UM-Bot Posted March 27, 2015 #1 Share Posted March 27, 2015 A genome study has pinpointed when mankind's most recent common male ancestor would have lived. The ambitious project sequenced the genomes of 2,636 Icelanders, the largest set ever obtained from a single nation. Read More: http://www.unexplain...39000-years-ago 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Atuke Posted March 27, 2015 #2 Share Posted March 27, 2015 So was it Adam or Steve? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lucas Cooper Merrin Posted March 27, 2015 #3 Share Posted March 27, 2015 (edited) So how did we overcome the initial "tiny" gene pool without succumbing to sever genetic problems? Or......is the reason we are so susceptible to problems and illness part of our hereditary incestuous past?? Edited March 27, 2015 by Father Merrin 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+DieChecker Posted March 27, 2015 #4 Share Posted March 27, 2015 I thought these kinds of studies usually took samples from multiple continents and multiple nations? The larger the genetic diversity, the more accurate the result. Maybe they took many ethnic people's DNA in this Iceland study?? What does paleontology say was happening 239,000 years ago?? Seems like it would have been a very strange time, with maybe four or five different species of humans walking around. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Podo Posted March 27, 2015 #5 Share Posted March 27, 2015 Neat. This is great science. It's cool to know both sides of our ancestry; we have had Eve for a long time, and now this. Hopefully it can lead to more discoveries in the future. Also I think Steve must have been his best friend. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shrooma Posted March 28, 2015 #6 Share Posted March 28, 2015 QUOTE- " 'Genetic Adam' lived 239,000 years ago'" . Biblical Adam says 'no relation of mine, swear to god!' . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nefer-Ankhe Posted March 28, 2015 #7 Share Posted March 28, 2015 I thought these kinds of studies usually took samples from multiple continents and multiple nations? The larger the genetic diversity, the more accurate the result. Maybe they took many ethnic people's DNA in this Iceland study?? Why focus on Iceland? Scientists see Iceland as a goldmine for doing genetics research. The country was founded by a small group of settlers from Europe arriving about 1,100 years ago and it remained isolated for the next thousand years. Because the population in Iceland has very little genetic diversity, scientists can find genetic variants that raise the chance of disease more easily. Iceland also has strong genealogical record, as a result of well-preserved historical documents. http://www.dailymail...on-disease.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jarjarbinks Posted March 28, 2015 #8 Share Posted March 28, 2015 yeah why on Iceland ? Are we not from Africa? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nefer-Ankhe Posted March 28, 2015 #9 Share Posted March 28, 2015 yeah why on Iceland ? Are we not from Africa? Ah, didn't I just answer that above? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fred_mc Posted March 28, 2015 #10 Share Posted March 28, 2015 Since Iceland is one of the least genetically diverse countries there is, I think that Iceland might not be the best place for this kind of study. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lucas Cooper Merrin Posted March 28, 2015 #11 Share Posted March 28, 2015 Since Iceland is one of the least genetically diverse countries there is, I think that Iceland might not be the best place for this kind of study. Somebody of your skill and knowledge should do their own genetic testing elsewhere then 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
furiousity Posted March 28, 2015 #12 Share Posted March 28, 2015 C'mon people... common ancestor means it doesn't matter what country you sample from. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lucas Cooper Merrin Posted March 28, 2015 #13 Share Posted March 28, 2015 C'mon people... common ancestor means it doesn't matter what country you sample from. Explain Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+DieChecker Posted March 29, 2015 #14 Share Posted March 29, 2015 (edited) C'mon people... common ancestor means it doesn't matter what country you sample from. It certainly does. If you tested only people of Norwegian decent you'd end up with a common ancestor like 1500 years ago located in northern Europe. If you test native Australians, Native Americans, Innuits, Europeans, sub-Saharan Africans, and Chinese all together, then you'll end up with a much wider range of genetic markers and thus be able to back calculate those changes to much more accurately find when the last common ancestor was. Edited March 29, 2015 by DieChecker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zalmoxis Posted March 29, 2015 #15 Share Posted March 29, 2015 That is intriguing. This genetic research though it tracks all of our definite shared ancestors as the oldest male being 239,000 years ago and female 200,000 years ago that doesn't mean that the first human appeared at that time. Humans are older as a species. There were humans that came before him that are not shared in all human blood but shared in a smaller group. I would agree that they should test other racial groups more thoroughly as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Professor Buzzkill Posted March 29, 2015 #16 Share Posted March 29, 2015 That is intriguing. This genetic research though it tracks all of our definite shared ancestors as the oldest male being 239,000 years ago and female 200,000 years ago that doesn't mean that the first human appeared at that time. Humans are older as a species. There were humans that came before him that are not shared in all human blood but shared in a smaller group. I would agree that they should test other racial groups more thoroughly as well. I also heard that. It makes you wonder how "Adam" was 40,000 years ahead of "Eve". The only way that makes sense is if the "human" population was no more than a few dozen for 40,000 years Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gingitsune Posted April 3, 2015 #17 Share Posted April 3, 2015 So how did we overcome the initial "tiny" gene pool without succumbing to sever genetic problems? When a new spicies start to differenciate itself from the one which she originate from, the individuals from both the old one and the new one can still reproduce together. That's how it prevent bottle necking too early in the game. Why focus on Iceland? Because they have DNA of their whole population available for scientific research. Of course, there will be a lot of viking descendants, but there are surely some Icenlanders in the database who are of recent African ancestry. As long as they have some Y-DNA haplogroup A, the estimation should be close enough to what you would get with a world wide sample. I also heard that. It makes you wonder how "Adam" was 40,000 years ahead of "Eve". The only way that makes sense is if the "human" population was no more than a few dozen for 40,000 years Mitochondrial and Y chromosome DNA aren't just for genetic genealogy fun, they are giving use advantage and disavantage which may become a matter of life and death at some point. We know there were as little as ~10,000 humans at the worst of last ice age, maybe these Adam and Eve DNA were keys to the survival of these few. That being said, we know there is a Y-DNA haplogroup in Cameroon which is much older than this "Adam", the haplogroup A00. It branched out from the rest of Y-DNA about 338,000 years ago, which is about 100,000 year older than the oldest homo sapinens bones we found to this day. Is it a haplogroup from the ancestor homo which gave rise to sapiens? Or is it proof there was admixtude with another homo in Africa (let's call him homo africanus)? No onw knows yet. http://news.discovery.com/human/genetics/african-american-earliest-man-130307.htm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now