Re: Uniparental DNA proves Out of Asia not Out of Africa


alandarwinvanarsdale
 

Hello Jack, At this time I am just working on early archaic / mosaic Homo sapiens (older than Herto), and their relationships to other Homo. Thanks for the different advice. The change in the nasal opening to more narrow and triangular, and the rugose bump connecting the eye ridges above and between the eyes, I suspect are diving adaptations in early Homo sapiens. _________________________________________________________________________________________________________Myself I think partial bottle necking for aquatic adaptation is because human populations were very low in cold periods. So a larger percentage of all humans were heavy on the use of aquatic resources. _____________________________________________________________________________________________I have developed an analogy. Think of a sheet of plastic stretch flat after a rain or heavy dew. Increased gene flow is like pushing down on the plastic. All the water is conserved, so larger populations have more influence with neutral or nearly so traits. _________________________________________________________________________________________________The catch is there is strong natural selective pressures both regional and niche related for the crisis (aquatic). So under strong natural selection, Homo sapiens suddenly, and widely, in their origins showed aquatic adaptations not seen before about 320kya. ________________________________________________________________________________________________I expect this has happened many times. With the Middle Pleistocene being one such crisis which partly bottle necked humans through aquatic adaptations and led to archaic Homo sapiens such as Jebel Irhoud. I have had a lot of doubts about Jebel Irhoud, but will go with Jebel Irhoud as being one of the early mosaics just as Stringer has written after he accepted multiregionalism as a valid study. ______________________________________________________________________________________________________I have done paleoenvironmental studies, for example, much of SE Europe was not glaciated, but was quite barren with little plant life in the Middle Pleistocene. There were a few big mammals around, things were very tough, and marine resources were about as good ad they were in any time frame. Any port in a storm. Though people were already in such niches, in such times of crisis, they had a lot of kin folk coming to stay with them some from far away.

 

Sent from Mail for Windows

 

From: Jack D.Barnes
Sent: Monday, December 27, 2021 9:50 AM
To: AAT@groups.io
Subject: Re: [AAT] Uniparental DNA proves Out of Asia not Out of Africa

 

AVA,

I am excited to learn about the new fossil find you are working on.  Hopefully 2022 will shake things up, toward our yet to be explained swimming adaptations.  Glad you liked my description of Shi Huang. 

 

As you come up with a plan PLEASE consider this sequence to explain our Body plan. 

1. Hylobates are always and only in Asia, they spawn great ape also in Asia.  Great Ape LCA is bipedal, we are the only one to retain/perfect bipedalism

 

2. Split from Orang is early 20 to 30mya. We are in the Pongid clade.

 

3. A Carnivorous hunting Clade in Asia spawns Human Chimp group.  Chimp LCA to Europe and Homo to America likely at 17mya.  

 

4. Those closest to source of Great Ape in SE Asia look the most Pongid.  The same with oldest fossils, the older the more similar to Orang. 

 

5. Meganthropus, Gigantopithecus, Sivapithicus all pongids, with many being huge!  Some Homo Erectus skull caps could be an LCA of homo that never made it to America.

 

6. Homo must be first considered adapted in America, (moving over at 17mya or 24mya and then back at 2.4mya) our Junk/non-coding DNA record demands it.  Pure Directional adaptation of a small population to running and swimming explains are highly unexpected form.  We have no Asian or African viruses from the Miocene. 

 

7. When homo emerges at 2mya into Asia it is from the East.  It is larger, stronger, hence the Mauer Jaw, Heavy Unibrow, Massive Denisovan Teeth, incredible trabecular bone density in Archaics.  Domestication is marked by a 40% reduction in cranial features, we can see that in humans.  Domestication has caused our gracile bones. 

 

8. Shi Huang is correct that all human populations are separated 2million years and each group has simultaneously descended into different races as regional adaptations.  The OOAfrica theory is completely wrong. 

 

9. Like the recent Domestication of the Dog, out of Asia is correct but in a 2mya timeframe.  CNV of humans is highest in East Asia and lowest the farther one goes South and West.  ALL ARCHAICS Homo and modern humans are one species. 

 

10. Our 100x swimming adaptations are the most important paradox to solve.  Why did we deselect for climbing and become efficient hunting runners and swimmers ?

