4 ms·

This is misleading & false. Genetic evidence has conclusively proven our roots are in Africa. While the bone finds are real; the entire interpretation and si

by dkural 8y ago

This is misleading & false. Genetic evidence has conclusively proven our roots are in Africa. While the bone finds are real; the entire interpretation and situating of those finds are incorrect. (I do human genomics for a living). Their interpretation of geology is also incorrect. The saharan sand comes via winds & continues to do so; making the Mediterranean soil very fertile: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/capital-weather-gang/wp/2018/03/26/photos-dust-from-the-sahara-has-turned-the-snow-orange-in-russia-and-eastern-europe/?utm_term=.dda3ecf2937b https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/capital-weather-gang/wp/...

PunchTornado 8y ago
> Genetic evidence has conclusively proven our roots are in Africa No, it did not. I didn't see any proof of that. Or is your proof the fact that you work with the human genome and we must believe you? The whole African origin theory rests on the fact that the oldest bones are there and so the Homo erectus came from there. If they would find homo erectus bones that are 1 million years older in China then the theory will change.
- orwin 8y ago
  Yeah, but their other Science headlines are weird: - "Ancestor of all living birds survived asteroid strike because it couldn't fly" It's wrong, on so many levels, I don't know where i should start. And since it's the only science article on a subject i have knowledge on, i'm now wary of the other article, as i should be.
- goatlover 8y ago
  I don't see how our roots are not in Africa. Hominids originated there. Maybe some of the species branched off on other continents, but their ancestors still migrated out of Africa. Is this even a controversy?
- goodpass 8y ago
  > No, it did not. I didn't see any proof of that. Or is your proof the fact that you work with the human genome and we must believe you? I mean, I certainly trust an expert more than someone with an unhealthy amount of distrust in experts..
- dkural 8y ago
  Ok, first of all, PloS One, while a useful journal, is not a traditional journal. This is partly why these researchers are able to get away with speculative claims. Let's go back to fundamentals. Humans are closely related to Chimpanzees, Bonobos, and Gorillas. The ancestral Chimp-Bonobo-Human likely first diverged from Gorillas (by such a small margin that it's still debated). Then about 6 million years ago the (Chimp-Bonobo)-Human split happened. In fact after the split, about 1.5m in, more interbreeding likely happened. Chimps & Bonobos split about 1 million years ago. We're thus as closely related to Bonobos as we are to Chimps! Since we currently have humans in Europe, Asia, Americas etc. (obviously); we know that at some point our ancestors travelled out of Africa. However, so did other hominids. This very likely happened multiple times. This started happening immediately after the split, and kept continuing. Again nothing new here: Many animals travel across continents, diverge, etc. I expect we'll continue finding many side branches of various hominids, great apes, and monkeys all over the place. However, those are not our ancestors. In particular, Homo Sapiens itself travelled out of Africa relatively recently, and encountered others that it sometimes interbred with, sometimes wiped out; including Neandertals, Denisovans etc. We do have DNA from Neandertals and Denisovan, which you can track by sequencing the genome of bones. But either way, big picture, we split from the other Great Apes, and migrated out of Africa in waves, the most recent and dominant one being the Migration of Homo Sapiens; which is by far, genetically, our dominant ancestor. Homo Sapiens evolved in Africa and migrated out. Let's analyze this at a deeper level: "Europe was the birthplace of mankind, not Africa" is a deeply problematic statement. We can first examine what we mean by "birthplace of mankind". A lot of early hominid species, either in Africa or elsewhere did not acquire any of the characteristics we associate as "human", for millions of years. Certainly not 6+ million years ago. Given we all seem to agree that we diverged from Great Apes, initially, in Africa, we seem to mean something else by "birthplace of mankind", potentially involving higher cognitive abilities, ability for language, imagination, larger social groups etc. In particular, any suggestion for this leap to happen outside of Africa garners great popular attention compared to other scientific advances in this field. If you dig down deep enough, I've found that this is because it often supports peoples nation-creation myths and beliefs about "races". There is zero evidence that this particular remain had any capacity for language, thought, or anything remotely resembling human - very normal given ~6m year difference. Homo Sapiens did evolve a large brain, language, imagination, and an ability to organize -- in Africa. That makes Africa the birthplace of mankind, both symbolically, metaphorically, and literally.

