Single Origin Of Humans

[OutofDate1980]

Wonder how to answer the US Census; Do I say I'm of African ancestry that had a layover in Europe ? It appears there is only one race, the human one.


New Research Proves Single Origin Of Humans In Africa

 

[Frisco]

It depends on how far you want to go back in ancestor history.

I think the word "race" is actually referring to "ethnicity" the way it's being used these days.

 

[RiverOfIce]

First off. The article is 100% wrong. Modern humans did appear in africa first, but as they left africa, then breed with Homo sapiens (archaic humans), Homo erectus, Homo neanderthalensis, Homo heidelbergensis, and H. rhodesiensis (and other non-sapiens humans). All of those species and sub species came out of Africa. So the theory still holds up, just not a clean cut as they tell it.

As for the race thing, there is no such thing as race. There has never been anything called race nor ever will be.

From a pure genetic standing, 85% of all variations in genetics occur within a population. Only 8% of variations of genetics occur outside the population.

Which means that about 92% of the time, you have a greater chance of having a genetic similarity between someone 5,000 miles away, then you do with someone next door.

 

[OutofDate1980]

Not to disagree, that's why the census question may not be valid. I believe we are called homo sapiens. I imagine there will some debate, but appears the research community has the same issue. I think genetic research will be most persuasive. The article I cited is just a brief summary of the research.


"Lead researcher, Dr Andrea Manica from the University's Department of Zoology, explained: "The origin of anatomically modern humans has been the focus of much heated debate. Our genetic research shows the further modern humans have migrated from Africa the more genetic diversity has been lost within a population."

 

[OutofDate1980]

First off. The article is 100% wrong. Modern humans did appear in africa first, but as they left africa, then breed with Homo sapiens (archaic humans), Homo erectus, Homo neanderthalensis, Homo heidelbergensis, and H. rhodesiensis (and other non-sapiens humans). All of those species and sub species came out of Africa. So the theory still holds up, just not a clean cut as they tell it.

As for the race thing, there is no such thing as race. There has never been anything called race nor ever will be.

From a pure genetic standing, 85% of all variations in genetics occur within a population. Only 8% of variations of genetics occur outside the population.

Which means that about 92% of the time, you have a greater chance of having a genetic similarity between someone 5,000 miles away, then you do with someone next door.

From the lead paragraph of the cited article "New research published in the journal Nature (19 July) has proved the single origin of humans theory by combining studies of global genetic variations in humans with skull measurements across the world. The research, at the University of Cambridge and funded by the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council (BBSRC), represents a final blow for supporters of a multiple origins of humans theory."

"proved", "final blow", a bit provocative, I imagine there will be follow-up debate.

 

[RiverOfIce]

Not to disagree, that's why the census question may not be valid. I believe we are called homo sapiens.

We are homo sapiens sapiens. Homo sapiens is considered a archaic species that shows features from all the homo group, including erectus.

"New research published in the journal Nature (19 July) .

You are fun to debate, but I have to point out on itty, bitty, problem with your proof, july 19, 2007.

But fast foward to September 5th 2011, and we find something.

Human Ancestors Interbred with Related Species: Scientific American

Your turn.

 

[Bob Maxey]

Thank goodness for the net, where everyone can be a genetics expert.

We are all human, part of the human race. We are Homo Sapiens, with lots of variations on a theme. Something came before us Homo Firstofus or perhaps some fancy name I did not just make up.

Evolution changed us over the eons and now it is being debated and discussed with endless theories that will be put down next week, as some macaroon discovers something unproven to shore up a claim yet to be discounted.

Whew. Thank the Gods I come from hearty Viking Stock, the bestest race there is. Say anything bad about Vikings, we will pillage you to dickens.

 

[RiverOfIce]

We are Homo Sapiens, with lots of variations on a theme.

Not to nick pick, but we are Homo sapiens sapiens. We are not Homo sapiens. There is a very huge differences between Homo sapiens and Homo sapiens sapiens.

Homo sapiens where anatomically similar to us, but lacked the deep culture we use. The differences between the two species can not be underestimated.

 

[Bob Maxey]

Not to nick pick, but we are Homo sapiens sapiens. We are not Homo sapiens. There is a very huge differences between Homo sapiens and Homo sapiens sapiens.

Homo sapiens where anatomically similar to us, but lacked the deep culture we use. The differences between the two species can not be underestimated.

