Repost from the old site.
A new study of African genes shines some new light on the Out of Africa Hypothesis, which is now the dominant view. Most of the Multiregionalists are now isolated into racial or ethnic chauvinists, each of whom wants to believe that they came from a different kind of monkey. This includes European, Indonesian, Japanese and Chinese chauvinists. It’s all nonsense, and Out of Africa reigns.
Previously, the oldest human lineages were in the Khoisan or Bushmen, where they go back from 90,000-150,000 years. During this period, six separate extant lineages existed in parallel in the proto-Khoisan.
However, recent data has shown that the oldest human genes of all are in East Africans from Kenya and Tanzania.
When humans left Africa 60-70,000 years before present (YBP) from East Africa via the Gulf of Aden to Yemen, and from there along the Indian Ocean to India, SE Asia and Australia and New Guinea, there were at least 40 separate lineages going in Africa, each of which has continued to this day.
Finally, 40,000 YBP, newer, more modern lineages entered the Khoisan pool. The evolution of humans in Africa involves many lineages that were isolated from one another and were evolving separately.
A very early split in modern humans of two separate lines is suggested. This occurred from 140-210,000 years ago in Africa, and may have occurred near Lake Victoria, but we do not really know for sure. One line went to South Africa and the other line went to East Africa – Ethiopia, etc.
About 144,000 years ago, a South African line entered the gene pool in Ethiopia. This line then creates a joint East-South African line that later traverses westward from Ethiopia to the Sahara, West and North Africa. Although there has long been debate about whether the cradle of human development in Africa was in South or East Africa, as they were both contenders, the debate now appears to be settled. Humans arose about 180,000 years ago from a Southwest African site around Namibia.
Genes in Africa have been found in the Khoisan dating back 132,000 years, and they have not been found in any other groups of humans anywhere else. That proves Out of Africa right there.
However, we should note that the ancient South African humans did not look like either modern day Khoisan or Bantus.
Of the 40 separate lineages going in Africa 40,000 YBP, only two went on to become all modern non-Africans. Pygmies go back to a split with other Africans 70,000 YBP. The earliest male line among humans appears in the Khoisan in large numbers, but hardly exists outside of Africa anymore, as it has probably been drowned out by newer lines. Two great graphics are here.
The modern-day ancestors of the Africans who left Africa to populate the world are found in the Sudanese, Ethiopians and also the Bushmen. Note that the Bushmen once extended all over East Africa, and a few isolated groups like the Sandawe are still extant in Kenya.
In my opinion, it was Blacks in this part of Africa, the ancestors of the Tutsi and Masai, who left Africa 45,000 years ago, probably via the Horn once again, moved into Iran and the Caucasus, and went on to birth the Caucasian race after they received proto-Asian inputs from China.
Great New Study of Ancient African Genes
Repost from the old site.
22 thoughts on “Great New Study of Ancient African Genes”
“In my opinion, it was Blacks in this part of Africa, the ancestors of the Tutsi and Masai, who left Africa 45,000 years ago, probably via the Horn once again, moved into Iran and the Caucasus, and went on to birth the Caucasian race after they received proto-Asian inputs from China.”
I can agree with that. So I’m guessing that the proto-Asians looked like the Ainu, or cold-adapted, dessert Australian Aborigine (or non-hybridized, cold-adapted Tamils).
I think like an Ainu type. Maybe something like that. They were Australoids. That much seems clear. The Gilyak are also the remains of the proto-East Asians. The PEA Homeland is around Lake Baikal.
Robert why dont you Publish an article about Human parasitism-Do you think that parasitism doesnt exist in Human society?
If you divert your attention towards human parasitism and parasitic race and its origin
You will understand more about human race and filthy indians ,Jews and gypsies
I strongly feel that all these Corrupt races are parasites in human form and their origin has some thing to do with human parasitism
A bigger wonder for me is that of East Asians. If proto-Asians looked like the Ainu (did they?), then I think that today’s East Asians are a mixture of these proto-Asians and an array of cold-adapted Nigritos (i.e. those from the Andaman Islands and South East Asia) and people looking like the Bushmen of Africa.
