Out of Africa theory, true or not?

[Guest]

I've taken the time to analyse certain human poplulation groups not only in cultural differences but in physical characteristics. I'm not in any way being racist, this is a simple scientific observation in human variation. All humans are generally the same.

I do believe in the Out of Africa theory "Mitochonrial Eve" 150,000 years ago. Specific populations of humans migrated into different territories around the would to adapt to local climates. The multiregional hypothesis looks dim because of the lack of evidence. All humans share around 99.98% the same DNA. This 0.2% difference however does account for slight ethnical distinction. The following diagram illustrates Multiregionalism.


[img]http://pharyngula.org/~pzmyers/MyersLab/teaching/Bi104/l02/img/multireg.gif[/img]



The people whom share Oceanan, Australoid and African origins are what genetic tests have proven older than the later Caucasoid Middle Eastern, East Asian and Southern Asian population. Australian aborigines although they have similar characteristics close to African populations differ apart being closer to East Asians. People have mistaken them to Africans or peoples from Indian origin. Australoid peoples reached Australia by roughly 62,000 years ago as their art is present.

Before the coming ofthe English Europeans to Australia in 1788, distinct peoples lived by means of hunting and gathering similar to the few primative tribes that exist. The poplulations of Australians were separated into some distinct differences in background. Some had dark skin and blond curly hair, some had larger noses, some had large brow ridges. These are the only people today to share such features.


We know that Homo erectus migrated from Africa as long as 1.9 million years ago and became well established through Eastern and South East Asia by 1.5 million to 500,000 years ago. Specimens such as the imfamous "Java Man" and "Sangiran 17" (800,000 years old) have similar features on the cranium which are present in at least a few modern aboriginal craniums such as "[i]Kow Swamp Man" (13,000 years old). A low forhead, protruding brow ridges, protruding face and large nose are somewhat a bit Archaic characteristical in Australoid peoples. The question is controversial whether Kow Swamp Man is Homo erectus or modern human.


Saringan 17 "Homo erectus" 800,000 years old.

Multiregional theorists argue there point about Homo erectus's direct evolution into modern humans in seperate areas. This would leave Neanderthals evolving directly into modern Europeans. However genetic tests have shown in 1997 that Neanderthals are quit distinct from Cro magnons whom were already modern humans inahbiting Europe. Archaic Homo sapiens such as Homo heidelbergensis perhapes only evolved into Neanderthals and the controversial Homo anteccesor in Atupuerca, Spain. As for modern humans, pockets of populations evolved slight physical differences depending on climatic adaptational demands.




Modern Australian aboriginal skull Pintubi-1 has archaic features but is still regarded belonging to modern homo sapiens. Pintubi-1 is the perfact example of archaic features, the skull belonged to 50 year old man whom died around 1845.



European skull with an absense in archaic features. Notice both skulls differ in evolutionary adaptations but Cro magnons from Europe still had a few archaic features seen in Homo heidelbergensis.




The skulls such as "Peking Man" in China and Lantian cranium from Gongwangling is composed of the skull-cap, a part of the right maxilla (upper jaw) and a small portion of the temporal bone, all from one individual. Of particular significance is the low origin of the zygomatic root and the obliquely angled cheek bones, features seen in other early forms of H. erectus but lost in more advanced forms of H. erectus from China which have a cheek region more like modern Asians.
however have no link to the theory that Australoid peoples but more closely with more modern humans.

Here are some views of aboriginal pictures:




For example Britney Spears and Jessica Simpson is quit distinct from this group of people but the difference is only 0.2% difference.


Pitjantjara man, some of them have blond hair.



David Letterman is said to be 1/7th Australian aborigine. Of course it is not very noticable because he has several European traits.



Kow Swamp Man of Australia 13,000 years old, could it be late homo erectus or late archaic Homo sapien?




and more....



In 1984 near the lake shores of Lake Turkana, Kenya anthropologist Richard Leakey accosiated with Kimoya Kimeu and Tim White discovered the remains of a 12 year old child designated as KNM-WT 15000 "The Turkana Boy". It was the most complete Homo ergaster/erectus skeleton ever discovered and its physical status differed only a bit to those of a modern child, although it its 1.6 million years old. Simlar features are still present in a few ehtnic groups in modern humans, it does not mean they they are primitive. Such characteristics are also seen in modern Western cuacosoid peoples. These features are rare especially since humans have been mixing for thousands of years. To see these phyiscal features are very rare today.


