NotPoliticallyCorrect

Home » Race Realism » Did we come from Australasia?

Did we come from Australasia?

Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 174 other followers

Follow me on Twitter

Charles Darwin

Denis Noble

JP Rushton

Richard Lynn

L:inda Gottfredson

Goodreads

Advertisements

by Phil78 3179 words

In a recent response to the MCU7  genetic admixture from Archaic, it has been argued that if this entered the Sub Saharan Genome at 145 kya, every population by OOA standards should have it.

Not necessarily, as the study noted how their findings conform to recent findings that actually ground African Origins.

Our finding agrees with recent reports of such an introgression in
sub Saharan African populations (Hammer et al. 2011; Hsieh et al. 2016), as well as the
unexpectedly old human remains (Hublin et al. 2017) and lineages (Schlebusch et al. 2017).

In other words, what I’m thinking is that this connects somewhere with the Basal human component model for West Africans and some LSA finds, though that is for another day.

Now, as for the alternative model that I’ve seen advertise by the site RedIce, we now come to a recent newcomer, Bruce Fenton.

Now, before I begin my criticism of his premise of a new “paradigm”, I like to say that the reviews I’ve seen (Amazon) he certainly seems to have talent in writing. However, reading this article, and other summaries of his model, I must say I’m not tempted to buy his book based on his confidence of his basic model “filling in holes” in OOA and treating it debunked, especially when his sources all more or less can be conformed into OOA 2.

First, let us go into how he rules out both Africa and Europe due to recent Neanderthal DNA  from Neanderthals from Spain.

Research by the geneticists Benoit Nabholz, Sylvain Glémin, and Nicolas Galtier has revealed significant problems with scientific studies that rely heavily on genetic material alone, divorced from the physical examination of fossils (especially in the accuracy of dating by molecular clocks).[i] We are however fortunate to have a 2013 research project from Indiana University, headed by well-respected evolutionary biologist Aida Gómez-Robles at our disposal: a comparative analysis of European hominin fossil teeth and jawbones. The Indiana University project concluded that all the fossil hominins in Europe were either Neanderthals or directly ancestral to Neanderthals – not ancestors of Homo sapiens. We must understand that while respective groups in Africa match European hominin populations, this revelation discounted all known African hominins as being ancestors of modern humans. The morphological research also provided further shock – the divergence between Homo sapiens and Neanderthals had apparently begun as early as one million years before present.

Odd how he made that leap when the researcher he cites actually says otherwise on Africa as a candidate.

From the new study’s results, Gómez-Robles says that “we think that candidates have to be looked for in Africa.” At present, million-year-old fossils attributed to the prehistoric humans H. rhodesiensis and H. erectus look promising.

Fenton then further mention Denisovan diverging, using DNA, as 800k and the places the ancestor of all three between 700-900.

His Response? This finding from China.

The first possible answer to this ‘where to look’ question came in July 2016 with scientist Professor Zhao Lingxiain, whose research group announced they had identified modern human fossil remains at the Bijie archaeological site ranging up to 180,000 years old.[i] Not only were they digging up fragments of modern humans, but also evidence of other mysterious hominin forms. The Chinese paleoanthropologists suspected that some of the recovered fossils might even be from the mysterious Denisovans, previously identified in Siberia.[i] Could modern humans have first emerged in East Asia? It has certainly begun to look like this might be the case. My independent investigative research carried out over the last several years, however, disagrees: my work places the first Homo sapiens in Australasia.

For the context of how this can still conform to OOA, the actual range was 112k to 178k, and while this muddies the typical 50k to 80k migration it can still fit in the 90k to 130k Migration of the Levant that was presumed to have all been wiped out.

Back in 1982, two of the most renowned evolutionary scientists of the modern age, Professor Alan Wilson and his understudy, Rebecca Cann, discovered compelling evidence for an Australasian genesis for modern humans. These controversial findings never emerged in any of their academic papers; in fact, they only appear in a short transcript included in a book published in the same year by two British research scientists, The Monkey Puzzle: A Family Tree. Silence does not change facts, and the fact remains that there is compelling DNA evidence pointing towards Australasia as the first home of Homo sapiens. Indeed, so much data exists that it eventually led to my controversial new book, The Forgotten Exodus: The Into Africa Theory of Human Evolution. My research colleagues and myself have uncovered overwhelming evidence that places the first modern humans in Australasia, and with them several other advanced hominin forms.

There might be some temptation to dismiss this matter out of hand, as it can be difficult accepting that leading academics have got it so wrong. It is, however, important to understand that in every case the opposing arguments against the current consensus position are based on, or supported by, peer-reviewed studies or statements given by consensus academics. Could it be that the year 2016 will one day be known as the year that the Out of Africa paradigm died?

If 2016 becomes associated with the end of one scientific paradigm, then 2017 may become related to the emergence of a new model for human origins, one that I am proposing and have termed ‘Into Africa’. My Into Africa theory is closely related to the ‘Out of Australia’ theory formulated by two of my Australian collaborators, Steven and Evan Strong, but goes significantly further down the rabbit hole of our evolutionary story.

I’d wish he supported this unreplicated genetic study (as far as I know) with actual archaeological continuity in Australasia because so far, pre-sapiens people there are generally  Erectus-like, his own sources on the matter supporting that view.

He summarizes both Multiregional and OOA theory (single recent origin), then proceeds to his own.

[UPDATE– Something that I pondered was exactly what pattern of migration did Cann produce? Well, based on two articles produced by Steve Strong, who I believe is an associate of Fenton, shows that my suspicions were correct.

The pattern found was Australoids- Mongoloids- Caucasians, Negroids/SSA, the opposite of Fenton’s Framework. I figured that, regardless of where Australians fit, the affinity of groups wouldn’t change. Strong has another article in which he uses a paper linking origins to Australia which was covered on this blog here as well as covering Denisovans which, as I shown in this post, to fit fine in OOA 2 aside from some complications in mapping precisely the nature of smaller migration into SE Asia.

Regarding Cain’s findings as a whole, the sample size of the study was one among many that were small and covered a week range of the Native’s populations in general, as discussed and somewhat ameliorated here.

