Talk:Recent African origin of modern humans

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Further reading: articles[edit]

Do we really need a long list of articles, which are inaccessible for most Wiki-readers, while we already have 100+ sources? I think we should mention here a strict selection of the most relevant scholarly articles, like Macaulay (2005) and Posth (2016). Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:17, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

I do not see anything wrong with it. Five articles is hardly long, and it will provide a useful starting point for some readers for further research. I do think there is a case for deleting the external links as they are mostly either out of date or not specific to the subject of this article. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:40, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
I'd already shortened the list :) Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:07, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
I would of course agree that the relevant papers should be listed in the bibliography, but please try to avoid WP:BOMBARD situations where a single statement is "referenced" with four or five footnotes in a row. This is not useful, you are basically telling the reader to read five papers and then second-guess how these five papers can conceivably be combined into the statement being referenced. Ideally, each reference should be as explicit as possible, as in, what exactly is being referenced based on which specific source. --dab (๐’ณ) 07:47, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
I have reviewed the article for WP:RS now. Most of the journalistic sources were superfluous, but I have left some of them in alongside the actual citations. I think the only journalistic source left on its own now is the discussion of the historical (1980s) contributions of Wilson et al.; I would say this is defensible.
The article is still plagued by some off-topic tangents, especially the paragraph dedicated to Coop et al. 2009, which is not about OOA at all.[1] The study is about the entirely different kettle of fish discussed under Human genetic variation. --dab (๐’ณ) 08:59, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Criticism and Alternatives views[edit]

Scientific Criticism and Alternatives views are what's missing in the article. -- (talk) 20:36, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Alternative views are mentioned, and perhaps too much as there is now a consensus in favour of the theory. Much of the article is dated, especially about the timing and route of the dispersal, and interbreeding with archaic humans, but the picture keeps changing so quickly that it is difficult to keep up. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:14, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
It is too easy to say "the theory" has a consensus. There is, in fact, a basic consensus, but the article as it stood failed to point out what exactly the consensus is. The consensus is limited to the view that the main movement of extant populations outside of Africa is largely due to a migration taking place around 50 kya. The consensus ends there. The "North Africa, 110 kya" result is too recent to be part of the overall consensus. It is presumably the best currently available estimate, but it doesn't form part of the basic "OOA" consensus. Similarly, citations claiming "consensus" that predate 2010 are useless, as the discovery of archaic admixture in the 2010s has significantly altered the picture. Yes, the overall consensus of predominantly "recent single origin" still stands, but this is now modified by plausible evidence of archaic admixture of the order of a few percent. This was simply not known prior to 2010, and while there remain some doubts on how reliable these results are, they are certainly seen as plausible. They in no way "overturn" the general "OOA" scenario, but they certainly modify it with a certain "multiregional" component of OOA I origin.
This is not so much a question of presenting "alternative views", but of distinguishing the basic overall consensus from the various details that are still open to revision. --dab (๐’ณ) 07:44, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
dab, I think we need to make sure not to give undue weight to new information. WP:Recentism can be an issue for just about any topic, not just for the news media topics. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 15:29, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
Indeed, this is exactly what I have been saying. "'recent' as in 50-100kya" is the consensus. "North Africa 130โ€“115kya" is notable, but not part of the established consensus. Archaic admixture has been considered likely for more than five years now, so while it isn't "certain", it is surely by now part of the general picture of what we mean by "recent origin". What is a "recentism" is relative to the pace of progress. In, say, Indo-European studies, anything later than 1980 is a "recentism". In the case of genetic phylogeny, anything before 2010 is dated, and anything before, say, 2005 is mostly of historical interest. --dab (๐’ณ) 15:40, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
the main offending edit appears to have been this one, with the highly descriptive summary "refs". --dab (๐’ณ) 10:26, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

โ”Œโ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”˜ @Dbachmann: the Washington Post has an interesting article, which refers to three recent publications, including one co-authored by David Reich: Carl Zimmer (sept. 21, 2016), A Single Migration From Africa Populated the World, Studies Find, Washington Post. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 14:17, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Page move proposal[edit]

Given the emphasis on two movements out of Africa, the title of this article does not seem to be apt anymore. Wouldn't it be better to skip the term "Recent" from the title, and stick to "African origin and dispersals of modern humans"? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:48, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Joshua Jonathan, per WP:Common name, it would be best to stick with the most common name for the title of the article. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:03, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Single Wave Migration[edit]

@Joshua Jonathan: Single wave migrations seems most likely now, like Reich & co, Posth et al has proposed. I noticed mtDNA M and Y-dna C are seen as taking southern route section of this page or "Great Coastal migration" page but it does not seem to be the case anymore.

They have found 4 mtDNA M in Paleolithic archaeological sites in Europe.

