DNA study deals blow to theory of European origins - Polidicks

[QUOTE][IMG]http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/54778000/jpg/_54778012_c0097645-stone-age_cave_paintings,_chauvet,_france.jpg[/IMG]Did Palaeolithic hunters leave a genetic legacy in today's European males? [URL="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-14630012#story_continues_1"]Continue reading the main story[/URL][h=2]Related Stories[/h][URL="http://www.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8467623.stm"]Farmers spawned most European men[/URL] [URL="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-11729813"]Migrants spread farming to Europe[/URL] [URL="http://www.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/1313016.stm"]Ancient farmers were goat-herders[/URL] [B]A new study deals a blow to the idea that most European men are descended from farmers who migrated from the Near East 5,000-10,000 years ago.[/B] The findings challenge previous research showing that the genetic signature of the farmers displaced that of Europe's indigenous hunters. The latest research leans towards the idea that most of Europe's males trace a line of descent to stone-age hunters. But the authors say more work is needed to answer this question. The study, by an international team, is [URL="http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/lookup/doi/10.1098/rspb.2011.1044"]published in the journal Proceedings of the Royal Society B[/URL]. [URL="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-14630012#story_continues_2"]Continue reading the main story[/URL][h=2]“Start Quote[/h][B]I would say that we are putting the ball back in the middle of the field”[/B] Dr Cristian CapelliUniversity of Oxford Archaeological finds show that modern humans first settled in Europe from about 40,000 years ago - during a time known as the Palaeolithic. These people survived an Ice Age some 20,000 years ago by retreating to relatively warm refuges in the south of the continent, before expanding into northern Europe again when the ice melted. But just a few thousand years after Europe had been resettled by these hunter-gatherers, the continent underwent momentous cultural change. Farmers spread westwards from the area that is now Turkey, bringing with them a new economy and way of life. The extent to which modern Europeans are descended from these early farmers versus the indigenous hunter-gatherers who settled the continent thousands of years previously is a matter of heated debate. The results vary depending on the genetic markers studied and are subject to differing interpretations. [B]Family tree[/B]The latest study focused on the Y chromosome - a package of DNA which is passed down more or less unchanged from father to son. The Y chromosomes carried by people today can be classified into different types, or lineages, which - to some extent - reflect their geographical origins. More than 100 million European men carry a type called R-M269, so identifying when this genetic group spread out is vital to understanding the peopling of Europe. R-M269 is most common in western Europe, reaching frequencies of 90% or more in Spain, Ireland and Wales. [IMG]http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/54778000/jpg/_54778836_c0029806-neolithic_flint_mine_artefacts.jpg[/IMG]The Neolithic was a time of momentous cultural change in Europe But while this type reaches its highest distribution on the Atlantic fringe, Patricia Balaresque and colleagues at the University of Leicester[URL="http://www.plosbiology.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pbio.1000285"]published a paper in 2010[/URL] showing that the genetic diversity of R-M269 increases as one moves east - reaching a peak in Anatolia (modern Turkey). Genetic diversity is used as a measure of age; lineages that have been around for a long time accumulate more diversity. So this principle can be used to estimate the age of a population. When the Leicester team estimated how old R-M269 was in different populations across Europe, they found the age ranges were more compatible with an expansion in Neolithic times (between 5,000 and 10,000 years ago). The team's conclusions received support from papers [URL="http://www.nature.com/ejhg/journal/v19/n1/full/ejhg2010146a.html"]published in August 2010[/URL] and in [URL="http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0021592"]June this year[/URL]. But one study [URL="http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0010419"]which appeared last year [/URL]backed the idea of a more ancient, Palaeolithic origin for R-M269. [B]Age estimates[/B]Now, a team including Cristian Capelli and George Busby at Oxford University have explored the question. Their results, based on a sample of more than 4,500 men from Europe and western Asia, showed no geographical trends in the diversity of R-M269. Such trends would be expected if the lineage had expanded from Anatolia with Neolithic farmers. Furthermore, they suggest that some of the markers on the Y chromosome are less reliable than others for estimating the ages of genetic lineages. On these grounds, they argue that current analytical tools are unsuitable for dating the expansion of R-M269. [IMG]http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/54778000/jpg/_54778839_e4390123-prehistoric_skeletons.jpg[/IMG]Studies of DNA from ancient remains could shed more light on European origins Indeed, Dr Capelli and his team say the problem extends to other studies of Y-chromosome lineages: dates based on the analysis of conventional DNA markers may have been "systematically underestimated", they write in Proceedings B. But Dr Capelli stressed that his study could not answer the question of when the ubiquitous R-M269 expanded in Europe, although his lab is carrying out more work on the subject. "At the moment it's not possible to claim anything about the age of this lineage," he told BBC News, "I would say that we are putting the ball back in the middle of the field." The increasing frequency of R-M269 towards western Europe had long been seen by some researchers as an indication that Palaeolithic European genes survived in this region - alongside other clues. A more recent origin for R-M269 than the Neolithic is still possible. But researchers point out that after the advent of agriculture, populations in Europe exploded, meaning that it would have been more difficult for incoming migrants to displace local people.[/QUOTE] [URL]http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-14630012[/URL]