With that realized, study after study after study places them in a 50k-55k Time Frame, more or less consistent with Archaeological dates, may LM3 (Mungo Man) be either 40k or 60k. It must also be kept in mind that Cann’s findings existed prior to the knowledge of Denisovan admixture, which possibly could’ve skewed divergence dates, as explained by Dienekes. This gives a good reason for Cann’s findings to be seen as erroneous. In regards to his citing of Vanderburg, it shows his specialty in this sort of work if “unique haplotypes” aren’t a natural result of human differentiation.

Regarding Archaeology from both articles, Strong makes the point of even earlier findings not popularly reported in Australia, ranging from 60-135k for fossils, older for tools and scorching. Not only are these younger than the currently oldest Sapiens in Africa, but also in the time frame of a currently known exodus into SE Asia discussed in the post, even if they were legit as I’ll dive into detail.

Reference of certain sites of >100k estimates has been shown to be much more recent, being originally confounded by less accurate techniques. The same could apply to cremated bones listed as well. This leaves the mysterious “Lake Eyre Skullcap” by Steve Webb which, as far as I can tell, has been only scarcely covered. However, only in that source is it reported as that old, as both newspapers and scientific newsletters reports at that time reported it as 60-80 years old using Fluorine-dating, referring specifically to Megafauna that was believed to have existed 30k-40k years ago that it may have coexisted with.

Webbs wrongly compares the Flourine dates relative to the values of the Mungo remains, when this type of dating works best for relative ages on specimens that are on the same site or comparable conditions, of similar density (he describes them as more Robust than Mungo remains), similar size (Uses Large and small animals, but logically it would also apply to mere fragment to more whole remains), and for humans particularly Ribs or Cortical bone layers should be compared.

But an even odder argument of his is how the earliest tools in Australia, being found to be less advanced than other tools of the same time frame mean people sailed from Australia. What this could more likely mean is that they were “simplified” based on Lifestyle, as covered in a previous blog post on Expertise, Brain size, and Tool complexity.]

In my model, I offer compelling evidence for three key migrations of Homo sapiens heading out of Australasia. The first migrations began around 200,000 years ago, during a period of intense climatic problems and low population numbers, with a small group making their way to East Africa.[i] The remains of some of these first Africans have been discovered close to one key entry point in the east of the continent (400km), known as the Bab-el-Mandeb straights.[i]

I then identify a second migration event 74,000 years ago, following the eruption of the Lake Toba super volcano.[i] Small groups of survivors to the north of Lake Toba, finding themselves unable to move south to safety, were then forced to head west to escape the devastating nuclear winter and toxic clouds that followed the disaster. The lucky few that could move fast enough eventually made their way into Africa and found safety in the south of the continent. I suggest that some of these few moved along the coasts of Asia, and others sailed the open ocean to Madagascar and hit the coast of South Africa – I associate these refugees with cave sites including Borders Cave, Klasies River Caves and the Blombos Cave.[i]

The problem with this is due to the previously mentioned finds in Morocco making Sapiens much older in Africa and further West. Though Climates conditions, by the way, based on his link provides no reason for it to be centered at Australasia as it was described to affect Africa’s interior.

Second, the South African caves he describes contains specimens, likely to have contributed to modern South Africans, show deeper genetic roots than what he suggests when they diverged.

But the most glaring problem is that none of his sources shows Sapiens skeletons or activity prior to that in Africa, Indonesia clearly not having a confounding enough preservation problem due to its Erectus sites.

The third migration event identified in my research is arguably of greatest interest because it involved the direct ancestors of all non-African people alive today. As the global environment recovered from the Lake Toba eruption 60,000 years ago, a trickle of modern humans (calculated to be just under 200 individuals) moved out of Australasia into Southeast Asia, slowly colonising the Eurasian continent.[i] These adventurous men and women were the forebears of every non-African and non-Australian person living on Earth today. This Australasian colonisation of the world is very well supported by the study of both mitochondrial and Y-chromosomal haplogroups, and given further credence by the location and dating of several fossils.

This oddly enough goes against what we show with “180k” teeth of a modern human in China, that’s not accounted for in his sequence of African-Eurasian dispersal from Australasia.

He also goes against an earlier point he made by “relying on genetic material”, as he himself has yet to provided H.sapiens being present in the Area.

The model I offer represents a radical revision to the current evolutionary narrative, and is perhaps revolutionary. It will not be easy for academics to accept such bold claims from someone whom is neither a paleoanthropologist or an evolutionary biologist. Why, then, should one take this work seriously?

The Into Africa theory is firmly based on real-world evidence, data that anyone can freely access and examine for themselves. My argument incorporates a great wealth of peer reviewed academic papers, well accepted genetic studies, and opinions offered by the most respected scientific researchers. Indeed, rather ironically, many of my key sources derive from scientists that stand opposed to this model (being vocal supporters of the Out of Africa theories).

Well the irony doesn’t necessarily come off strong when you don’t argue in this article why the findings contradict their views, nor have the sources you provided so far actually firmly grounds your theory by placing human origin into Australasia, the two that do being an unreplicated study and a volcano incident in a vicinity with little fossil continuity with Modern humans from its early hominids.

Recent scientific studies have begun to change the landscape of paleoanthropological research. Examination of the recent conclusions associated with the analysis of Homo erectus skulls in the Georgian Republic confirms that several species of hominins in Africa are in fact nothing more than expected variance within the greater H. erectus population.[i]
That Sources talk about the origin of the Flores Hobbits, not the Georgian Erectus or African Hominid classification.
Elsewhere in Southeast Asia, there is growing suspicion among scientists that Homo floresiensis evolved from a lineage of hominins that lived much earlier than the immediate ancestors of Homo sapiens.[i] Detailed analysis of Neanderthal and Denisovan ancestry convincingly places their founder populations in Southeast Asia and Australasia. There seems little about the currently accepted academic narrative that has not yet come under fire.

He in turns uses a source that supports his later claim of early humans (homo) in India by 3 million (actually 2.6 million based on the source, I believe I’m seeing a trend here), Though the claim he refers to shows continuity with ancestral populations in Africa and has hardly much to do with OOA as of current status hence why there was “no fire”.

Fenton, furthermore, provided no evidence of his claims of Denisovan-Neanderthal origins in Australasia.

