Modern human ancestry at the peripheries: a test of the replacement theory.

[Euclides]

Science. 2001 Jan 12;291(5502):293-7.


Comment in:
Science. 2001 Jan 12;291(5502):231.

Modern human ancestry at the peripheries: a test of the replacement theory.

Wolpoff MH, Hawks J, Frayer DW, Hunley K.

Department of Anthropology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI 48109-1382, USA. wolpoff@umich.edu

The replacement theory of modern human origins stipulates that populations outside of Africa were replaced by a new African species of modern humans. Here we test the replacement theory in two peripheral areas far from Africa by examining the ancestry of early modern Australians and Central Europeans. Analysis of pairwise differences was used to determine if dual ancestry in local archaic populations and earlier modern populations from the Levant and/or Africa could be rejected. The data imply that both have a dual ancestry. The diversity of recent humans cannot result exclusively from a single Late Pleistocene dispersal.

[Agrippa]

Well, the sample is far too small, the examples they took are not optimal and partly insecure in their classification and the method might be in question as well.

Another point is the time scale they used, far too short and there is a difference to assume that there is more isolated development behind the differences of early modern human populations or that they are related to types like the CLASSICAL Neandertals or as, or even worse Ngandong.

Such results are probably good to investigate further what is something nice everytime, but no prove for what the author claims imo.
Good link for that:
http://www.sciencenews.org/articles/20000401/fob2.asp

He predicts that any mitochondrial-DNA lines from around 30,000 years ago, including those of Neandertals, would differ equally from all regional mitochondrial-DNA lines today, as Goodwin's team found.

...yes...I'm really sure...

Well, he even admitts that if mixture occured:

Natural selection appears to have reduced mitochondrial-DNA variation after the time of Neandertals, Wolpoff argues

So if their were Hybrids, they were breed out after time, and like we can see in the fossil record, their might have been certain skulls in question, although to compare Mladec and Skhul is not the best option to determine modern human features in early modern humans imo, but however, they disappeared soon afterwards.

Single very robust individuals with special features are still in their more important features not "distinctly Neanderal-like", not even Mladec imo.

If you ever compared skulls like Bruenn, Combe Capelle etc. with classic Neandertals, you see that the difference is so huge, that even mixed individuals would be much further away from other modern sapiens than they actually were...

Thats at least my impression.

[Dr. Solar Wolff]

It is great to have more Neanderthal DNA, but let's not forget, this is only two individuals. The good point (from the article, Agrippa's link) is that they are widely seperated in terms of geography and are of about the same date.

There always seems to be a discussion of "lost" ancestors. Using mtDNA or Y-chromosome, it can be seen that the chances for a surviving record of the DNA in any one particular ancestor being represented in the genes of any one particular individual today are rather slim. The chances get worse the farther back you go. Has anyone figured out what the chances are? Our ancestry alternates between the sexes--for instance, not every female in a particular line will reproduce, neither will every male, so that if one did have a Neanderthal ancestor, that exact line may be only traceable using both male and female ancestors, not just a single-sex line. In the meantime, other lines come in. Since, presumabley, sapiens became more numerous, more sapiens lines would come in over time. In total, Neanderthal genes might be present but perhaps not the specific markers we have found so far.

[Agrippa]

In total, Neanderthal genes might be present but perhaps not the specific markers we have found so far.

Right, we just dont know.

My point is rather that such admixture is not important or necessary for the composition of Europeans and that the Europids are a selected sapiens group and not the result of mixture with Neandertalids.

The theory from people like Coon f.e. that "Upper Palaeolithics" show Neandertal features is just false.

The only questions still open are:
a) Was such mixture even possible and happened at all?
b) Happened it on a big scale?
c) How many possible descendents survived on the long run?

b+c can be answered already. It happened not on a big scale and there can be not too much survivors, they had not significance for the forming of modern Europids.

Though question a) is still not solved so far sufficiently.

[Rodskarl Dubhgall]

Maybe like a mule out of horse and donkey...

[Agrippa]

Maybe like a mule out of horse and donkey...

That is what I usually say too.

[Rodskarl Dubhgall]

I still say that Neandertal makes up the base of all Europid people. The remains are exclusively tied to Europe's area. Without them, I believe the concept of a Europe would not have begun at all.

[Agrippa]

I still say that Neandertal makes up the base of all Europid people. The remains are exclusively tied to Europe's area. Without them, I believe the concept of a Europe would not have begun at all.

I totally disagree and all evidences are against such a view imo, but its your opinion.

[Dr. Solar Wolff]

Horses and donkeys produce mules which are not (usually) fertile. Domestic cattle and bison are a better example.

[Glenlivet]

I have a tremendous amount of respect for Coon, even if he may have been wrong in some respects. See the quote below so to understand why I have this opinion.

"He who offers a scheme explaining the totality of anything must be bold or his scheme is useless; he must not, above all, be afraid of exposure. The theorizers of one generation furnish pleasure to the fact finders of the next, by giving them something to tear down, and by daring to be wrong."

CS Coon, The Races of Europe, Chapter XIII, section 1, Comments and Reflections, Macmillan, New York, 1939

The theory from people like Coon f.e. that "Upper Palaeolithics" show Neandertal features is just false.