*Gravettian, Italy - mtDNA M - 27,810-27,430 cal BP - Posth et al 2016 and Fu et al 2016
*Gravettian, France - mtDNA M - 27,780-27,400 cal BP - Posth et al 2016 and Fu et al 2016
*Aurignacian, Belgium - 2 mtDNA M - 33,940-33,140 cal BP - Posth et al 2016 and Fu et al 2016

They have found 6 Y-DNA C and CT in Paleolithic sites in Europe

* Russia, (Kostenki 14) - Y-DNA C1b - 38,680-36,260 cal BP - Fu 2013; Krause 2010; Fu 2016
* Aurignacian,  Belgium -  Y-DNA C1a - 35,160-34,430 cal BP - Posth et al 2016 and Fu et al 2016
* Romania - Y-DNA CT - 33,090-31,780 cal BP - Posth et al 2016 and Fu et al 2016
* Russia, (Kostenki 12) - Y-DNA CT - 32,990-31,840 cal BP - Fu et al 2016
* Gravettian, Czech Republic - Y-DNA CT - 31,070-30,670 cal BP - Fu et al 2016
* Gravettian, Czech Republic - Y-DNA C1a2 - 30,710-29,310 cal BP - Fu et al 2016

Two Y-DNA C in Mesolithic sites

* Russia, Kitoi culture - Y-DNA C3-M217 - 6125โ€“4885 BC     - Moussa 2016
* Spain, La Braรฑa - Y-DNA C1a2 - 5990-5740 BCE - Mathieson 2015, Fu 2016
  • Genetic population above are early Western European Hunter-Gatherers (WHG).
  • WHG, ANE (Ancient North Eurasian) and ENA ('Eastern Non-Africans' ex: ASI, AAA, East Eurasians) share more alleles/related with eachother than they do with 'Basal Eurasian'.
  • Diversification of 'Non-Africans' into (WHG, ANE,ENA) took place after 'Basal Eurasian' split from 'Non-Africans'.

Ilber8000 (talk) 23:54, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

@Ilber8000: single wave migrations? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:47, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
@Joshua Jonathan: Single Migration - that is what they seem to be calling it, southern route and coastal migration page needs to be updated.

"All non-Africans descend from a single migration of early humans from Africa. The estimates from the studies point to an exodus somewhere between 80,000 and 50,000 years."

"The three teams sequenced the genomes of 787 people, obtaining highly detailed scans of each. The genomes were drawn from people in hundreds of indigenous populations: Basques, African pygmies, Mayans, Bedouins, Sherpas and Cree Indians, to name just a few."

"The vast majority of their ancestry โ€” if not all of it โ€” is coming from the same out-of-Africa wave as Europeans and Asians,โ€ said Dr. Willerslev.

  • Possible early migration before single-wave. Metspalu et al

โ€œWe find a small footprint--at least two per cent--of a previous migration in the genomes of people from Papua New Guinea,โ€ says one of the co-authors Mait Metspalu.

"This suggests that people from Papua New Guinea and the Negritos from the Philippines have an earlier split time than other non-African groups."

โ€œIf everyone alive today came out of Africa at the same time, then we should all have the same split-time,โ€ says Metspalu.

"The two per cent comes from an older population of humans who probably lived around 120,000 years ago."

While, two or three other studies claim there was single-wave instead, taking place between 80,000 and 50,000 years.

Ilber8000 (talk) 13:23, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Bu then, that's two waves, isn't it? Or is that just semantics? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 16:36, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

โ”Œโ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”€โ”˜ @Joshua Jonathan: Basics on Eurasians from Fu et al 2014 and Lazaridis et al 2016

This below quote is about Ust'Ishim having separated before the diversification of of 'Other Non-Africans' into West Eurasians, North Eurasians and East Eurasians. Ust-Ishim and other Non-Africans (ENA, ANE, WHG) did not carry 'Basal Eurasian' ancestry.

This finding is consistent with Ustโ€™-Ishim having separated from other Eurasians around the time of the ancient divergence of West and North Eurasian hunter-gatherers (represented by La Braรฑa and MA1), and east Eurasians (represented by Onge, Karitiana and Han). The absence of evidence for shared genetic drift with any of these groups suggests that Ust Ishim is likely to be close to the ancestor of most Eurasians, and is consistent with the old radiocarbon date. 
The finding of โ€œBasal Eurasianโ€ ancestry in West Eurasians is consistent with the report of Lazaridis et al where the finding of Basal Eurasian ancestry in present-day West Eurasians was hypothesized to reflect ancient Near Eastern populations having a component of their ancestry from a group that was not part of the early dispersal of modern humans to Europe and northern and eastern Asia. The results with Ustโ€™-Ishim are consistent with this idea and suggest that Ustโ€™-Ishim may not have carried any Basal Eurasian ancestry. 

Here is two new Lazaridis et al 2016 charts, they explain the above quotes. Fig 1 (shows Basal Eurasian split) and Fig 2 (populations who did not carry Basal Eurasian) Fig 2 also proposes unknown X ancestor for Ancient South Eurasian (also known as Eastern Non-Africans/East-Eurasians) and an unknown X ancestor for Ancient North Eurasians and West Eurasians.

'Basal Eurasian' ancestry today peaks in Arabian peninsula. Basal Eurasians contributed to genetic ancestry of Europeans and South Asians during Holocene period but they did not contribute to genetic ancestry of East Asians, Southeast Asians, Native Americans & Australians. Ilber8000 (talk) 15:17, 2 December 2016 (UTC)


Probably don't want to add a section about Sasquatches until they man (sasquatch?) up and allow themselves to be contacted, infrared vision and all. 2605:A601:46D:B01:CABC:C8FF:FEA5:82F4 (talk) 05:26, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

African and Chinese Ancestry[edit]

There was a theory that suggests a separate ancestry for all non Indo Europeans. These include Africans and Asians. Anyone has a reliable source for this? Apparently a theory publicized in National Geographic. โ€” Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 08:07, 7 January 2017 (UTC)