[img]http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/54778000/jpg/_54778839_e4390123-prehistoric_skeletons.jpg[/img] d'aww

Caucasians no longer originated from Caucasians? Interesting.

Original humans are from Middle East?

[QUOTE=BCell;31917929]Original humans are from Middle East?[/QUOTE] Who would've thought :v:

[QUOTE=BCell;31917929]Original humans are from Middle East?[/QUOTE] Original humans are from Eastern Africa. Original human culture is from the Middle East. This is a pretty interesting thing they've discovered, I wonder how it will play out in history textbooks now. It makes sense that the first culture of humans - hunter-gatherers - first spread out across first before the farmers. Farmers stick to one spot of land and aren't as mobile as their hunting counterparts.

[QUOTE=BCell;31917929]Original humans are from Middle East?[/QUOTE] The previously accepted theory was that humans moved from Africa to the middle east, then from there they split up to go to Europe, Siberia (and eventually the Americas), southern Asia (then continued they to walk across what is now Indonesia to Australia).

cauc[I][B]asians[/B][/I] it all makes sense now :v:

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;31918046]It makes sense that the first culture of humans - hunter-gatherers - first spread out across first before the farmers. Farmers stick to one spot of land and aren't as mobile as their hunting counterparts.[/QUOTE] Indeed. Without a way to grow their food they'd obviously have to roam in search of animals and suitable plants, whereas if they had good agricultural knowledge and a stable environment, they'd be able to make a farm near a source of water, and they wouldn't need to travel. The stabilisation of the climate coinciding with certain advances in the old technologies likely made permanent settlements, and civilisation, possible. This recent window of stability gave us time to make our lands our homes, and advance our technology so that we would never need to migrate. Sadly the actions of the last two centuries have likely sped up the destabilisation, probably leaving us with precious little time left before the world is turbulant once more. Not every culture is fully-prepared for the ever-changing climates attributed to the Old Times, but as the Window of Calm is slowly closing as it has done at the end of the stable spots, one can only hope that the encroaching threat of violent climates is enough of a kick in the arse to increase the investment in advancing technology to prepare the unready.

it's a miracle

But we still, all came from earth so we should not discriminate anyone.

[QUOTE=MightyMax;31920895]But we still, all came from earth so we should not discriminate anyone.[/QUOTE] But we should discriminate Martians?!

I didn't know people thought of grizzled Farmer John with his trak'er as being so attractive.

[QUOTE=Gabe Newell;31914658][img]http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/54778000/jpg/_54778839_e4390123-prehistoric_skeletons.jpg[/img] d'aww[/QUOTE] Funny thing is that those were problaly killed because they were homosexuals which is why they are in the grave together, because it is quite rare that two lovers die at the same time.