KNM-WT 15000




[img]http://donsmaps.com/images3/aboriginessharpeningaxes.jpg[/img]



[img]http://www.andaman.org/book/chapter5/fig05-1.gif[/img]

Pygmy peoples in the Islands of Papua New Guinae have dimosphism and emagrated from Africa after the dispersal of humans under 100,000 years ago.

[cheaky monkey]

you do realize what you are saying can be considered pretty racist.

is there anyway you can summerize what your trying to say into a few short bullet points?

thanks

[Forest_Dump]

Well, I could go on at great length on this but instead I will be very brief. First, it would be worth pointing out that if Australian Aborigines were indeed that similar to H. erectus, then we would have no grounds to seperate H. erectus as a different species. After all, there is no genetic difference and inter-breeding is common and produces fertile off-spring.

As to perceived similarities with H. erectus, most first year students would be looking for the broadest point on the cranium, the nuchal torus and post orbital constriction (those are, in fact, among the kinds of questions I would routinely put on an exam).

[Guest]

As I said on my last page from the beginning:

I'm not in any way being racist, this is a simple scientific observation in human variation. All humans are generally the same.

I'm only reviewing a general anylisis Of H. erectus in comparison to modern humans, since there are two main theories on how Homo sapiens came to be either "Out of Africa theory" or "Multiregionalist theory". As for the aboriginals don't get me wrong they are modern humans, I'm just talking about theories based on physical differences. I apologise if it seemed racist, I'll try not to mislead anyone in future posts. I was not trying to make one race more superior to another.

[Forest_Dump]

Wow, well accidentally or not, you have managed to do an extraordinary job of traveling down the very well-worn path leading to the historical racism of parts of "science". Indeed, doing full justice to this topic would require a complete course with a reading list (books and papers) stretching the capacity of any graduate student. I would really want some time with this post (probably measured in weeks) to give it thorough coverage but here is a preliminary outline for tackling this problem set:

Let's start with the concept of "race". Although science has completely discarded the concept of "race", many people still cling to it. We would look at where the idea of race comes from (and to a lesser extent, for now, why it is still around). In science, the ideal is that we usually start with data/observations of some kind, develope potential explanations for patterns, etc. we see in the data and test these in various ways, ideally in some manner that is independant of how we generated the hypotheses to be tested in the first place.

Looking at the history of the idea of race, we find that is not the case. The premise of "races" long predates the generation of any form of acceptable data (by today's standards of data) on the subject - indeed long before Australia was "discovered" by Europeans (since we have already set the stage for not even considering that Australia was perhaps first discovered by the Aborigines - that doesn't really count by our standards and more on that topic would come up, in fact, in my little hypothetical course). The "human propensity" (i.e. epistemology) to try to classify the world would be introduced here (literally "cleaving nature at the joints") along with a look at why people do and have long done this. In fact, there is a great history of this kind of classification but it is not universal. Doing a cross-cultural analysis of the epistemology of "classification" going back to the early Greeks (among others) we do find this an idea directly associated with increasingly complex societies and has to do with ordering the world for more efficient use (hint: this will be a recurrent theme, particularly but not exclusively in the history of the concept of race).

In the classification of the humans of the world, the assumption of races does come first followed by centuries of (unsuccessful) attempts to back this assumption up. It is an old "us vs. them" dicotomy that relates to concepts of ethnicity and how we are allowed to treat "them" differently from those in the "us" category. This range in treatments varies from not having to invite "them" to family dinners to not having to consider "them" to be fully human and therefore 1) if need by, we can kill them; 2) if "they" are of some use, we can make slaves of them; 3) if we cannot or don't want to do that, we can at least exploit them in various ways (because after all, they are not quite like "us" and are just enough like "animals" that they are not really as entitled as "us" to own land etc.

So, how do we tell the difference between "us" and "them"? Go with what is "obvious", of course. Historically, one of the most obvious markers of "them" is skin colour. Note in the above, all of "them" have dark skin colour. Some minor traits (like blond hair) are noted as shared: "how curious". This can be expanded on but my time is very limited this morning.

