Out of Africa theory, false?

But in the OP I did show that there was significant distance between various human populations. Your response was that this was likely a result of artificial selection - but... where is the evidence for that?

 

Well I suppose the evidence is somewhat circular. Because Mitochondrial eve was so recent, I just assumed that some other sort of mechanism accelerated the evolution. Some people say it's Vitamin D related to sunlight, I'm just hypothesizing that we really didn't have random mating. So yes, the mechanism of the separation is much less solid that its theory of origin.

In any case, Mitochondrial DNA provides us the best time of origin. It doesn't change, and we can trace maternal lines back to point zero (I haven't seen any major flaws with this that would change the 150,000 year estimate by a factor of 10). The DNA drift you posted in the OP and it's relevance to time is flawed for numerous reasons - it assumes random selection and thus the actual difference (in regards to time) may be hard to quantify.

Quote fIxed btw.

 

" Ethan/Inventor419 wonders about this theory SMR has as far as genetics are concerned. Supposedly genetics "prove" direct Africa ancestry "

- he wanted me to post that for him.

 

If by "not random" you're implying that there was a "hotness"/attractive selection factor back then, then that wouldn't go well with prehistoric miscegenation like the possibility that Neanderthals were assimilated into the Cro-Magnon line (just a theory, though it hasn't been disproven or widely disregarded: http://books.google.ca/books?id=L0MvQubypBwC&pg=PA105&lpg=PA105&dq="neanderthals+were+assimilated"&source=bl&ots=SAf2R9B4jw&sig=LU_oFhw6-lUZcBwGTIoBSVh3UW0&hl=en&ei=l_uJSregCJHYsgPW-_XUDQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2#v=onepage&q=%22neanderthals%20were%20assimilated%22&f=false), or the presence of genetic intermediaries like Southeast Asians, and Dravidians (while of Caucasoid stock, Dravidians were never White Europeans; Caucasian is not a synonym for Nordic) who were apparently assimilated by Indo-Iranian speakers (also Caucasian) at about 1500BCE.

See first post.

 

Well this is all the hypothetical of a hypothetical. I don't think the theories are necessarily exclusive (non-random mating/Neandtherthal assimilation)... but either way, it's kind of hard for me to say that an unproven theory disproves another, even if they are exclusive. I'd also make the point that the mechanism is much more in contest than than the time of origin. To support your theory, you'd first to find a good rebuttal to the 150,000 year old Mitochondrial Eve, before delving into mechanics.

Regarding mechanics, I'll clarify what I mean by non-random mating. Firstly, selective pressures (such as climate) would affect those capable of reproducing. Secondly, the gene pool is relatively small(Hardy-Weinberg Equilibrium is less applicable), allowing a greater concentration effect of particular alleles. Thirdly, people do seem to historically select for impractical traits, long necks, whiter skin, etc, etc although it's not that well supported as you mentioned.

 

OK, but don't pressures like climate affect all other animals, too? Anyways, I am starting to think something else now: suppose MTEve _did_ come from Africa, and suppose H.s.s _did_ leave Africa some 65000 years ago... Neanderthals were already in Eurasia at that time, weren't they? It is possible that Neanderthals were assimilated to some degree into all H.s.s. populations *except* those in Sub-Saharan Africa... which would explain why Africans and Australoids/Pacific Islanders are more dissimilar to Europeans, NECs, and Asians.

 

Of course. However, most animals don't have such large VARYING selective pressures because most animal niches are relatively small when compared to humans. But over time, we definitely see genetic spread, oftentimes enough for one species to split off into many. I assume you know all about Darwin's Finches?

"It seems highly unlikely that the Neanderthals contributed absolutely nothing to the modern genome, but whether they left a large heritage in modern humans or an insignificant one is a question that might not be answered satisfactorily for a long time."
- http://www.archaeologyinfo.com/homoneaderthalensis.htm

Seems like we're moving out of the world of the qualitative into the quantitative.

 

Sorry for the late reply. I don't believe that Neanderthals are ever known to have lived in Africa - so whether it was small miscegenation with H.s.s. or large-scale, the differences would have been profound - and it shows, even with a physical comparison:

Caucasian face:
http://wwwdelivery.superstock.com/WI/223/1613/PreviewComp/SuperStock_1613R-1783.jpg
Indian face:
http://songsfromindia.files.wordpress.com/2008/10/mukesh.jpg
East Asian face:
http://archives.starbulletin.com/2006/10/01/editorial/art2.jpg
Indigenous American face:
http://www.old-picture.com/indians/pictures/Native-American-Woman.jpg
New Guinea native face:
http://nga.gov.au/Native/boysL.jpg
Indigenous Australian face:
http://www.smh.com.au/ffximage/2004/10/28/natasha_wanganeen_wideweb__430x293.jpg
African face:
http://dienekes.50webs.com/blog/archives/african-negroid.jpg

It seems like every one but the first four bear a striking similarity with Homo Erectus:
http://mikeely.files.wordpress.com/2009/06/homo_erectus.jpg

Why is it that only the Eurasian peoples do not?