The Journey of Man - A Genetic Odyssey

SocialNumb

Damn Christians!
Aug 15, 2006
8,020
45
48
Boyton, WPB, FL
By analyzing DNA from people in all regions of the world, geneticist Spencer Wells has concluded that all humans alive today are descended from a single man who lived in Africa around 60,000 years ago.

Modern humans, he contends, didn't start their spread across the globe until after that time. Most archaeologists would say the exodus began 100,000 years ago—a 40,000-year discrepancy. Wells's take on the origins of modern humans and how they came to populate the rest of the planet is bound to be controversial.

His work adds to an already crowded field of opposing hypotheses proposed by those who seek answers in "stones and bones"—archaeologists and paleoanthropologists—and those who seek them in our blood—population geneticists and molecular biologists.


Over the last decade, major debate on whether early humans evolved in Africa or elsewhere, when they began outward migration, where they went, and whether they interbred with or replaced archaic species has moved out of scientific journals and into the public consciousness.


In this documentary, Wells addresses these issues. In a straightforward story, he explains how he traced the exodus of modern humans from Africa by analyzing genetic changes in DNA from the y-chromosome.

"As often happens in science," he said, "technology has opened up a field to new ways of answering old questions—often providing startling answers."

Of course, not everyone agrees with him. what do you think?

http://www.megavideo.com/?v=X02OCZS7

This one is long and megavideo is a bitch. About 1/2 way through vid stops and you have to wait about an hour to watch the rest. Or buy an account.

Alt link. (just found it)

http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=The+Journey+of+Man+-+A+Genetic+Odyssey+&emb=0&aq=f#
 
I have a few HUGE problems in believing this theory.

1.

Inbreeding.
Holy hell allot of the offspring would die, and the offspring that don't die is very likely to have huge problems with their internal organs, or even have 15 fuckin' fingers.

2.

The same thing has been done with women, and according to this theory, mankind originates from the same woman, born 140.000 years ago.
So I guess this Y-chromosomal Adam invented a fucking timemachine and went back in time, fucked her, went back after a year, picked up the child, dropped it of in his time, and continued to do this for a few years.
Lets not forget the bitchin' trouble of finding this chick, just think of the land this dude has to cover, and how many damn apes that would fling their shit at him on the way, and apparently he still was in the mood after that(Guess he had booze.)!

3.

I have a hard fuckin' time beliving that such a small amount of humans would survive, considering the amount of hostile animals, deceases(Its not like they could take a flu shot!) and that they also have to protect their offspring and gather food.

Its a stupid theory that makes no sense what so ever.
 
I don't think it's completely stupid but I do have a problem with the inbreed part.

How the fuck do they explain that? That's just... twisted.

About your argument #3 Notuern, it's like arguing against the current theory of life's origin. You know, the one that basically states there was a puddle of icky yucky goo that got struck by lightning and all of a sudden, atoms chained up and started creating life. What are the odds of having this yucky goo at the correct spot, at the correct time, with the correct amount of ingredients? :D Like a tornado blowing through a junkyard and putting together a perfect Boeing 747 from all the scraps? I actually think the odds of a man wandering around looking for his (only) girl in Africa, might be greater than the current theory of life.

BUT! I'm not saying I agree with this guy, it's just that I don't take the current theory for granted plus your argument #1 is very valid. Inbreeding... now that would be a problem.

My theory is, we were created by aliens man... aaalieeeens! But wait, how were the aliens created? o_O Mindfuck!
just kidding :)
 
I don't think it's completely stupid but I do have a problem with the inbreed part.

How the fuck do they explain that? That's just... twisted.

You dont have a problem with the fact that the oldest common ancestoring female is 80.000 years older?

About your argument #3 Notuern, it's like arguing against the current theory of life's origin. You know, the one that basically states there was a puddle of icky yucky goo that got struck by lightning and all of a sudden, atoms chained up and started creating life. What are the odds of having this yucky goo at the correct spot, at the correct time, with the correct amount of ingredients? :D Like a tornado blowing through a junkyard and putting together a perfect Boeing 747 from all the scraps? I actually think the odds of a man wandering around looking for his (only) girl in Africa, might be greater than the current theory of life.

If you honestly think thats how evolution works, and don't even have the slightest idea of long it took for those proteins to form a true organic mass, then im sorry, but you are just ignorant.
Protein is based on carboxyl and amino acids, this basically means DNA.
But before this it was RNA, and its proposed that RNA evolved into DNA(Which makes allot of sense.).