If African Bushmen were to become cold-adapted, it’s fair to say that you wouldn’t be able to tell them apart from today’s East Asians (especially the Koreans). In fact, shave their heads today and the average person would think they were Asian.
There is very clear and direct link between these two groups, although DNA studies might not show it.
By the way, when I use San Bushmen to collectively represent the San, Bushmen, Khoikhoi/Hottentot, Khoisan, Sandawe, etc. They all look the same to me.
I think that today`s East Asians are mostly cold-adapted Southeast Asian Nigritos and San Bushmen and less so Ainu-looking people.
There’s no evidence that they were San types, because we have no Khoisan type skulls over there in Asia. We have plenty of Khoisan type skulls in Africa though, dating way back.
Don’t get me wrong, Robert. I’m not denying the proto-Asian element in East Asians. All I’m saying is that today’s East Asians are a combination of Proto-Asians, Nigritos and San types.
I even think that East Asians are less Neotenous than the San Bushmen, which is probably attributable to the proto-Asian element.
They are the same = Khoisan types. Negroid types like you are a modern invention, created by evolution only 9,000 YBP.
I think they may have looked like Ainu types. All we know is that they were Australoids, and the Ainu are the only cold-adapted Australoids around anymore.
No one really knows. All we know is that the proto-NE skull looks like a Melanesian, Aborigine, Ainu, Papuan, Negrito, etc. = Australoid.
No one knows if there were any cold-adapted Negritos, but the Ainu may have risen in part from the Jomon culture of Thailand 16,000 YBP (Aborigine/Melanesian types) who went by boats up the coast to Japan and formed the Jomon culture in Japan.
Jomon types also went to the Philippines and down to Australia during this period. The Jomon going to Australia were called Murrayans and helped created the modern Aborigines.
Actually, you are correct, because Ainu legends say that the original peoples of Japan were very small and dark peoples, possibly Negrito types. They were exterminated by the Ainu.
Well, Bushmen may have been the original type, but they turned pretty soon into Negrito types probably. The eyefold is a Bushman adaptation to the desert sun. For some reason it went out in Caucasoids.
But it’s not just eye lids. Aside from the nappy hair, the Bush look very much look like East Asians in their phenotype. Flat face, very high cheek bones, longs torsos relative to the limbs, wide straight shoulders (no sloping), similar fat distribution if we don’t consider the steatopygia of some groups, yellowish skin pigment, and of course the extreme neoteny.
The evidence is there. It’s no coincidence. There is not way both groups could evolve all these features interdependently.
Very interesting of what I had been researching.
It I think is due to the Austronesian influence in East Africa.
Here is good article on it (PDF)
Proto-Asians form in North Vietnam 53,000 YBP. That is the Asian homeland. The Japanese/Korean and mainland types split off soon afterward. These may well have been Negrito types.
Hey Robert, how can you tell Australoids apart from Negroids? When I first saw photos of Papua New Guineans, I couldn’t put my finger on it, but there was something strange about them that differentiated them from Africans.
Skulls. On a scientific chart, the Australoid skulls will all plot together. The Negroid skulls are somewhat close to Australoid skulls, but they are not the same at all.
I should point out that Fuegian (nearly extinct) and Lower Baja California (extinct) Amerindians were also Australoid by skull.
As are Tamil types and a people called Senoi in Thailand. Senoi are sort of a Veddoid type that is over in Thailand for some reason.
Has anyone read Svati Paabo’s opinion of paleologists?
Since Khosians lie at the root of modern humanity, are they more closely related to apes than the races that followed? I’m serious. Africans have features like flatter faces and noses, flared nostrils, big lips, etc which make them look more like more like Mighty Joe Young than Paddy the Irishman. You can pick any black out of a crowd in America, strip ’em of his clothes and place him in a jungle and he’d look right at home. Just give him a spear and wish him good luck.
I would say because there are many groups that look negro but are not negro most like no