyingly "handy" in terms of current political correctness/propaganda. We've had many exchanges about academic mind-sets and it seems to me this is another "Clovis Barrier." What does it hurt to examine the evidence?

I knew Louis Leakey and I've always felt he did irreparable damage to paleontology with his fund-seeking popularization of the Olduvai Gorge paradigm. That "research" was funded by National Geographic which even at that time (around 1963 or so) had global "Green," socialist and "multicultural" politics in mind. I think Louis was a decent man who was seduced by money and celebrity. National Geographic is despicable.

[DaGman]

"OR! As I believe, modern humans could have developed numerous times/places from a common source."

But would that explain how Mungo Man has mtDNA that matches no one else? Could it be these "species" developed independently without that common ancestor? Could it also be that there was parallel development in other parts of the world, albeit independent development?

[blam]

"Could it also be that there was parallel development in other parts of the world, albeit independent development?"

Yes, that too absent any cross pollination.

[Dog Gone]

I knew Louis Leakey

I'm jealous. But I'm in total agreement with you regarding preconceived notions and political correctness. We have made fascinating discoveries over the past few decades and undoubtedly we will make more.

Viewing them objectively is essential.