# Population Genetics > Y-DNA Haplogroups >  Root of Y-DNA phylogentic tree revised to 338,000 years (before Homo Sapiens)

## Maciamo

A very exciting new paper was released yesterday, confirming the announcement four months ago that the common ancestor to all human male lineages lived much longer ago than what believed so far. 

An African American Paternal Lineage Adds an Extremely Ancient Root to the Human Y Chromosome Phylogenetic Tree (Mendez et al.)

*Abstract*

"_We report the discovery of an African American Y chromosome that carries the ancestral state of all SNPs that defined the basal portion of the Y chromosome phylogenetic tree. We sequenced ∼240 kb of this chromosome to identify private, derived mutations on this lineage, which we named A00. We then estimated the time to the most recent common ancestor (TMRCA) for the Y tree as 338 thousand years ago (kya) (95% confidence interval = 237–581 kya). Remarkably, this exceeds current estimates of the mtDNA TMRCA, as well as those of the age of the oldest anatomically modern human fossils. The extremely ancient age combined with the rarity of the A00 lineage, which we also find at very low frequency in central Africa, point to the importance of considering more complex models for the origin of Y chromosome diversity. These models include ancient population structure and the possibility of archaic introgression of Y chromosomes into anatomically modern humans. The A00 lineage was discovered in a large database of consumer samples of African Americans and has not been identified in traditional hunter-gatherer populations from sub-Saharan Africa. This underscores how the stochastic nature of the genealogical process can affect inference from a single locus and warrants caution during the interpretation of the geographic location of divergent branches of the Y chromosome phylogenetic tree for the elucidation of human origins._"


The most amazing thing about this re-assessment is that the root of this new African branch (Y-haplogroup A00) is considerably older than the anatomically modern humans, known as Homo Sapiens. It is not until 200,000 years ago that hominids started exhibiting traits that could be characterised as anatomical modernity, while full behavioural modernity only developed from 50,000 years ago (in some parts of the world). 

This A00 lineage is at least 237,000 years old, but could be as old as 581,000 years old, based on the mutation rate used by the team of researchers. This bring us back to the Early to Middle Palaeolithic, a period where several (sub)species of hominids co-existed in Africa, Asia and Europe, including Homo erectus (1.8 million to 300,000 ybp), Homo rhodesiensis (300,000 to 125,000 ybp), Homo heidelbergensis (600,000 to 400,000 ybp), Denisovans (?), and of course Neanderthals (600,000 to 25,000 ybp).

I have long supported the Multiregional origin of modern humans as opposed to the Recent African origin of modern humans taught in most schools. The discovery in 2010 that modern Eurasians did indeed have Neanderthal and Denisovan DNA was a first step in confirming the Multiregional origin theory. This paper adds another example of archaic admixture, from Central Africa this time. I believe that the reason why modern human racial groups display such phenotypical diversity is for the greatest part due to these archaic admixtures. 

I also believe that the definition of species, as applied to hominids, should be revised accordingly, since members are different species by definition cannot interbreed with one another. Therefore, all archaic humans should be considered as subspecies and not separate species.

Genetic genealogy is a brand new science, which really took off in the last 5 to 10 years. It is likely that even older lineages will be found - if not in living people, at least in relatively recent ancient DNA from the last 10,000 years (like Ötzi).

----------


## kamani

I can see the wrong people misuse this information. It is basically saying that some ancient monkeys and sub-saharan africans are both y-dna group A.

----------


## nordicwarrior

WOW 

Good find Maciamo.

----------


## nordicwarrior

Wonder if they're going to announce Neanderthal and/Denisovan y-lines and mtd-DNA lines next... you know they have to be out there somewhere. I was of the same opinion Maciamo... the multi-regional makes too much sense to ignore. Although I will say in genetic terms we are still enormously still out of Africa within the last 120,000 years.

**EDIT**
Looks like my hybrid vigor theory with the Neanderthal/homo sapien mix gaining fifteen or so I.Q. points on BOTH parents is starting to hold some water. Standford, Harvard are you listening? Somebody needs to be writing my quotes down, I'm a genius. 

