Root of Y-DNA phylogentic tree revised to 338,000 years (before Homo Sapiens)

nordicfoyer said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
Lynn said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Last edited:
nordicfoyer said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
LeBrok said:
I'm glad our views get vindicated. There must be a thread or two where we argued our points before genetic evidence showed up.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Last edited:
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.
 
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.
Click to expand...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statistics
 
bicicleur said:
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.
Click to expand...

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...
 
nordicfoyer said:
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...
Click to expand...
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.
 
Anthro-inclined said:
...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.
Click to expand...

Twenty year old Rae Dawn Chong + loin cloth = required viewing for the amatuer gene hunter
 
nordicfoyer said:
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.
Click to expand...
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...'"
Click to expand...
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.
 
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.
 
family tree now

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

evolution.jpg
 
Like in algebra put an 'x' to be solved.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top