But you overlook that in 2011, August as I recall, Etymologists determined that before Homo Homo Sapians, and Homo Sapien Sapien, there were Homo Sapian Homoian Sapious. That species learned to sing and that led to the development of the Cotton Gin and the round wheel.

We will eventually we will evolve to Homo Internetiens.

 

[Frisco]

..we will degenerate into Homo Internetiens.

fify

 

[Bob Maxey]

fify

Excuse me, but you did not fix it. We all know the Internet is taking over and eventually, you will have chips in your brain or perhaps wear a cap covered with festive colored foils. We will evolve and be one with the net.

 

[RiverOfIce]

Excuse me, but you did not fix it. We all know the Internet is taking over and eventually, you will have chips in your brain or perhaps wear a cap covered with festive colored foils. We will evolve and be one with the net.

Why would the need to put chips in our brains. It is alot easier to turn your cells into small computers.

Scary version.

A diagnostic biological "computer" network incorporated in human cells

 

[Bob Maxey]

Why would the need to put chips in our brains. It is alot easier to turn your cells into small computers.

Scary version.

A diagnostic biological "computer" network incorporated in human cells

Be it chips or other things, it is all good. I say be nice to the Internet because it might not forgive some of the things we say. I love you Mr. Internet, you rock.

 

[Frisco]

Excuse me, but you did not fix it. We all know the Internet is taking over and eventually...

You're mistaken, I offer.

Evolution has to do with survival and coping with our environment. As a matter of fact, our environment is the engine that drives evolution over time, with its changes.

The internet teaches human beings to ignore the environment, basically, it seems. Yes, there is information available within the internet, but none of that is information/interaction with our planet and it's bio-chemical, atmospheric and other impacts on us as mammals surviving in that environment.

Data is not life. So, any change in the direction away from our organic environment and in the direction of data feeds, etc is degeneration, in my opinion.

 

[Vehtemas]

Thank goodness for the net, where everyone can be a genetics expert.

We are all human, part of the human race. We are Homo Sapiens, with lots of variations on a theme. Something came before us Homo Firstofus or perhaps some fancy name I did not just make up.

Evolution changed us over the eons and now it is being debated and discussed with endless theories that will be put down next week, as some macaroon discovers something unproven to shore up a claim yet to be discounted.

Whew. Thank the Gods I come from hearty Viking Stock, the bestest race there is. Say anything bad about Vikings, we will pillage you to dickens.

Me Gusta.

GO THOR!!!

 

[Bob Maxey]

You're mistaken, I offer.

Evolution has to do with survival and coping with our environment. As a matter of fact, our environment is the engine that drives evolution over time, with its changes.

The internet teaches human beings to ignore the environment, basically, it seems. Yes, there is information available within the internet, but none of that is information/interaction with our planet and it's bio-chemical, atmospheric and other impacts on us as mammals surviving in that environment.

Data is not life. So, any change in the direction away from our organic environment and in the direction of data feeds, etc is degeneration, in my opinion.

You do know I always offer flippant remarks and in this case, quite likely not a serious attempt to offer meaningful data, right? I KNOW the net is not sentient and we will never merge into one life form I'll call InterBob or BobNet in my case.

Do you not read my posts? I mean it is me, Bob Maxey, The Android Forum's Official Crackpot, Banjo Repairman, and Party Planner.

 

[Bob Maxey]

Me Gusta.

GO THOR!!!

Do you mean I please you or I should please you? Are you from hearty Viking stock?

sem

 

[Frisco]

Why would anyone want to repair a banjo? Broken banjos sound better than new ones.

 

[Bob Maxey]

Why would anyone want to repair a banjo? Broken banjos sound better than new ones.

Yup, Lordy, never dun heard that one. At least you did not say: What's the difference between a banjo and a chain saw? A chain saw has a dynamic range.

Or . . .

What do you say to the banjo player in the three piece suit? "Will the defendant please rise."

Or . . .

A man went to a brain store to get some brain for dinner. He sees a sign remarking on the quality of brain offered at this particular brain store. So he asks the butcher: "How much for fiddle player brain?"

"2 dollars an ounce."
"How much for mandolin player brain?"
"3 dollars an ounce."
"How much for guitar player brain?"
"4 dollars an ounce."
"How much for banjo player brain?"
"100 dollars an ounce."
"Why is banjo player brain so much more?"

"Do you know how many banjo players you need to kill to get one ounce of brain?"

Or . . .

Canocial List of Banjo Jokes

 

[OutofDate1980]

R.O.I as I predicted "I imagine there will be follow-up debate." Here are more of my amazing predictions.