Or maybe just able to observe the obvious...

BTW read the first part of my comment with the word "somewhere" in italics. Finding y-Neanderthal in modern man may not be as difficult as it would seem...

----------


## hope

This is very interesting, I can imagine the excitement that will be going round some departments on reading this report. I admit to raising more than one surprised eyebrow myself when I read it and my own knowledge of genetics is rather small in comparison to some members on the board.

----------


## LeBrok

> I have long supported the Multiregional origin of modern humans


 I'm glad our views get vindicated. There must be a thread or two where we argued our points before genetic evidence showed up.

----------


## Anthro-inclined

Wow, very interesting findings, pushing back human history 100000 years isn't something you find out everyday. Its also very intriguing that this lineage was discovered in an African American male, as their predominant HG's are E1b1a and about 25% of African American Y-DNA is European in origin, so to find a relic lineage is extremely lucky. 
Also can anyone give me a few points on why a Multiregional model is more acceptable, RAO seems to compose 90 % of Human DNA, and the date of homo sapiens existence being pushed back dosent prove much of a variance in regions other than Africa. The oldest lineages outside of Africa are 60000 years old so where are the deep seeds that support the Multiregional hypothesis.

----------


## Maciamo

> I can see the wrong people misuse this information. It is basically saying that some ancient monkeys and sub-saharan africans are both y-dna group A.


You didn't understand anything.

----------


## Maciamo

> Also can anyone give me a few points on why a Multiregional model is more acceptable, RAO seems to compose 90 % of Human DNA, and the date of homo sapiens existence being pushed back dosent prove much of a variance in regions other than Africa.s.


What's RAO ?

----------


## Anthro-inclined

> What's RAO ?


Sorry, Recent African Origin

----------


## nordicwarrior

> _The A00 lineage was discovered in a large database of consumer samples of African Americans and has not been identified in traditional hunter-gatherer populations from sub-Saharan Africa. This underscores how the stochastic nature of the genealogical process can affect inference from a single locus and warrants caution during the interpretation of the geographic location of divergent branches of the Y chromosome phylogenetic tree for the elucidation of human origins._"


English is my first language and I don't understand what this means. Anyone care to translate? It sounds like they are making room for error-- either current or future. Here's some help from Merriam Webster:

Stochastic
1. (specifically) involving a random variable
2. involving chance or probability

from the Greek stochastikos-skillful in aiming

Who wrote this-- someone in their legal department?

----------


## kamani

> You didn't understand anything.


lol, maybe, but maybe I'm the only one who is calling it for what it is. Based on the article A predates humans (common human) by possibly 300.000 years, so A was originally partially monkey, so the bottom line: *haplogroup A turned out to be monkey*.

----------


## sparkey

> English is my first language and I don't understand what this means. Anyone care to translate?


My best thought-by-thought translation:




> The A00 lineage was discovered in a commercial database testing black Americans, not black Africans. This demonstrates how the movement of people over time can cause individual samples to be geographically distant from the place of origin of their haplogroup. So, be careful when using the modern geographic location of outlier branches to try to determine where the haplogroup originated.


Basically, it's saying that it was found in an American, not an African, so we can't say much about the geographic origin of the A00 haplogroup, nor would we be able to say much even if we found it in an African.

----------


## sparkey

> lol, maybe, but maybe I'm the only one who is calling it for what it is. Based on the article A predates humans (common human) by possibly 300.000 years, so A was originally partially monkey, so the bottom line: *haplogroup A turned out to be monkey*.


You're off by orders of magnitude. Apes diverged from monkeys ca. 30 million years ago. We even have _Homo_ fossils dating to millions of years ago, so it wouldn't even be accurate to call it "ape" unless you're using the broad definition of the term "ape" which also includes _Homo_. Far from "calling it like it is," you're showing that you profoundly misunderstand this result.

