Near extinction of humans some 70,000 years ago

Not exactly. Stress (that is, environmental conditions uncongenial to the organism) increases the probability that any given mutation will be beneficial (and conversely, if an organism is perfectly adapted to its environment, no mutation can be helpful). Since beneficial mutations are more likely to be conserved (that is, selected), and since there will be more of them, what is SEEN is relatively rapid change of the organism itself.

Certain kinds of "stress" do increase mutation rates - such things as specific chemicals, irradiation, etc.

 

Okay so the understanding is the mutation frequency does not increase, just the chances of a viable mutation.....makes sense

 

This report continues much of which supports the Genesis story if a mass extinction of all hominoids especially during the last 40,000 years, plus a report of our inbreeding with Neanderthals.
Genesis 5:31 also explains that Modern Homo sapiens, (three different racial stocks implied by Ham, Shem, and Japheth), where fathered by one man, Noah.

That birthing to Noah, Genesis says, happened 100,000 years before that 40,000 year "flood" out-of-Africa.



"The migrations of humans out of Africa to populate the rest of the world appear to have begun about 60,000 years ago, but little has been known about humans between Eve (i.e.; Noah's wife @ 150,000-200,000 years ago), and that dispersal.
The new study looks at the mitochondrial DNA of the Khoi and San people in South Africa which appear to have diverged from other people between 90,000 and 150,000 years ago, (i.e., Noah's sons)."

Recent genetic evidence validates that all men living today have one common ancestor who lived between 40,000+/- years ago, (i.e. Noah.)

What we have is the DNA Eve who would correspond to Noah's wife, givng birth to Modern homo sapiens 150,000 years ago or so, and y-this Y-chromosome Noah of @ 40,000 years ago, common to all people alive today.

 

There was no mass extinction of all hominids. And it aint reported in Genesis, either.

No, Genesis don't say anything of the sort.

That's a lie.

Repeat it all you want, it's still a lie.

 

In a sense there was never a "mass" of hominids at all. But fossil evidence suggests that there may have been a dozen or so species of hominids over time, and all but one of them has gone extinct. Not all at once, of course. And there is molecular evidence that the only remaining species (us) went through a low-population bottleneck in the past, and could easily have joined all the others in going extinct. On the whole, primates haven't been a very successful experiment. Even one enormously successful species shows every sign of not lasting very long.

 

In principal I can't argue with what you've said. Just a sidenote, though; the dozen or so is now about 50.

There's about 2 dozen species in the fossil record for just the Homo genus.

 

I was reading a back issue of an astronomy magazine tonight and there was a cartoon. One guy is saying he needs to rethink evolution. His companion asks him why. He then explains. Well all evolution did for humans was give us a shiny new cover for our primal reptilian selves lol

 

Just about but there is already a radical rethink occurring and it is not just about Home Floresiensis but also Denisovian man and the red deer people

 

Yep.

The "mass" extinct seem a poor term for such a small population of primates, by the term emphasizes not the number of Hominoids involved, but the near 100% obliteration of every living species at the time, Neanderthals of two types, Archaic Homo sapien, Hobbit man, and even a few Modern Homo erectus.

That forty thousand years ago there were still Neanderthals seems a reasonable starting date for the extinction that was complete by 12,000 BC.


Homo floresiensis:

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Homo floresiensis ("Flores Man", nicknamed "hobbit" and "Flo") is a possible species, now extinct, in the genus Homo. The remains of an individual were discovered in 2003 on the island of Flores in Indonesia. Partial skeletons of nine individuals have been recovered, including one complete cranium (skull).[1][2] These remains have been the subject of intense research to determine whether they represent a species distinct from modern humans, and the progress of this scientific controversy has been closely followed by the news media at large. This hominin is remarkable for its small body and brain and for its survival until relatively recent times (possibly as recently as 12,000 years ago).

 

True.
So true.

The latest paleontological report coming out in publication, narrows the links in our ascent to the 22 now extinct humans that left only us here, to flood over the earth, even to the higesth mountain tops:




The Last Human: A Guide to Twenty-Two Species of Extinct Humans
by G.J.Sawyer, (Author)

 

Um - now how to I say this gracefully? Bull(*)(*)(*)(*) - complete and utter bull(*)(*)(*)(*)

Before you decide we are all descended from Noah - kindly explain why some dating for human existence on this continent predates 60,000 years?

Why are traces of Neanderthal DNA in our DNA - why are we seemingly related to the Denisovians?

Explain how the Lake Mungo people show a more gracile skeleton than the Kow Swamp people but also PREDATE the Kow swamp people

We have not even begun to scratch the surface of the riddle of Australian indigenous people yet

 

I can't figure out what you are referring to. Sawyer's book is a rather dry recitation of what is known from the paleontological record of hominid ancestors over the last 6-7 million years.

