Chinese Scientist Proves The First Inhabitants Of China Were Black

This is not a new or shocking theory. The marriage of the archeological and the genetic research is still in it’s infancy, both groups really still only focus on their own subject matter. The genetic side really is showing the archeological side where to look at this point, which is why the matter addressed in this article is more of a confirmation of what various genetic studies have been saying for about half a decade.

Take a brief look at the evidence being compiled just through the study of Y-chromosome (Y-DNA) haplogroups and mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) haplogroups.


en.wikipedia.org...


This paints a far different picture then what we were taught in our general studies in school. Out of Africa is pretty much beyond dispute. Admixture with other hominoid species and our original species is beyond dispute.

The idea of what one poster above called African “tribes” existing in China at one point in time is pretty much the accepted model that is arising from the genetic studies. You can still see a lot of the physical trait in SE Asia.

reply to post by tadaman

ok this is ridiculous. African centric theories are starting to annoy the hell out of me.

Really do not understand the negativity in this thread towards exploring an idea..

purplemer
reply to post by tadaman

 

ok this is ridiculous. African centric theories are starting to annoy the hell out of me.

Really do not understand the negativity in this thread towards exploring an idea..

Very showing how people can't hide their hostility when "debunking" certain things. You can see the fear and aggression all over the first page. And you came to share about human origins. The gun was jumped and now you're an african centrist conspiracy theorist. Go figure.

tadaman
reply to post by purplemer

 

ok this is ridiculous. African centric theories are starting to annoy the hell out of me.

So is the "evidence " from this ONE Chinese lab and scientist being peer reviewed yet?

edit on 9 21 2013 by tadaman because: (no reason given)

edit on 9 21 2013 by tadaman because: (no reason given)

It's more like the Chinese are far behind the curve on this sort of study as none of this is new. It might seem new to people who haven't been following this closely--- and no real knock on you because who has time to really bore down on a topic outside of your own area of expertise.

reply to post by tadaman


People seem to ignore the fact that scientific theories are constantly debunked. It is currently "in fashion" to attribute everything to the African race.

How does "peer-reviewed" equal "proof"? Doesn't it just mean it's been reviewed by other people that have their own ideas about what happened - in theory (lol) muddying the picture even more?

Restricted
reply to post by tadaman

 

People seem to ignore the fact that scientific theories are constantly debunked. It is currently "in fashion" to attribute everything to the African race.

DNA coding does not follow fashion and truth has no agenda....

I will respond to all in bulk.

I am not upset or fearful / ignorant. I disagree wholeheartedly is all. Stop trying to invalidate my opinion as fringe or aggressive just because YOU disagree.

also...

peer review helps establish if a conversation should be held at all since it can dismiss or validate a theory as valid or not.

Science fiction is cool, though people should know when to talk about it as fantasy and avoid taking it too seriously. Hence peer review makes smart people avoid looking like idiots for arguing over the possibilities of the impossible.

You can't possibly know a thing about me or my intentions .....my background or my beliefs....so it is impossible to determine if I feel threatened or fearful over an issue based on a few posts in a forum ....you have lied and veered far from the possible truth by implying any knowledge about such....

reply to post by tadaman



I totally understand which is why I wasn't trying to say that you hold these beliefs for any specific reason. I am curious though what model you do subscribe to.

AndyMayhew

But more to the point, who cares?

and that is the key point!

tadaman


Neanderthal came out of Africa?!

No as I said before his ancestors did as shown by the known genome information

Well that is news to me....seeing as how their exact origin is yet to be known.

Based on the information we have that the probable location - do you have counter information?

yes we all have African DNA. All that shows is that early in our history populations from Africa bred with others. What percentage we have and in what percent of the world population would tell us if we do in fact all originate from Africa...or if its just that the oldest specimens found indicating a possible link between hominids came from Africa and as such we are trying to prove a theory based on that specimen.