Stature: we do also have a history of noting difference in stature from "us". Bigger stature is good to demonstrate "how brutish" they are (oddly, nobody demonstrates this with a photo of Arnold as a reference). But smaller statures also play a part. Smaller (wee folk) can demonstrate "them" to be child-like (and therefore needing "our" protection from the brutes). (I want to save a consideration of "face" for later here but this does make a segway from the history of treatment of the Irish (perhaps the original wee folk that need our "protection" like wayward children) to the other history of wee-folk as being more like vermin. Here we can look at both how the Germans portrayed the Jews as vermin and how the Americans portrayed the Japanese during WWII. But the real key here is in the face.)

Technology: Well, if you are going to "prove" Aborigines are representative of more primitive conditions, you just can't show them in a business suit. You have to show them in "traditional" garb using stone tools. To show us, you illustrate the wonders of the modern world, i.e. some white guy in a lab or perhaps smiling and embracing the "others" while to show "them", you show "them" in their more "natural" setting which does not include a lab (unless being dissected or on display - perhaps making stone tools or skinning an animal - after all, that is more "natural" for "them").

Face: Well this is the best of all. In fact, we do try to show the humanity through the face. In particular we do try to even show that spark of humanity through the eyes. Missing here is a picture of a gorilla showing that same spark in the eyes looking out from a dark face surrounded by hair. Shows just how human-like they can be.

Well. More later, must run.

[Guest]

So if science has no concept of race, what are you saying all humans are exactly the same? I know science has gone to great lengths of trying not to be racist in respect to biological variation but the physicals are there. Aborigines are homo sapiens but whether you like it or not studies made on there physical features include a few archaic features. I myself am half aborigine and even I understand the physical distrabution of humans.

Just as cows for example have a variation doesn't mean one is more inferior to the other, in the end they are just cows. Sure this is an old conception, my subject about "race" but I'v tried to revise only for the purpose of studying physical variation among human beings and not judjing their intelligance or superiority, if I did that would be considered as direct racism. In the past peoples like in the United States had slavery with false illusions about race. For 400 years they viewed black African Americans as primative and in some cases evil, some Christians even believed the the colour "black" represented the devil.

I'm addressing the scientific analysis of why human ethnic populations differ by only 0.2%. This could also benifit some actual ignorant people in hoping to understand why there is such a small difference between peoples.

As for the reason they wear no buisness suits is because most aboriginals sorry to say live on welfare and many at this moment struggle to even get a job. For many years, sadly many face depression and some have become alchoholics such as some friends of mine. The only decent images of aborigines I posted are the ones from the 1930's when many still lived on sacred lands. Today because of assimulation many native aboriginals have sadly abandoned their unique "Dreamtime" culture and settled into Urban Australia. I desided why not show them in there earlier form. I abosolutly hate assimulation!!! and I encourage cultures to remain the same really because many such as the "Kun San" peoples from the Kalahari Desert in Bostwana, Africa have ultimatly lost their culture and been forced out of their homes after 20,000 years.

Modern society cuts down trees, pollutes and forces peoples of different lands to change their ways. Is this Justice?

[PlayTOE]

The subject of divergent traits in people is emotionally charged due to historical mistreatment, and has nothing to do with biology. Considering one group better is as spurious as asking if lions are better than tigers or leopards.

We did have a Homo erectus expansion out of Africa beginning as early as two million years ago, with a major dispersion one million years ago. The various geographical regions did show some level of divergence. This is most noted in Neanderthal populations that are even considered a semi-distinct species.

We then had a small subset of the “mitochondrial eve” lineages being cut off from interaction with African populations around 60,000 years ago. This was presumably in Yemen, and because the water level increased widening the mouth of the Red sea. This population expanded filling the shore fisher gather niche left vacant since the Toba event (eruption 70,000 BCE killed a large part of the shore population, possibly also associated with Tidal wave and defiantly associated with global cooling phase). They expanded along the shore of the Indian Ocean and a sub-group entered Australia. Later some went into China, and even later (45,000) a group went up the tigress Euphrates valley and into Europe.
This 60,000 year group is now shown to be the origination of modern man. It may have interbred with local populations of erectus, or may have diverged in the same way they did for the same reasons.
It is most probable that characteristics with a clear environmental stress association (skin pigment) are geographic, while hair type that is of no particular importance may indicate interbreeding.