 

Sorry I was addressing the 22 people thing - and previous religious references

 

Read the book before you try to give a synopsis on it. It don't say what you claim it says. It's also an outdated reference, so you don't have any reason to claim it is the latest.

 

It probably saved your life,,,,at some point:

"When our ancestors mated with Neanderthals and Denisovans, a recently discovered archaic human group, they picked up some of their genes. Now researchers say that DNA inherited from these extinct hominids may have fortified the modern immune system. A team at Stanford University focused on human leukocyte antigen (HLA) class 1 genes, which play a vital role in rallying the immune system to fight off bacteria and viruses. Because diseases can be endemic to specific regions of the world, these genes exist in thousands of versions, known as alleles.

To analyze the origin of these alleles, the scientists looked at bone marrow registries containing the HLA genes of millions of people from all parts of the globe. By comparing DNA from modern populations with the reconstructed genomes of Neanderthals and Denisovans, they discovered that several HLA variants from the archaic groups are still around. For example, the ancient gene for HLA-A, which helps the body resist viruses like Epstein-Barr, is present in half of all modern Europeans, more than 70 percent of Asians, and up to 95 percent of people in Papua New Guinea. Other ancient alleles are involved in the regulation of natural killer cells, essential for immune defense.

Our ancestors’ liaisons with Neanderthals and Denisovans may have made them less susceptible to local infections, proposes Stanford immunologist Laurent Abi-Rached, giving them a survival advantage as they migrated out of Africa to Europe and Asia. “Breeding with our evolutionary cousins may have facilitated the spread of modern humans by preventing them from getting sick.”
http://discovermagazine.com/2012/jan-feb/80#.UVF-QNnl1WM

 

?
You doubt the paleontological experts who wrote the book, The Last Human, the 22 now extinct humans?

Your questions seem to be an amature's inquiry that starts with bias against the theory of "Out-of-Africa:"


www. anthro.palomar.edu/homo2/mod_homo_4.htm


The replacement model of Christopher Stringer and Peter Andrews:
This hypothesis is also referred to as the "out of Africa", "Noah's ark" and "African replacement" model.

All other lines of humans that had descended from Homo erectus presumably became extinct.
From this view, the regional anatomical differences that we see among humans today are recent developments--evolving mostly in the last 40,000 years.

But we also know that modrn man appeared 60,000-142,000 years ago through one woman whos mitochodria evidence this.
What genetics tells us to date is that Midern Homo sapiens appeared 150,000 years bfore the Flood-out-of-Africa that started 40,000 years before our earliest history of man.
During that time, all the other 22 man-like hominoids went/had gone extinct.

 

True to what Genesis said, these Neanderthal/Denisovans hybridized with Homo erectus and eventually evlved into modern man who carries some of the same genes.
Denisova Hominin…………………………. Denisovans were a hybrid population of H. erectus and H. neanderthalensis (or H. heidelbergensis Neanderthal).
http://forwhattheywereweare.blogspot.com/2010/12/denisova-hominins-neanderthals.html






Gen. 6:4 There were giants, (Homo Erectus of Methusaelian and Methuselahian kinds according to the bible), in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God, (that line of ascent which would not become extinct, Methuselahian links, through Seth, i.e.; Modern Homo Erectus), came in unto the daughters, (the sister species of Tubal-cain, Naamahians, a late stage Neanderthal type), of men, ("daughters" of the previous adaptation of the Methusaelian line of Cain, i.e.; Homo antecessor, derived through the line of Cain), and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men, (Neanderthals), which were of old, (powerful) men of renown (physical strength).

The Bible text above is a little confusing until one realizes that there were two Homo eructus species.
One, Early Homo erectus, was called Ergaster and the other erectus, who was also called Modern Homo erectus.

 

It is not proven that we descended from Homo Erectus , yes we share many common elements but they had forward facing hands and their technology didn't change at all for over 1m years.

In the nature being successful is not a guarantee of survival , homo Habilis was the most adapted scavenger with the biggest brain and it also constructed tools but then Homo Ergaster appeared and drove them into extinction same way we have displaced Erectus, Denisovans, Neanderthals , Flores man and probably several other species .

In general modern humans are divided in "archaic" (some kind of brow ridges) and "modern" (no brow ridges) , i think the general consensus is that we "modern" ones came into existence / evolved between 30k and 10k years ago .

Out of Africa FOR OUR SPECIES started just after the Toba eruption between 70 and 75.000 years ago
Out of Africa for Heidelbergensis started probably around 450.000 years ago ( this is the parent species of us and Neanderthals).

The fact that several different kinds of Humans could procreate indicates a very recent common ancestor , we yet don't know who was Denisovan's parent species but we do know that their genetic distance from us is like twice as big as this between us and the Neanderthals yet like 5% of the Papuan DNA is indeed Denisovan.
There is some general idea how to measure time in correlation with genetic distance, if i remember the image correctly 0.1% distance responds to ~500.000 years , all modern humans are inside this 0.1% , the difference between humans and chimps is around 1% that responds to 5.000.000 years of diversified evolution. Neanderthals and humans have a 0.3% difference while Denisovans are less than 0.5% .