 As of 2016, we have finds that place early humans in India 3 million years ago (Masol), and Homo erectus populations ranging from Indonesia to the Georgian Republic 2 million years ago (Dmanisi).[i] On the Australasian island of Guinea, we find the only signature for interbreeding between Denisovans and modern humans dating to 44,000 years ago. This interbreeding occurred long after Australia’s supposed isolation, as claimed by the consensus narrative.[i] How do entirely isolated populations interbreed with other human groups?

See here.

We computed pD(X) for a range of non-African populations and found that for mainland East Asians, western Negritos (Jehai and Onge), or western Indonesians, pD(X) is within two standard errors of zero when a standard error is computed from a block jackknife (Table 1 and Figure 1). Thus, there is no significant evidence of Denisova genetic material in these populations. However, there is strong evidence of Denisovan genetic material in Australians (1.03 ± 0.06 times the New Guinean proportion; one standard error), Fijians (0.56 ± 0.03), Nusa Tenggaras islanders of southeastern Indonesia (0.40 ± 0.03), Moluccas islanders of eastern Indonesia (0.35 ± 0.04), Polynesians (0.020 ± 0.04), Philippine Mamanwa, who are classified as a “Negrito” group (0.49 ± 0.05), and Philippine Manobo (0.13 ± 0.03) (Table 1 and Figure 1). The New Guineans and Australians are estimated to have indistinguishable proportions of Denisovan ancestry (within the statistical error), suggesting Denisova gene flow into the common ancestors of Australians and New Guineans prior to their entry into Sahul (Pleistocene New Guinea and Australia), that is, at least 44,000 years ago.24,25 These results are consistent with the Common Origin model of present-day New Guineans and Australians.26,27 We further confirmed the consistency of the Common Origin model with our data by testing for a correlation in the allele frequency difference of two populations used as outgroups (Yoruba and Han) and the two tested populations (New Guinean and Australian).The f4 statistic that measures their correlation is only |Z| = 0.8 standard errors from zero, as expected if New Guineans and Australians descend from a common ancestral population after they split from East Asians, without any evidence of a closer relationship of one group or the other to East Asians. Two alternative histories, in which either New Guineans or Australians have a common origin with East Asians, are inconsistent with the data (both |Z| > 52).

Here we analyze genome-wide single nucleotide polymorphism data from 2,493 individuals from 221 worldwide populations, and show that there is a widespread signal of a very low level of Denisovan ancestry across Eastern Eurasian and Native American (EE/NA) populations. We also verify a higher level of Denisovan ancestry in Oceania than that in EE/NA; the Denisovan ancestry in Oceania is correlated with the amount of New Guinea ancestry, but not the amount of Australian ancestry, indicating that recent gene flow from New Guinea likely accounts for signals of Denisovan ancestry across Oceania. However, Denisovan ancestry in EE/NA populations is equally correlated with their New Guinea or their Australian ancestry, suggesting a common source for the Denisovan ancestry in EE/NA and Oceanian populations. Our results suggest that Denisovan ancestry in EE/NA is derived either from common ancestry with, or gene flow from, the common ancestor of New Guineans and Australians, indicating a more complex history involving East Eurasians and Oceanians than previously suspected.
So it is accounted for by other genetic research.
We are finding anomalies in all areas of evolutionary studies, whether we look at the mitochondrial and Y-chromosonal data, the datings associated with human archaeological sites, or analysis of hominin morphology. Rather than continuing with the attempt to fit square pegs into a round hole, it is time to face the fact that holes are round and that our story of human origins has been significantly wrong.

Well, studies such as the ones above have reworked hypotheses on migrations theories, the paper you cite on Denisovan admixture being among the many smaller scale migration already being debated and shifting as my second link mentions. So while rethinking ideas in light of evidence is a good thing, there should be clear limits on what to discredit.

Overall I wish I could like the idea as a competing idea to OOA, but this if this paper is to serve any impression of the book, using various studies on hominids and human genetic at different scales showing no clear pattern center towards South East Asia in both Archaeology AND genetics but with just enthusiasm of creating a new idea and to fill holes, then I’m disappointed.

With that said, if anyone with better knowledge and citations from the book (Fenton mentions research from close colleagues of his) then I may be more inclined to accept new finds if they are in favor of shifting human origins from Africa to Australasia.

Advertisements

22 Comments

  1. Jm8 says:

    re: the homo sapiens in China claim”, the “news.com article Graham Hancock’s website links to actually absurdly and shockingly claims claims:

    “The fragments were found to be between 112,000 years and 178,000 years old.
    This is some 75,000 years earlier than the first modern human (homo sapien) fossil finds in Africa.”

    Sapiens in Africa of course being roughly 300,000-270,000 years old in Africa (previously estimated at about 200,000 years old).

    I suspect (though I am not sure about that, could be wrong) sapiens status of the Chinese remains may be uncertain (I will have to look into that). But if they are sapiens it would not be too surprising if some sapiens had made it to that part of Asia by some time within that 112,000-178,000 BC range. The Altai neanderthals of Central Asia were found to show signs of sapiens admixture, likely from a sapiens expansion occurring around 100,000 BC or so (and homo sapiens-like bone tools were reported to have been found around S. China dating ca. 70-80,000 BC, not unlike those by sapiens in Africas prior to that time—like the bone tools at Katanda E.C. Africa for instance ca. 90,000. It’s possible perhaps that sapiens groups expanded from Africa and survived in Eurasia, perhaps even absorbing and/or somewhat displacing other hominids, before the main OOA expansion later. Whether earlier sapiens expansions have surviving descendants is unknown (perhaps they mixed with the later sapiens wave when it finally arrived, and in other cases with archaics, or some combination of the two scenarios—but little (if any)of their ancestry seems to survive in modern groups as far as we know so far.

    I may comment again later. I’m a bit busy at present.

    Like

    • Phil78 says:

      Thanks, this is the weakest one in my opinion given the much more expansive continuity in Africa itself.

      https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4920294/

      Regarding surviving descendants recently Papua New Guinea natives are believed to have 2% if their dna from the early expansion from Africa into East Asia.

      When you comment again, be sure to share your thoughts regarding the genetics which is their biggest lean.

      Like

  2. Phil78 says:

    Ron, I think by now you would know that none of the blog authors here find this amusing, especially me.

