Ancestry of first Americans revealed by a boy's genome

tru_m.a.c

IC veteran
Staff member
Supporter
Joined
May 1, 2012
Messages
31,338
Reputation
6,850
Daps
90,886
Reppin
Gaithersburg, MD via Queens/LI
The genes of a boy who died 12,600 years ago show that all indigenous people in the Americas seem to be descended from the same group of ancestors

WE MAY never know who the Anzick child was. Why he died, just 3 years old, in the foothills of the American Rockies; why he was buried, 12,600 years ago, beneath a huge cache of sharpened flints; or why his kin left him with a bone tool that had been passed down the generations for 150 years.

One thing, however, is certain: his afterlife is anything but ordinary. This week, geneticists announced that the boy is the earliest ancient American to have his entire genome sequenced. Incredibly, he turns out to be a direct ancestor of most tribes in Central and South America – and probably the US too – as well as a very close cousin of Canadian tribes.

"It's crazy," says Eske Willerslev of the University of Copenhagen in Denmark, who led the genomic analysis. "Finding someone who is directly ancestral to the entire population of a continent – that just does not happen. I don't think it would ever happen in Europe, or in Siberia. There are very few places where this could happen."

"The reason," he says, "must be that this skeleton is really close to the source – really close to the 'Adam'. I think that is the only explanation."

The find offers the first genetic evidence for what Native Americans have claimed all along: that they are directly descended from the first Americans. It also confirms that those first Americans can be traced back at least 24,000 years, to a group of early Asians and a group of Europeans who mated near Lake Baikal in what is now Siberia. And it dispels a controversial theory that the Americas were first populated by west Europeans who somehow crossed the Atlantic Ocean.

The boy was discovered in Montana in 1968, when diggers working on land owned by the Anzick family accidentally ploughed into a huge cache of stone tools. The flints were typical of the Clovis period, a short archaeological period in North America lasting from 13,000 to 12,500 years ago. Beneath them lay a handful of bone artefacts and a skeleton.

Clovis artefacts are scattered all over the western US. Archaeologists largely believe that the first Americans arrived by a land bridge from Asia about 15,000 years ago, and some went on to develop Clovis tools (see "A history of the first Americans in 9½ sites").

Willerslev and his colleagues were able to extract enough viable DNA from the boy's badly preserved bones to sequence his entire genome.

They then compared this with DNA samples from 143 modern non-African populations, including 52 South American, central American and Canadian tribes.

The comparison revealed a map of ancestry. The Anzick child is most closely related to modern tribes in Central and South America, and is equally close to all of them – suggesting his family were common ancestors. To the north, Canadian tribes were very close cousins. DNA comparisons with Siberians, Asians and Europeans show that the further west populations are from Alaska, the less related they are to the boy.

Fully sequenced genomes remain rare, so the bulk of the analysis was done by looking at genetic markers known as single nucleotide polymorphisms or SNPs. To confirm the pattern, Willerslev and his team sequenced full genomes from three contemporary Mayan and Karitiana individuals in Central and South America.

The findings offer genetic confirmation that the first Americans crossed the land bridge that once stretched from Siberia to Alaska across the Bering Strait.

"The Clovis population seems to be more closely related to South Americans than to native North Americans," says David Reich of Harvard Medical School in Boston. "That's telling you that the Clovis sample seems to have occurred after the initial split of the lineages that gave rise to native South Americans and native North Americans."

Unfortunately, long-standing tensions between US tribes and scientists mean there is no significant genetic data available from these peoples (see Leader, "An ancient genome alone can't heal long-standing rifts"). Having that data, says Reich, could help determine which groups lie on either side of the North and South American family tree.

In November, Willerslev published the genome of another ancient boy, the 24,000-year-old Mal'ta boy, from the shores of Russia's Lake Baikal. The boy's DNA showed he descended from a mating between early Asians and proto-Europeans, and that he is related to modern South Americans. Like modern South American DNA, the Anzick DNA is a mix of Mal'ta and other Asian DNA, pointing to a "source" population for the first Americans, probably in far eastern Siberia (see map).

But how many first Americans were there, and did they come all at once or as a slow trickle? "The most likely scenario is that a single migration of people into the heartland of North America around 15,000 years ago gave rise to the Clovis and their descendants, which includes modern Native Americans," says Mike Waters of Texas A&M University in College Station, a co-author with Willerslev on the latest study. "This is supported by the archaeological and genetic evidence."