Once again, divergence is just being different. It is not “better or less better” until there is an environmental niche in which it gives an advantage. Man as a species is now sufficiently inbred that no group is clearly distinct.

[Guest]

Good point interbreeding with local hominids has been suggested and this could be the reason why some people are hairier than others ect..


[img]http://www0.bbc.co.uk/science/cavemen/images/chronology/cr3_ergaster_males.jpg[/img]
Homo ergaster

Roughly 2 million years ago Homo ergaster/erectus were highly succesful species evolving into archaic homo sapiens in Europe and finally Neanderthals. When it comes to modern homo sapiens it becomes farther complex because there is a massive collection of evidence which creates several theories. Homo ergaster was a slight variant of the more robust Homo erectus which emagrated into Asia. Homo erectus was distinct from modern humans but still not THAT different really. If Chimpanzees (Pan Troglodytes) share an amazing 98.6% the same DNA as humans after the split 8 - 10 million years ago, surly the topic of interbreeding of hominids can't be that off topic. All the important features which we modern people have today, the ability for modern speech, higher posture and larger brains truly started with Homo habilis but were brought to a much higher level with Homo erectus.

[img]http://www0.bbc.co.uk/science/cavemen/images/chronology/cr6_sapiens_meet.jpg[/img]
Modern humans


The puzzle of modern humans seems simple when we find fossils such as Omo 1 in Ethiopia being 200,000 years old. Sure Homo erectus evolved into homo heidelbergensis in Europe, archaics in Africa followed by Homo sapiens possibly in Southern or Eastern Africa 168,000 - 200,000 years ago. In Klaises River Mouth, South Africa there are good examples of anotamically modern homo sapiens in its earliest development.



I do believe in both Mitchondiral Eve of 150,000 years ago and the multiregional theory, possibly there could have been interbreeding once modern human populations spread through out the world. This would explain greatly why certain groups of hominids such as Neanderthals, Homo erectus and archaic Homo sapiens begin to die out after anatomically modern man first arose from East or Southern Africa 150,000 years ago. By the second wave less than 100,000 years ago certain poplations such as Homo heidelbergensis disappear.

Since Mitochondria is found only in females, all humans share a specific African genetic sequence in the chromosomes. I agree with that and previously it has been suggested that older versions of humans such as Neanderthals died out due to compitition with natural resources with Cro magnons.

After humans migrated beyond the Red Sea Territory pass India 80,000 years ago it is thought that modern Malaysian people can be identified.

Mungo Man

The main reason I wrote about the aborigines also comes from the DNA sample taken from the oldest Australian occupant. Mungo Man origionally thought to be 28,000 years old turns out to be much older at 68,000 years old, his skeleton offered a support for the multiregionalists. Mungo mans DNA did not match to any other living person in the world. He looked aborigine but was distinct, modern aboriginals are even distinct from Mungo man himself.

[img]http://www.exn.ca/news/images/2001/05/15/20010515-mungoDNAsequence2-m.jpg[/img]
DNA is different.

Something weird has happened, making the late human family ever more complex than before. For now Mungo man is not considered to be Homo sapiens sapiens but a very close member.

See Mungo Man


Interbreeding with Neanderthals was perhapes rare and even the chances of having an offspring were rare. However in 1997 a scientific analysis was made on 4 Neanderthal individuals. In each case the genetic comparisons differed from modern people. This does not disclose the possibility that hybrids did not exist. Later Neanderthal occupations such as sites in Croatia demonstrate than Neanderthals were either physically evolving more like humans or that interbreeding took place.

This is the significant possiblity with Homo erectus found in South Eastern Asia. If only a genetic sample of Homo erectus could be compared to modern human genetic sequences can we make a better assumption if the modern Australian populations were either modern humans interbreeding with late Homo erectus, or if interbreeding took place. If the genes of Homo erectus are more distant that Neanderthals and modern humans than my proposal is wrong.

[img]http://cgi.bbc.co.uk/beasts/evidence/prog6/images/evi_neanderthal_large.jpg[/img]
Neanderthal man

For now I can only base my hypothesis as plausible but needing more evidence for assurance.