-Jack

 



On Dec 27, 2021, at 10:03 AM, alandarwinvanarsdale <alandarwinvanarsdale@...> wrote:



Jack entirely correct. However, such predictions are not from MGD they all were around a long time before MGD. In apaptive radiations, such as for humans, it has been long known the frequent spurts of success come from the bases, from less derived genes and morphology, not from the more derived. _______________________________________________________________________________________________________Schwartz et al only understand humans are closer to orangutans morphologically than to other great apes, they did not fully understand why, though I have told them in correspondence. Humans had their initial divergence from orangutans after their initial divergence from Pan. The final genetic isolation of humans from orangs was well before it was with Pan. _______________________________________________________________________________________________Orangutan morphology, though not known deep in the fossil record except their dental morphology present in Thailand Lufengpithecus, is very conservative. Thus that is a type of plesiomorphic basal great ape morphology favored in Hominnid adaptive radiations, such as the Homo radiation. ____________________________________________________________________________________________Clean slates are easier to write on, plesiomorphic conditions are preferred for adaptive radiations over highly derived forms, such as Neanderthals. Shi Huang already admitted publicly that I was correct that Brace had priority on some ideas they thought they had come up with first. _________________________________________________________________________________________________Orangutans split genetically from humans and other great apes very early, which is why they are still around. Other great apes in Asia did not ever split from humans genetically, so were assimilated into the human gene pool.  The last Lufengpithecus known, at 200kya from China, was very Homo erectus like with Oldowan grade stone tool association. Later they simply put became Homo erectus. That is why Homo floresiensis is so much closer morphologically to Lufengpithecus than any other known Homo. Archaic pygmies assimilated Lufengpithecus when they were habilines, before they in turn began to be assimilated first by Homo erectus and then by archaic Homo sapiens. And finally AMHs was founded by a fusion of archaic Homo sapiens and archaic pygmies with bits of other populations added in as well. ________________________________________________________________________________________________Archaic Homo sapiens began all around the Mediterranean Sea from East of France all the way around down the Atlantic sea board as far as the Sahara. I will be coauthoring a book soon on exactly this issue. Archaic Homo sapiens was able to survive the rugged conditions in their range in the Middle Pleistocene largely by exploiting marine resources. And we do have a new fossil from a new area we will be including in this publication, of archaic Homo sapiens. The closer you are to the ocean, the more fossils from the Middle Pleistocene in this region can be distinguished as Homo sapiens and not Neanderthal or Homo heidelbergensis. ____________________________________________________________________________________________________However we will not be proposing such extreme marine adaptations as some in AAT would wish for the origins of Homo sapiens. They were also hunting what big game was there in such cold and barren conditions, without much temperature fluctuation from winter to summer in their range. And they were eating both marine and terrestrial plants. At least I think so, though this is certainly open to the interpretation they ate exclusively marine resources. ___________________________________________________________________________________________________While I am not an AAT researcher, AAT certainly plays in my thinking. Now I am focused upon the origins of Homo sapiens, and with this new fossil, our work in this area is gaining a lot of momentum. I am not at liberty to discuss details about the fossil before publication which I expect will happen in 2022. I am just a worker on this and not a supervisor. I can say this much, this new fossil will shake things up quite a lot about the origins of Homo sapiens, though it fits well into the existing fossil context it has quite a lot of new information. And I will consult this group about putting just a few AAT references in the book. Keeping in mind I and my coauthors are not centered around AAT, only respectful of the validity of AAT research. ________________________________________________________________________________________________The earliest Homo sapiens developed a more triangular  and stream lined nose relative to Homo heidelbergensis, as seen in the nasal opening, with the nasal opening higher in the face and the eyes closer together. The more rounded lower set nasal opening is the plesiomorphic condition, still seen in some populations today. The first diving Homo sapiens had very relatively high prognathy, as seen in Qazfeh still much later at 90-100kya. With the M3 subequal to the M2, as still seen in a few humans today. In the first Homo sapiens, they had a rugose bump between the eyes, and the eye ridges were less like two letter C’s than in their predecessors, like a more straight unibrow. I can see traces of this central rugose bump even in some EEMH. And it is present in Jebel Irhoud (which I now have to accept was in fact an early Homo sapiens as claimed, though I was opposed to this before). I am thinking this central rugose bump was some sort of diving adaptation, as in the earliest Homo sapiens would actually rest on sea cliffs, and dive into the water for prey or to escape attacks.

 

Sent from Mail for Windows

 

From: Jack D.Barnes
Sent: Monday, December 27, 2021 7:37 AM
To: AAT@groups.io
Subject: Re: [AAT] Uniparental DNA proves Out of Asia not Out of Africa

 

Gareth,

“How would the MGD explain the rapid divergence of 500 Cichlids in 15,000 years in Lake Victoria?” Here is my best answer. 

 

The MGD predicts that the last species to separate have the greatest ability to change (homo and chimp are the least similar of great apes).   Whereas the more ancient the body plan, the less ability a creature has to differentiate (fish, crocodiles and gibbons) are stuck with the basic parts of their body plan.

 

The MGD considers an organism’s complexity as the defining factor.  It makes sense why all 7 billion humans have less diversity than a Pair of M/F chimpanzees.   

 

Shi Huang et al, was working with two completely different cancer genes Riz1 and Riz2, and was perplexed by their extraordinarily differences.  Later he realised they actually were both very young, twin sisters and both had diverged rapidly so they no longer looked the same in form or function.

