Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2
OverSword

“Out of Africa” Theory Officially Debunked

13 posts in this topic

From the article:

Russian+Geneticists+Disprove+Out+of+Africa+Claim.jpg

Scientific evidence refuting the theory of modern humanity’s African genesis is common knowledge among those familiar with the most recent scientific papers on the human Genome, Mitochondrial DNA and Y-chromosomes. Regrettably, within mainstream press and academia circles, there seems to be a conspicuous – and dare we say it – deliberate vacuum when it comes to reporting news of these recent studies and their obvious implications.

Read it here

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 

Contemporary PC inquisition is not much different than the Inquisition in Galileo's time.

Not to mention how hard it will be to crowbar multiple craddles of humanity into classic theory of evolution.

(Evolution is obvious, it's just that I always had a problem with theory of "coincidental" evolution.)

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

This was interesting reading, and the follow - up referenced material appears to support the basic premise that Homo Sapien may well have an origin in a "triangle from western Europe through the Russian plains to the Levante region" [sic]. It also appears that this is old news, yet the prevalence of the "Out of Africa" scenario remains undiminished. We have a couple of geneticists on this forum and would be interested to hear their views on this.

Could it be that the majority of palaeoanthropology has been hide-bound by "Confirmation Bias" which led to the largest efforts being made to unearth human antecedents in Africa? Is there an ancient, and as yet undiscovered, human antecedent to be found in the areas surrounding the northern or western Mediterranean Basin?

Edited by keithisco
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting, the potential for bias although slim (it seems to be a respected journal and not "third blog from the left") does seem to be present - particularly if the suggestion is made/this discovery is used to suggest that the "origin" of the Caucasians is literally the Caucasus, or somewhere in Russia.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

From the article:

Russian+Geneticists+Disprove+Out+of+Africa+Claim.jpg

Scientific evidence refuting the theory of modern humanity’s African genesis is common knowledge among those familiar with the most recent scientific papers on the human Genome, Mitochondrial DNA and Y-chromosomes. Regrettably, within mainstream press and academia circles, there seems to be a conspicuous – and dare we say it – deliberate vacuum when it comes to reporting news of these recent studies and their obvious implications.

Read it here

It should be noted that the paper in question was published in a "pay to publish" "journal" that Jeffrey Beall classes as a predatory publisher. The publication rates of this outfit have risen significantly since Beall's 2012 compilation as indicated by the relevant page of the "journal":

Manuscript Page (as per the typeset proof)

Article Processing Charges

Paper within ten printed pages

$600

Additional page charge above ten

$50 for each additional page

http://www.scirp.org...x?JournalID=737

From Beall:

Beall's List of Predatory, Open Access Publishers by Jeffrey Beall 2012 Edition

Predatory, open access publishers are those that unprofessionally exploit the author-pays model of open access publishing (Gold OA) for their own profit.Typically these publishers spam professional email lists, broadly soliciting article submissions for the clear purpose of gaining additional income. Operating essentially as vanity presses, these publishers typically have a low article acceptance threshold, with a false front or non existent peer review process. Unlike professional publishing operations, whether subscription based or ethically sound open access, these predatory publishers add little value to scholarship, pay little attention to digital preservation, and operate using fly by night, unsustainable business models. (Emphasis added).

Scientific Research Publishing

This publisher, like the Institute of Advanced Scientific Research, claims to be based in Irvine, California (it lists a PO box number and an email address, but no telephone number). It has over one hundred journal titles, most having started publication in 2009, and has managed to attract numerous article submissions. This high number may be because of the publisher's relatively low author fees: $300 for the first ten pages, and $50 for each additional page, a policy that also encourages shorter papers. The journals each list large editorial boards, with members from all over the world, especially China. Indeed, the pricelist (for those desiring hardcopies of the journals), lists the prices in both U.S. and Chinese currency. This publisher also publishes books and conference proceedings. I found its servers to suffer from a slow response time.