----------


## nordicwarrior

> My best thought-by-thought translation:
> 
> 
> 
> Basically, it's saying that it was found in an American, not an African, so we can't say much about the geographic origin of the A00 haplogroup, nor would we be able to say much even if we found it in an African.


I agree Sparkey, that's what I concluded as well. The part I had difficulty understanding is what comes after that... specifically the before and after of "warrants caution during interpretation".

----------


## Yetos

> English is my first language and I don't understand what this means. Anyone care to translate? It sounds like they are making room for error-- either current or future. Here's some help from Merriam Webster:
> 
> Stochastic
> 1. (specifically) involving a random variable
> 2. involving chance or probability
> 
> from the Greek stochastikos-skillful in aiming
> 
> Who wrote this-- someone in their legal department?


noun stochos means target
virb στοχευω means I am aiming, active voice
noun στοχασμος means thoughts, calculations of probability, a sum of past and the possible results if a variation changed.
virb στοχαζομαι means I am thinking, I am calculating, I find my mistakes, I make a sum of past, I am planning all possible future targets, passive voice,

Stochastic Phenomena.
the possible results of a procedure, that can not be described under a math law,
mainly the unpredicted by maths result,
the random effect size and possibility, that can cause results outside the calculated area

example 
to predict weather many days ahead,
or to create an earthquake in Pacific, after a jump of an elephant in Africa etc,

generally 
to predict all possible results, according the 'if' input,
so to 'aim' the target
to predict or exclude possible results, of a random effect,

----------


## kamani

> You're off by orders of magnitude. Apes diverged from monkeys ca. 30 million years ago. We even have _Homo_ fossils dating to millions of years ago, so it wouldn't even be accurate to call it "ape" unless you're using the broad definition of the term "ape" which also includes _Homo_. Far from "calling it like it is," you're showing that you profoundly misunderstand this result.


According to this the article timelines, we're tracing hg A to something that predates humans and neanderthals, and I'm going to leave it at that since is a controversial topic.

----------


## nordicwarrior

After hunting around, I've found some tidbits that might be of interest for this thread.

The haplogroup study is currently behind a paywall, but should be available for public consumption soon. In the meantime, Dr. Thomas Krahn's (one of the key scientists on this project) presentation diagrams are able to be viewed. Dr. Krahn is employeed by FTDNA, and on the "about" section of FTDNA's website this is posted about the doctor: "He has discovered an uncountable number of new haplogroups".

Also it seems like the STR's of this ancient line were studied independently of the SNP's by two seperate researchers/groups, and that each camps' findings eventually strengthened the others' claim. This should be more clear when the paper is out (Unfortunately for you all I'm incredibly cheap.) 

The "uncountable number" is what got my full attention here. If indeed there is an additional time frame extension/expansion of another y-DNA hg... what group would mostly likely be involved?

----------


## Maciamo

> After hunting around, I've found some tidbits that might be of interest for this thread.
> 
> The haplogroup study is currently behind a paywall, but should be available for public consumption soon. In the meantime, Dr. Thomas Krahn's (one of the key scientists on this project) presentation diagrams are able to be viewed. Dr. Krahn is employeed by FTDNA, and on the "about" section of FTDNA's website this is posted about the doctor: "He has discovered an uncountable number of new haplogroups".
> 
> Also it seems like the STR's of this ancient line were studied independently of the SNP's by two seperate researchers/groups, and that each camps' findings eventually strengthened the others' claim. This should be more clear when the paper is out (Unfortunately for you all I'm incredibly cheap.) 
> 
> The "uncountable number" is what got my full attention here. If indeed there is an additional time frame extension/expansion of another y-DNA hg... what group would mostly likely be involved?


I don't understand your question. The uncountable number of haplogroups discovered is over the past years working at FTDNA. This discovery of A00 is just an isolated case. The article won't mention other new discoveries.

----------


## nordicwarrior

> I don't understand your question. The uncountable number of haplogroups discovered is over the past years working at FTDNA. This discovery of A00 is just an isolated case. The article won't mention other new discoveries.


