[yiwahikanak]

nm

[Maxim Litvinov]

The Bering Strait model of migration has been heavily challenged by the Coastal Migration theory. Watercraft Migration Theory has become increasingly supported by academics in various different disciplines, and is providing a very strong counterpoint to the Bering Strait theory. Oxymoron also provided a link which confirms that the 'traditional' theory is losing ground as the 'only possible route'.

From what you post, it seems you are conflating the 'traditional' model with the 'Bering Strait model' (whatever that is). From your links I don't see any real problem with reconciling what I have said with Coastal Migration theory.

CMT just dictates that rather than a slow movement of small groups through the plains of central North America, instead the migration happened around the Pacific rim. I can't see anyone talking about journeys of thousands of kilometres across the Southern Pacific or via Antarctica (and that doesn't surprise me, considering how implausible such a route would be). Instead the debate is between a generally slow land-based migration via the Bering Strait to a generally fast sea-based migration... via the Bering Strait.

However this migration occurred, I don't think this really problematises the genetic relationship of north American natives with other groups: the DNA data tend to tell us about this.

[Fasces]

Let's worry about dates in a second. Which of the two do you, in general, find more convincing: the Wolpoff model or the out of Africa model? To clarify, do you believe that at some point the Americas were not inhabited by modern humans when other areas of the world were?

[Maxim Litvinov]

If you're talking to me, I believe that the best data suggest a substantial migration to the Americas in the last 15,000 years or so and even with a fair margin for error, within the last 30,000 years. I believe that this means the hominids doing the migrating would have been modern, yes, although can't rule out that there had been any earlier migrations.

[Fasces]

Directed at yiw.

[yiwahikanak]

Let's worry about dates in a second. Which of the two do you, in general, find more convincing: the Wolpoff model or the out of Africa model? To clarify, do you believe that at some point the Americas were not inhabited by modern humans when other areas of the world were?

Wolpoff's multiregional model of evolution and the (out of Africa) single-origin model both have serious problems in terms of evidentiarily charting human evolution. Until this year, for example, we were convinced that homo neanderthalensis was a separate species and that there was no significant gene flow between them, and homosapiens. This was based on mitochondrial DNA. It was pretty convincing stuff. However, new data turns this on its head.

It's official: Most of us are part Neanderthal. The first draft sequence of the Neanderthal genome has provided the strongest evidence yet that modern humans and Neanderthals interbred and that all non-Africans today have Neanderthal gene fragments in their genetic codes.

So it's difficult to say which model is more convincing, because the answer to that is going to change as new information is discovered, and all the old models which were based on previous assumptions must be re-evaluated. Which model is more convincing right now on December 16, 2010? I'd say the single-origin hypothesis, based on mitochondrial DNA and Y-chromosome DNA, taking into account the likliehood of subsequent 'waves' of out-of-Africa migration, and the mingling in some populations with homo neanderthalensis. However, the multiregional model was the first to suggest that there had been an ancient mixture of homo neanderthalensis with homo sapiens and recent analysis proves that this is true in some populations...

So I'd say both models have some things to offer, and a strict 'out of Africa' versus a strict 'multiregional' delineation is not necessarily helpful or relevant any longer.

[Oxymoron]

Question YK, do you think "Native" Americans are a different type of intelligent life, meaning are they homo sapiens or are you some other of shoot? If we are the same how can we not be all from the same origin point, if we are different why are there dna evidence and archeological data that shows connection across oceans? If there is no connection and this evidence is flawed why has the evolutionery path taken the same turn.

[Willum]

The out of Africa theory is pretty much confirmed through mitochondrial DNA.

Until a number of major technical problems is overcome, mitochondrial data cannot be relied upon for either the location of 'Eve' or her date.

See 'Number of ancestral human species: a molecular perspective.' HOMO, 53 (3):201-224. (Curnoe, 2003), which can be found http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12733395

There have also recently been in China and Europe excavations of skeletal remains of prehistoric sites of habitation which strongly contradict the Out of Africa theory, and cannot be explained by its proponents.

[Social_Critic]

I may be wrong, but I understand the source population for the North American natives is the NE Asian Chukchi. Further back in time, they go to a population in Central Asia's Fergana Valley (I'm going by DNA studies I've read).

I don't think it matters if they cross through Beringia on foot or sailed along the coast - they used the low water stand at the end of the latest Glacial to make the move in significant numbers. Earlier migrations may have taken Place (Monter Verde), but they probably didn't survive due to low numbers.

