[language] [Fwd: Did Early Humans Mate With The Locals? Human Genome Data Cast Doubt On "Replacement Theory" Of Human Evolution]

[H.M. Hubey]

<><><><><><><><><><><><>--This is the Language List--<><><><><><><><><><><><><>


  Source: University Of Utah

Date:       2002-12-26


Did Early Humans Mate With The Locals? Human Genome Data Cast Doubt On
"Replacement Theory" Of Human Evolution

A new analysis of human genetic history deals a blow to the theory that early
people moved out of Africa and completely replaced local populations elsewhere
in the world. The findings suggest there was at least limited interbreeding
between our African ancestors and the residents of areas where they settled.
"The new data seem to suggest that early human pioneers moving out of Africa
starting 80,000 years ago did not completely replace local populations in the
rest of the world," says Henry Harpending, a University of Utah anthropology
professor and co-author of the new study. "There is instead some sign of
interbreeding."

If that conclusion is correct, it contradicts the "replacement theory" of human
evolution - a theory Harpending has advocated for more than a decade.

"Hypotheses are called into question by data every day in science. That's the
way it works," he says.

The journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences is publishing the
new findings in its online edition the week of Dec. 23, 2002. The study's 20
co-authors include three from the University of Utah: Harpending; Alan Rogers,
also a professor of anthropology; and Stephen Wooding, a postdoctoral
researcher in human genetics.

The study was led by anthropologist Stephen Sherry and mathematician Gabor
Marth of the National Center for Biotechnology Information at the National
Institutes of Health in Bethesda, Md. Sherry is a former student of
Harpending's when both were at Pennsylvania State University. Other co-authors
of the new study are from the Washington University School of Medicine in St.
Louis, The Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine in Baltimore and the
University of California, San Francisco.

Most anthropologists agree human ancestors first spread out of Africa roughly
1.8 million years ago, establishing new populations in Europe, Asia and
elsewhere. The "multiregional theory" holds modern humans evolved from those
multiple populations. The competing "replacement theory" says that the local
populations, including Europe's Neanderthals, went extinct when they were
replaced roughly between 80,000 and 30,000 years ago by another wave of human
immigrants from Africa.

Scientists can analyze ancient genetic mutations in modern people to learn
about how humans evolved and the size of the human population over time.
Mutations occur at a relatively steady rate over time. If the human population
were large at a specific point in prehistoric time, more mutations would occur,
resulting in greater diversity in genetic mutations found in modern people. A
small population of human ancestors would result in fewer mutations, so modern
humans would display less genetic diversity.

So a person's genetic material "contains the whole history of the population
from which you descended," Harpending says.

Earlier studies of genetic material known as mitochondrial DNA and
microsatellites supported the notion that a small group of perhaps 5,000 to
20,000 primitive humans migrated from East Africa, spread around the world, a
rapidly expanded in population as they replaced other human populations
elsewhere in Africa 80,000 years ago, and in Asia 50,000 years ago and Europe
about 35,000 years ago.

The new study, however, analyzed mutations called SNPs (single nucleotide
polymorphisms) in DNA from the nucleus of human cells studied for the Human
Genome Project, the effort to map the entire human genetic blueprint. The
analysis indicates there was a bottleneck in the human population - what looks
like a sharp reduction in the number of people - when ancestors of modern
humans colonized Europe roughly 40,000 years ago.

Researchers are not sure what this means because it conflicts with studies of
other kinds of human genetic information, which support the idea that a rapidly
expanding African population spread globally and replaced local populations
elsewhere.

"If Africans moved out of Africa and then populated the whole world, we would
see that in the genetic evidence as an expansion in population size," yet the
new study indicated the population shrank instead, Rogers says.

The evidence five years ago indicated migrating Africans did not interbreed
with local populations, while the new study indicates they did, Rogers notes,
adding that the conflicting genetic data mean "the question is still open."

Harpending says one possible explanation for the new data is that there was a
large population of humans who migrated from Africa, yet they kept largely to
themselves and mated only to a limited extent with local populations in Europe
and elsewhere. Because interbreeding still was uncommon, only a few of the
prehistoric European genes were incorporated into the modern human genetic
blueprint, giving a false impression that the prehistoric human population
collapsed or shrank in size, Harpending says.

Another possibility is that the prehistoric African population was large
100,000 years ago, but only a very small number - perhaps a few dozen - of
those Africans migrated to other areas some 80,000 years ago, ultimately
replacing local populations. That would explain why the human genetic blueprint
could give a false impression that the human population collapsed in size even
if it did not. But Harpending believes it is unlikely that such a small number
of migrants from Africa could spread globally and ultimately replace other
populations.

Editor's Note: The original news release can be found here.
http://www.utah.edu/unews/releases/02/dec/genome.html

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Note: This story has been adapted from a news release issued for journalists
and other members of the public. If you wish to quote any part of this story,
please credit University Of Utah as the original source. You may also wish to
include the following link in any citation:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2002/12/021226071610.htm



News in Brain and Behavioural Sciences - Issue 81 - 14th December, 2002
http://human-nature.com/nibbs/issue81.html


M. Hubey
-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o
The only difference between humans and machines is that humans
can be created by unskilled labor. Arthur C. Clarke

/\/\/\/\//\/\/\/\/\/\/ http://www.csam.montclair.edu/~hubey



---<><><><><><><><><><><><>----Language----<><><><><><><><><><><><><>
Copyrights/"Fair Use":  http://www.templetons.com/brad/copymyths.html
The "fair use" exemption to copyright law was created to allow things
such as commentary, parody, news reporting, research and education
about copyrighted works without the permission of the author. That's
important so that copyright law doesn't block your freedom to express
your own works -- only the ability to express other people's.
Intent, and damage to the commercial value of the work are
important considerations.

You are currently subscribed to language as: language at listserv.linguistlist.org
To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-language-4283Y at csam-lists.montclair.edu