So you seem to be saying that somehow an independent evolution of mankind occurred outside of Africa, they then mixed with the 'others' who came out of Africa?

Saying all hominids are somehow related based on physical traits observable only to skeletal remains is quak science endorsed by all but flawed none the less.

No it pseudo science to claim that we don't have common ancestors

I guess chimps orangutans and gorillas are all related too huh? one led to the other in a neat progression of evolution?

Yep we share the same common ancestor - do you not how evolution worked?

Hanslune

AndyMayhew

But more to the point, who cares?

and that is the key point!

Sadly, a lot of people do-- all over the planet. Americans have been brainwashed into believing we are the most racists people on the planet. Nothing could be further from the truth.

slip2break

Sadly, a lot of people do-- all over the planet. Americans have been brainwashed into believing we are the most racists people on the planet. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Yes they do, I've lived most of my life outside the US in Europe and Asia mainly and yep a lot of people not just North Americans suffer from residual racism. Arabs tended to be less racist based on skin colour but made up for it by being oversensitive over religion. Asians can be pretty distainful to various groups they don't like. I noticed light skinned Indian looked down on the southern Indian. I'd say the people less effected by racism that I encountered were the Nepalese (Gurung & Sherpa) but that may have been a selected minority.

tadaman


Science fiction is cool, though people should know when to talk about it as fantasy and avoid taking it too seriously.

Well, Science Fiction has become a fact for the last 25 years.

There are MANY things onced dreamed of that have become part of our daily conveniences. Wait till AI takes off!



Not all scientific or Archeological "proofs" are completely right. Humanity only has bits and pieces of our past. If we dont look outside our boxes we will not learn form our mistakes or preconceived misconceptions. Just my Humble opinion.

I totally agree with you. A lot of this isn't exactly something that can ever be completely knowable; not without a time machine. Hell I doubt we'll even find out a fraction of how the past truly transpired. One of my biggest concerns has always been how dogmatic and closed minded the scientific community as a whole can be. I truly believe its the non specialists who write science fiction who propagate or at the very least put a seed of an idea into the specialists minds.

Neil Stephenson wrote a good piece on this: www.worldpolicy.org...

reply to post by Hanslune

It is jumping the gun to say "we all" come out of Africa. To what extent is yet to be proven.

The preponderance of evidence points to that, and being a theory it will never be actually 'proven' AFAIK no other theory has sufficient evidence to challenge it at the present time.

Actually the evidence is as vast and surmountable regarding many theories. The tenacity of those that argue against any contradictory idea regarding ancient migrations is what is demonstrated, not that they are in fact correct or even going in the right direction.

Coastal migration hypothesis in the New World

Sometimes, the theory is extended to cover onwards migration, via the Bering Strait, into North America, and then onwards to Central and South America along the western coast. Findings such as the report that the sediments in the Port Eliza caves on Vancouver Island, which indicated the possibility of survivable climate until 16 kybp in the area, have helped bolster the hypothesis recently.

However, despite such research, the postulate is still subject to considerable debate. For the Pacific Northwest, Carlson, and others have argued for a coastal migration from Alaska pre-10,000 B.P. that predates the migration of Clovis people moving south through an ice-free corridor located near the continental divide. These people were followed by the Clovis culture, which some archaeologists believe moved south from Alaska through an ice-free corridor located between modern British Columbia and Alberta. Recent dating of Clovis and similar paleoindian sites in Alaska suggest that Clovis technology actually moved from the south into Alaska following the melting of the continental glaciers about 10,500 years ago

^Majid Al-Suwaidi (2006), A Multi-disciplinary Study of Port Eliza Cave Sediments and Their Implications for Human Coastal Migration

Some of us have more Neanderthal DNA than others. Some of us have NONE.

Yep and where did Neanderthal come from......Africa, you might want to look at the probably precursor to Neanderthal and HSS, Homo heidelbergensis.

