<p>Is everyone aware that the accepted evidence in the scientific community today indicates all humans originated in Africa? Evidence is supported by comparing skulls.</p>
<p>Are there other theories supported by scientific research to indicate otherwise?</p>
<p>Well there are many people who don’t believe in evolution- and as you know, you can find research to support about any theory that you want- for anything.</p>
<p><a href=“Chicago News - Chicago Tribune - Chicago Tribune”>Chicago News - Chicago Tribune - Chicago Tribune;
<p>That humanity first appeared in Africa has been scientifically accepted at least since I was in college back in the 70s. There is a lot more evidence than just skulls, too, including analysis of DNA change over time.</p>
<p>EDITED: After seeing EK’s post. Evolutionary biology has nothing to do with this one. The earliest evidence of human activity is in Africa, and other evidence (like DNA) points to the same thing. Whether the earliest humans evolved or were created, according the best evidence available, it happened in Africa.</p>
<p>Oh I agree- I just thought it was an interesting article-
I guess I should have made that more clear-
Yes pretty much anything I have every read points to the importance of the Olduvai Gorge and the Ngorongoro Crater as being the “cradle of man”</p>
<p>Like WashDad, I was taught this many moons ago. Is somebody contradicting this human origin research, Merrymom? I haven’t heard anything about it.</p>
<p>We are all Africans under the skin.</p>
<p><a href=“http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070808/ap_on_sc/human_evolution[/url]”>http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070808/ap_on_sc/human_evolution</a></p>
<p>that doesn’t contradict where, just the linearity of our evolution, which has been under debate for some time.</p>
<p>I think most evidence, including new DNA evidence, points to humans originating in Africa. national Geographic has had pretty intersting articles on the subject recently.</p>
<p>I agree with Mini (this time) - we’re all Africans, it’s just a matter of how far back one bothers to go.</p>
<p>The mitochondrial Eve is believed to be our common ancestor from about 140,000 years ago. Her mitochondrial DNA is found in all living people. She was believed to have lived in Ethiopia, Tanzania, or Kenya.</p>
<p>Lucy, the “mother of us all” was found in Africa by Richard Leaky and his team. DNA evidence connects her to all of us. And for those of you who like meaningless trivia as ,much as I do, she was so named because the radio was playing “Lucy in the Sky Withn Diamonds” while her skeleton was being unearthed. Man, those Beatles were sure cosmically connected!</p>
<p>kollegkid: cross posted!</p>
<p>Interestingly enough, parasitic DNA also documents the original exodus:</p>
<p>“There are five ancestral populations of H. pylori – two in Africa, two in Europe and one in East Asia. But all had a common origin, Dr. [Mark Achtman] said, in a bacterium that started to spread out from East Africa 58,000 years ago, give or take 3,000 years. This is the same time period in which modern humans are thought to have begun their migration out of Africa. The match in dates ‘‘implies that H. pylori was present in Africa before the migrations, suggesting that Africa is the source of both H. pylori and humans,’’ Dr. Achtman and colleagues conclude evenhandedly.” From: Epic of Human Migration Is Carved in Parasites’ DNA
Nicholas Wade. New York Times. (Late Edition (East Coast)). New York, N.Y.: Mar 13, 2007.</p>
<p>mythmom - I am surprised that Lucy was identified as “the mother of us all.” I thought the mitochondrial Eve was distinct from Lucy. I would have thought that her age would have made it impossible for Lucy to have been the mitochondrial Eve, “mother of us all,” since the mitochondrial Eve lived about 200,000 years ago and Lucy was very different from modern humans and lived about 1-4 million years ago.</p>
<p>Stickershock, no, it was a thought provoked by another post.</p>
<p>I thought it would be an educational and informative topic for some.</p>
<p>Some people - not many - believe in Polygenism, which states that different races evolved seperately in different places on the globe. They argue that different races are actually different species. It’s crap science, but some people will use anything to justify their bigotry. It’s what some slave owners believed, so that they could ‘scientifically’ justify their treatment of their slaves.</p>
<p>… and has flown to US museums.
<a href=“http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/africa/08/07/ethiopia.lucy.ap/index.html[/url]”>http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/africa/08/07/ethiopia.lucy.ap/index.html</a>
the remains are considered too fragile to exhibit, but are on tour. Smithsonian and national groups are not happy.</p>
<p>Laylah - Even though different ancestral groups do not form separate species, there are patterns of genetic selection in geographically described groups. Evolutionary processes have occured within subsets of the entire human population. That’s one reason we see lactose intolerance in some groups, like Northern Europeans. The presence or absence of one or more microcephalin genes is another selection landmark. According to Voight and Pritchard at the University of Chicago, there are about 200 genes that come under selective pressure within each ancestral group (better word than race), but the 200 genes that are under selection are different within ancestral groups. Williamson from Cornell confirmed that there are at least 100 pressured genes in the groups he studied, the Chinese, Euro-Americans, and Afro-Americans. The white skin color of Europeans may be no older than 7,000, and its origin is, again, pressure on particular genes.</p>
<p>Technology now permits geneticists to identify ancestral origins - - a northern European heritage can be distinguished from a southern European one.</p>
<p>kollegekid - of course, I’m not denying that. Of course there is selective pressure. But that’s not what polygenism is about - it’s not stating that there are evolutionary differences <em>within</em> a species, it’s stating that the differences are so profound that there must be <em>different</em> species. </p>
<p>I don’t deny that ancestral origins can be identified and distinguished - I do deny that this is due to people belonging to different species though!</p>
<p>Laylah, why would two species be offensive to you?</p>
<p><a href=“http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070808/ap_on_sc/human_evolution[/url]”>http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070808/ap_on_sc/human_evolution</a></p>
<p>Unless I am misreading, that is what this article is saying. However, I don’t know it’s sources or accuracy.</p>