Regarding the X chromosome, I've been encouraging friends to contribute to the data base. And a very interesting case came up, an European lady, clearly identified to come from Northern Spain, most relatives already tagged as Celts (I am Celt myself and my father's family came originally from Northern Spain, this group were a large number of stragglers which settled along the route as the tribes migrated towards the British isles and Ireland). The lady in question had inherited the "X" chromosome genotype from her mother, who was also X genotype. (Note that this X we discuss here is the X genotype, not the X chromosome women carry as XX and men as XY).

They are blue eyed, very tall (women about 6 ft tall, men about 6 ft 4 in, clear skinned, with a tendency to have red hair and freckles). When I saw this result I started to read more about X chromosome, but I found very little, so if anybody can give me more material to read I would appreciate it.

[Decky]

As for my own beliefs on where we came from, I will not be sharing those on this forum, my apologies in advance. I know that may seem weird, but this is a forum meant specifically for debates based on western traditions, and it would be extremely difficult, if not downright impossible, to 'translate' my traditions into that framework without warping them beyond all recognition.

Just so I understand, I take it you subscribe to a weird religious belief and that's why you re not introducing it into the debate? It's a commendable stance, I wish creationists would do something like that in general society too.

"Well we are wrong so we wont relay go on about it"

Could you tell us in detail which multi region research you like particularly, I don't really know much about it aside from it's basic premise that we all independently evolved into exactly the same species in lots of different places.

[Paradigm]

Why is no one addressing the fact that according to Oxy's theory, there are no "native" Europeans, Asians, or Australians either? If the out-of-Africa theory is true, as I assume it to be, then by Oxy's logic, only Africans can claim to be "native."

[Potemkin]

then by Oxy's logic, only Africans can claim to be "native."

Actually, it's worse than that. At best, only one tribe of Africans could claim to be 'native' to their land.

[Oxymoron]

My point is that the whole concept of native is meaningless.

[Suska]

It isn't meaningless, just another abused term.

[Social_Critic]

Paradigm, i think we can say so and so is native from this or that place, recognizing that all of us started out from Africa (except for Litvinov, who is from Australia, I believe).

I just read about a recent find ( a potential find) confirming interbreeding of homo sapiens sapiens with homo sapiens neanderthalensis in Central Asia, as well as the potential existence of a third sub species, also found in central asia which seems to be represented in Melanesian DNA.

My conclusion? We probably came out of Africa in pulses, and sometimes the new pulse would mix with the earliest migration. This seems to have happened quite a bit in the area ranging from the Holy Land all the way to Beringia. American natives are just a push from these intermingled populations into the Americas, in pulses which came by land, by water, and later by airplane. But the major pulse, I would bet, came when the ice age was ending. There's too much DNA linkage between the American pre-columbian crowd and the Chuckchis and other far far east populations. Plus there's the issue of the lack of bug resistance - the migrants had spent a lot of time in cold weather and in small groups.

Regarding Litvinov, I think there are exceptions to all rules. This individual has been typed as Australian who arrived by some sort of air convenyance. Studies at the university of melbourne have traced the source of the Litvinov clan to somewhere in Asia, most likely northern Afghanistan.

[Igor Antunov]

It's rather obvious that we all originated from the same place, after all, we're all homo sapiens sapiens. Genetics proves that we are all part of the one species.

Africa is a good candidate.

[Suska]

I don't think it's necessary that we came from a singular geographic origin. The alternatives would naturally seem strange to us if something fundamental about breeding was different now, or if we don't really understand genetics and evolution. Lines of hertance weave back and forth anyway, so even if we accept the single tribe origin it may in fact be as far back as a group of muskrats. I'm just objecting to the over-simplifying "it's rather obvious" - actually it's not obvious at all. We've been guessing wildly, the reason for that is we are not very good scientists if careers (and all that attends a good one) are at stake.

[ninurta]

I think that the debate is far from settled. I think that there are 2 likely contendors for the route to the Americas, Europe or the Bering strait. At the time, there were alot more islands to cross over from europe, and we did hunt fish alot as huntergatherers. And we still eat alot of fish. They could've found very rich sources of fish in the North Atlantic, and ended up island hopping in much a similar way to that of the polynesians, that made it as far as easter Island and Hawaii by simply rafts.

[Potemkin]

They could've found very rich sources of fish in the North Atlantic, and ended up island hopping in much a similar way to that of the polynesians

No. Just, no. It's impossible to island hop across the Atlantic; if it were, Europeans would have done it long, long before Columbus set sail heading west for India.

[Oxymoron]

vikings Potemkin?