[Forest_Dump]

(Unfortunately, after a hot one out in the field, I am a bit too tired to fully develope my responce so I will cut to the chase...)

First, of course there is diversity within our species. However, that does not mean there are or were distinct populations that can be neatly "cleaved" into races. The variation is acknowledged to be clinal. "Neat" distinctions really can only be found by carefully choosing contrasting "type" individuals and using agglomerative sorting methods (which assume a priori that there are distinct groupings to be found in the data set).

While I admit I am divided on this I am less convinced by the multi-regional hypothesis. The strongest argument for it is certainly the Chinese data (which extends to H. erectus) BUT the counter is explaining how such diversely spread out populations managed to NOT speciate and evolve at a similar rate. Thus, for example, while this is tough to nail down, I prefer ideas that include diversion after the capacity for language developed, probably between 100 and 200,000 years ago.

The history of the idea of race is founded on a couple of premises. The main one is that indeed populations of humans diverged relatively early and therefore some groups evolved more slowly and/or in different directions that others (and of course, what ever racial group that includes northern Europeans evolved that furthest). This is seen in obvious physical differences (face, stature and skin colour traditionally being the most obvious given the habit of paying attention to those things but technology is also included). Using this logic, it was rationalised that the more primitive, archaic groups were less entitled to "own" land (and thus places like Australia, South Africa and/or the "New" World were considered unoccupied until "discovered" by European explorers. Now it is still considered part of the "White Man's Burden" to take care of aboriginal rights, etc. worldwide. While in the past there was various forms of forced assimilation world wide (i.e. try to get them to evolve to become like Europeans and maybe they can even become useful servents, etc.) there have also been attempts to keep these "others" as a form of "living past" on "nature preserves". (Rhetorical question: If it is okay to keep Aborigines, Native North Americans, San-speaking bushmen, etc. somewhat frozen in time in their "natural setting", shouldn't we take a few white Americans, etc. and put them on some kind of game farm/zoo in their "natural setting"? What would that be anyway? A few 1950's row houses? A chunk of France under the Sun King? Ancient Rome? What would the equivalent "golden age", "natural setting" with a culture preserved and frozen in time be? Is it only okay for "white people" to evolve culturally? Big question!)

As to those photos from the early 20th century and the skulls, etc. that were either dug up from graves or taken from fresh bodies (often ignoring the express wishes of the original occupants), the short answer is that these were not collected as a representative data set. These were in fact the products of a highly biased sampling procedure and collected precisely to prove these people were different and/or anatomical novelties.

[Guest]

Yes but those photos were real and thats they way they lived. Sure some Europeans were trying to make them seem like savages but at the same time thats the way they lived anyways. I cannot explain why white man became so eager to invade the world but all I can say is that culture does play a huge factor in certain ethnic groups.

[img]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/9/95/Australian_aboriginal_flag.png[/img]
For a long time this flag has represented Aboriginal rights in Australia.


Those photo's were real people and not some Englishmen wearing dark makeup in order to make themselves feel more supirior as "whites" with Christian values. Even if they were I wouldn't think they'd go to such great lenghts in doing so.

Didjeridoo a sacred instrument of the aborigines, click to play

http://www.users.on.net/~didgedist/Short_MPEG3_18_8.wav


Here is a better picture and not steriotypical

All late hominids after Homo erectus including modern humans, despite some key differences basically had the same means for survival. The only difference is that modern man all over the world developed higher social complex cultures. Art, modern tools and language played a major role. Homo erectus, archaic homo sapiens and Neanderthals were much like us but still lived by the same rules as modern man.

a) Usually the males hunted while the women gathered (Just like the San peoples of the Kalahari) "The Nuclear Family" still exists today.

b) It is most likely that by the time Neanderthals arrived on the scene they must have had at least some form of language capability.

c) All humans still live in large social groups just as our ancestors did, we take care of our children and support our groups (families). Surly these attributes started with Homo ergaster/erectus once they separated from the more primative apelike ancestors. I believe these homids were more human like than anticipated despite the lack of art and modern weapons.

d) Religion began once humans became well established enough in their complex social status. Only Homo sapiens are known to have had religion.