In fact, Willerslev wagers that the first group to cross over from Siberia was no more than 100 strong. Another of Willerslev's co-authors, David Meltzer of the Southern Methodist University in Dallas, Texas, is more cautious. For now, he says, we have just one genetic data point. And the study cannot address whether early migrants came through the interior of North America, or hugged the coast. The interior route would not have opened until 13,500 years ago, but earlier remains have been found in Monte Verde in Chile. So a first group may have come down the coast, and later groups from the same source population followed inland, carrying the same genetic heritage.

Perhaps the most evocative mystery that remains is the identity of the boy himself. His is the only known Clovis grave. The tools he was buried with – including one that was already 150 years old and fashioned from an elk bone – would have been priceless heirlooms to those who carried them. Yet they left them in the ground with a child.

We may never know who the Anzick child was, but scientists and local US tribes have agreed to lay him back to rest (see "Tribal healing: Anzick child genome changed my life"). He will be reburied sometime in the next few months.
 

tru_m.a.c

IC veteran
Staff member
Supporter
Joined
May 1, 2012
Messages
31,338
Reputation
6,850
Daps
90,886
Reppin
Gaithersburg, MD via Queens/LI
29562101.jpg
 
Joined
Jul 6, 2012
Messages
5,507
Reputation
-3,335
Daps
7,601
Reppin
NULL
I have a hard time accepting some of these theories...How does an African man turn Asian...?

These scientists make seem like if you took 2000 black men and 2000 black women and you placed them in China, after a few thousands years, their skin will turn yellow, their eyes will slant, they will become shorter and eventually look "Asian"...

That scenario is HARD to imagine...
 

Blackking

Banned
Supporter
Joined
Jun 4, 2012
Messages
21,566
Reputation
2,486
Daps
26,224
I have a hard time accepting some of these theories...How does an African man turn Asian...?
..
They've already proven your thoughts to be true... but that's not the story that make people comfortable.

BBC documentary shows they were either african africans or black aborigines from Australia. Before that most people historians said it, but it's only sounds good when a white person validates it..... apparently. The first skulls found don't come close to resembling natives. They resemble east africans.
 

Shogun

Veteran
Joined
May 3, 2012
Messages
25,518
Reputation
5,966
Daps
63,082
Reppin
Knicks
I have a hard time accepting some of these theories...How does an African man turn Asian...?

These scientists make seem like if you took 2000 black men and 2000 black women and you placed them in China, after a few thousands years, their skin will turn yellow, their eyes will slant, they will become shorter and eventually look "Asian"...

That scenario is HARD to imagine...

20 thousands years is a long time

You'd be hard pressed to find a moderately intelligent person who denies the Out of Africa Theory, I think.
 
Joined
Jul 6, 2012
Messages
5,507
Reputation
-3,335
Daps
7,601
Reppin
NULL
hundreds of thousands of years
You'd be hard pressed to find a moderately intelligent person who denies the Out of Africa Theory, I think.
(1) I don't deny the Out Africa Theory...I DON'T believe it is the truth and nothing but the truth...

(2) Theories are based on the best current evidence...It is NOT necessarily the truth...Because (a) evidence can change with time and (b) the best current evidence is not necessarily that convincing, it is just the best we can do with what we have...

(3) It is one thing to say the earliest human remains on record were discovered in Africa, and another to say the first Africans left Africa and became all the other races...
I think this is a VERY BIG leap, and this is the difference between archaeology and a science like biology...In biology, to make such a leap, you will have to explain all the steps that lead to your final conclusion...
In archaeology, you can interpret and interpolate the evidence...Archaeologists find bones and then tell a whole story about those bones, but we can never actually verify these stories...

(4) I am willing to concede that (a) I am NOT an expert and that's why I find it hard to accept some of the stories they tell and (b) Maybe the people who migrated from Africa were of various phenotypes...We tend to think Africans today look like the Africans from the "Out Africa Theory" but the truth could something different...
 

Shogun

Veteran
Joined
May 3, 2012
Messages
25,518
Reputation
5,966
Daps
63,082
Reppin
Knicks
(1) I don't deny the Out Africa Theory...I DON'T believe it is the truth and nothing but the truth...

(2) Theories are based on the best current evidence...It is NOT necessarily the truth...Because (a) evidence can change with time and (b) the best current evidence is not necessarily that convincing, it is just the best we can do with what we have...