Agreed... this paper revolves around A00. I'm referring to future papers though. Well's original Out of Africa (during the last 120,000 years or so) hypothesis is slowing rupturing with Neanderthal mixing, Denisovan contributions, and now this A00 lineage. If a Neanderthal y-haplogroup (or maternal line) pops up... large segments of his theory will be null and void. Actually, a decent amount has already been proven inaccurate.

----------


## Anthro-inclined

> Agreed... this paper revolves around A00. I'm referring to future papers though. Well's original Out of Africa (during the last 120,000 years or so) hypothesis is slowing rupturing with Neanderthal mixing, Denisovan contributions, and now this A00 lineage. If a Neanderthal y-haplogroup (or maternal line) pops up... large segments of his theory will be null and void. Actually, a decent amount has already been proven inaccurate.


 Wells was not the first to propose the out of africa theory, in fact Charles Darwin first proposed an origin for humans in africa. Wells used genetics to back the theory, but the idea for an origin in africa is much older than Wells. 
Also, i dont think finding a Neanderthal or Denisovan Haplogroup will prove anything new, we already know that less than 4% of the non african human genome is of Neanderthal origin, and less than 6% of the melanesian and austrailian aborigine genome is Denisovan to. So i guess one could argue that a multiregional origin is partly valid, but most genetic evidence says that at least 90 percent of the human genetic compostion holds an origin in africa less than 70000 years ago.

----------


## nordicwarrior

I guess my sentence could be taken in such a way that implies Wells and Wells alone created this theory, that was not my intention. 

Wells did make his bread and butter trumpeting the Out of Africa theory, that we can be sure of...

Neanderthal or Denisovan haplogroup would be a game changer in my book. Look at the online battles we have now between the alphabet soup of L,M,N,O,P... wait until one or two become a different "sub-species". 

Of course that's why I've been drawing attention to the numerous advancements of Neanderthal-- such as boat travel, fire starting 200,000 years before any homo sapien lines were capable, etc. Wells said "R1b were the first Europeans" one too many times for my taste.

----------


## Lynn

Maybe I'm not figuring this right but it seems to me if they've found an early "A" - A00, that goes back so far before the species, then possibly all they have found it the paternal line in the precursor species (_Homo heidelbergensis_ or some other 'step'). This then hardly speaks to multiregional origins, just as any minor included Neandertal or Denisovan DNA in the _Homo sapiens_ genome only represents interactions between the species. I'm sure if we could determine human genomes over the last million years that we would find admixtures of _Homo erectus_ in more recent species.

As for the use of fire, it's no big deal when it was _Homo erectus_ who first controlled it.

----------


## Ziober

I'm surprised how many people use the words monkey or ape, talking about erectus, heiderbergensis or so, when its belongs to Homo genre. They were hominids. 

A fresh new. Hominid from Orce, Spain, dated in 1.400.000 years:

http://www.iphes.cat/files/en_dent_humana_orce.pdf

http://www.independent.co.uk/travel/...n-8518514.html

----------


## nordicwarrior

> Maybe I'm not figuring this right but it seems to me if they've found an early "A" - A00, that goes back so far before the species, then possibly all they have found it the paternal line in the precursor species (_Homo heidelbergensis_ or some other 'step'). This then hardly speaks to multiregional origins, just as any minor included Neandertal or Denisovan DNA in the _Homo sapiens_ genome only represents interactions between the species. I'm sure if we could determine human genomes over the last million years that we would find admixtures of _Homo erectus_ in more recent species.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As for the use of fire, it's no big deal when it was _Homo erectus_ who first controlled it.


I agree with your overall thinking actually. My point is that the RECENT Out of Africa theory--the one associated with Spencer Wells and his work The Journey of Man: A Genetic Odyssey back in 2002 -- would be shot full of holes if we find surviving Neanderthal and/or Denisovan haplogroups. It's already taken on a decent amount of water with Neanderthal/Denisovan admixtures and now this A00 haplogroup. 