Have you ever herd about that proposed idea in which, if a Neanderthal were cleaned up and dressed in a busniss suit and sitting on a subway. Only a few people might stair, Neanderthals had moscular bodies and heavy set faces but, overall he may go unnoticed in the streets.

This points out to my view in which archaic late versions of humans after Homo erectus looked somwhat alot like man and albeit if Neanderthals were alive today they'd be treated just the same as modern people. If Neanderthals were alive today and lived in primative tribes we simply regard them as we see modern day aborigines or San peoples of the Kalahari. Even though it is not known if Neanderthals had a complex language systems as us, they were already human enough to fit into modern society. I'm not sure to what extend they would fit into modern society. Are they smart enough to get a job? can they be talt just like modern people? Afterall their brains were just as big as ours.

Wouldn't you agree? :?

[steen]

Maurice, for one mitchondria are also found in men. All eucaryotic organisms have mitochondria. In humans, only the woman's mitochondria is inherited, though, if that is what you meant. Just felt I should clarify.

Secondly, posting pictures of reconstructions and claiming that these are authentical representations is not exactly valid.

[Guest]

Why don't you like my pictures? :( I worked hard on getting them, I spent all day on the computer. About the Mitochondria your right I ment only women inherite it. :oops: The pictures are just examples by the way.

[steen]

Why don't you like my pictures? :( I worked hard on getting them, I spent all day on the computer. About the Mitochondria your right I ment only women inherite it. :oops: The pictures are just examples by the way.

Such pictures are representations, not the real thing, though people sometimes forget that.

[Guest]

It doesn't matter how old the pics are because thats how all humans, even white people lived.

[Guest]

Australian aborigines are modern homo sapiens, that old multiregional theory is basically dead because of the out of Africa theory. Those old speculations tha certain population groups are different evolutionary routes is far too complex. Think about even the different colour of rats and different sizes doesn't mean they are not rats. When fully modern rats evolved they sperarated into different regions on the globe.

Australian aboriginals may have slight different features but their brain capacity and shape of the post cranium are basically homo sapiens. The multiregionalist view of modern humans is racist and even though Mungo Mans DNA did not match anyone else's does remain a mystery. Yet much more evidence backs up the African descent theory. I won't lie that some Aboriginals do happen to have slight archaic features but overall were human. All ethnic backgrounds differ slightly but what you have done is clearly single out a specific group of people (racial profiling). We must get rid of these false misconceptions about man, the rainbow comes in all different colours. Putting images of Jessica Simpson and Britney Spears, trying to distant the variants apart is also an act of racism. You try to make them look like monsters in comaprison to beutiful women. Don't you feel any shame?

All humans have a brain capacity between 1450 to 1550 cc, very rarly large people have over 1700cc. We know Neanderthals were a distinct hominid from modern people due to the fact that their physical features were far more different than ours. Their DNA was distinct as well. Sure aboriginals lived a primitive lifestyle but those pictures come from racist owners. A time when white Europeans began dominating Australia during the early 20th century. Grave misconseptions about peoples end up with pretty bad resaults.

[PlayTOE]

Racism is politics, not biology. One cannot look at different groups and ask if one is “better” in any logical way as biology. It is as useful as asking if a lion is “better” than a leopard. They are just different, not better.

Now back to mungo and the Australians
Mungo Man shows a different DNA from modern humans and this should indicate he was a member of the homo-erectus expansion. The 60,000 year expansion went into Australia and seems to have mostly replaced the original inhabitants. We do have some basic “looks” that continued so we must consider a small percentage of inter-breeding. If inter-breeding occurred in one place it also must be exhibited in others.

We now need to look at what it was that made the 60,000 group so successful that they replaced every other group on the planet. At first they were only one more tribe of homo-erectus, but with a ‘modern’ look. As the looks are not really so important, what was?
There was a genetic mutation giving a greater ability to use speech. It first occurred in this small group and spread. It is most probable for this reason we have our modern man.