    You either discuss the topic of the article above, or you take your frustrated sexual urges for blacks and jews somewhere else.

    Like

  3. Jm8 says:

    I will comment and post some relevant links soon (on the subject of Homo finds in Africa and Eurasia).

    Like

    • Phil78 says:

      Thanks, as far as I’m concerned the best evidence, aside from clear modern human remains, is regardless the presence of many transitional forms being more plentiful in Africa.

      I’ve always assume China was primary Erectus and Denisovan-like in it’s field, and new evidence suggest a modern presence I still have some diffuclties to some as large as a shift of origins altogether.

      A. The rather obvious craniomorphological differences between the Dali skull and approximate ambigiously statused Homo Specimen “Florisbad” in regards to Supraorbital robustness.

      B. The unique status of it’s traits pointed out by the study, as well as the position of them being on the archaic end of Levant and African Crania, could suggest a Homo Heldi-like migration.

      C. The best information we have on genetics and archaeology is that the Levant migration goes back 200k, and while that may explain the 187k Teeth, Maba (despite it’s archaicness), Jinniushian remains, and the Red Deer Cave people, it doesn’t necessarily explain the Dali finds. Rather, Dali could rather explain the Levant migration as if it preceds it it could rationalize of their DNA enede up in Altai neanderthals.

      D. With all of them mentioned, the Human remains found in Asia seem to conistsently show inital speculation of being transitional between Erectus and Sapiens.

      Like

    • Phil78 says:

      Jinnushian Man (frontal view compared with Dali). (200k to 260k)

      Dali (250-260k)

      Maba (130k)

      Xuchang (100k-125k)

      http://cdn.newsapi.com.au/image/v1/7712bbfd24537f8ace67e238a72d29f9

      Zhoukoudian Sapiens (10k-20k)

      Herto Skull (190-200k)

      Laetoli Skull (120k)

      Omo Kibush skulls (200k)

      Skhul Qafzeh Skull (130k- similar specimens possibly going as far back as 200k))

      https://qph.ec.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-67f1ea3c991ada1bec4c865468b58e52

      Jebel Irhoud (300k 350k)

      http://www.nhm.ac.uk/content/dam/nhmwww
      /our-science/news/2017/irhoud-fossil-cast-news.jpg

      From what I can tell, the one Sapiens Skull the chinese specimens have a Frontal arch comparability with would be Laetoli, yet Laetoli still seems to have both a smaller browridge and higher Frontal/Temporal region at the top of the Skull.

      As well, compared to Florisbad, the nasal cavity is sharper at the end of the bridge, Florisbad’s bridge is still higher and somewhat longer.

      The orbits seem to be somewhat rounder on Jinniushan yet the brows are still heavier. I have a study that suggest oribit shape is relted with cepahlic index, so this may reflect a broader skull than Florisbad.

      http://www.paleoanthro.org/media/dissertations/Michael_Masters.pdf

      Still, compared to Herto, the nasal cavity isn’t as narrow nor are the oribts rounder. To Jebel Irhoud, the skulls have less of a sharp nasal cavity (Jebel is even sharper than Herto) but the orbits seem to be rounder.

      Otherwise, the skulls seem to consistently show higher frontal lobes being in favor of the African/Middle eastern skulls, though Cranial Breadth seems to be equal, in which the parietal lobes do seem broader than you would except from Heidelbergensis types. As well the faces are smaller and less robust.

      This position seems similar to Florisbad in that regard.

      Overall, the position of Archaic Homo is at least somewhat warranted, and mainly in regard to facial features.

      Like

    • Phil78 says:

      How lets compare Post OOA skulls

      Red Deer Cave skull (11.5-14.5k)

      https://img.purch.com/w/660/aHR0cDovL3d3dy5saXZlc2NpZW5jZS5jb20vaW1hZ2VzL2kvMDAwLzAyNS8zNTQvb3JpZ2luYWwvbmV3LWhvbWluaW4tc2t1bGwuanBn

      Zhoukoudian (10-20)

      Ta Pac Ling Cave skulls (63k)

      https://anthropologynet.files.wordpress.com/2015/04/tam-pa-ling-laos-hominid.jpg?w=529&h=317

      Iwo Eleru (11-13k)

      Hofmeyr skull (36k)

      Border Cave skull (35k-36k)

      Fish Hoek skull (12k)

      https://bloximages.newyork1.vip.townnews.com/lancasteronline.com/content/tncms/assets/v3/editorial/4/b8/4b810f86-38a6-11e5-82c5-5744215697b9/55bd5842b00cc.image.jpg?resize=1200%2C791

      Canteen Kopje Skull (10k-20k)

      http://www.scielo.org.za/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0038-23532012000100017

      At First I though I could concluded that the Red Deer cave people and Iwo Eleru, due to both hacinf morphological anomalies for their recentness, were reminents to the same 100k migration.

      However, looking at the Red Deer cave people’s profile, they seem to derive their femurs and large Zygomatic arches from Asian Erectus and their small brows and frontal lobes from a Sapiens population such as shown above from Zhoukoudian Upper Cave, which based on this study is classified as recent.

      http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0024024

      Iwo Eleru seems to be closest to the Levant specimens in turn.

      http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0024024

      Border Cave, Canteen Kopje, and Fish Hoek all seem representative of ancient Bushmen.

      Like

    • Jm8 says:

      “I’ve always assume China was primary Erectus and Denisovan-like in it’s field, and new evidence suggest a modern presence I still have some diffuclties to some as large as a shift of origins altogether.”

      I agree justified, in my opinion, there are much better explanations for the presence of those features in the Dali hominid, than a shift in origins including some you list, and some I outlined on PP’s blog)

      “B. The unique status of it’s traits pointed out by the study, as well as the position of them being on the archaic end of Levant and African Crania, could suggest a Homo Heldi-like migration.”