And by pointing out Neanderthal's successes, I'm salting the fields for those in the future who might want to put him in the "dumb brute" class. If one of the haplogroups gets pushed back 600,000 years or so-- it will carry political overtones. To gloss over these potential implications ignores the last few thousand years worth of homosapien warfare. 

Or homo sapien's inhumanity to homo sapien... so to speak.

**EDIT**
When I used the term "recent" (capitalized above) I'm refering to ROA or Recent Out of Africa theory and not the "recentness" of Spencer Wells work in 2002. Sorry for the confusion if there was any.

----------


## Anthro-inclined

> I guess my sentence could be taken in such a way that implies Wells and Wells alone created this theory, that was not my intention. 
> 
> Wells did make his bread and butter trumpeting the Out of Africa theory, that we can be sure of...
> 
> Neanderthal or Denisovan haplogroup would be a game changer in my book. Look at the online battles we have now between the alphabet soup of L,M,N,O,P... wait until one or two become a different "sub-species". 
> 
> Of course that's why I've been drawing attention to the numerous advancements of Neanderthal-- such as boat travel, fire starting 200,000 years before any homo sapien lines were capable, etc. Wells said "R1b were the first Europeans" one too many times for my taste.


Fair enough, just clarifying because i like to nit pick, and you are right, other than the Leakey family Wells has given the most significant amount of tangible evidence to back the theory, whether its agreeable or not.
Also When I said that finding a non Homo Sapiens HG wouldn't prove much, i meant in the field of genetics. You are right it would have a significance on how we view ourselves, so in cultural terms, we would have to redefine what it means to be a human, but in scientific terms we already know of the admixture, and a HG would just add credence to it.
And Fire starting is thought to have predated both Neanderthal and Homo Sapiens, as it was first controlled 800000 years ago, most likely by Homo Ergaster, an ancestor of both Neanderthals and us.

----------


## nordicwarrior

> I'm glad our views get vindicated. There must be a thread or two where we argued our points before genetic evidence showed up.


Lebrok, please revisit the thread titled "Neanderthal y-DNA?" I started on 11/30/12. Yourself, Kardu, Jackson, Kamani, and Yetos among others made some great points. It's worth checking out for Yeto's photos alone.

Anthro-, Rachael Moeller Gorman has this in an article titled "Cooking Up Bigger Brains" in Scientific American out a few months ago...

"...no evidence that early hominins controlled fire until some 300,000 to 400,000 years ago. Consistent signs of cooking came even later, when Neanderthals were coping with an ice age. 'They developed earth oven cookery...'"

and later this...

"Lacking the proof for widespread fire use by H. erectus, Wrangham hopes that DNA data may one day help his cause."

So I think the dating of controlled fire debate is still up for debate. My focus however is that Neanderthal was no dummy (relative to early h. sapien anyway) and that he certainly had controlled fire...

**EDIT** 
My thought on this paper's findings (and especially if we have future announcements involving other "ancient" haplogroups) is that we as a species are possibly looking at having to self-identify as other than H. sapiens if we want to be all inclusive of older lines (if and when they are discovered). Of course this wouldn't effect the vast majority of people, but if you're haplogroup is one of the pre-h. sapien line(s), all of the sudden you start paying very close attention.

And don't worry about keeping me honest on my numbers/sentence structure Anthro-, you have a scholarly tone and are after the truth... which is much appreciated.

----------


## bicicleur

this is exciting news , but it does not add anything to the discussion about out of Africa versus multiregional.
it tells me there was a very narrow bottleneck when A0 and A1 were born, because this is the very first time someone has been identified not descending from A0 neither A1 in paternal line.