[Guest]

The two main exudous that man made between 168,000 and 100,000 years ago played a vital role for the development of modern homo sapiens. During the same era in which other more primitive hominids such as H. heidelbergensis and H. neanderthalensis co existed, I believe the main reason why humans over a period of less than 80,000 years replace local population hominids was due to fact that we somehow produced larger numbers. Two major exudous occured from Africa when Homo erectus became the first hominid migrant species, the first major immagration occured 1.9 million years ago followed by the second 1 million years ago. Specimens from Java and Peking 500,000 years ago differ in sise and shape. The Indonesian skulls such as Peking man are more huma-like in respects in comparison to Java man with more robust features.

Just like modern homo sapiens, H. erectus also had it's own variation and albeit that H. ergaster from Africa is generally the same species with variation.


[img]http://www.adelaide.edu.au/pr/publications/adelaidean/2003/issue2/images/mongo.jpg[/img]
Mungo Man

68,000 year old Mungo man does share similarities in size and characteristics with modern Australian aboriginal inhabitants of the continent today. Because the DNA sufficiantly differed we may for now see it as you mentioned a late form of Homo erectus. Because Homo erectus in China began to have more human characteristics by less than 200,000 to 400,000 years ago, if the multiregionalist theory is correct the strongest point so far would be peoples of Eastern Asian descent diverged directly from Homo erectus populations.

[img]http://www.ww-wied.de/BILDER/GESCHI/PRAEHISTORISCHES/THREE_HEADS_HOMO_ERECTUS.JPG[/img]
Coincidently H.erectus becomes more human.

It becomes even more complicated when fossil evidence of both early Homo sapiens and late Neanderthal remains are found to have co existed in sites from Israel 90,000 to 110,000 years ago.

A pre-modern form of H. sapiens found in Shaanxi is the 180,000 year old cranium Dali which does share a mixture of H. erectus characteristics. However because we cannot find an absolute direct lineage of humans coming from Asia, it is far easier to use the out of Africa expansional theory because it does not deal with seperate hominids evelving elsewhere. Interbreeding may have taken place but there is not enough efficiant evidence of this theory. Hybrids did exist but likely in rare occasions, it remains a matter of question if Neanderthal DNA is within modern humans. Neanderthals as well like Homo erectus begin to show signs of having more human-like characteristics, however by 30,000 years ago they mysteriously dissapear while Cro magnons co existing take over.


Infamous Neanderthal

For now we consider Homo sapiens as a single species with a small percentage of 0.2% difference in comparison. Even modern Chimapnzees our closest relatives share 98.6% of our genetic structure. Chimpanzees even have more variation in the genes than humans do. To Chimps they may see us as virtually clones.

The more recent findings of Homo floriensis c. 18,000 BC remains an enigma, some say it evolved from H. erectus populations which evolved into miniture stature of 1 meter tall. Homo floriensis was unlike modern pygmy peoples found in Africa today. The cranial cpacity was as large as Australopithecines with a more H. erectus skull shape. Overall at the moment we cannot precicelly link its ancestors.


Actual size of Homo floriensis, 1 meter tall

[cheaky monkey]

concerning mungo mans DNA. I can not remmeber the full story of this sorry, but assuming they dident get all of it (which would be more likely then the people extracting 100% of it) would make sence that it doesnt closely match any DNA. Compairing broken peaces of DNA is not very accurate, and you get inaccurate interpretations of relationships (Dawkins wrote a big thing on this in his new book 'The ancestors tail').

[Forest_Dump]

Okay, a quick one on two points:

Mungo, etc. related to H. erectus? This is strictly a superficial assessment based on the face (i.e. brow ridges and slight prognathism). That's it. Look at the rest of the cranium and the cranium is high and vaulted. No pronounced post orbital constriction (and you can see that even on that photo which was definitely not designed to show that); no nuchal crest (although you cannot see that); maximum width of the cranium is high like modern H.s. not at all like H. e.; etc. You would have a hard job convincing someone who has looked at some of these that it (Mungo) would even fit in as a Neanderthal or other archaic H.s., let alone H.e. Those "archaic" features are still common in many, many populations today including many European ones. (Rhetorical question: why do you suppose people place so much emphasis on the face and not on the rest of the body?)