Im sorry, and you might be offended by this, but intelligent design is just stupid fucking pseudoscience made up by stupid religious people that just cant grasp the complexity of evolution and the fact that there is no loving fucking "cloud city" when you die.
Every argument I've ever read about intelligent design oversimplifies the shit out of evolution and quote it just like you just did: "Lolz.. haxx.. its like, dumb, and stuff, to think that we where just a junk of mupaptchoo that suddenly became humans! It must have been god, or aliens or some junk!". :erk:

Apparently the designer of us doesn't have to originate from some place, they just exist!
(Wow, did i just mindrape you? ;))
 
i myself do believe in evolution but i never understood why both sides can't suck it up and draw a common conclusion. that's the one i choose to believe. the religious depiction of man can be used as a figurative explanation for the evolution.


ie - obviously the world wasn't created in 7 days, obviously there wasn't one adam and eve. i just see it as symbolisms for the scientific explanation used to justify these things through time waaaay before people were educated enough to figure this stuff out.

but personal opinion aside, i'm not a science expert at all but even with one "prototype" male as long as he mated with another similar species couldn't a new species (human) evolve.

check this, a lot of genetic mutations, like hairless cats lets say, are born through random genetic mutations. like the first hairless cat was born really randomly in canada in the 60s or something and then they started breeding it with some other cat and when the male genes were finally becoming dominant in the kitten litters they started breeding those through enough cycles until they had enough to have pure bred sphynxs. once again i am ignorant when it comes to like higher level science but just going off that cat fact and the fact that a lot of new animals are created by genetic mutations and evolution wouldn't it make sense that humans were created by accident from another species and then eventually through different breeding they kind of "evolved" into what we know now as cavemen, and then eventually to regular humans??? please correct me if im wrong, once again, these are just based on my logic, not scientific fact.
 
check this, a lot of genetic mutations, like hairless cats lets say, are born through random genetic mutations. like the first hairless cat was born really randomly in canada in the 60s or something and then they started breeding it with some other cat and when the male genes were finally becoming dominant in the kitten litters they started breeding those through enough cycles until they had enough to have pure bred sphynxs. once again i am ignorant when it comes to like higher level science but just going off that cat fact and the fact that a lot of new animals are created by genetic mutations and evolution wouldn't it make sense that humans were created by accident from another species and then eventually through different breeding they kind of "evolved" into what we know now as cavemen, and then eventually to regular humans??? please correct me if im wrong, once again, these are just based on my logic, not scientific fact.


I guess you don't know that much about biology/genealogy?

Interbreeding between species is not possible due to the fact that different species has different chromosome "setups".

What you are talking about is like a South African-Male breeding with a Northern European-Woman, and keep breeding the offspring with other Africans, until it reaches the likeness of the African natives.
This will work, because:

1. The gene that determines that you have high production of Eumelanin is a dominant gene, which means that the probability of having a darker colored offspring is more likely then to have a bright colored one.

2. Even though the race differs between the male and female, they have the same "setup" of chromosomes, meaning that they are of the same species and can successfully produce offspring.


But sure, people can have what ever religious believes they want, but so far, nothing but evolution has come up with a reasonable explanation(That is if you understand the complexity of genes and the timespan under which they've evolved.).
 
they're the sterile offspring that result when 2 species of similar genetic origins fuck...just like when a horse bangs a donkey to make a mule

point is, there's no damned way that all human life came from a single individual...possibly from a single community/population who shared a good deal of genetic material, but tracing that shit back to a single person is just ridiculous
 
right so what im saying is that if different types of cavemen or monkeys or whatever, similar type of species 'fucked' then couldn't the "homosapien" as we know it be born out of it. aka adam/eve??? there was a first one, then due to natural selection and that fact that the newer "homosapien" as more fit to survive due to thinking and use of tools etc. by natural selection more were made???? this is all going off common sense, like Notuern said i don't know any of this scientifically i'm just going off what i DO know. so once again, correct me if i'm wrong, i'm not trying to be a smartass just trying to grasp this concept.
 
You dont have a problem with the fact that the oldest common ancestoring female is 80.000 years older?

Man, numbers, don't take them too seriously, they will change eventually :)

That's how science works, changing changing changing changing until it seems logical. Then change it again until it seems logical and up to date. Time passes, change it some more, it's all good. This is how science progresses, by testing itself and deleting what doesn't fit into the picture anymore, and changing the stuff that is questionable.

