Out of Africa theory challenged

Bad Player

Deity
Joined
Oct 31, 2005
Messages
3,534
Location
(Bris)Vegas!
A 40,000-YEAR-OLD skeleton found in China has raised questions about the "out of Africa" hypothesis on how early modern humans populated the planet.

The fossil bones are the oldest from an adult "modern" human to be found in eastern Asia.

They contain features that call into question the widely held view that all humans alive today are descended from a small group of sub-Saharan Africans who made their way out of the continent about 60,000 years ago. Gradually they colonised other parts of the planet, replacing older human species such as the Neanderthals, which became extinct. The older humans had themselves originated in Africa but moved out more than 1 million years earlier.

A rival theory suggests modern humans evolved into their present form in a number of locations around the world, not just Africa.

The new discovery came after local workers stumbled across the bones in Tianyuan Cave, in Zhoukoudian, near Beijing. Experts reported on Monday in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences that they had dated the skeleton to between 38,500 and 42,000 years ago. It was the first properly dated adult modern human from eastern Asia known to be more than 30,000 years old.

However, certain features of the individual were puzzling, said the scientists, led by Dr Hong Shang from Washington University in St Louis, Missouri.

As well as having "modern" human traits, the skeleton had physical characteristics normally seen in Neanderthals and other ancient humans such as Homo erectus. These included the difference in size between the front and back teeth, unusually thick and sturdy leg bones, and enlargement of a wrist bone called the hamulus.

The scientists said it was likely there was "at least substantial gene flow" from modern humans who had settled in regions to the south and west of Tianyuan Cave at an earlier date.

But they added: "At the same time,the presence of several archaic features … implies that a simple spread of modern human morphology eastward from Africa is unlikely."
Sydney Morning Herald

Interesting that this seems to support the other hypothesis. However if it was an evolution from apes thing how likely is it that such similar humans developed by chance multiple times in different locations at around a similar time?
 
Actually, I've never really believed in the Out of Africa theory. But I wasn't very interested in this subject to look careful enough. :blush:

Edit: Of course, crosspost. ;)
 
Interesting that this seems to support the other hypothesis. However if it was an evolution from apes thing how likely is it that such similar humans developed by chance multiple times in different locations at around a similar time?

I don't think that's what the alternative is.
 
A rival theory suggests modern humans evolved into their present form in a number of locations around the world, not just Africa.
To me that would seem to imply that the evolution was programmed into the DNA and had nothing to do with environmental factors. Why else would early humans all over the world be evolving into the same thing simultaneously?
 
What is then? I'm not really down with all this stuff as you can see!

Um. That this evolutionary transition was not something that happened to one "tribe" located in one small geographical area, but rather something that happened to various intermingled family lines dispersed across most of the range of the species at the time?

Our ancestors in those days were predominantly nomadic or semi-nomadic hunter-gatherers, moving about in small bands, occasionally swapping genetic material with other bands. Only a lucky few would have sufficiently abundant food to not have to move around. While we might expect that most people stuck to some fairly limited range, there can easily have been many who moved further afield. For that matter, it's quite possible to walk across Eurasia and back more than once in a single lifetime -- though we don't even need that; a much lower rate of migration would suffice for an extended family line (cousins etc.) to be scattered between eastern Africa and central Asia, or whatever.
 
I don't quite see how this counters the Out of Africa theory...

I know! This is what puzzled me....

OP said:
A 40,000-YEAR-OLD skeleton found in China has raised questions about the "out of Africa" hypothesis on how early modern humans populated the planet.

[...]

They contain features that call into question the widely held view that all humans alive today are descended from a small group of sub-Saharan Africans who made their way out of the continent about 60,000 years ago. Gradually they colonised other parts of the planet, replacing older human species such as the Neanderthals, which became extinct.

20 000 years to get to China? Sounds more than reasonable to me! Any anthropologists here want to tell me why I'm wrong?
 
I know! This is what puzzled me....



20 000 years to get to China? Sounds more than reasonable to me! Any anthropologists here want to tell me why I'm wrong?

You're not wrong - the issue isn't with the timeframe. What they're suggesting is that the new specimen have archaic traits best explained as the result of interbreeding between moderns (from Africa?) and local archaics.
 
I personaly think humans started in the mideast myself by the convergence of DNA that happens there. But even if it was Africa It would only take a few hundred years to migrate to Asia. These people were not tied down anywhere and moved all day every day looking for the next food source.

But I'm no expert.
 
Sydney Morning Herald

Interesting that this seems to support the other hypothesis. However if it was an evolution from apes thing how likely is it that such similar humans developed by chance multiple times in different locations at around a similar time?

I suspect there is a need in some countries to present their population as unique, even in this way.
 
I thought the out of Africa Theory said that modern humans evolved around 120-150K years ago, so it isn't the timeframe. But this isn't the first time they have found a fossil human with unusual "archaic" features, it is like the skeleton of the child in europe with supposed Neanderthal features.
 
There are two competing theories of human evolution.

The "out of Africa" theory and the multiple site roughly same time theory. Earlier discoveries in China tend to support the multiple site theory. These give rise to the concept of Peking Man and Java Man as possible multiple sites. There are other but I've forgotten them.

Most scientists in the field, apart from devoted nationalists, accept the "Out of Africa" theory.

This paper looks like another example of the nationalists claiming distinction for their locals.
 
To me that would seem to imply that the evolution was programmed into the DNA and had nothing to do with environmental factors. Why else would early humans all over the world be evolving into the same thing simultaneously?

Well, we aren't exactly allll the same. There are diffferences.. and the timescales involved wouldn't produce too many differences.
 
There are two competing theories of human evolution.

The "out of Africa" theory and the multiple site roughly same time theory. Earlier discoveries in China tend to support the multiple site theory. These give rise to the concept of Peking Man and Java Man as possible multiple sites. There are other but I've forgotten them.

Most scientists in the field, apart from devoted nationalists, accept the "Out of Africa" theory.

This paper looks like another example of the nationalists claiming distinction for their locals.

Yeah, I kind of remember that China was desperatly trying to prove the OOA theory wrong. I hope that's not the case in this discovery.
 
To me that would seem to imply that the evolution was programmed into the DNA and had nothing to do with environmental factors. Why else would early humans all over the world be evolving into the same thing simultaneously?

Which flies in the face of everything we know about natural selection pressures, meaning, while it is not certainly untrue, it is probably untrue. The odds of convergent evolution from many species into a single species are so remote as to be irrelevant, and arrogant nationalism on the part of various scientists trying to assert that humans evolved in their country won't change that. (China is the worst for this since their government likes to sponsor such endeavors, but other countries do it, too.)

And interbreeding is not really a theory dismissed by OoA anyway, though many people don't like the idea of Homo sapiens and Homo neanderthalensis (or other, similar, almost-human hominid species) interbreeding.
 
Back
Top Bottom