Scandinavians in India 10.000BC

a reply to: Saturnalia

All migration has started from Africa, what come to Kalash tribe they have their own dna traits and they have been studied. Dna markers of Kalash people points to elsewhere than Scandinavians..

A new scientific research denies that the Kalash, an isolated ethnic group living for centuries in Pakistan’s Hindu Kush mountain range, are the direct descendants of Alexander the Great’s ancient Greek-Macedonian armies that invaded the region in the fourth century B.C.

During the study, conducted by British, Italian and Pakistani scientists led by Qasim Ayub of the Wellcome Trust Sanger Institute in Cambridge and published in the American Journal of Human Genetics, researchers analyzed DNA samples of 23 Kalash people living in three different valleys, as well as an individual’s genome.

The comparison of the DNA of Kalash people with the DNA of ancient hunter-gatherers and European farmers showed that the Kalash people have greater genetic affinity with paleolithic hunter-gatherers in Siberia and it is likely that they are an ancient tribe of northern Eurasia. An earlier genetic analysis had reached the conclusion that between 900 and 210BC, a genetic miscegenation between Kalash and western Eurasians had occurred, associating the tribe with the invasion of Alexander the Great in the area in 327-326 BC.

Link

Disraeli is right, it is not his job to find information for you. And making jump conclusions by his name in the forum.. Did you know there was Disraeli as an actual surname in Europe.. Like a prime minister of England in 19 century ?

Jump conclusions are not good, put some heart in thread creation.

originally posted by: Saturnalia
a reply to: DISRAELI

Then how do you explain the Kalash? Stories brother

Well their DNA shows them to be an Indo-Iranian people, but sure, I'm game, what's your hypothesis ?

originally posted by: Saturnalia
a reply to: FormOfTheLord

If an alien visits you and looks like the silver surfer and said i am God, had technology and domestication for survival would you believe him? Probably.

Not ever, the people would already have their own Gods and they wouldn't look like him, so he would be speaking Heresy, and most cultures have quite severe punishments for that...

a reply to: Marduk

Now, Indo-iranian people was blue eyed and blonde haired, features included a bigger nose. What race does that include?

a reply to: Saturnalia

There's nothing in that article about Scandinavia.

Change the misleading name of your thread.

a reply to: Saturnalia

You can´t force your view which is wrong to others. IMO a bit childish approach. There are blue eyed people in Europe too, there are blue eyed people in Africa, just google and do your own research. Blue eyes are due mutation long time back... Naenderthal whose bones were found in Spain also had blue eyes according to his Dna study.

I would also point out that we dont know if modern humans came from Africa. Its one of three theories all of which have gaps and problems.

It dosnt make much sense to me that archaic humans were all over the globe and they only evolved in Africa. The main problem scientists argue is the climate in most of the other (than neoderthals) areas are humid and bones dont hold up very well and the rapid dense growth of forrest aid decay. Thailand is prob another modern human evolutionary point imo.

That

originally posted by: dollukka
a reply to: Saturnalia

All migration has started from Africa, what come to Kalash tribe they have their own dna traits and they have been studied. Dna markers of Kalash people points to elsewhere than Scandinavians..

A new scientific research denies that the Kalash, an isolated ethnic group living for centuries in Pakistan’s Hindu Kush mountain range, are the direct descendants of Alexander the Great’s ancient Greek-Macedonian armies that invaded the region in the fourth century B.C.

During the study, conducted by British, Italian and Pakistani scientists led by Qasim Ayub of the Wellcome Trust Sanger Institute in Cambridge and published in the American Journal of Human Genetics, researchers analyzed DNA samples of 23 Kalash people living in three different valleys, as well as an individual’s genome.

The comparison of the DNA of Kalash people with the DNA of ancient hunter-gatherers and European farmers showed that the Kalash people have greater genetic affinity with paleolithic hunter-gatherers in Siberia and it is likely that they are an ancient tribe of northern Eurasia. An earlier genetic analysis had reached the conclusion that between 900 and 210BC, a genetic miscegenation between Kalash and western Eurasians had occurred, associating the tribe with the invasion of Alexander the Great in the area in 327-326 BC.

Link

Disraeli is right, it is not his job to find information for you. And making jump conclusions by his name in the forum.. Did you know there was Disraeli as an actual surname in Europe.. Like a prime minister of England in 19 century ?

Jump conclusions are not good, put some heart in thread creation.

I should remind you it is a theory we came out of Africa. Possibly the one with most evidence but there are a lot of anthropologists who think other wise. There are three theories considered plausable and the out of Africa is only one. The other is simulatatanous evolution around the globe the other archaic humans. Like for instance thailand.

a reply to: Saturnalia

Intruiging, there's lots of evidence of pre-Columbus forays into the New World, inscriptions found across North America, and also there's the curious case of the 'Cocaine-mummies'; ancient Egyptians mummies that have been found to have ingested coca or a coc aine-like substance whilst alive, the only two explanations are whether there are indigenous plants that contain coc aine analogues that were used by ancient Ehyptians or, God forbid, there was an ancient trans-atlantic traxe route

originally posted by: IambTrochee
a reply to: Saturnalia

Intruiging, there's lots of evidence of pre-Columbus forays into the New World, inscriptions found across North America, and also there's the curious case of the 'Cocaine-mummies'; ancient Egyptians mummies that have been found to have ingested coca or a cococ aine-like substance whilst alive, the only two explanations are whether there are indigenous plants that contain coc aine analogues that were used by ancient Ehyptians or, God forbid, there was an ancient trans-atlantic traxe route

Erythroxylum coca, which is the American plant from which we get coc aine has several coc aine producing relatives indigenous to Africa such as Erythroxylum zambesiacum

originally posted by: Saturnalia
a reply to: Marduk

Now, Indo-iranian people was blue eyed and blonde haired, features included a bigger nose. What race does that include?