----------


## oriental

What has been written is that the statistical analysis of the sample base of the known human genome from groups of haplogroups has been expanded as an American was found whose Hg A was so ancient that maybe the haplogroups might have to be renumbered. What was A0 (120,000 years ago) Homo Sapiens could be A3 if Neanderthals, Denisovans, Homo Ergaster, Homo rhodensiensis, Homo heidelbergensis and other hominids are given, say - 


X1 Homo Ergaster, 
X2 Homo erectus, 1.3 million – 200,000 ybp 
X3 Homo heidelbergensis, 600,000 – 400,000 ybp
X4 Neanderthals, 600,000 – 20,000 ybp
A0 American, 581,000 – 237,000 years ago
A1 Homo rhodensiensis, 300,000 – 125,000 ybp
A2 Denisovans, 280,000 – 20,000 ybp
A3 Homo sapiens, 120,000 – present.


As hominids can interbreed so they are all humans.


Statistics is just a method of educated guess based on numbers. Probability is just guessing started by French mathematician Blaise Pascal in his Probability Theory on gambling. It is not a cause-and-effect analysis but location analysis it is locates the likelihood of a crime being committed in a certain area or certain groups of people are likely to commit certain crimes. It is all about probability in numbers.



What is said in plain language is what we analysed is too short a time frame. This American’s genes tells us he comes from ancient group outside the time frame of all existing samples. His genes are so old that other hominids fit into his time frame. As this American is human so all those hominids must be human and included in the haplogroups. 


The Chinese claim that the Peking Man, homo erectus, was their ancestor but the skull was lost when the ship transporting the skull was sunk by a German U-boat. However, since Chinese are Hg O3 and descendant of Homo Sapiens, the Peking Man theory is off base. The Chinese would have to be hypothetical Hg X2 which is older than Homo Sapiens A3.


The multi-regional theory doesn’t work as the known haplogroups are descendant not ascendant.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galois_theory

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Group_theory




> Its mathematical foundations were laid in the 17th century with the development of the probability theory by Blaise Pascal and Pierre de Fermat. Probability theory arose from the study of games of chance. The method of least squares was first described by Carl Friedrich Gauss around 1794. The use of modern computers has expedited large-scale statistical computation, and has also made possible new methods that are impractical to perform manually.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statistics

----------


## nordicwarrior

> this is exciting news , but it does not add anything to the discussion about out of Africa versus multiregional.
> it tells me there was a very narrow bottleneck when A0 and A1 were born, because this is the very first time someone has been identified not descending from A0 neither A1 in paternal line.


If we view the results of this paper in a vacuum, then yes prima facie it explains only a previously missed A00 line. But when you look at all of the DNA findings that contradict recent Out of Africa theory... this is yet another straw on the camel's back. How much more can we load on this poor animal before we snap it's spinal column? Neanderthal and Denisovan admixture, previously missed ancient hg A lines, FTDNA's own mention of Dr. Krahn's "uncountable number of new haplogroups"-- the burden is getting rather heavy. Oriental's comment above clearly illustrates the log jam of opinions this field is soon to encounter (even if Dr. Krahn's new groups aren't pre-h. sapien). 

So Bicicleur, Well's may have convinced casual viewers of the Nat Geo. channel that we all fit nicely into tidy A, B, C, etc. haplogroup packages and then wrapped up his glossy tale with the showy bow of homo sapien's "documentable" travel through time... but like most of mankind's endeavor's, the real story is a bit more messy.

**EDIT**
I get a kick out of the fact that the tender love scene in "Quest for Fire" (after the main protagonist is captured by an opposing tribe) may be the most accurate representation of ancient genetic theory ever captured on film. That and the fact that Carelton Coon is looking like an absolute genius. Glance over his ideas and look at what's headed this way in terms of genetic findings...