(3) It is one thing to say the earliest human remains on record were discovered in Africa, and another to say the first Africans left Africa and became all the other races...
I think this is a VERY BIG leap, and this is the difference between archaeology and a science like biology...In biology, to make such a leap, you will have to explain all the steps that lead to your final conclusion...
In archaeology, you can interpret and interpolate the evidence...Archaeologists find bones and then tell a whole story about those bones, but we can never actually verify these stories...

(4) I am willing to concede that (a) I am NOT an expert and that's why I find it hard to accept some of the stories they tell and (b) Maybe the people who migrated from Africa were of various phenotypes...We tend to think Africans today look like the Africans from the "Out Africa Theory" but the truth could something different...
I was about to contest what you've said here, but your expert use of capital letters makes this argument irrefutable. :wow:
 

tru_m.a.c

IC veteran
Staff member
Supporter
Joined
May 1, 2012
Messages
31,338
Reputation
6,850
Daps
90,886
Reppin
Gaithersburg, MD via Queens/LI
It is one thing to say the earliest human remains on record were discovered in Africa, and another to say the first Africans left Africa and became all the other races...

In archaeology, you can interpret and interpolate the evidence...Archaeologists find bones and then tell a whole story about those bones, but we can never actually verify these stories...

I don't think you understand what goes into this line of work. Genomes are sequenced using the bones. The layer of sediment the bone is found in, provides an estimated date of existence.

I think HL is in desperate need of official thread on Evolution and Human Genetics
 

tru_m.a.c

IC veteran
Staff member
Supporter
Joined
May 1, 2012
Messages
31,338
Reputation
6,850
Daps
90,886
Reppin
Gaithersburg, MD via Queens/LI
@nineteeneightysix Take a couple of days to read this, then come back:

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn9990-introduction-human-evolution.html?page=1#.UwKQg_1fW0s

The incredible story of our evolution from ape ancestors spans 6 million years or more, and features the acquirement of traits from bipedal walking, large brains, hairlessness, tool-making, hunting and harnessing fire, to the more recent development of language, art, culture and civilisation.

Darwin's The Origin of Species, published in 1859, suggested that humans were descended from African apes. However, no fossils of our ancestors were discovered in Africa until 1924, when Raymond Dart dug up the "Taung child" - a 3-million to 4 million-year-old Australopithecine.

Over the last century, many spectacular discoveries have shed light on the history of the human family. Somewhere between 12 and 19 different species of early humans are recognised, though palaeoanthropologists bitterly disputehow they are related. Famous fossils include the remarkably complete "Lucy", dug up in Ethiopia in 1974, and the astonishing "hobbit" species,Homo floresiensis, found on an Indonesian island in 2004.

Walking tall
Humans are really just a peculiar African ape - we share about 98% of our DNA with chimpanzees, our closest living relatives. Genetics and fossil evidence hint that we last shared a common ancestor 7 to 10 million years ago - even if we continued hybridising long after.

At around 6 million years ago, the first apes to walk on two legs appear in the fossil records. Despite the fact that many of these Australopithecines and other early humans were no bigger than chimps and had similar-sized brains, the shift to bipedalism was highly significant. Aside from our large brain, bipedalism is perhaps the most important difference between humans and apes, as it freed our hands to use tools.

Bipedalism may have evolved when drier conditions shrank dense African forests. It must have allowed our ancestors to spot predators from further away, reach hanging fruit from the ground, and reduce exposure to sunlight. Evidence that Australopithecines walked upright includes analysis of theshape of their bones and fossilised footprints.

One famous member of the species Australopithecus afarensis is the remarkably complete fossil found by palaeaoanthropologist Donald Johanson in Hadar, Ethiopia in 1974. The 3.2-million-year-old fossil was named Lucy, after the Beatles' song Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds.

She stood around 1.1 metres (3.5 feet) tall and although she walked on two legs, she probably had a less graceful gait than us, since she walked with them bent.

Scientist's have modelled her gait using computers. Their characteristic long arms and curved fingers suggest that at least some Australopithecineswere still good climbers.

Hundreds of other fossils of Australopithecus afarensis have now also been discovered. Other related early human species include Australopithecus africanus - such as the Taung child - 3.5-million-year-old Kenyanthropus platyops, 5.8-million to 4.4-million-year-old Ardipithecus, 5.8-million-year-oldOrrorin tugenensis and 6 million year old Sahelanthropus tchadensis.
 
Last edited:

tru_m.a.c

IC veteran
Staff member
Supporter
Joined
May 1, 2012
Messages
31,338
Reputation
6,850
Daps
90,886
Reppin
Gaithersburg, MD via Queens/LI
Tooled up
Australopithecines are thought to be the ancestors of Homo, the group to which our own species, Homo sapiens, belongs.