SO you argue a "probability" based on what sir? The preponderance of neanderthal remains in Africa? Or the genetic evidence of neanderthal traits and genetic contributions in present day Africans? Oh there is none? Thats funny....so where do you even get such an idea? From a visual observation of skeletal remains and that some people are in agreement of OPINION that Neanderthal COULD have evolved from earlier African hominids?

The oldest remains which have neanderthal traits were found in Europe. There is no considerable cache of specimens found in Africa which could argue that they did in fact come from Africa. There is no genetic evidence of neanderthal genetics in Africans. There IS in other peoples elsewhere. Look to THE REST of the world instead of trying to validate a single theory using any evidence. Instead use any evidence to FORM a theory not prove one you are already so entrenched in mentally.

The current populations with the most neanderthal DNA are those of the Americas / Asia and Europe to a LESSER degree. There is considerable evidence of neanderthals in the ME near Jerusalem. What is interesting is that this was a hybrid population and much interbreeding happened between modern man and Neanderthal in the area. There is NOT neanderthal presence beyond into the African continent. It is just absurd to argue the contrary. Neanderthal did NOT come from Africa. There is no considerable evidence to even entertain such a possibility without ignoring everything we have come to know up to now. Just no.


^ J. L. Bischoff et al. (2003). "The Sima de los Huesos Hominids Date to Beyond U/Th Equilibrium (>350 kyr) and Perhaps to 400–500 kyr: New Radiometric Dates". J. Archaeol. Sci. 30 (30): 275. doi:10.1006/jasc.2002.0834.

as far as this new theory ....then I guess that ALL or most Chinese will have some African DNA then...(Not)

We all have African DNA AFAWNK, long ago we all seemed to have come out of a place that would later be labelled 'Africa'.

That is what you say. Really the populations of Africa could have started out very small and all with a common ancestor to that small population in Africa from elsewhere, whose genetics was spread throughout the continent. Other populations from else where who contributed to that genetic make up could have died off and the remaining people who had those genetic markers could have been isolated in Africa. It is possible for the common genetic markers in all of us which are attributed to a common African origin to not even be from Africa. It could be that the starting populations of Africa were very small and already had a common ancestor to the rest of the worlds relatively small populations.

We know that the modern human gene pool bottle necked during one of the last ice ages. What remains today in the human genome is less than half of the former total genetic makeup of the world. Perhaps those in Africa were not subject to that reduction in available genetic backgrounds and as such seem to be representative of being a source for the common genetic markers in modern humans.

Any such significant reduction in genetic material must be considered when attributing an origin to any common genetic markers. WE KNOW there was once more and that means that if we are considering the totality of the human population we must acknowledge that we have only what survived to work with.

What was lost before the human population bottlenecked is not considered. Perhaps what was lost IS what contributed to the African populations and other populations as well. The only INTACT populations, in so far as complete lineages could be from Africa, which would seemingly point to Africa as an origin to those markers.

You cant ignore what is known fact just to postulate a theory or belittle others who dont jump on career solidifying arguments in the eyes of established academia.

If not how can a group who supposedly settled an area not have any significant genetic contribution to present day inhabitants ....being as they were the larger population at an early/ first start of the area.....

Die off and being swamped by more numerous followers on - plus some of them are still there in the surviving pockets.

You said it. So what about other populations else where that could have died off and been swapped by more numerous survivors (from Africa)....? Could an origin to this common genetic make up in present day humans not come from them as well?

Thanks by the way.....lol

Edited to add in: You do realise they are talking about events that occured 50-150,000 years ago right?

AND?

reply to post by sonnny1


I agree. Science fiction MAKES science fact.

BUT we are talking about an attempt to extrapolate the origins of the human species, which has sadly turned into a love fest to not hurt the credibility of established academia and a few "bright ones" that had a theory which may or may not be true....ever since Darwin, the unappreciated son of a mathematician made his ideas of evolution known so as to win his fame,.but because we have an idea, ALL evidence must then be plugged into our equation. That which fits the model is "right"...that which does not is tossed aside.