 

Sometimes I wonder if the planet would have been better off if human's did not occupy it.

 

That was pretty close t my understanding.

In comparison with what we read in Genesis, Noah was a species frm which the hree raco=ial stocks of Ham, japteht, and Shem evlved about 100,000 years before the flood, which lasted for another 40,000 years.

Whar seems concurrent with the mass extinction that was completed during that 40,000 years was that Modern man, rooted in what had been three racial stocks, developed further into the seven races we detect thru genetic today.

So, yes, modern man of today goes back about 40,000 years ago:
Gen 5:32 And Noah, (an archaic type of Homo sapiens forebearer), was five hundred "years" old, (and the Flood will come when Noah is 600 "years" old: Gen 7:6) : and Noah begat Shem, (the Mongoloids), Ham, (the Negroids), and Japheth, (the Caucasians).

Allowing for the "flood" that just ended @ 10,000 years ago, the three racial stocks of Ham, Jephthah, and Seth, all would have evolved 150,000 years ago as WAS THE ACTUAL CASE.
When that “flood” ends, the Agricultural Age began, as was also historically the case.

20 And Noah began to be an husbandman, and he planted a vineyard:

Archaeological data indicates that various forms of plants and animal domestication evolved in separate locations worldwide, starting around 12,000 years ago (10,000–5,000 BC).[2]


///



Christopher Stringer and Peter Andrews proposes that modern humans evolved from archaic Homo sapiens 200,000-150,000 years ago only in Africa and then some of them migrated into the rest of the Old World replacing all of the Neanderthals and other late archaic Homo sapiens beginning around 100,000 years ago.

If this interpretation of the fossil record is correct, all people today share a relatively modern African ancestry. All other lines of humans that had descended from Homo erectus presumably became extinct.

From this view, the regional anatomical differences that we see among humans today are recent developments--evolving mostly in the last 40,000 years.

 

Buzz on! Bzzzzzzzzzzzz--SPLAT!!!

 

Cupid,

I am okay with your attempts to rationalize Genesis with the DNA records- I don't necessarily agree but frankly it doesn't matter to me.

But you keep mentioning the 'flood'

"before the flood, which lasted for another 40,000 years."

Are you talking of a real physical globe covering flood or a metaphorical flood?

 

I was referring to the paleontological theory of Noah's Ark,... i.e.; moden man carrying visions of the animal world Out-of-Africa with a flood of humanity cross the globe the mountain tops.



www. anthro.palomar.edu/homo2/mod_homo_4.htm


The replacement model of Christopher Stringer and Peter Andrews:
This hypothesis is also referred to as the "out of Africa", "Noah's ark" and "African replacement" model.

Genetic and fossil evidence largely supports a single, recent (<200,000 yr) origin of modern Homo sapiens in Africa followed by a later dispersal to the rest of the world (&#8220;Out of Africa&#8221; model) (Stringer and Andrews 1988; Ingman et al. 2000; Stringer 2002; Cavalli-Sforza and Feldman 2003; Relethford 2008; Tattersall 2009). Although it is clear that humans were thriving across the Old World, from western Europe to southeast Asia, by ~35,000 yr ago (Goebel 2007), the process of population dispersal &#8220;Out of Africa&#8221; and subsequently across Eurasia is less clear (Forster 2004; Mellars 2006a,b). Traditionally, the &#8220;Out of Africa&#8221; event is thought to have occurred in a single wave, although the precise nature of these human migration events has been difficult to discern.



http://genome.cshlp.org/content/21/6/821.full

Conclusion

Shortly after fully modern humans entered Europe, roughly 40,000 years ago, the Neanderthals began a fairly rapid decline, culminating in their disappearance roughly 30,000 years ago. Neanderthals were apparently no match for the technologically advanced fully modern humans who invaded Europe and evidence for interbreeding of these two types of hominids is equivocal.

 

Huh?

Noah's Ark was just a legend. Paleontologists have no theory of it other than that.

What does that mean?

OK, so human beings "flooded" out of Africa and populated the Earth. That's pretty easy to support, but what does it have to do with Noah's Ark or even the Epic of Gilgamesh that preceded and most likely inspired it?

 

"I was referring to the paleontological theory of Noah's Ark,... i.e.; moden man carrying visions of the animal world Out-of-Africa with a flood of humanity cross the globe the mountain tops"

Your link was to an article that I mainly agree with regarding the evolution of humankind. I have to admit I do not get how you consider that to be the equivelent of "Noah's Ark"

"i.e.; moden man carrying visions of the animal world Out-of-Africa with a flood of humanity cross the globe the mountain tops."

Unless again you are speaking entirely metaphorically.