      Apparently many researchers have/had classified the Dali skull as heidelbergensis, and some researchers had previously also suggested that the Dali skull could Denisovan (and Denisovans are, of course as of now otherwise known for sure only from a finger bone)., which would be interesting. It (Dali) was said to cluster cranially with western Eurasian hominids (such as neanderthals and European heidelbergensis), and I believe Denisova were somewhat closer to neanderthals genetically than to sapiens (and the ancestors of Denisova—likely close to the European heidelbergensis ancestors of neanderthals) would have entered Asia from western Eurasia). It could be that certain Dali-like facial tendencies occurred as part of Denisovan variation (perhaps more in parts of the Denisovan range). Other unknown

      Perhaps the shift of Chinese hominids over time at some sites from an earlier more primitive erectus-phase, toward a slightly less primitive character (long prior to the decisive sapiens migration) over time, may have been due to gradual admixture from a hominin (or hominins) in the heidlbergensis lineage—combined perhaps with unique local adaptations

      “C. The best information we have on genetics and archaeology is that the Levant migration goes back 200k, and while that may explain the 187k Teeth, Maba (despite it’s archaicness), Jinniushian remains, and the Red Deer Cave people, it doesn’t necessarily explain the Dali finds. Rather, Dali could rather explain the Levant migration as if it preceeds it it could rationalize of their DNA enede up in Altai neanderthals.”

      Or it (remains like Dali that is) could instead be evidence of an earlier (additional) early sapiens/proto-sapiens/transitional sapiens-heidelbergensis migration of prior to 200,000 bc, that predated the Levant migration of ca. 125,000-100,000 bc. which likely contributed sapiens admixture to the Altai neanderthals (which was later followed by the demographically more important migration of ca. 70 ka) I suspect more that more than the currently known migrations are possible—though the importance of their significance and respective genetic impacts may vary greatly.

      I am perhaps (partly due to the first two reasons, A and B, that you listed above) somewhat leaning toward the idea that Dali may reflect some kind of heidlbergensis migration/admixture (with local adaptation) rather than early sapiens admixture, but on the other hand there’s no reason to rule out some degree of both as factors.

      It seems the affinity of the red deer people is debated—I’m not sure which migration they would be from (their seeming divergence within sapiens variation—many consider them within the spectrum of sapiens variation—may be from archaic admixture, or an early divergence (by they’re being derived from a very early diverged sapiens branch. they were considered by some within the known sapiens range even before the recent more secure reclassification of Jebel Irhoud as sapiens, which suggests their morphology may not be so radically divergent as to require a pre-100 ka divergence, or perhaps derived (or partly so) from an earlier sapiens migration.

      “D. With all of them mentioned, the Human remains found in Asia seem to conistsently show inital speculation of being transitional between Erectus and Sapiens.”

      As the data (some in included in links/images you have presented) show; Sapiens/sapiens traits) appear in Africa, and the oldest sapiens African sapiens/proto-sapiens remains are less archaic than dali and older, and there derivation of Dali either from an early unknown sapiens migration with local archaic admixture (likely with no recent descendants/ a dead end) or a local heidelbergensis variant (with some local erectus admixture) seems likely.

      Like

    • Jm8 says:

      It is unfortunate that many news sources are (irresponsibly) reporting and propagating Wu’s theory without discussing other (and more likely) possibilities, to misleading effect. But I suppose, as with many online news articles’ treatment of the Graecopithicus find, in these areas, the most radical and sensational (attention getting) interpretations tend to get more attention.

      The dailymail.co.uk article you linked did at least present other theories (which I had not noticed earlier), including some I had suspected/proposed in my comments:

      “Other theories say the Dali skull was in fact from an ‘Asian Homo erectus’ as first reported, and that these populations may have separately evolved some modern human traits.”

      and:

      “Alternative theories suggest that Homo sapiens left Africa over 100,000 years earlier than first thought, reaching China by 260,000 years ago”

      but then they add:

      “… though genetic evidence does not support this.”

      I’m not sure what the article is are claiming genetic evidence does not support, but I think the it (the article) may be confusing the idea that Homo Sapiens left Africa earlier with the idea that modern humans outside Africa are descended from such an early migration (when in fact they descend from a later one ca 70 ka. bc). the genetic evidence does not, in fact, go against or preclude the possibility of such an early migration preceding the one that lead to most modern Eurasian sapiens ancestry (just the early one as a source for that ancestry—the earlier one would have mostly died out). So the idea of a very early sapiens migration to China (with hybridization with archaics—exemplified by dali, that then left little genetic legacy (being replaced absorbed by later sapiens migration, as other archaic were), is plausible

      And it is notable that Chris Stringer also doubts the claim (of Wu and Athreya) associated with the Dali skulls.
      (from the dailymail article)

      “Professor Chris Stringer, an expert at the Natural History Museum in London, told New Scientist that while the Moroccan and Chinese finds are similar, he doubts Professor Athreya’s claims.
      ‘When it comes to the vast amount of genetic data, it becomes very difficult to give China a significant role in modern human origins,’ he said.”

      I will try to post more (if I can find more of relevance) later (unfortunately I am somewhat busy currently)

      Like

    • Jm8 says:

      Edits:

      Edit 1:
      “As the data (some in included in links/images you have presented) show; Sapiens/sapiens traits) appear in Africa earlier, and the oldest sapiens African sapiens/proto-sapiens remains are less archaic than dali and older, and there derivation of Dali either from an early unknown sapiens migration with local archaic …”

      Edit 2:

      “I… still have some diffuclties to some as large as a shift of origins altogether.”

      I agree justified, in my opinion, there are much better explanations for the presence of those features in the Dali hominid…”

      The above quote should b (as below)e:

      “… I still have some diffuclties to some as large as ashift of origins altogether.”

      I agree. a shift origins IMO is not justified. There are much better explanations for the features of the Da hominidli…”

      Edit/adition 3:

      “they were considered by some within the known sapiens range even before the recent more secure reclassification of Jebel Irhoud as sapiens, which suggests their morphology may not be so radically divergent as to require a pre-100 ka divergence, or perhaps derived (or partly so) from an earlier sapiens migration.”

      The Red Deer Cave people would seem to be a relict of an early (pre-70 ka bc) migration (whether 100 ka or earlier) that survived long into a period by which Asia would have been dominated by the descendants of the 70 ka bc wave .

      (Actually the irhoud remains had been classed already as sapiens for a while prior to their recent backdating (from 100 ka to 300 ka currently, after having first/initially been incorrectly dated to only 40 ka bc), though were initially when discovered, assighnment was uncertain, some suspecting Neanderthal, .)


