Is the reason the recently out of Africa theory is so popular, is that it’s compatible with the Bible?
If you think about it. As long as you don’t think that the times in Genesis are literal, as the word ‘yom’ can be read as ‘age’ not just ‘day’ in Hebrew. It has an Adam, and an Eve, moving out of an area that is commonly regarded as being Eden (Yemen/North East Africa). The latest possible date for the exodus (60K) is the one you usually see in the media, although it’s fast becoming obvious that this is laughably wrong, due to the find in Morocco and Luijang. I think the American press are pandering to the Christian masses.
The information that wildly differing X chromosomes are to be found in Asians and Europeans, but not in Africans is being quietly ignored. Why? Genetically, this is big news.
MILWAUKEE, WISCONSIN–About 1200 researchers gathered near the shores of Lake Michigan here from 5 to 9 April to discuss early Englishmen, the birth of modern humans, and Stone Age weapons.
In the past 15 years, a flood of genetic data has helped propel the Out of Africa theory into the leading explanation of modern human origins. DNA from mitochondria (mt DNA), the Y chromosome, and ancient humans each suggest that the ancestors of all living people arose in Africa some time after 200,000 years ago, swept out of their homeland, and replaced archaic humans around the globe without mixing with them. But at a genetics symposium, two independent groups presented data from the X chromosome hinting that modern humans interbred with other human species: The teams found possible traces of archaic hominids in our genes. “Just as the Y and mt DNA data seemed to have settled it, the new data revive the question [of interbreeding],” says Stanford University’s Joanna Mountain, co-organiser of the symposium. “The controversy is not settled.”
Geneticists Makoto Shimada and Jody Hey of Rutgers University in Piscataway, New Jersey, presented an intriguing haplotype–a set of genetic mutations inherited together–that appears to have ancient roots in Asia rather than Africa. Shimada sequenced a 10.1-kilobase non coding region in 659 individuals from around the world. Overall, the genetic variations were most frequent in Africa, just as expected if our ancestors were a subset of ancient Africans who migrated out of that continent. But one rare variant, appropriately named haplotype X, appeared in nine individuals from Europe to Oceania but was entirely absent in Africa. Shimada estimated that the haplotype arose 1 million years ago, long before the modern human exodus from Africa. “Haplotype X is difficult to explain by the recent African origins model,” says Shimada. “It’s very old, it’s rare, and it is widespread outside of Africa.”
In independent work, geneticist Michael Hammer of the University of Arizona in Tucson offered a similar example. Hammer and postdoc Dan Garrigan identified a 2-million-year-old haplotype in the RRM2P4 region of the X chromosome that is common in East Asia but vanishingly rare in Africa. Their work, published 2 months ago in Molecular Biology and Evolution, raises the possibility that the haplotype arose in very ancient Asian populations, presumably of Homo erectus, an ancient human once found across Asia. “This is what you’d expect if you had introgression” between modern humans and H. erectus, Hammer said.
I had to look for this research. I’m not saying it’s been suppressed, I’m just saying that no-one is making it easy to find. I think that a lot of people have built reputations on the ‘recent African origin’ theory, and it would be embarrassing to wave this kind of discovery around, especially if it’s unpalatable to religious people.