A skull that rewrites the history of man

[HannahP 119]

^oh darling, don't be such a bore

I find the history of words and phrases interesting.

Did you read that book about the history of the OED?

[one...two...tree 2,762]

All this really does is push back the initial African migration further back in time.

You see Hal, this is why many get such a laugh at folks like you......

You "hang on to old ideas" even when new and substantial evidence presents its self.

I could not care less which theory turns out to be accurate, why do you care?

I disagree with your politics, but I applaud you for being one of the few people who gets that phrase right.

I don't know why so many use it the other way... it never even makes sense considering what they are trying to say.

You're one of my favorite posters here on VJ.

[HAL 9000 96]

All this really does is push back the initial African migration further back in time.

You see Hal, this is why many get such a laugh at folks like you......

You "hang on to old ideas" even when new and substantial evidence presents its self.

I could not care less which theory turns out to be accurate, why do you care?

Why was that? Because they don't understand what it is they're actually 'discovering'??

Here's something a little more 'factual'... that is... based on molecular biology that is far beyond the reach of guesswork when it comes to the study of human gene flow throughout time-

<h1 class="story">New 'Molecular Clock' Aids Dating Of Human Migration History</h1> ScienceDaily (June 22, 2009) — Researchers at the University of Leeds have devised a more accurate method of dating ancient human migration – even when no corroborating archaeological evidence exists.

Estimating the chronology of population migrations throughout mankind's early history has always been problematic. The most widely used genetic method works back to find the last common ancestor of any particular set of lineages using samples of mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA), but this method has recently been shown to be unreliable, throwing 20 years of research into doubt.

The new method refines the mtDNA calculation by taking into account the process of natural selection - which researchers realised was skewing their results - and has been tested successfully against known colonisation dates confirmed by archaeological evidence, such as in Polynesia in the Pacific (approximately 3,000 years ago), and the Canary Islands (approximately 2,500 years ago).

Says PhD student Pedro Soares who devised the new method: "Natural selection's very gradual removal of harmful gene mutations in the mtDNA produces a time-dependent effect on how many mutations you see in the family tree. What we've done is work out a formula that corrects this effect so that we now have a reliable way of dating genetic lineages.

"This means that we can put a timescale on any part of the particular family tree, right back to humanity's last common maternal ancestor, known as 'Mitochondrial Eve', who lived some 200,000 years ago. In fact we can date any migration for which we have available data," he says.

Moreover, working with a published database of more than 2,000 fully sequenced mtDNA samples, Soares' calculation, for the first time, uses data from the whole of the mtDNA molecule. This means that the results are not only more accurate, but also more precise, giving narrower date ranges.

The new method has already yielded some surprising findings. Says archaogeneticist Professor Martin Richards, who supervised Soares: "We can settle the debate regarding mankind's expansion through the Americas. Researchers have been estimating dates from mtDNA that are too old for the archaeological evidence, but our calculations confirm the date to be some 15,000 years ago, around the time of the first unequivocal archaeological remains.

"Furthermore, we can say with some confidence that the estimate of humanity's 'out of Africa' migration was around 60-70,000 years ago – some 10-20,000 years earlier than previously thought."

The team has devised a simple calculator into which researchers can feed their data and this is being made freely available on the University of Leeds website.

The paper is published in the current edition of the American Journal of Human Genetics.

In other words, just like I said in my last post you misread. FAIL for Danno once again.

[HannahP 119]

^stop stealing my ideas, #######!

[HAL 9000 96]

[Kathryn41 3,205]

I am with HannahP on this one - the genetic evidence still shows African origins. Perhaps the Georgian skeletons will turn out to be another interesting 'dead end'?

Edited September 10, 2009 by Kathryn41

[HAL 9000 96]

I am with HannahP on this one - the genetic evidence still shows African origins. Perhaps the Georgian skeletons will turn out to be another interesting 'dead end'?

Or one that likely blended into the overall gene pool, as is now thought to be the case of the Neanderthal.

That explains some things too...

[HannahP 119]

I am with HannahP on this one - the genetic evidence still shows African origins. Perhaps the Georgian skeletons will turn out to be another interesting 'dead end'?

It's fascinating. Lucy may be a weird in-between; two-legs with a small brain, as in smaller than four-legs. We tend to think ---) two legs, bigger brains. But we really don't know anything. It's a shame that our ancestors didn't live in the oceans.

I am with HannahP on this one - the genetic evidence still shows African origins. Perhaps the Georgian skeletons will turn out to be another interesting 'dead end'?

Or one that likely blended into the overall gene pool, as is now thought to be the case of the Neanderthal.

That explains some things too...

OR we ate all the Neanderthals. OM NOM NOM.

[HAL 9000 96]

I am with HannahP on this one - the genetic evidence still shows African origins. Perhaps the Georgian skeletons will turn out to be another interesting 'dead end'?

It's fascinating. Lucy may be a weird in-between; two-legs with a small brain, as in smaller than four-legs. We tend to think ---) two legs, bigger brains. But we really don't know anything. It's a shame that our ancestors didn't live in the oceans.

Well... technically...

Laterz

[HannahP 119]

I am with HannahP on this one - the genetic evidence still shows African origins. Perhaps the Georgian skeletons will turn out to be another interesting 'dead end'?

It's fascinating. Lucy may be a weird in-between; two-legs with a small brain, as in smaller than four-legs. We tend to think ---) two legs, bigger brains. But we really don't know anything. It's a shame that our ancestors didn't live in the oceans.

Well... technically...

Laterz

You KNOW what I mean. doofus.

[Ban Hammer 13,658]

I am with HannahP on this one - the genetic evidence still shows African origins. Perhaps the Georgian skeletons will turn out to be another interesting 'dead end'?

yay, i'm an african american too!

[HannahP 119]

Funny how danno knows nothing when it comes to anything. Poor boy.

[HAL 9000 96]

Gotta get him to run my experiments for me.

But yeah, Charles... we're all African. Kinda makes all these racist bozos silly hmmm?

[Ban Hammer 13,658]

Gotta get him to run my experiments for me.

But yeah, Charles... we're all African. Kinda makes all these racist bozos silly hmmm?

yo wut up blood?

[HAL 9000 96]

Gotta get him to run my experiments for me.

But yeah, Charles... we're all African. Kinda makes all these racist bozos silly hmmm?

yo wut up blood?

You a crip or a blood?