What race, I'm sorry, perhaps you haven't heard, the human race is the only race on this planet...

And today you have European colonization of the African continent, who knew!
Perhaps a geneticist can explain it.
a reply to: Saturnalia

I should remind you it is a theory we came out of Africa. Possibly the one with most evidence but there are a lot of anthropologists who think other wise.

It is a theory and a proven fact since Genetics.

originally posted by: Marduk

I should remind you it is a theory we came out of Africa. Possibly the one with most evidence but there are a lot of anthropologists who think other wise.

It is a theory and a proven fact since Genetics.

No its actually not a proven fact and its not an accepted truth in anthropology. There are a lot of anthropologists who believe in the multi regional theory. The genes which you refer to are mitochondrial dna (from mom). They do not PROVE the out of africa theory and in anthropology it is still debated.

en.m.wikipedia.org...

There is also a hypothesis that the two are correct in a way as well which is the third human evolutionary hypothesis considered valid by anthropologists.

None of them have been proven.

www.sciencedaily.com...

Researchers have produced new DNA evidence that almost certainly confirms the theory that all modern humans have a common ancestry. The genetic survey, produced by a collaborative team led by scholars at Cambridge and Anglia Ruskin Universities, shows that Australia's aboriginal population sprang from the same tiny group of colonists, along with their New Guinean neighbours

This new DNA evidence is seven years old, iirc the only two scientists who still believed in it modified the hypothesis in 2003 and it is now known as the "Weak Multiregional origin of modern humans"
from your link

Chris Stringer, a leading proponent of the more mainstream recent African origin theory, debated Multiregionalists such as Wolpoff and Thorne in a series of publications throughout the late 1980s and 1990s. Stringer describes how he considers the original Multiregional hypothesis to have been modified over time into a weaker variant that now allows a much greater role for Africa in human evolution, including anatomical modernity (and subsequently less regional continuity than was first proposed).
Stringer distinguishes the original or "classic" Multiregional model as having existed from 1984 (its formulation) until 2003, to a "weak" post-2003 variant that has "shifted close to that of the Assimilation Model".

There are anomalies which were claimed to support it like Mungo man, but genetics has shown that Mungo man's genes are extinct in the modern population, so we are all descended from the OOA 60,000 years ago. There were earlier departures, but none of them or their descendants are currently extant

Aren't there like 4 or five honor sapien species at the start of homo sapien? Homo sapien, homo Neanderthal, denisova an unknown and homo hobbit. I think all trace back to erectus though.
I'm more interested in those splits and why they happened. Would help understand origins

a reply to: jellyrev

I'm more interested in those splits and why they happened.

Basic evolution.
Different environments.

originally posted by: Marduk
www.sciencedaily.com...

Researchers have produced new DNA evidence that almost certainly confirms the theory that all modern humans have a common ancestry. The genetic survey, produced by a collaborative team led by scholars at Cambridge and Anglia Ruskin Universities, shows that Australia's aboriginal population sprang from the same tiny group of colonists, along with their New Guinean neighbours

This new DNA evidence is seven years old, iirc the only two scientists who still believed in it modified the hypothesis in 2003 and it is now known as the "Weak Multiregional origin of modern humans"
from your link

Chris Stringer, a leading proponent of the more mainstream recent African origin theory, debated Multiregionalists such as Wolpoff and Thorne in a series of publications throughout the late 1980s and 1990s. Stringer describes how he considers the original Multiregional hypothesis to have been modified over time into a weaker variant that now allows a much greater role for Africa in human evolution, including anatomical modernity (and subsequently less regional continuity than was first proposed).
Stringer distinguishes the original or "classic" Multiregional model as having existed from 1984 (its formulation) until 2003, to a "weak" post-2003 variant that has "shifted close to that of the Assimilation Model".

There are anomalies which were claimed to support it like Mungo man, but genetics has shown that Mungo man's genes are extinct in the modern population, so we are all descended from the OOA 60,000 years ago. There were earlier departures, but none of them or their descendants are currently extant

As a student of anthro these debates still rage. Genetic drift is a huge possibility. Does it really make sense one archaic human evolved and every modern man came from one women? Not really. Its much more possible we dont understand what happens to dna over time.

One man is not the entire scientific field of anthropology and a mainstream opinion does not mean its right.

This article is not from the emic and etic perspective its from a guy who believes the out of africa theory and is skewed that way. I can give you multi regional articles similar to this.

If you think this stuff has been proven you havent dug very deep into the problems both practical and archaelogically with the out of africa theory. You should also know when the article is written in favor of a hypothesis in a casual manner it is a persuasive essay not a scientific paper.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: jellyrev

I'm more interested in those splits and why they happened.

Basic evolution.
Different environments.

Yes and no. With the complexity of human cultural organization as the human mind evolved with reason many non standard evolutionary organizations happened. Both planned and unplanned genetic tampering in domestic scale culture through marriages, superstitions, non natural migrations etc led to genetic mutations not found in any other species on the planet we know of. Part of the major problem with proving human evolution is the chaotic organisation imparted by a brain that had the capicity to understand, have reason, and create fantasy.

This is why it seems rediculous to me though there is plenty of evidence against me why and how human beings (archaic) would not interbreed (when we now know they did) and the interbreeding caused the mutations to create a new species with a larger gene pool over a lot of time.

To me personally the whole "eve" thing seems outrageous. Like it gives way to the bible while staying scientific.