GENEALOGY-DNA-L Archives
Archiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2012-04 > 1334294754
From: Andrew Mceachern <>
Subject: Re: [DNA] Out of Africa
Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2012 22:25:54 -0700 (PDT)
References: <mailman.5345.1334193697.3023.genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com><552B1179CEC2422BBF8FF63C5377E2EE@anatoldesktop><A429678B9BB24B869B91B435F04C25FD@JohnPC>
In-Reply-To: <A429678B9BB24B869B91B435F04C25FD@JohnPC>
Wasn't there some little hominid found in a peat bog of whats now called Germany?
What about homo floriensis - where does that one fit in?
Andrew
________________________________
From: Alister John Marsh <>
To:
Sent: Friday, 13 April 2012 3:11 PM
Subject: Re: [DNA] Out of Africa
Anatole,
You said
>>>>>>>
Actually, all four statements are either incorrect or are products of
incorrect interpretations.
<<<<<<<
I agree with you that these 4 statements are not conclusive support for the
common definition of what "out of Africa" means. I think that at a
simplistic level, they tend to appear to support out of Africa, but as I
said in a posting a few days ago, some of your comments on the matter have
cause me to keep my mind a little open to an alternative view.
In my view, finding as I believe has been done early human or hominoid
remains outside of Africa which were more than a million years old, raises a
few questions about human evolutionary history.
John.
-----Original Message-----
From: Anatole Klyosov
Sent: Friday, April 13, 2012 2:18 PM
To:
Cc: Anatole Klyosov
Subject: Re: [DNA] Out of Africa
> From: "Alister John Marsh" <>
> But then it comes down to how you define the definition of what "Out of
> Africa" means. Are we talking about where Y-DNA Adam lived (about 150,000
> years ago?), or where the common ancestor of Neanderthals and Modern
> Humans
> lived, or where the common ancestor of Chimpanzees and Humans lived?
My response:
Not. I mean, you can define whatever you want and however you want, but what
you have described is not the essense of the "Out of Africa" (flawed)
concept.
The whole debate is not about that some bacteria lived in Africa zillions of
years ago.
The whole debate can be encapsuled into four statements (some can make them
into three or five statements, it does not matter) as follows:
1. Africa has the highest "genetic diversity" (however you define it),
therefore, anatomically modern humans (AMH) descended from African
populations
2. The "genetic diversity" (as well as languages) is descreased along with
the distance from Africa. Therefore, Africa is a homeland of mankind.
3. All haplogroups, from B to T, descended from haplogroup A, directly or
via other haplogroups.
4. The earliest AMH was found in Africa. He presumably is the direct
ancestor of all the human beings living today.
Actually, all four statements are either incorrect or are products of
incorrect interpretations.
In order to prevent or minimize typical blah-blah-blah, I would suggest that
those who disagree with the statements above and/or believe that I distort
them, please correct them to their liking. Then we can discuss them.
Regards,
Anatole Klyosov
-------------------------------
To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
with the word 'unsubscribe' without the
quotes in the subject and the body of the message
-------------------------------
To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message
This thread:
| Re: [DNA] Out of Africa by Andrew Mceachern <> |