by dkural 8y ago

PunchTornado 8y ago

> Genetic evidence has conclusively proven our roots are in Africa No, it did not. I didn't see any proof of that. Or is your proof the fact that you work with the human genome and we must believe you? The whole African origin theory rests on the fact that the oldest bones are there and so the Homo erectus came from there. If they would find homo erectus bones that are 1 million years older in China then the theory will change.

orwin 8y ago
Yeah, but their other Science headlines are weird: - "Ancestor of all living birds survived asteroid strike because it couldn't fly" It's wrong, on so many levels, I don't know where i should start. And since it's the only science article on a subject i have knowledge on, i'm now wary of the other article, as i should be.
goatlover 8y ago
I don't see how our roots are not in Africa. Hominids originated there. Maybe some of the species branched off on other continents, but their ancestors still migrated out of Africa. Is this even a controversy?
goodpass 8y ago
> No, it did not. I didn't see any proof of that. Or is your proof the fact that you work with the human genome and we must believe you? I mean, I certainly trust an expert more than someone with an unhealthy amount of distrust in experts..
dkural 8y ago
Ok, first of all, PloS One, while a useful journal, is not a traditional journal. This is partly why these researchers are able to get away with speculative claims. Let's go back to fundamentals. Humans are closely related to Chimpanzees, Bonobos, and Gorillas. The ancestral Chimp-Bonobo-Human likely first diverged from Gorillas (by such a small margin that it's still debated). Then about 6 million years ago the (Chimp-Bonobo)-Human split happened. In fact after the split, about 1.5m in, more interbreeding likely happened. Chimps & Bonobos split about 1 million years ago. We're thus as closely related to Bonobos as we are to Chimps! Since we currently have humans in Europe, Asia, Americas etc. (obviously); we know that at some point our ancestors travelled out of Africa. However, so did other hominids. This very likely happened multiple times. This started happening immediately after the split, and kept continuing. Again nothing new here: Many animals travel across continents, diverge, etc. I expect we'll continue finding many side branches of various hominids, great apes, and monkeys all over the place. However, those are not our ancestors. In particular, Homo Sapiens itself travelled out of Africa relatively recently, and encountered others that it sometimes interbred with, sometimes wiped out; including Neandertals, Denisovans etc. We do have DNA from Neandertals and Denisovan, which you can track by sequencing the genome of bones. But either way, big picture, we split from the other Great Apes, and migrated out of Africa in waves, the most recent and dominant one being the Migration of Homo Sapiens; which is by far, genetically, our dominant ancestor. Homo Sapiens evolved in Africa and migrated out. Let's analyze this at a deeper level: "Europe was the birthplace of mankind, not Africa" is a deeply problematic statement. We can first examine what we mean by "birthplace of mankind". A lot of early hominid species, either in Africa or elsewhere did not acquire any of the characteristics we associate as "human", for millions of years. Certainly not 6+ million years ago. Given we all seem to agree that we diverged from Great Apes, initially, in Africa, we seem to mean something else by "birthplace of mankind", potentially involving higher cognitive abilities, ability for language, imagination, larger social groups etc. In particular, any suggestion for this leap to happen outside of Africa garners great popular attention compared to other scientific advances in this field. If you dig down deep enough, I've found that this is because it often supports peoples nation-creation myths and beliefs about "races". There is zero evidence that this particular remain had any capacity for language, thought, or anything remotely resembling human - very normal given ~6m year difference. Homo Sapiens did evolve a large brain, language, imagination, and an ability to organize -- in Africa. That makes Africa the birthplace of mankind, both symbolically, metaphorically, and literally.