However, Australopithecines may also have given rise to another branch of hominid evolution - the vegetarian Paranthropus species. Around 2.7 million years ago, species such as Paranthropus bosei in east Africa evolved to take advantage of the dry grasslands. This included the development of enormous jaws and chewing muscles for grinding up tough roots and tubers.

By 2.4 million years ago, Homo habilis had appeared - the first recognisably human-like hominid to appear in the fossil record - which lived alongside P. bosei. Their bodies were around two-thirds the size of ours, but their brains were significantly larger than Australopithecines with a volume of about 600 cubic centimetres.

H. habilis had much smaller teeth and jaws than Paranthropus and was probably the first human to eat large quantities of meat. This meaty diet, acquired through scavenging, may have provided energy required to kick-start an increasing brain size. A mutation that weakened jaw muscles and gave our brains more space to grow may also lie behind the big brains we have today.

H. habilis - which means "handy man" - was also the first early human to habitually create tools and use them to break bones and extract marrow. This tool-making tradition, known as Oldowan, lasted virtually unchanged for a million years. Oldowan tools were made by breaking an angular rock with a "hammerstone" to give simple, sharp-edged stone flakes for chopping and slicing.

Despite their own increases in brain size, the Paranthropus group of species had become extinct by 1.2 million years ago. Some experts speculate that it was learning to work as a team against predators that gave Homo the edge.

Modern lookers
At around 1.65 million years ago, another early human, Homo ergaster, started to create tools in a slightly different fashion. This so-called Acheulean tradition was the tool-making technology used for nearly the entire Stone Age, and practiced until 100,000 years ago. Acheulean tools, such as hand axesand cleavers, were larger and more sophisticated than their predecessors'. They may have been status symbols as well as tools.
 

tru_m.a.c

IC veteran
Staff member
Supporter
Joined
May 1, 2012
Messages
31,338
Reputation
6,850
Daps
90,886
Reppin
Gaithersburg, MD via Queens/LI
Homo ergaster first appeared in Africa around 2 million years ago, and in many ways resembled us. Though they had brow ridges, they had lost the stoop and long arms of their ancestors. They may have been even more slender than us and were probably well-adapted to running long distances. Some experts believe that they were the first to sport largely hairless bodies, and to sweat, though another theory puts our hairlessness down to an aquatic phase.

One famous example of a more modern looking early human is the Turkana boy, a teenager when he died, 1.6 million years ago in Kenya. The shape of this fossil showed that the human pelvis had reached today's narrow proportions. Combined with the growing size of the human head and brain, this had far-reaching implications: human women now need help for a successful birth; and human babies are born earlier, and need a longer period of childhood care, than those of apes.

Meat-eating, however, may have allowed us to become early weaners.

H.ergaster may have been the first early human to leave Africa. Bones dated to around 1.75 million years ago have been found in Dmanisi in Georgia.

Shortly afterwards, Homo erectus appeared - the first early human whose fossils have been seen in large numbers outside of Africa. The first specimen discovered, a single cranium, was unearthed in Indonesia in 1891. H.erectuswas highly successful, spreading to much of Asia between 1.8 and 1.5 million years ago, and surviving as recently as 27,000 years ago.

This species, with a brain volume of around 1000 cm3 would have interactedwith modern humans. They may have been the first people to take to the seas and habitually hunt prey such as mammoths and wild horses, although there is some debate about this. They may also have harnessed the use of fire and built the first shelters.

In 2004, the remains of a tiny and mysterious human species, that may have lived as recently as 13,000 years ago, was discovered on an Indonesian island. More bones of the "hobbit", or Homo floresiensis, were uncovered in 2005. Some studies suggest it had an advanced brain and was unequivocally a separate species - but others argue that these people were modern humanssuffering from a genetic disorder.
 

tru_m.a.c

IC veteran
Staff member
Supporter
Joined
May 1, 2012
Messages
31,338
Reputation
6,850
Daps
90,886
Reppin
Gaithersburg, MD via Queens/LI
First Europeans
Early human fossil evidence from Spain, dating to around 780,000 years ago, points to the first known Europeans. Stone tools have also been found in England from around 700,000 years ago, attributed to Homo antecessor orHomo heidelbergensis.

More recently, 325,000-year-old H. heidelbergensis tracks were discovered preserved on an Italian volcano. Some of the biggest collections of hominid remains ever found are from Boxgrove in England and Atapuerca in Spain. Experts believe that these humans may have had ears equipped to detect nuances of human speech, whether or not they had simple language.