      Like

    • Phil78 says:

      It;s affinity with West Eurasian Hominids may give some links.

      I noticed that, when comparing Dali to the Petralona Skull (which occupied a distant assoictaion with) it had nonetheless similar Orbit shapes but different frontal lobe morphologies.

      As for the Red Deer Cave People I’m some skeptical of the idea that they come from a pre-70k migration as from their profile their Frontal lobes and browridges are rather derived in appearance.

      That, and femoral studies clustered them with Erectus Habilis, confirming admixture with local Erectus types.

      Like

    • Jm8 says:

      “That, and femoral studies clustered them with Erectus Habilis, confirming admixture with local Erectus types.”

      Yes, that certainly seems to most strongly indicate some admixture from a quite primitive type.

      Like

  4. Jm8 says:

    Phil:

    Regarding the sources you recently linked on archaic admixture, and pop. structure in Africa:

    The admixture in Pygmies and some Khoisan groups (in the third study you linked) seems to be from some late or mid erectus type and comprise about 2% (if it is the same population detected by then earlier hammer study, a s it seems to be). I do not believe that particular admixture has been found in West Africans (it was absent in the Mandinka and Yoruba).

    That possible admixture is some West Africans (seemingly in forrest region West Africans like the Yoruba at 8% and slightly higher in the Mende of Liberia)
    I would be interested to see the admixture levels of Savannah west Africans
    —like pure Mande peoples from the savannah e.g. the Mandinka (or e.g. Sengalese, Burkinabe, Malian, North Nigerian, North Ghanaian, Nigerien ethnic groups, which were not used. The Mende, whom they tested (as opposed to the Malian Mande/Mandinka) who live deep in the forrest region of Liberia/Sierra Leone, are Mande-speaking, but like similar groups such as the Kpelle, they have heavy (and I believe usually predominant, actually) admixture from the pre-existing non-Mande natives of the region as represented by the Sherbro, Kru, etc. who are quite different genetically from Malians/Senegambians (Most Mendes may be genetically mostly local non-Mande, but I am not entirely sure). I suspect the archaic admixture may have occurred among certain West African groups in the forrest region and thus tend to be considerably less in the tribes of the Sahel/Savannah (which is closer to North Africa and the Eastern Africa Sahel/Savannah region, the likely modern human zone/range of origin), and that the recently discovered admixture would be lower (perhaps quite significantly so) in Savannah/Sahel West Africans than it is in the Yoruba or in the Mende (and likely absent-nearly so in East Africans—I would be interested to see results from the Central-South Sudan or Chad, and/or perhaps Southern Ethiopia).

    The Yoruba have a slightly lower level of the admixture than the Mende, and though they are in the forrest/savannah overlap zone (including much forest), their is some evidence that sometimes more of their ancestry is of relatively recent savannah origin (at least in north Yorubaland)/or that they may be in general somewhat savannah-shifted relative to the Liberian/Sierra Leonian Mende (they sometimes cluster genetically close to savannah groups like the Dogon), but this would vary quite a lot regionally within Yorubaland (Yorubas are probably quite varied regionally—I would also be interested to know where in Yorubaland the samples came from, I suspect the south or center), with the south having less savannah affinity and more forrest.

    I would agree with Dienekes that the recently discovered admixture (or much of it) might be closer to sapiens (less archaic) than that (the Neanderthal/Denisovan 1-2% and ca. 4-5% respectively—w/ less Denisovan in E. Asians/Amerinds) that is in Eurasians. Some of it could also be derived from a deeply diverged sapiens population (depending on how sapiens is designated) and not be quite archaic. Some, however, (perhaps a small party of the admixture) might also come from a heidelbergensis-descended population similar to Neaderthals (and Denisovans). This might explain the ambiguous suggestions of trace neanderthal admixture/genetics in Yorubas but not in East Africans like the Kenyan Luhya), which had been suggested (and I also suspected/agreed) might come from admixture with a somewhat neanderthal-related related (but native African) hominin (retaining some affinity to neanderthals/some of the same genetic diversity from before the split) that was present in West Africa but not in East Africa (or mostly not in East Africa), rather than deriving directly from neanderthals (which seems unlikely).
    (or the admixture could come—as per a similar scenario—from an archaic/quasi-archaic African group—heidelbergensis-descended of course—that was nonetheless less archaic/closer to sapiens than neanderthals/denisovans, but still retained some common affinities shared by neanderthals—)

    I believe the evidence archaic admixture was found (by Skoglund) to be lowest in East Africans (presumably such as Nilotes and other Nilo-Saharans)—and such of course is not surprising. I do not recall a precise figure (they may not have conducted the same admixture test on them, but I would expect the admixture to generally be trace-non-existent most E. African groups, though some could in some cases be present from the influence of West African African back-migrant populations; including but not limited to the Bantu—some perhaps, being much earlier than the Bantu.

    (re: the Dienekes post:)
    The origins of modern humans seem most likely to be either in North Africa (where Irhoud is), around the Ethiopia region (where Omo, Herto, and the ca. 279k bc projectiles at Gademotta likely associated with early sapiens are), or in a zone between the two regions (i.e. perhaps within the Central or Eastern Sahel and/or Central or Eastern Sahara zone: around Northernmost Chad/North Niger, Algeria/Libya, and/or Egypt/Sudan)—i.e the area between Morocco and Ethiopia and with early sapiens spreading to those nearby places very soon after—, or in some broader zone including both some of the Maghreb around Morocco and the Eastern region around Ethiopia (and some of the areas/countries listed above, most of which are within that broader zone).