As for the MRT (multi-regional theory), I am more against it that for it. However, there is something of a baby in that bath water. TRP and PRT do not provide much of an account for some of the data out there (specifically the Chinese data). And unfortunately, those arguing the MRT (like Wolpoff) have had to deal with accusations of racism (implicit if not explicit) which is totally uncalled for. Wolpoff certainly can be a handfull to deal with (and consequently many people dislike him, and by extension his ideas, on the basis of his personality but I can assure you of two things. His ideas do merit serious consideration and whatever idea ultimately is accepted will have to take into account what he has to say. He is no intellectual light weight. And he is no racist.

[Guest]

You make a good point Forest Gump, some peoples still share archaic features but still doesn't make them less human than anyone elso. Some attributes separated over large areas had their own forms of evolving. For example Australian aboriginals are amonst the peoples with most of these archaic features in comparison to archaic Europeans. The main resean we look at facial characteristics within populations to make an analysis is because (in short) it is easier to point out. However just as you mentioned what really counts is the DNA differece itself.



Peking Man, Homo erectus


Modern aboriginal


Modern European


Modern African


Modern Asian female

For a long time before the coming of the African Eve theory most people suggested the multiregional hypothesis of modern humans but this claim has virtually died because the variation of H. erectus was far to great. These images are a simple demonstration of the aboriginals. As you can see above the characteristics are very similar in all humans.

[Fuqin]

>>>As you can see <<<<

What characteristics? are you an expert in this field?

[Guest]

Not an expert but even I can see the close similarities in all modern human beings. :)

[steen]

Not an expert but even I can see the close similarities in all modern human beings. :)

That's rather vague. How about some specifics?

[PlayTOE]

It would be interesting to see a comparison of DNA from Mungo Man, Homo Neanderthals, and from Homo Florensis. As they are all considered to have developed from Homo Erectus, it would be a useful tool in mapping our genetic past.

[BioWizard]

Indeed. With a little luck, a few common fragments should be enough to construct genetic maps.

[marcsommes]

The misconceptions of the past have lead to a lack of valid scientific inquiry into the subject.

It is misleading to say all human share 99.98% the same DNA And not point out that the genetic differences in dogs are merely 1% of all dog breeds and that the genetic differences between man and orangutan is merely 2.8%.

There may be some genetic differences in traits of the races which can be attributed to genetics. It is not something which should be totally dismissed. A Collie is slightly different temperamentally than a German shepard. A Chihuahua is very different temperamentally than a German Shepard. Not better, not worse – just different.


It is a subject which most professionals do not wish to touch however due to the current political climate and because the work might be misinterpreted… but some do think about it in private.

Race is not a non existant factor from a scientific standpoint ... but perhaps it is best that we sweep it under the rug and it may indeed be a very negligible factor in terms of traits and capacity etc. etc. The harmful and bad "scientific research" (I hope you understand my right to quotations) in the past make this a very touchy topic.

[BioWizard]

Hey Marc,

I suppose its not that misleading if you mention that only 2% of the human genome is comprised of coding sequences, and that somtimes a single mutation is enough to modify a general developmental cascade.

But I absolutely agree, race classification has little to no value at the genetic level. The completion of the human genome project produced quite a few surprises, two of the most important ones being:

1- The human genome harbors only 30000 genes, and not 100000 as prevoiusly calculated. The complexity of humans arises from mechanisms such as alternative splicing and differential gene regulation (spatially and temporaly).

2- Only 2% of the genome is coding, and variations within a race/ethnic group can sometimes be more than between inidviduals belonging to different groups. The surface features are controlled by a handful of genes that have been subject to geographical selection. On average, a single polymorphism exists every 1000 bases.

[Odin]

Multiregionalism is rubbish. People like Wolpoff can bloviate all they like about alleged similarities between SE Asian H. erectus and modern Australian aborigionals, the genetic evidence overwhelmingly says they are dead wrong, End of Story.

[Forest_Dump]

Well, don't hold back what do you really think?

Myself, I would recommend having a look at something like Trinkaus' paper in the most recent (2005) edition of the Annual Review of Anthropology. Included is a discussion of some of these contentious sites including the early ones from Australia as well as the strengths and weaknesses of the DNA data. It is actually, IMHO, a balanced, well-written overview of a lot of these issues, written by a leading authority in the field, and is about as up-to-date as you can get without going through journals like the Journal of Human Evolution. Or you can simply accept anything that happens to come up on Google or that Wikopedia thing and trust you didn't tag into some white supremist web site.