more evidence of archaic admixture in SSA africans and OOA may be wrong after alll.

[VerbalIntercourse]

Dienekes’ Anthropology Blog: New evidence for archaic admixture in African hunter gatherers (Lachance et al. 2012)

At the end of last year I predicted that full genome sequencing would begin turning up evidence for more archaic admixture in Africa. Halfway into the year, it appears that my prediction has proven to be correct: a new study in Cell by Lachance et al. documents the existence of such admixture between an archaic hominin and Pygmies from Cameroon, and the East African Hadza and Sandawe.

neadtherthal admixture in east africans

In a report still under review, a third group of geneticists says there are signs of Neanderthals having interbred with Asians and East Africans. But Neanderthals were a cold-adapted species that never reached East Africa.

this means the closeness to east africans to non-africans may just be due to admixture. There was no expansion from east africa.

One possible explanation, consistent with multi-regional evolution (MRE) theory, is that modern humans didn't originate anywhere in particular; they emerged out of Homo populations that lived everywhere. And, certainly, the discovery of archaic admixture of a local origin is quickly reducing the number of places where the common ancestors of modern humans could have begun their expansion. Western Eurasia is out due to Neandertals; East Eurasia and Oceania is out due to Denisovans; the entirety of Sub-Saharan Africa seems to also be out. North Africa and Southwest Asia appear to be the only remaining candidates.

I don't particularly agree with MRE; one of its predictions (about the relevance of archaic hominins to the human story) has proven to be correct: it increasingly seems that there never was a new Homo sapiens species that was in reproductive isolation from the rest of the Homo genus. On the other hand, the existence of local admixture with different sets of archaic hominins, together with the relative homogeneity of our species is indicative of a range expansion that largely replaced archaic humans -- but not completely.

I disagree. multi-regionalism is 100% correct. there was just gene back forth. MtDNA supports OOA, Y-dna does not. The different races are a product of the existing hominids that interbred with different waves of a expanding hominids.

There was an OOA expansion of proto modern humans and that explains the MtDNA Migration paths. However, there was another expansion of modern humans that explains the Y-dna line. These were the central asians (K brothers MNOPS line). Central asia or arabia is the homeland of modern man.

There were MANY expansions of humans, all of which were enabled by a regional advantage of on race of humans.

OOA was but one of many expansions. The last expansion was the european colonization period.

 

[Broke Wave]

Please stop making these threads.

 

[Dusty Bake Activate]

Please stop making these threads.

 

[Broke Wave]

Bruh bruh its like, I like talking about biology and shyt like that that I'm not familiar with, and learning from nikkas that's well versed right, but I know all your posts have some kind of perverse racial hierarchy agenda that just bothers me.


It don't make me angry it just creeps me out honestly.

 

[bouncy]

Please stop making these threads.