    Thus sapiens likely originated in North and/or East Africa and not is Southern Africa (though sapiens seems to have arrived there fairly early: by 164k bc form the archaeological evidence at Pinnacle point, and earlier if you want to count the ambiguous Border cave evidence as sapiens) I would be interested to see how Border cave compares/clusters in “modernity” on a graph relatively to other modern/early modern and archaic skulls.
    The fact that archaics survived late in Southern ( and possibly parts of Western) Africa however, does not necessarily rule out the early presence off sapiens there, as archaics survived in China up to the mesolithic (the red deer people—though they, if archaic, would have likely been sapiens-admixed). In West Africa, the Iwo Ileru skull is also classified as sapiens with possible archaic admixture (though some dispute that it is archaic (or archaic admixed at all—see link below. It is likely either sapiens, or admixed like the red deer population)

    http://forwhattheywereweare.blogspot.com/2011/09/claims-of-nigerian-late-archaic-human.html

    (though the presence of some/a small amount of archaic admixture in local people there suggests that Iwo Ileru may more likely have been in fact somewhat archaic-admixed though perhaps majority-sapiens as Chris Stringer believes)

    I will also try to comment (also here) on the first study you linked (on MUC7) and get back to you regarding it sometime later today—and will try to address anything else I might have missed (today is seemingly turning out to be a bit busy).

    Like

    • Jm8 says:

      re: my paragraph on the origins of modern humans in general:

      The origins of the groups Dienekes calls “Afrasians” (the group/branch of sapiens that left East Africa ca. 70ka bc for Eurasia and became the ancestor of Eurasians, as well as speading elsewhere in Africa from the East or Africa around the same time to mix with others incl. with other more diverged groups of homo sapiens in the West and South of Africa , rather than the origins modern humans in general—which I discussed above—whose roots are of course older) is in my opinion, ( as the genetic evidence , both from haplotyope philogeny and autosomal studies, seems to to still supports) somewhere in East Africa (where the “east African genetic cluster” peaks—usually in Nilotes/Nilo-Saharans), and where—i.e. E. Africa—the haplolypes associated with the OOA seem to have (and be most likely to have) their roots.

      Like

    • Jm8 says:

      Edit: “I suspect the archaic admixture may have occurred among certain West African groups in (and/or near) the forrest region and thus tend to be considerably less (when/if present) in the tribes of the Sahel/Savannah…”

      Like

    • Jm8 says:

      Edits:

      “…but I would expect the admixture to generally be trace-non-existent most E. African groups, though some could in some cases be present from the influence of West African African back-migrant populations; including but not limited to the Bantu—some perhaps, being much earlier than the Bantu

      Some like Roger blench believe that early Niger Congo populations might have mingled with at least some early Nilo-Saharan ones in early times around the early mesolithic or so. But on the other hand, the origins or Niger-Congo aka Niger-Kordfanian are believed to possibly be around East Africa as well (perhaps in the Sudan/Chad region near the present day Kordofanian languages of Central Sudan(thou I believe it is unknown whether or not Kordofanian is to some degree derived from a back migration from west of its current position).

      “(Yorubas are probably quite varied regionally—I would also be interested to know where in Yorubaland the samples came from, I suspect the south or center), with the south having less savannah affinity and more forrest (so perhaps the admixture levels found in the Yoruba are about at the same level, give or take, as those that will be found in other forrest W. African ethnic groups e.g in Nigeria, Cameroon, etc.—I will be interested to see a broader range of African populations analyzed; Eastern, Western and otherwise.

      “…—the haplotypes associated with the OOA seem to have (and be most likely to have) their roots/predecessors (in E. Africa).”

      Like

    • Jm8 says:

      “…seemingly in forrest region West Africans like the Yoruba at 8% and slightly higher in the Mende of Liberia—similarly I recall some, maybe most paleolithic Europeans (paleolithic European sapiens) like those at Pester Cu Oase in the Balkans I believe were about 6-9% neanderthal, before later sapiens waves into Europe from the Near East with somewhat less neanderthal DNA also including basal-Eurasian admixture which was especially low in neanderthal DNA, and also possibly with some African admixture along with it, gradually lowered neanderthal proportions in Europe.)”

      Like

    • Phil78 says:

      Thanks for the commentary. Your points on the Yoruba and Mende results I find interesting as I was somewhat expecting the opposite as the Mende, to my previous knowledge, I thought were more Sudanid than the Yoruba (who in turn I figured to be more prominent guineasid).

      My logic was that Sudanids represented a more ancient East African ancestry compared to Basal African ancestry as expressed in palaenegrids. I, howeverm lacked anthropological data on the Mende compared to their neighbors (though they were mentioned) who were otherwise more sudanid.

      If they have ancestry of non Mande speakers, then their phenotype may be that mixture of the two groups anthropologists noted in the past, having long heads but otherwise stout and robudt bodies akin to guinea types.

      The similarities between the 8% and the 7.97% in two of the studies makes me curious of how it compares to the genetic material found at 2% in aborginals as it could be remainants of the Iwo Eleru population as opposed to a moree diverged archaic.

      An alternative theory is that it represents a Mid-late Erectus, but “different” from the Mid Late erectus in Khoi San and Pygmies, which I believe represents admixture >100k or so with Central African populations that preceded the LSA Ishango site.

      http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0084652

      However, looking at the genetics, perhaps the hominids in this era was more akin to the Naledi line, which shows no sign of introgression. In that case, I guess the Erectus Line i speak of merely shared a similar migration route as then to happen when certain geographic strips are favorable.

      Otherwise, I believe that the 8% may possibility represent a Late
      erectus” that is genetically closer to Rhodiensis or even Neanderthals (perhaps the latter as both would share the NW african entry point) but puncutated equilibrium underminded this.

      Also work noting is the early Erectus corresponding dates for the MCU7 gene. My guess is that was nonetheless retained in this line of Erectus due to not traveling outside Africa.

      Going back to the study on Niger-Kong, Khoi San, and Nilotics, it’s interesting it suggest a link with East Africa, South Africa, and particular West Africans closer to East/Central Africa by longitude like the Yoruba in their study as that would explain the low levels of khoisan like admixture that the African Genome project noticed.

      As well, it is consistent with San like people being further north in the past.

      BTW, fish Hoek, and presumbly the border Cave skulls as well, seem to be somewhat in range with Modern Khoisan in certain features but the Khatar skull is outside the range of any SSA robusticity.

      https://www.academia.edu/12994922/The_position_of_the_Nazlet_Khater_specimen_among_prehistoric_and_modern_African_and_Levantine_populations

      Carleton Coon also observed skull in East Africa that tended to diverge either to Eurasian like traits or Khoisan traits (of which Blacks, as he described, were in between and confroms with current hypothesis).