 

Dr. Huang began looking for other examples, and he found them everywhere.  One of the most curious being Schwartz and Grehan’s Red Ape paradox. Chimp/human have only 2 similarities whereas Orang/homo have 35 or by a later count 56!   How could this be?  Chimp and human likely separated last, both sharing HERV-K109, whereas Orang/Gorilla do not.  Yet how does it make sense Pan/homo had changed the most!!  It was just like RIZ1/2.

 

Hence I found Shi Huang and the MGD, when I was reading every paper concerning the Red Ape paradox by Jeff Schwartz. Only one scientist could explain it.  How did it make sense we were morphologically the most similar to Orang? Well, Dr. Huang agreed with Dr. Schwartz and explained homo belongs in the Pongid clan.  Shi Huang basically used the old archaic (least changing) DNA to estimate Homo/Orang split time.  17.6mya +\- 7.2mya. Imagine the limit of that result, H/O 25mya separated.

 

Actually this ancient H/Orang separation made sense.  The “Junk” or non-changing DNA (like PTERV) is very very old and CERV2 (found in chimps and not humans) is 22.9mya.  

 

So Dr. Huang began to realize the Molecular Clock was completely wrong.  Homo and Chimp were not 4-6mya separated but likely as old as PTERV1 and CERV2 indicated.  Conclusions: Junk DNA is not Junk.  The Out of Africa theory was wrong. “The Asian origin of man” in Nature 1977 (Bienvenista/Todaro) was correct. 

 

Dr. Huang then figured out why the Molecular Clock is wrong.  Mootoo Kimora’s 1968 Neutral theory was flawed, and you can see it in almost every bit of DNA.  These are the major themes of ShiHuang’s Twitter posts. 

 

A crowning achievement was the MGD’s ability to solve Margoliash’s 1963 equidistant result. (Solving another paradox). Why are humans equally diverged from Fish and Frog, even though we know that Frog, (with arms and legs) is MUCH closer to us.   Please see picture of two cladograms below.

 

I am certain the MGD explains the Lake Victoria Cichlad paradox.  Whereas the Neutral Theory can not explain wild-quick divergences as seen in domestication both in genes and phenotypes.  Dr. Huang points out the Neutral Theory does work with Non-changing DNA.  These millions of virus fossils (more than 50% of our genome) degrade at a steady “neutral” rate.  Just like a tree doing a slow burn in the forest. 

 

 

 

-Jack

 

 

On Dec 27, 2021, at 5:16 AM, Gareth Morgan <garethmorgan@...> wrote:



MGD theory.

 

Interesting theory. I like the flexibility of the logic — If two species have the same DNA sequences then that proves they are related, also, if two species have the same DNA sequences then it proves they are unrelated and have undergone convergent evolution.

 

I wonder how Maximum Genetic Diversity would account for the 500 distinct species of cichlids that have evolved in Lake Victoria in a mere 15,000 years, derived, apparently from just two original species native to the region.

 

G.

 

 

 

On 25 Dec 2021, at 16:00, Jack D.Barnes <needininfo@...> wrote:



Merry Christmas All,

A crisp -10°C this morning, beautiful blanket of snow.    Hoping all is well. 

 

Please see this important pre-print (pdf is attached and reviewer #1 comment below).  It explains the creation of modern human body plan, in the easiest way.  Basically all modern human have independently adapted for 2 million years after a single radiation. 

 

 Uses one-parent DNA data (from both archaic and modern human) to prove that Asia, not Africa is the birthplace of the modern human genome.  They explain well the neutral theory vs. the new MGD.  

 

From paper:

“The MGD theory accepts the proven virtues of the neutral theory as a good description of truly neutral variants still at the linear phase of sequence divergence prior to maximum saturation, but differs from it in several fundamental aspects. 1. Most observed genetic distances or diversities are at maximum saturation. 2. Convergent mutations, back mutations, and recurrent mutation sites are common. 3. Most DNAs are functional or under selection. These notions of MGD are fully supported by known data (Huang, 2009, 2016).”

 

I know I am a nag, bugging the crap out of everyone at AAT, but it is a critical argument.   You should have two theories, 1. use Africa, the neutral theory or molecular clock at 4-6 mya, knowing it will be overturned. 2. Use Asia and a much longer period, assume not a single human ancestor was in Africa between 30mya to 2mya.

 

Reviewer 1: "If this paper is correct, it would completely overturn current understanding of evolution, mutation, phylogenetics and human population history. Text books would need to be rewritten from scratch. It is an extraordinary claim."

 


https://assets.researchsquare.com/files/rs-1087730/v1/53ea9d1e-3c91-4fbf-80ab-f57384e0fe28.pdf?c=1637170614

 

 

 

-Jack

 


--
Welcome to the Aquatic Ape Theory Discussion Group


--
Welcome to the Aquatic Ape Theory Discussion Group

 


--
Welcome to the Aquatic Ape Theory Discussion Group

 

Join AAT@groups.io to automatically receive all group messages.