
Out of Africa and into an archaic human melting pot - dnetesn
https://phys.org/news/2019-07-africa-archaic-human-pot.html
======
mirimir
This is amazing work, and overall a great writeup.

However, I'm puzzled by this quote:

> "For example, all present-day populations show about 2% of Neandertal
> ancestry which means that Neandertal mixing with the ancestors of modern
> humans occurred soon after they left Africa, probably around 50,000 to
> 55,000 years ago somewhere in the Middle East."

It's my understanding that at least some African populations don't carry
Neandertal etc sequences. I'd like to check the paper about that, but Sci-Hub
doesn't have it yet.

------
RcouF1uZ4gsC
>"The timing also makes it look like the arrival of modern humans was followed
quickly by the demise of the archaic human groups in each area."

Not just archaic human groups. A lot of mega fauna in general was wiped out
after humans arrived in a new area.

------
deogeo
> the ancestors of modern humans interbred with at least five different
> archaic human groups as they moved out of Africa and across Eurasia.

Now I'm confused. Isn't the consensus that there are currently no distinct
human races - the groupings are just social constructs? But from how they
refer to 'different human groups' this was apparently not the case in the
past, despite the fact they were able to interbreed? So at what point did this
change?

~~~
droithomme
> at what point did this change

Out of Africa has been disproven but it was the status quo for so long that
many are having a hard time letting go.

Current fact based on actual evidence is multiregional coemergence, previously
hypothesis now reasonably theory. Many of us have Denosivan, Neanderthal, etc
ancestors, DNA fact, all prior to the hypothetical single point emergence
event, therefore even if the hypothetical single point emergence event of some
group is correct it's not the full story.

~~~
namenotrequired
But the vast majority of the DNA of the vast majority of us is Sapiens, from
Africa, no? If not, do you have any sources?

~~~
flukus
Just last week was a 210,000 year old skull in Greece:
[https://www.abc.net.au/news/science/2019-07-11/modern-
humans...](https://www.abc.net.au/news/science/2019-07-11/modern-humans-in-
eurasia-earlier/11296454) and there is a 310,00 year old one in Morocco:
[https://www.abc.net.au/news/science/2017-06-08/300-000-year-...](https://www.abc.net.au/news/science/2017-06-08/300-000-year-
old-remains-pushes-back-origin-of-species/8594632) . The second is in Africa
but not where we thought modern humans originated from and combined both of
them at least put some doubt on the timing of the out of africa model. I think
there are some older ones in China too.

Saying it's disproven is taking things way too far but it's getting very messy
and DNA can only take us so far.

My own uninformed wild guess: The out of africa population that came to
dominance started out as a seafaring culture, this explains their rapid
expansion along mostly coastal routes, making it to Australia just a few
thousand years after leaving africa and giving them a competitive advantage
over other groups.

~~~
mc32
Why wasn’t Madagascar inhabited till relatively recently is the disappearing
was a marine endeavor?

~~~
flukus
When I say seafaring I still mean mainly coastal seafaring. Assuming they
could Island hop through Comoros (if it existed) that's still an 1100KM trip
compared to the less than 100KM to get into Australia and almost continuous
land between there and Africa. Maybe wind and ocean patterns could explain
some of it too.

~~~
mc32
Madagascar is about 100 to 120 miles from the African continent. Not too
different from Cuba to Florida. In the same ballpark. But, I hear what you're
saying. Deep sea vessels vs littoral hugging vessels.