----------


## Anthro-inclined

> If we view the results of this paper in a vacuum, then yes prima facie it explains only a previously missed A00 line. But when you look at all of the DNA findings that contradict recent Out of Africa theory... this is yet another straw on the camel's back. How much more can we load on this poor animal before we snap it's spinal column? Neanderthal and Denisovan admixture, previously missed ancient hg A lines, FTDNA's own mention of Dr. Krahn's "uncountable number of new haplogroups"-- the burden is getting rather heavy. Oriental's comment above clearly illustrates the log jam of opinions this field is soon to encounter. 
> 
> So Bicicleur, Well's may have convinced casual viewers of the Nat Geo. channel that we all fit nicely into tidy A, B, C, etc. haplogroup packages and then wrapped up his glossy tale with the showy bow of homo sapien's "documentable" travel through time... but like most of mankind's endeavor's, the real story is a bit more messy.
> 
> **EDIT**
> I get a kick out of the fact that the tender love scene in "Quest for Fire" (after the main protagonist is captured by an opposing tribe) may be the most accurate representation of ancient genetic theory ever captured on film. That and the fact that Carelton Coon is looking like an absolute genius. Glance over his ideas and look at what's headed this way in terms of genetic findings...


Couldnt agree with you more here noricfoyer, ive always had a problem with all haplogroups on the planet being part of the same story, despite my support of the RAO, it seems Naive to doubt the existence of a lineage that dosent stem from the same migration out of Africa
Also, great point about La Guerre du feu, watching the film now is remarkable, it got alot of points right, and considering the lack of knowledge of Paleolithic Europe at the time, its amazing. Its also a great film in its own right and i recommened that anyone who hasnt seen it watch it, the full movie is on Youtube.
Seems like its not there anymore, still try and find it.

----------


## nordicwarrior

> ...it got alot of points right, and considering the lack of knowledge of Paleolithic Europe at the time, its amazing. Its also a great film in its own right and i recommened that anyone who hasnt seen it watch it, the full movie is on Youtube.
> Seems like its not there anymore, still try and find it.


Twenty year old Rae Dawn Chong + loin cloth = required viewing for the amatuer gene hunter

----------


## Anthro-inclined

> Twenty year old Rae Dawn Chong + loin cloth = required viewing for the amatuer gene hunter


Lol, couldnt have put it better myself.

----------


## LeBrok

> Lebrok, please revisit the thread titled "Neanderthal y-DNA?" I started on 11/30/12. Yourself, Kardu, Jackson, Kamani, and Yetos among others made some great points. It's worth checking out for Yeto's photos alone.


Sorry for not responding. I'm running a bit behind the time these days.




> Anthro-, Rachael Moeller Gorman has this in an article titled "Cooking Up Bigger Brains" in Scientific American out a few months ago...
> 
> "...no evidence that early hominins controlled fire until some 300,000 to 400,000 years ago. Consistent signs of cooking came even later, when Neanderthals were coping with an ice age. 'They developed earth oven cookery...'"


There are some archaeologists expending fire taming to almost 2 million years. I'm not sure about that but I wouldn't be surprised if it is in a range 500k to 1 million. Even just on a notion how much we love fire and cooked, boiled, fried food. It says about a very long history of man kind with fire.

----------


## oriental

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/blogs/sides...210033011.html

Yahoo reports on this African American in South Carolina who recently died and whose DNA showed him to be the guy with 340,000 year old ancestor.

http://www.cell.com/AJHG/retrieve/pii/S0002929713000736

----------


## Ziober

> http://ca.news.yahoo.com/blogs/sides...210033011.html
> 
> Yahoo reports on this African American in South Carolina who recently died and whose DNA showed him to be the guy with 340,000 year old ancestor.
> 
> http://www.cell.com/AJHG/retrieve/pii/S0002929713000736


All of us have more than 1.4 million years ancestors. It looks like a headline's new, create for manipulate.

----------


## oriental

We have only scratched the surface. The 'Journey of Man' by Dr. Spencer Wells only sampled 1,000 or so from major cities and a few isolated areas. It is in the isolated villages and mountainous areas where the older subclades will be found as their lifestyles didn't change so they mutated less. Cities are where the most mingling and changes going to occur. People are afraid to have their DNA and there is good reason to be suspicious.

----------


## jdanel

Does this make sense with Y-Perry being the new Y-Adam? Who goes in the blank?

evolution.jpg

----------


## oriental

Like in algebra put an 'x' to be solved.

----------


## Power77

What about this:
http://anthropogenesis.kinshipstudie...round-the-web/

----------