Some palaeoanthropologists believe that H. heidelbergensis evolved into our own species in Africa, whilst in Europe, the Neanderthals emerged as a separate species.

The Neanderthals were found across Europe, between 200,000 and 28,000 years ago. Though they still possessed pronounced brow ridges and were more thick-set, these people largely resembled us. They were as nimble-fingered, and matured at a similar age to us. Their brains were even slightly larger. It is not known if the Neanderthals had developed simple language. But they did possess some aspects of our culture, such as ritual burying of the dead; creating art; using tools to attack each other; and complex hunting methods - as evidenced by a remarkable butchery site in the UK.

Experts disagree about whether the Neanderthals hybridised with humans or not, or if our arrival killed them. Plunging temperatures, free trade and poor memory may all have contributed towards their extinction.

Out of Africa
There are several competing theories about how all these early humans are related to us today.

Most widely accepted is the "Out of Africa" hypothesis. This holds that ancient humans evolved exclusively in Africa, then spread across the world in two migration waves. The migration of H. erectus across Eurasia made up the first wave. Later, our own species evolved in Africa and fanned out in a second wave 200,000 years ago. These new people totally replaced H. erectus in Asia and the Neanderthals in Europe.

Advocates of the multiregional hypothesis instead believe that early humans started to leave Africa around 2 million years ago, and were never totally replaced by recent migrants. They believe these far-flung hominidsexchanged genes and interbred, slowly evolving into modern humans - in many places, simultaneously. Through gene flow, modern characteristicssuch as large brains gradually spread, it is suggested. Some fossils seem to support the multiregional hypothesis. H. erectus skulls in Asia, for example, have similarly flat cheek and nasal regions as people there today do.

Most - but not all - genetic evidence appears to back the Out of Africa hypothesis. There is surprisingly little variation in the mitochondrial DNA (mDNA) of different people today, which suggest that humans evolved recently from a small ancestral population. In addition, the variation of mDNA in Africans is greater than elsewhere, suggesting that people have been evolving there for longer.
 

YaBoy

All Star
Joined
Jul 29, 2012
Messages
3,799
Reputation
680
Daps
11,819
Reppin
NULL
I don't think you understand what goes into this line of work. Genomes are sequenced using the bones. The layer of sediment the bone is found in, provides an estimated date of existence.

I think HL is in desperate need of official thread on Evolution and Human Genetics

I second that notion. I'm tired of all the ignorant comments about evolution (that's not a shot at anyone)
 
Last edited:

tru_m.a.c

IC veteran
Staff member
Supporter
Joined
May 1, 2012
Messages
31,338
Reputation
6,850
Daps
90,886
Reppin
Gaithersburg, MD via Queens/LI
We may all be descended from a single African woman - dubbed Mitochondrial Eve - within the last 200,000 years. Male Y-chromosome DNA hints at a single male progenitor, too. Fewer than 50 people could have given rise to the entire population of Europe, experts believe.

Cultural revolution
The earliest anatomically modern humans are though to have arrived around 200,000 years ago. These fossils show a rounded braincase and flatter face. Their brains had reached modern proportions of about 1350 cm3. Two skulls found in Ethiopia make up the oldest modern human remains known, at 195,000 years old.

Modern humans had made it to Asia by 90,000 years ago, Australia by60,000 years ago, Europe and the Arctic by 40,000 years ago, and the Americas by 12,000 years ago.

Throughout history, tool use appears to have progressed slowly - once innovations were made, they lasted millions of years barely altering. But around 50,000 years ago something changed, and culture started to develop at a much more rapid rate.

Modern humans habitually began innovating new tools types, burying their dead, creating jewellery, developing sophisticated hunting techniques such as pitfall traps, using animal skins for clothing, decorating their bodies, andcreating art and cave paintings. Although some of these traits appeared earlier, they seem to have only have been used sporadically until this time.

These changes may have been linked to increasing brain size or the way we thought - or could also be due to free trade, and the evolution of language and communication. The dawn of human civilisation has been dated to around 30,000 years ago. The earliest agriculture and domestication of species is known only as recently as 10,000 years ago. The first human cities appeared in Mesopotamia around 4,000 years ago.

Are we still evolving today? If so, how will we evolve in the future? Some argue that humans have evolved little in the last 50,000 years - but other studies suggests that thousands of genes have changed since then.

We may even be on the verge of the next step of human evolution - the human global "superorganism".
 
Top