In the Year 3000 - YouTube

 

[OutofDate1980]

Why would the need to put chips in our brains. It is alot easier to turn your cells into small computers.

Scary version.

A diagnostic biological "computer" network incorporated in human cells

Believe you're a tad conservative.

"The two chip prototypes were fabricated using 45-nm SOI-CMOS technology and contain 256 computational "neurons." One "neurosynaptic" core has 262,144 programmable synapses while the other has 65,536 learning synapses. These chips will not be programmed in the traditional sense. Rather, IBM's scientists say they will learn by experience, remembering data, correlating it, and forming hypotheses in a manner similar to the way the human brain operates


IBM says its long-term goal is to build a chip that has ten billion neurons and one hundred trillion synapses, requires one kilowatt of power, and occupies less than two liters of volume. According to the company, the human brain uses less energy than a 25-watt light bulb while occupying less space than a two-liter bottle of soda"


IBM Reveals Chip That Acts Like Human Brain - Hardware - Processors - Informationweek

 

[OutofDate1980]

... It appears there is only one race, the human one./QUOTE]

"Anatomically modern humans are distinguished from their immediate ancestors, archaic Homo sapiens, by a number of anatomical features."

Anatomically modern humans - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

... But fast foward to September 5th 2011, and we find something.

Human Ancestors Interbred with Related Species: Scientific American

Your turn.

Questions are raised within your cited source.

"Geneticist Sarah Tishkoff, who studies population genetics and human evolution at the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia, is more cautious. "This raises the possibility that there may have been ancient admixture with archaic populations," she says.

Tishkoff would also like to see further work. "Analyses of whole genome sequences of these populations will be necessary to more definitively test this hypothesis," she says.

But some researchers will require yet more convincing. "The authors model differences in very small parameters, such as the difference between no admixture and 1-2% admixture with an archaic population," says anthropologist Brenna Henn, a graduate student at Stanford University in Palo Alto, California. "The ability to discern complex models of demographic history with such a small data set, when many of the basic features of African genomes and history remain unknown, concerns me.""

I'm using the Taxonomic definition for race; "A subspecies is an aggregate of phenotypically similar populations of a species, inhabiting a geographic subdivision of the range of a species, and differing taxonomically from other populations of the species."

I believe this definition, over time, will prevail, due to human migration and the influence of world-wide media to eventually even diffuse the meaning of ethnicity. To be brief, "there are no races, only clines".[67] By definition "since no groups currently regarded as races are monophyletic, none of those groups can be clades.

Traits a.k.a. alleles can change in a relatively short period of time. "More recent genetic studies indicate that skin color may change radically over as few as 100 generations, or about 2,500 years, given the influence of the environment.[71]"

Race (classification of humans) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Therefore I stand by my statement, "It appears there is only one race, the human one."

Your definition of race "Population genetic correlation structure"; "most of the information that distinguishes populations is hidden in the correlation structure of the data and not simply in the variation of the individual factors." is a valid research tool for the study of past population grouping of alleles, but is less useful definition going forward.

*I'm starting to regret my , as I'm getting the feeling I'm going to get a real ass whooping.

 

[Frisco]

*I'm starting to regret my , as I'm getting the feeling I'm going to get a real ass whooping.

We appreciate your sacrificing your ass so that we can read through some very interesting and informative stuff in this discussion.

 

[RiverOfIce]

*I'm starting to regret my , as I'm getting the feeling I'm going to get a real ass whooping.

Well if you want to argue that, then we are going to have to expand what is human. We will have to include all of Homo, to Homo habilis (Homo habilis, Homo rudolfensis, Homo cepranensis, Homo erectus, Homo heidelbergensis, Homo rhodesiensis, Homo neanderthalensis, Homo ergaster, Homo georgicus, Homo antecessor, Homo sapiens idaltu, Archaic Homo sapiens, Homo floresiensis). We are also going to have to include all of Australopithecus inculding: A. anamensis, A. afarensis, A. africanus, and A. sediba.

Which I am completely fine with, because they where all humans. The simple problem with that theory is that it will be impossible to get any christian to believe it.

 

[Frisco]

The simple problem with that theory is that it will be impossible to get any christian to believe it.

Many, perhaps most Christians have an understanding and trust in human evolutionary theory. The Roman Catholic Pope, Pius XII remarked (to paraphrase): "..we could live with evolution, so long as the process of