Article

2005-04-28 China-Japan-Koreas

New evidence challenges "Out-of-Africa" hypothesis of modern human origins

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Sobiesky 2005-04-28 3:17:46 AM|| || Front Page|| [11133 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 My first thought reading the first sentence was, "Oops, I'm wrong - there IS a way the Chinese can become even more arrogant and insufferable."

Of the claim there is doubt and research will develop some sort of consensus over time. One thing about which I have NO doubt is that proving this (and sticking with their stated conclusion, no matter what) will be very important to them. Where anyone else would likely think it a curiosity or be excited about the archaeological follow-up aspects and what might be learned, the Chinese will see it as some sort of "proof" of something or other.

Remember when the old Soviet Union used to fall all over themselves about claiming they had the "oldest living citizen"? Same fool's gold mentality. For example, I don't recall an "I Love Lucy" campaign from the Oldevai Gorge Chamber of Commerce... I have no doubt this will be a closely guarded site and all manner of silly-assed security will required, complete with political purity req's, of anyone who wishes to study what has been found.

There will be some fun fallout, I'm sure. They really got their panties in a twist about a year ago (IIRC) when archaeologists in what is now Cambodia found evidence of a bronze culture predating similar finds in China by hundreds of years. No detail which can be applied to shore up their vast collection of inferiority complexes is ever overlooked.

Posted by .Wheager Ebbineter4425 2005-04-28 7:34:51 AM|| 2005-04-28 7:34:51 AM|| Front Page Top

#2 Good call, Wheager. I'd say the Chinese put this together in response to the recent release of DNA test results from the Tarim Basin mummies:

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/afp/20050419/lf_afp/chinaxinjiangmummies_050419134224

The western expanses of China were occupied by Caucasians long before the Chinese appeared. Even worse -- these Caucasians had some distinctly European artifacts.

Posted by Robert Crawford 2005-04-28 7:47:57 AM|| [http://www.kloognome.com/] 2005-04-28 7:47:57 AM|| Front Page Top

#3 Lol, RC! Perfect example of their mentality. If they keep up these foolish games, they'll get us all killed someday, ala SARS.

Posted by .Wheager Ebbineter4425 2005-04-28 7:57:07 AM|| 2005-04-28 7:57:07 AM|| Front Page Top

#4 The 'out of Africa' scenario says all modern humans come from a very small population circa 100k years ago. The Africa part is little more than speculation based on the preponderance of fossils from that continent. In a few years when we get gene maps from enough people we could well have the answer by tracing back genetic similarities.

Posted by phil_b 2005-04-28 10:09:25 AM|| 2005-04-28 10:09:25 AM|| Front Page Top

#5 There are, however, both DNA and fossil challenges to the Out of Africa theory (which posits that all living people are descended from a group of fully modern Homo sapiens who left their African homeland about 100,000 to 150,000 years ago). Analysis of the oldest DNA ever taken from skeletal remains, from the 60,000 year-old "Mungo Man" in Australia, show him to have a genetic lineage that is both older and distinct from the African line. Australian aborigines would thus descend from members of two migrations about forty millenia apart rather than a single one.
http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~allpoms/genetics4.html

The problem with all this is that Out of Africa is that it has become orthodoxy and not subject to challenge [any more than the Socialist/PC culture on campus]. If you look in one spot, you'll only find in one spot.

Then there is the problem of what constitutes the definition of 'modern human'. You can bet the goal posts will be moved if there is any evidence that starts to undermine the orthodoxy.

Posted by Phavitch Phaviting2667 2005-04-28 10:18:51 AM|| 2005-04-28 10:18:51 AM|| Front Page Top

#6 Who cares? But if these guys ever start talking about having invented baseball or football then its war I tell you, war!

Posted by Jack is Back! 2005-04-28 10:52:48 AM|| 2005-04-28 10:52:48 AM|| Front Page Top

#7 Phil_b, the map may still be misleading. There has been a large drop of population ~ 10,000 BCE, some previous lineages may not exist anymore and that is bound to skew the results.

Phavitch, "Long live the Brahmins of the Church of Scientism!"
Unfortunately, that is a fact. They do.

Posted by Sobiesky 2005-04-28 1:50:48 PM|| 2005-04-28 1:50:48 PM|| Front Page Top

#8 Think maternal mitochondria...

Mitochondrial DNA - fun reading for the rest of
your dull short life.

Posted by .com 2005-04-28 6:36:13 PM|| 2005-04-28 6:36:13 PM|| Front Page Top

#9 .com thanks for pointing it out, without you we'll be still taping in darkness... ;-)

Otherwise, yea, and?

Posted by Sobiesky 2005-04-28 8:15:20 PM|| 2005-04-28 8:15:20 PM|| Front Page Top

#10 "Lucy" whacked me over the head and demanded I bring up the wymyn-power thingy, lol!

Posted by .com 2005-04-28 8:17:44 PM|| 2005-04-28 8:17:44 PM|| Front Page Top

#11 Much less well know is that there appears to be a Y Chromosome Adam, of considerably more recent origin than Eve, from which all humans descend - Wikipedia

Posted by phil_b 2005-04-28 8:20:52 PM|| 2005-04-28 8:20:52 PM|| Front Page Top

#12 PB - careful with Wiki as a source. I don't know squat to refute or corroborate that particular cite, but I've seen utter nonsense quoted on Wiki as "original-source-proof". Just a "salt-lick" warning, like Debka....

Posted by Frank G 2005-04-28 8:31:33 PM|| 2005-04-28 8:31:33 PM|| Front Page Top

#13 There will be many "truths" in this relatively new field. Then, someday, there will be truth. It's fun following the tech and the debates, heh. Much of it is statistical guesswork, such as the "molecular clock technique" - which may be an observation without factual foundation.

Just having fun watching the "experts" - who often differ - duke it out, heh. Brings new appreciation, IMO, for the fact that every "expert", no matter how confident or capable in articulating his/her idea (read: theory), is still just throwing spaghetti at the fridge door, hoping some will stick.

I don't have a dog in this hunt. Color me a voyeur in this one, lol!

Posted by .com 2005-04-28 8:40:33 PM|| 2005-04-28 8:40:33 PM|| Front Page Top

#14 Frank, the wiki section that Phil liked to was swept verbatim from a Dutch Organic Chemistry site that is fairly good.

"A recent challenge to the Eve theory has been the observation that the mitochondria of sperm are sometimes passed to offspring. Still other evidence suggests that sperm and egg mitochondrial DNA may "recombine, or swap pieces of sequence with each other. So mitochondria may not be so pure a matrilineal marker as they were supposed when the theory was advanced. Depending on how frequently paternal inheritance and recombination occurred, as well as when they occurred, it may be that no Eve even existed. But scientists still disagree on whether these processes do occur, and if it turns out that they do, they may not occur frequently enough to make Eve or her identification impossible."

Posted by Sobiesky 2005-04-28 8:42:14 PM|| 2005-04-28 8:42:14 PM|| Front Page Top

#15 .com, I like your spagetti analogy. Can I shamelessly steal it? ;-)

Posted by Sobiesky 2005-04-28 8:44:44 PM|| 2005-04-28 8:44:44 PM|| Front Page Top

#16 Sure - I stole it from The Big Chill, lol!

Posted by .com 2005-04-28 8:48:26 PM|| 2005-04-28 8:48:26 PM|| Front Page Top

#17 no problem, Sobiesky - I just take contributor-driven tech/history sites with a "salt-lick" proviso

Posted by Frank G 2005-04-28 8:49:42 PM|| 2005-04-28 8:49:42 PM|| Front Page Top

#18 Point taken about Wiki. Here is a somewhat more authoritative source. It also explains why 'Eve' and 'Adam' necessarily exist, i.e. we all must have a common male and female ancestor.

Posted by phil_b 2005-04-28 8:50:35 PM|| 2005-04-28 8:50:35 PM|| Front Page Top

#19 I find that evidence as exciting, and not just as a religious-basis thing.... the commonality of DNA is a pretty cool idea with where it runs to.
Nice cites, guys

Posted by Larry the Cable Guy 2005-04-28 8:59:11 PM|| 2005-04-28 8:59:11 PM|| Front Page Top

#20 D'oh! pretty obviously that wasn't Larry. Less obvious due to the non-cynical nature is that it was me....damn

Posted by Frank G 2005-04-28 9:00:28 PM|| 2005-04-28 9:00:28 PM|| Front Page Top

19:05 3dc
23:59 Sobiesky
23:56 BooBoo
23:52 Mark E.
23:48 Sobiesky
23:44 Kalle (kafir forever)
23:41 Frank G
23:34 CrazyFool
23:30 Frank G
23:29 Barbara Skolaut
23:29 Frank G
23:28 Sobiesky
23:27 Justrand
23:17 OldSpook
23:16 Frank G
23:16 Frank G
23:13 Frank G
23:10 Sobiesky
23:09 OldSpook
23:01 Frank G
22:58 Frank G
22:53 .com
22:51 Glavising Slack5995
22:46 Zhang Fei