The evidence is NOT used to form the model. It is used to validate it or not.

That is just dark logic at work.

If we know that there exist MANY species of bipedal species today, gorillas, chimps, US, ALL with over 98% similar genomes .ect....YET are separate species in their own right.....then why could there have not existed such a situation in early earth.

WHY must every specimen found be plugged into a model of neat and perfect "this to that" progression.

I see separate species of bipedal beasts who MAY be related in some cases but not in their entirety.
We have not witnessed "evolution" of any other species. We see environmental adaptations in other species. Even in human populations in a few generations...but the species DOES NOT change.

Why then should we blindly accept the idea that all these hominids of the past and those we may discover in the future are all part of the progression of evolution. All "evolving" into entirely different species all together just to end up at us....The pinnacle of the process....the epitome of "better". Please.

Maybe they are all separate species and we just "evolved" from modern humans already in existence whose populations were too small to leave a large enough footprint in the archeological record. Maybe their home stomping grounds is under the 70+% of water on the total surface of the world. We know that even a few thousand years ago there was much more land due to the water levels being lower during ice ages...

Maybe we are an offshoot of one of the hominids we have discovered, but ALL were an offshoot of one another? pfft.

I will not declare in FAITH that any theory is correct. And it is fatih. Just like religion.

No it pseudo science to claim that we don't have common ancestors

No its called keeping a THEORY a THEORY until proven otherwise. I will not give my FAITH to the ideas of any man or men just because they are all in agreement of OPINION.

I guess chimps orangutans and gorillas are all related too huh? one led to the other in a neat progression of evolution?

Yep we share the same common ancestor - do you not how evolution worked?

No YOU say we have a common ancestor. I understand the THEORY of evolution. I think it is flawed in some respects. I will wait until it is proven. Surely if it such a staunch fact there must be a plethora of evidence to suggest such. Perhaps MORE than a visual inspection of skeletal remains?

How about we further humanities understanding of genetics before we go lumping everything that LOOKS similar together in the same group...shall we...


So if in 10,000 years, if no one is around to tell our tale and someone from the future digs up a chimpanzee, a gorilla, and one of our skeletal ramains, they could (using yours and evolutions logic) say that gorillas led to chimpanzees, and chimpanzees led to us....and we led to them....?

just so long as they make a neat and perfect little scale of progression which places themselves at the end of the process that would be valid to you?

I see this entire argument like what people used to have to deal with when the established "mind of academia" made a model of the sun revolving around the earth....because why else would it exist?

Why else would other hominids exist if not to lead into us?....no way they are separate species that were just born and died....much like we were and will one day.../end sarcasm

"Faith" is for religion. Prove your theories or they will remain just theories. It is not fringe to question what is yet to be proven.

reply to post by purplemer


Please show us where the genetic makeup of early hominids and early humans was studied....We just have what is around today. What survived.

What the genetic evidence DOES show is that the entire human population bottle necked several times and everyone around today is the product of very small populations that survived.

Taking that into consideration, I fail to see how "truth" can be divined out of thin air. How do we know that those populations that died off were not responsible for our current genetic make up and that of Afircans?

How do we know they are not the source for all our genome being as they could have been many times over the ones to contribute to the genetic makeup of the survivors?


We have not even mapped out the complete neanderthal genome yet you seem to imply that "genetics" has shown us the truth of the out of Africa THEORY.....

0.o

Where is the nobel prize, who got it and when after they PROVED this theory?

reply to post by tadaman


Please explain why you have such a negative attitude towards an idea. What problem do people have that they may have been black people in China. The Xia and Shang dynasties where known to have been founded by black people. The Chinese historians have no problem with it yet you somehow do.
Why do you find it so unsettling and squirm around like a fish out of water in such regards..