      Like

    • Jm8 says:

      “I was somewhat expecting the opposite as the Mende, to my previous knowledge, I thought were more Sudanid than the Yoruba”

      Most Mande-speaking peoples (from around Mali and the general Western Sahel/Savannah) would be/are more Sudan than the Yoruba (and your expectations would more likely be correct regarding them), but the Mende from Sierra Leone/Liberia in the forrest region are heavily admixed with non Sudaid non-Mande peoples (likely in many cases with only a small fraction of true Mande ancestry)—in many cases, they may be almost closer to being Mandeized natives (but I am unsure of the extent to which that is true and I would have to look more into genetic studies of that region. The longer-established Vande-speaking tribes in the Sierra-Leone/Liberia region tend to be very heavily admixed (the later arriving Mandinka who arrived there from mali more recently less so).

      “If they have ancestry of non Mande speakers, then their phenotype may be that mixture of the two groups anthropologists noted in the past, having long heads but otherwise stout and robudt bodies akin to guinea types.”

      Yes, the non-Mande types tend to have broad builds (perhaps epitomized by groups like the shortish, somewhat squat and and very stout/robust Kru) and I believe broader faces as wells well as somewhat lighter skin in general than Sudanids (the region being forested and having less direct sunlight). I suspect the forest types native to the Sierra Leonean/Liberia forrest may be a somewhat different one native to regions like southern Nigeria or Cameroon—to me they even look a bit different (or course they may just form a continuum with those of regions like Southern Ghana/South Togo etc. in between being in the middle of the continuum).

      “My logic was that Sudanids represented a more ancient East African ancestry compared to Basal African ancestry as expressed in palaenegrids. I, howeverm lacked anthropological data on the Mende compared to their neighbors (though they were mentioned) who were otherwise more sudanid.”

      I believe your logic is basically correct (I more or less thought and think the same). But the Mende are likely just not very Sudanid.

      “The similarities between the 8% and the 7.97% in two of the studies makes me curious of how it compares to the genetic material found at 2% in aborginals as it could be remainants of the Iwo Eleru population as opposed to a moree diverged archaic”

      That is what I suspect (that the 8% comes , or comes mostly, from a not very diverged archaic similar to the Iwo Ileru population (or sharing some ancestry with it).

      “Otherwise, I believe that the 8% may possibility represent a Late
      erectus” that is genetically closer to Rhodiensis or even Neanderthals (perhaps the latter as both would share the NW african entry point) but puncutated equilibrium underminded this.”

      Rhodesiensis might be a relative of the population from which the 8% came, but the 8% may have come form a derivative of Africa heidelbergensis more near to sapiens (less archaic, heidelbergensis ancestor.) Its possible minor neanderthal affinity could come form the common ancestor of both in Africa, but be comprised of genes that were lost in sapiens but retained both in Neanderthals and also perhaps in some groups of African heidelbergensis/some other groups in Africa within the heidelbergensis lineage (even possibly in some groups that may have been more close to sapiens taxonomically than neanderthals were)
      Or perhaps the 8% could also come from a hybrid of two groups: the first being a highly basal/diverged sapiens group, and second a native African heidelbergensis-descended group more similar to neanderthals (relative to its position to sapiens) which was roughly as diverged as neanderthals (and whose common ancestor with neanderthals, likely in East Africa, could have been more recent than its common ancestor with sapiens).
      It would be interesting to know precisely when (though I think the period considered likeliest is ca 500ka-600ka bc) and where in Africa (I would guess) East Africa) the common ancestor of Sapiens and Neanderthals/Deniosovans diverged.

      East African heidelbergensis-derived (other than sapiens) types (the majority of the Rhodesiensis remains we have come from East and Southern East Africa) seem likely to have died out earliest (the ones that did not evolve into sapiens) in East and North Africa (as one would expect), but apparently fragmentarily survived longer in some part(s) of West Africa (and maybe elsewhere). But perhaps the West African ghost hominid’s ancestors could have have come from the East of Africa (perhaps prior to sapiens’ divergence, but maybe not too long before).

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_rhodesiensis#Bodo_Cranium

      This has been a somewhat fast and cursory comment, but I will will likely comment again (more in depth) later when I have time.

      Like

    • Jm8 says:

      Edit:

      ““The similarities between the 8% and the 7.97% in two of the studies makes me curious of how it compares to the genetic material found at 2% in aborginals as it could be remainants of the Iwo Eleru population as opposed to a moree diverged archaic”

      “That is what I suspect (that the 8% may come , or come mostly/largely, from; a not very diverged, even early sapiens or proto-sapiens, group similar to the Iwo Ileru population (or sharing some ancestry with it).”

      Like

    • jm8 says:

      (Mendes are likely not so sudanid, but of course mandinkas, other Malians and senegambians etc are generally very sudanid)

      Like

    • Phil78 says:

      Jm8, can you decipher partiuclar flaws regarding this new guy Shi Huang? Seems to be aquainted with known hack German when I curious about the latter’s current relavence.

      http://thegoldengnomon.blogspot.com/2017/10/mtdna-molecular-clock-not-real-wallaces.html

      http://anthropogenesis.kinshipstudies.org/blog/2017/02/01/molecular-evidence-for-the-pongid-clade-and-new-world-primate-behavioral-evidence/

      http://phenomena.nationalgeographic.com/2009/10/01/ardipithecus-we-meet-at-last/

      http://thegoldengnomon.blogspot.com/2010/02/africans-and-east-asians-are-strikingly.html

      Not only does he mirrors some loosely constructed contrarian mindset like German and Fenton, but somewhere he manages to sneak in data somehow support some vague alternative to understanding macroevolution and cladistics of primates.

      In the CS on Ardipithecus, he pretty much illustrates his illiteracy on Modern Synthesis and his blog.

      Overall, if you can point out soime major issues that weren;t already address by others mainly in his blog articles on Africans and the “Pongid” clade that would be Helpful.

      Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

Please keep comments on topic.

Jean Baptiste Lamarck

Eva Jablonka

Charles Murray

Arthur Jensen

Blog Stats

  • 462,447 hits
Follow NotPoliticallyCorrect on WordPress.com

suggestions, praises, criticisms

If you have any suggestions for future posts, criticisms or praises for me, email me at RaceRealist88@gmail.com
%d bloggers like this: