PDA

View Full Version : Origin of human was an African



ralian
29-04-05, 07:58
I watched about this topic on National Geography the other day.
Geneticist Spencer Wells analyzed DNA from people in all regions of the world, and concluded that we are descended from a single man who lived in Africa around 60,000 years ago.

What do you think?

Index
29-04-05, 08:24
Sounds like old news to me, no pun intended. That hypothesis has been around for a while.

I didn't realize men could give birth in those days though :nuts:

bossel
29-04-05, 23:55
What do you think?
Yeah, not really news. Only the date is a bit surprising, don't know how valid this is. I think, the generally accepted date is around 200,000 years ago. There may have been a bottleneck some 60,000 years ago, though. Perhaps this man was the only male survivor of a pandemic, or this man's descendents were the only males immune against a later pandemic.

On the other hand, I don't know how credible Wells actually is. In an interview on his findings he stated: "archaeological evidence supports our study of the first fully modern man who does not hunch." Now, this is a rather outdated view of non-homo-sapiens hominids. :? It is rather well established now that eg. h.s. neanderthalensis did not hunch.

Silverbackman
03-05-05, 09:47
Well it depends what you mean by origin. Homo Erectus was the first animal in the evolution of man to be recognized as "human", but they were of a different species. Furthermore they weren't nearly as intelligent. The next man to come was heidelbegensis, and they were the true ancestors of modern man, for what came next was Neanderthal humans that originated Europe, and modern man who originated in Africa. However, our species came close to extinction which gaurenteed the imaginatitve man to cont. the human life, which are us.

So it really depends what you mean, whether the first caveman, or the first modern man, or the first modern man with imagination, if that makes any sense. :wave:

Shas
04-05-05, 02:40
thats also why racists say "that black people are inferior, because white men have evolved from them and thus are better"

... i don't think it makes sense though. if you live in afrika your in a biological advantage if you have dark skin and stuff. so i don't get their point

but racists aren't the smartest ppl either i guess :D

Loyalist
04-05-05, 03:25
The male was from africa, but not everyone in africa is black.....and im not talking about white settlers. The "original humans" would have to be of mid complextion, like arabic in order to have the necesscery dominant and recessive traits to produce all the human skin colors.

Ikyoto
04-05-05, 03:25
I thought that the study was done using mytocondrial dna - which is hadned down through females.

As far as the history of the human race goes, sometime around that time period we were down to under 100,000 humans across the world and dying out. The one person theory is a little simplistic, but gives a good indicator that we were on the verge of total loss.

And the person could easily have been "black" as the skin coloration differences that occur can happen in a relativly short amount of time. Within 100 generations of diversification the adaptations for living conditions could be quite pronounced. It is not genetically required that the originator be mid-complextion to have had the required traits to allow for later generations diversification.

bossel
04-05-05, 07:14
I thought that the study was done using mytocondrial dna - which is hadned down through females.
AFAIK, this particular study concentrated on the y-chromosome, hence the male focus. Mitochondrial studies show an earlier origin for humans. That's why I said there might have been one male survivor of a pandemic. But it's more probable that descendents who inherited a particular mutation from one ancestor were immune. Women might not have been affected by the pandemic at all, or to a far lesser degree.

digicross
04-05-05, 07:23
Anyway. The whole out of Africa theory is a little bit off the mark, since it uses current data and doesn't calculate or correctly extrapolate the exact condition of the past.

Suffice to say. If you give people a few thousands years or maybe even just a few hundred years or even just plain a few decades, they can literally move everywhere, they don't necessary need a land bridge either. That would mean our single ancestor can literally start anywhere, Africa, Asia, America, Europe, Australia, and so on.

The D.N.A. research only proves the single ancestor thing, it doesn't say on where the ancestor first originated.

As for the whole out of Africa thing.

As I recall, it's said that Africans has more variations in their genetic codes than the overall human beings, this make some people think that humans are from Africa, because they're just a derivation of Africans.

Possible.

Though this doesn't necessary means that the rest of humans came from Africa.

In the contrary, it might be instead that, Africans might have gotten a different set of genetic codes from outsiders, they might have mingle around with people that have different genetic codes. While the rest of the humans tend to stick only with their own kinds / families (though I'm sure these days, if you do that, you probably be labeled as a 'racist').

Besides, Africans' ancestors might not necessary live in Africa in the first place. A few thousands years is too a long of a time to hang around in just one place.

Commonality of the rest of humans = "ABCDEFGHIJ"

Africans = "ABCDEFGHIJしょくぶつかい連合王国? ??ВебDaqmeypat"

Notice on how I used a lot of different characters.

Anyway. A MSZ-006 Zeta Gundam with a MS-06 Zaku II's head (or what ever) that doesn't mean that the RX-78-2 Gundam was derived from that type, though with using the out of Africa theory, the RX-78-2 Gundam is a derivation of the MSZ-006 Zeta Gundam with a MS-06 Zaku II's head. Okay, you think by yourself on how sensible the theory that RX-78-2 Gundam is a derivation of the MSZ-006 Zeta Gundam with a MS-06 Zaku II's head. And no, a Zeta Gundam with a Zaku head sure ain't pretty.



As for the years thing.

I don't think that it's quite correct to use an exact number of years and so on.

Since things can look old or even new, according to the conditions of their surrounding and the effects that they receives.

After all, that's why toys collectors then seal many of their collections in the originial conditions. And new toys can look old if they are played a LOT.

A 60.000 years old calculation might have been easily be 6.000 years, 4.000 years, 2.000 years, 600 years, 60 years, 6 years, and so on. What is dated 60.000 years in one place, another artifact in another place from the same period could have been dated a totally different number of years.


Anyway. Some people said that the Toba volcano exploded around 75.000 years ago, could it be that it would be had something to do with our single ancestor?


Anyway. One of of the problems of saying that we are evolves from homo erectus and so on, it's like saying that if you let some time after Amuro Ray exist, he or his descendants would evolved into Kira Yamato.

No. Amuro, Camille, Hiiro, Kira, and so on are different inviduals with different stories and with different growth cycles. It's correct that there's a derivation of some sort, but it's not like they're the same individual that kept changing their shape (like Dr. Who).

There are people in the past, and they had their own each story, now it's our turn to play in our own story. But made no mistake, they might not be our ancestors.

Shas
05-05-05, 01:14
@ the private christian school were im staying (yeah right take the foreign exchange guy who doesnt believe in god and put him in the church of christ private school - maybe there is a god ... its too ironic to be an accident :D ) of course the believe the bible is accurate, so they present the story that adam & eve where the first and they had all the genes and stuff so all the different kinds could originate from them

but then you have to look at the flood and noah and stuff: all these genes couldn't have been passed on to noah ... hmmm


any christians here ? what d'ya think

Dutch Baka
05-05-05, 01:43
i watched it to.. and they put the date on 60.000 -80.000 years... pretty amazing to see a group of what was it 200 people grow to milliards of people now... interresting to see they stayed at one place so long without looking for other parts in the world. i mean they stayed in the middle of africea for more then 30 years or something?? wasnt?

JackMack
09-06-09, 22:53
Adam and Eve really existed- They were black Africans and they eventually colonized the world with their offspring- that's all of us. The Christians should be very pleased to know that genetics has proven their perspective- well, sort of.

Ua'Ronain
10-06-09, 16:51
I dont see how any of this proves the Biblical Adam or Eve ever graced the planet. Just because of a genetic bottleneck etc. I dont think that science or genetics is going to ever prove Adam or Eve, but it is called faith for a reason; perhaps you are not suposed to know and just believe.

JackMack
10-06-09, 19:56
I dont see how any of this proves the Biblical Adam or Eve ever graced the planet. Just because of a genetic bottleneck etc. I dont think that science or genetics is going to ever prove Adam or Eve, but it is called faith for a reason; perhaps you are not suposed to know and just believe.

The Biblical version is not the "real" version. That's man's written word for the Holy version of the Out of Africa theory...if you get my drift.

Maciamo
10-06-09, 21:24
Adam and Eve really existed- They were black Africans and they eventually colonized the world with their offspring- that's all of us. The Christians should be very pleased to know that genetics has proven their perspective- well, sort of.

The biblical belief in Adam & Eve is that god created them out of nothing. Genetics does not prove that, but on the contrary that we are the result of a long continuous evolution (each of us a little different in our ancestral make-up). Just because someone decided to call humanity's most recent common male and female ancestors the Y-chromosomal Adam and mitochondrial Eve does not mean that they are even remotely similar to the biblical image.

JackMack
12-06-09, 21:41
That's correct. I think that in the very distant future we will find that man's verbal account of creation and ultimately his written account, in the Bible, will be found to be based on his knowledge of us coming out of Africa. Does my English make any sense to anyone?

Maciamo
13-06-09, 13:55
That's correct. I think that in the very distant future we will find that man's verbal account of creation and ultimately his written account, in the Bible, will be found to be based on his knowledge of us coming out of Africa. Does my English make any sense to anyone?

I don't understand what you mean. What verbal account of creation ? They vary greatly across cultures and none make any scientific sense in my opinion. The Japanese tale of creation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_mythology) talks of a god and goddess creating a bridge between heaven and earth and islands formed by drops of salty water. The bible speaks of a god creating the world in 7 days. The ancient Greek Theogony (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theogony) is yet another fantastic tale with no connection to human evolution and migration from Africa.

JackMack
16-06-09, 20:57
I don't understand what you mean. What verbal account of creation ? They vary greatly across cultures and none make any scientific sense in my opinion. The Japanese tale of creation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_mythology) talks of a god and goddess creating a bridge between heaven and earth and islands formed by drops of salty water. The bible speaks of a god creating the world in 7 days. The ancient Greek Theogony (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theogony) is yet another fantastic tale with no connection to human evolution and migration from Africa.

It's a theory-

rms2
16-06-09, 23:21
I don't want to argue about it, but I think human beings came from Mesopotamia originally, not Africa.

Just stating that for the record, not intending to start a debate. :innocent:

Maciamo
17-06-09, 10:22
I don't want to argue about it, but I think human beings came from Mesopotamia originally, not Africa.

Just stating that for the record, not intending to start a debate. :innocent:

It all depends what you mean originally, and what you call "human beings". Homo Sapiens (anatomically modern humans) only appeared about 100,000 years ago. During most of that period, until the end of the Ice Age 12,000 years ago, humans were nomadic hunter-gatherers, so they could very well have lived in many places in Africa, the Middle East and beyond, then migrated back to one specific region due to some climatic event, then re-expanded again. This could have happened many times.

Before Homo Sapiens we have very few skeletons, so it is impossible to know the real extend of the early hominids' territory (which again must have fluctuated over the millennia).

Wilhelm
02-10-09, 19:02
I don't think at that time races existed. So, the first humans that appeared in Africa were not really black persons as we know them today, because it took thousands of years of adaptation to become the races that we know today.

Maciamo
03-10-09, 10:35
I don't think at that time races existed. So, the first humans that appeared in Africa were not really black persons as we know them today, because it took thousands of years of adaptation to become the races that we know today.

I agree with you.

MOESAN
14-11-11, 22:53
The male was from africa, but not everyone in africa is black.....and im not talking about white settlers. The "original humans" would have to be of mid complextion, like arabic in order to have the necesscery dominant and recessive traits to produce all the human skin colors.

I agree with your post in general
detail: for I know, true arabic people (Yemen bedwin people are not of mid complexion: when taken their skin colour in the areas protected from sun, they are between 'olive white' and 'light brunet white' and their features are close to Near-Eastern or Mediterranean 'Caucasian' ones for the most of them, despite of some mixtures by the way of wives (a little more Subsaharian mt DNA according to some scholars)

DavidRojer
24-11-11, 09:34
Many religion claims and inter prates about this human theory that all of us is descendant of a single person and that person was Adam.I think now we should work on civilizations and human kind rather that to know about the origin.