Science is still something that originates from humans, it's still what WE think is right. All the science laws weren't given to us by a fucking book from god, we still made them up by observing nature, and comparing the relationships between a multitude of attributes. And science is so limited to our senses, what we cannot see (see = not only actual seeing with our eyes, but measuring something by any means), we cannot measure. Do we think we are the all-seeing minds in the universe, so that as soon as we can't see it, it doesn't exist?

I'm happy I think this way, because it keeps me from being an arrogant fucking scientist-wannabe who will hang on to old science beliefs for too long, into the last moment. And since I'm not religious, I'm also not a fanatic who claims the earth WAS created in 7 days. And I'd take a shit on those Intelligent Design books any day FYI.

Balance ftw! All good for me.
 
right so what im saying is that if different types of cavemen or monkeys or whatever, similar type of species 'fucked' then couldn't the "homosapien" as we know it be born out of it. aka adam/eve??? there was a first one, then due to natural selection and that fact that the newer "homosapien" as more fit to survive due to thinking and use of tools etc. by natural selection more were made???? this is all going off common sense, like Notuern said i don't know any of this scientifically i'm just going off what i DO know. so once again, correct me if i'm wrong, i'm not trying to be a smartass just trying to grasp this concept.

Thats highly unlikely, because just as colonel kurtz said, even if the numbers of the chromosomes add up, and an offspring between two different species are produced the offspring will be disabled in one way or an other, most often sterility or deformities in the internal organs causing it to die within days.

So while you are right on that most homo-species would be able to produce offspring with mankind, it would most likely lead to sterility.
In fact, thats one of the theories behind why some homo-species died out so fast: Because they started interbreeding with other homo-species causing sterile offspring.

But a human cant fuck a monkey and get a homo erectus you know. ;)
 
Man, numbers, don't take them too seriously, they will change eventually :)

That's how science works, changing changing changing changing until it seems logical. Then change it again until it seems logical and up to date. Time passes, change it some more, it's all good. This is how science progresses, by testing itself and deleting what doesn't fit into the picture anymore, and changing the stuff that is questionable.

Why shouldnt i take the numbers seriously?
If he got the numbers wrong, then his method is wrong, if his method is wrong, then he is knee deep in a holy pile of bullshit.

Science does NOT work that way.
Science is to evolve a theory or technique that gives you a result the first time, and if it doesnt, you shut the hell up about it and try a new theory, untill you get it right.

It is fuckin' impossible for us to originate from the same man and woman(Inbreeding.), they would not alone survive the threats out there, and the timespan is just so wrong i cant even laugh at it.

Science is still something that originates from humans, it's still what WE think is right. All the science laws weren't given to us by a fucking book from god, we still made them up by observing nature, and comparing the relationships between a multitude of attributes. And science is so limited to our senses, what we cannot see (see = not only actual seeing with our eyes, but measuring something by any means), we cannot measure. Do we think we are the all-seeing minds in the universe, so that as soon as we can't see it, it doesn't exist?

I'm happy I think this way, because it keeps me from being an arrogant fucking scientist-wannabe who will hang on to old science beliefs for too long, into the last moment. And since I'm not religious, I'm also not a fanatic who claims the earth WAS created in 7 days. And I'd take a shit on those Intelligent Design books any day FYI.

Ehh....

Just because there might be more intelligent life out there, it does not mean that we are "all seeing", and no scientist believes that.

I'm very open minded to new science, but if it doesn't have a solid foundation, its not there yet.

If you are insinuating that evolution is an OLD theory, and there for is flawed, then you are wrong.
Evolution is constantly being evolved in to a new thing, but its been common knowledge since the foundation of society that inbreeding is not a god thing.

Why is it so hard to believe in evolution?

Oh, by the way, there wasn't a pile of goo that got struck by lightning, and suddenly mankind appeared.
It took about 500 million years before life in the form of bacteria, and after about 1 billion years, photosynthesis had evolved.
Then it took another billion years before the foundation of animals and plants to appear, and after that it took 1,5 billion years before real animals and plants started to appear.

And if you have a reasonably good perception of time, i guess you understand how long fuckin' time it took for that bacteria to form.
 
Yeah well, I'm not disagreeing with anything. I'm just trying to point out that at any time, our current theories could fly out the window because of a new grand discovery. Am i wrong? Hasn't it happened before?
 
Yeah well, I'm not disagreeing with anything. I'm just trying to point out that at any time, our current theories could fly out the window because of a new grand discovery. Am i wrong? Hasn't it happened before?

Sure its possible.
But this is not one of them(Which i got the feeling of that you believed.).