An African American male currently living in South Carolina has been genetically linked to a 338,000 year old pre-modern human. The genetic link was made by determining a match between the Y (male) chromosomes of the two. The oldest modern humans go back no more than 200,000 years. It appears that theists will have even more explaining to do now in their attempt to establish that modern humans didn't evolve from lower forms of animals. Per the article:

 

A miniscule bit of DNA from an African American man now living in South Carolina has been traced back 338,000 years, according to a new study. The man’s Y chromosome — a hereditary factor determining male sex — has a history that’s so old, it even predates the age of the oldest known Homo sapiens fossils, according to the report, published in the American Journal of Human Genetics. The fellow’s chromosome turned out to carry a rare mutation, which researchers matched to a similar chromosome in the Mbo, a population living in a tiny area of western Cameroon in sub-Saharan Africa. “Our analysis indicates this lineage diverged from previously known Y chromosomes about 338,000 ago, a time when anatomically modern humans had not yet evolved,” Michael Hammer, who worked on the study, said in a press release.

 

http://news.discovery.com/human/genetics/african-american-earliest-...

Tags: Evolution, Humans, Jubinsky

Views: 305

Replies to This Discussion

This important linkage opens up some interesting questions. Which migration resulted in the S. Carolina African American male, for example? 

"The DNA detective work began after the South Carolinian submitted a small tissue sample to theNational Geographic Genographic Project. The researchers were shocked after they noticed none of the genetic markers used to assign lineages to known Y chromosome groupings were found."

"The study has even further implications. It strengthens the belief that there is no “mitochondrial Eve” or “Y chromosome Adam.”

"All of humankind, as a result, did not descend from exactly one pair of humans that lived at a certain point in human evolution."

The mystery continues!

I find it astonishing what genetics can reveal about our past and our heritage, even hundreds of millennia separated from the present day.

Sadly, the theists will likely dismiss this finding and continue to argue from ignorance.

Well, yeah.  Those fossils are all either fully human or fully ape.

Besides, you know that carbon dating (or any of the other radioactive clocks; that's a little outside of carbon dating) doesn't work.  Those fossils are only a couple thousand years old, probably from right before the global flood.

Joe?  Walgreens called.  Your prescriptions are ready... [grin!]

Nah, I know plenty of people who can get me ... err, "medicine," if I need it.  :-p

If I take enough, I might be able to understand the creationists who say that kind of shit and mean it.

I'm flabbergasted !

I mean, where will this all lead ? Firstly, DNA has confirmed that we, as a species, engage in bestiality. It doesn't sound so bad if we consider that this was only with closely related species where an offspring can occur - like with dolphins and whales. The second point is where will the evidence lead ? Are we also related to more distant relatives or even cousins ? For example, will it later be proved that we have dog DNA ? I don't know.

If we have dog DNA, somehow, I think we got it in a DIFFERENT fashion from what you suggest in your illustration, Nappy!

Seriously, I have little doubt that we have DNA in common with dogs ... and cats and llamas and goldfish, just not a lot of it.  But that we can trace a substantial commonality to a being that lived over 300,000 years ago is a singularly impressive correlation.

Of course, all life on earth is related.

Most likely, yes.  It's possible that there's some single-cellular life that developed on its own, apart from the ones that evolved into the multi-cellular life that we know.  I've heard a few scientists say that that sort of thing is possible, but I haven't seen evidence for it.

I only bring it up to ward against absolute statements.

I very seriously doubt life happened on earth more than just once.  Of course I couldn't know that, but it seems pretty logical.  Emergent life requires loads of valuable nutrients just lying around.  Once our ancestors got started, they ate up everything in sight, leaving nothing behind for Dr. Miller's lightning to strike, even if it would otherwise have struck a second time.

Yeah, the specimen from 300,000 years ago is probably well within 1% variation from us.

Time for a family party then!

RSS

Support Atheist Nexus

Donate Today

Donate

 

Help Nexus When You Buy From Amazon

Amazon

AJY

 

© 2014   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: Richard Haynes.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service