Recommendation:

Do not do business with the above publishers, including submitting article manuscripts, serving on editorial boards, buying advertising, etc.There are numerous traditional, legitimate journals that will publish your quality work for free, including many legitimate, open access publishers.

http://carbon.ucdenv...ishers 2012.pdf

Edit: Emphasis added.

Edited by Swede
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

From reading the abstract of the paper published in Scientific Research (OS's first link) it would seem the authors are not arguing that "Out of Africa" is discredited, just that the B haplogroup itself did not directly originate in Africa but somewhere around the Caucasia region.

However, the ancestors of the B haplogroup still originated in Africa.

So, it is not a "multi-regional evolution" theory per se. Simply that, once the migration of those who would comprise the B haplogroup out of Africa occurred, this population was isolated in the Caucasia region, without further introduction of any proto-A haplogroup populations, and continued to evolve from the ancestral proto-A haplogroup to the Eurasian B haplogroup.

This isn't really revolutionary, and doesn't upset the "Out of Africa" hypothesis. It only suggests the "Out of Africa" migrations happened in bursts (and perhaps only 1 or 2 'bursts') rather than a more-or-less continuous stream.

Edited by Leonardo
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Like domestic dogs, humans were bred from an earlier species.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From reading the abstract of the paper published in Scientific Research (OS's first link) it would seem the authors are not arguing that "Out of Africa" is discredited, just that the B haplogroup itself did not directly originate in Africa but somewhere around the Caucasia region.

However, the ancestors of the B haplogroup still originated in Africa.

So, it is not a "multi-regional evolution" theory per se. Simply that, once the migration of those who would comprise the B haplogroup out of Africa occurred, this population was isolated in the Caucasia region, without further introduction of any proto-A haplogroup populations, and continued to evolve from the ancestral proto-A haplogroup to the Eurasian B haplogroup.

This isn't really revolutionary, and doesn't upset the "Out of Africa" hypothesis. It only suggests the "Out of Africa" migrations happened in bursts (and perhaps only 1 or 2 'bursts') rather than a more-or-less continuous stream.

So it is literally nothing new, upsets nothing and simply adds to the idea that our true history is a combination of Out of Africa and Multi - regional. Pretty much what is taught in academia.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So it is literally nothing new, upsets nothing and simply adds to the idea that our true history is a combination of Out of Africa and Multi - regional. Pretty much what is taught in academia.

While I'm not an authority in anthropology or genetics, I believe the prevailing orthodoxy had the B haplogroup as a later migration out of Africa, which the results of the study would appear to refute. So, it refines the "Out of Africa" hypothesis a bit, which is good for science, but does not 'discredit' it as the article linked to in the OP would suggest.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While I'm not an authority in anthropology or genetics, I believe the prevailing orthodoxy had the B haplogroup as a later migration out of Africa, which the results of the study would appear to refute. So, it refines the "Out of Africa" hypothesis a bit, which is good for science, but does not 'discredit' it as the article linked to in the OP would suggest.

I cannot speak to the genetics side of it, but the general consensus in Anthropology is that we don't really know, however, it was likely a combination of both.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Like domestic dogs, humans were bred from an earlier species.

It seems that some were bred for colorful howling.

Harte

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There seems to be a common consensus that modern sub-Saharan Africans represent the 'ancestral' form of modern man, and that their DNA represents the DNA of early modern man. But take a look at them with an engineer's eye and what you see is more specialization for bipedal locomotion (longer legs, bigger feet, bigger buttocks, shorter arms and so on) than non-Africans show, and some general design improvements like a stronger skull in adults. These are highly advantageous traits that would not be selected out, regardless of where their bearers migrated to. This leads me to speculate that modern sub-Saharans are in fact a later evolution of the basic human design than the humans who left Africa.

So one explanation for the presence, in a non-African group, of a genetic trait that's absent in modern Africans is that the ancestors of modern Africans out-competed the African remnants of the non-Africans' ancestors, who still carried that trait, into extinction. Evolution of the trait in Asia is not necessary.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting. Are you suggesting parallel evolution or earlier migration out of Africa, prior to the trait becoming fixed in the gene pool?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.