[QUOTE=kimr120;31921006]But we should discriminate Martians?![/QUOTE] :I indeed we should.

[QUOTE=Shoopiwoop;31921942]Funny thing is that those were problaly killed because they were homosexuals which is why they are in the grave together, because it is quite rare that two lovers die at the same time.[/QUOTE] Except homosexuality wasn't even frowned upon back then. Hell, Greece was open as fuck about it, it's since the bible was written it was considered a sin.

[QUOTE=Bat-shit;31920081]No wonder it's hard to specify where each human race originates from when we've been scattering around the whole fucking planet over the last 2000 years![/QUOTE] I've heard of Young Earth Creationism but this is ridiculous.

Pretty sure only English-speaking countries use the term "Caucasians"... In my country "Caucasian" means somebody that lives in (or near) the Caucasian mountains such as the Georgians, Armenians and Azerbaijani.

[QUOTE=Capitulazyguy;31922550]I've heard of Young Earth Creationism but this is ridiculous.[/QUOTE] He was talking about how civilization has been spreading. Not how humans started appearing. :downs:

[QUOTE=Bat-shit;31920081]No wonder it's hard to specify where each human race originates from when we've been scattering around the whole fucking planet over the last 2000 years![/QUOTE] Try 7000.

[QUOTE=Haxxer;31922417]Except homosexuality wasn't even frowned upon back then. Hell, Greece was open as fuck about it, it's since the bible was written it was considered a sin.[/QUOTE] Yep, it was normal for rich Greek men to have another man for sex. The women were only there because they had a womb.

[QUOTE=Arachnidus;31922812]Try 7000.[/QUOTE] Try 70,000. [editline]25th August 2011[/editline] Or 125k depending on whose count.

[QUOTE=Contag;31923277]Try 70,000. [editline]25th August 2011[/editline] Or 125k depending on whose count.[/QUOTE] They keep pushing back the year because for archaeologists/historians, to find an "earlier artifact" than what was first thought is the discovery to put their name on the map. Scientists get fame by pushing their subject forward to discover new things, historians do so by finding "earlier than what was thought" artifacts.

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;31923760]They keep pushing back the year because for archaeologists/historians, to find an "earlier artifact" than what was first thought is the discovery to put their name on the map. Scientists get fame by pushing their subject forward to discover new things, historians do so by finding "earlier than what was thought" artifacts.[/QUOTE] I tend to disagree with the discourse of modern History on quite a few points. [+1]

[QUOTE=Haxxer;31922417]Except homosexuality wasn't even frowned upon back then. Hell, Greece was open as fuck about it, it's since the bible was written it was considered a sin.[/QUOTE] wow you blew my load.

Weird we just talked about that first picture in my art history class this morning

[QUOTE=Zycoses;31918853]The previously accepted theory was that humans moved from Africa to the middle east, then from there they split up to go to Europe, Siberia (and eventually the Americas), southern Asia (then continued they to walk across what is now Indonesia to Australia).[/QUOTE] Actually humans are originally from space. [img]http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lk8evdSSas1qjtfpzo1_500.jpg[/img]

[QUOTE=Haxxer;31922417]Except homosexuality wasn't even frowned upon back then. Hell, Greece was open as fuck about it, it's since the bible was written it was considered a sin.[/QUOTE] Except it was probably frowned upon before the bible was written, where it was written. It was based upon Judaism and perhaps som islam, no? How is homosexuality looked upon in those religions?

[QUOTE=MrJazzy;31938568]Except it was probably frowned upon before the bible was written, where it was written. It was based upon Judaism and perhaps som islam, no? How is homosexuality looked upon in those religions?[/QUOTE] Homosexually, in the form of a man being penetrated by a lesser (like a slave), was generally condemned. Otherwise it wasn't really an issue. [editline]26th August 2011[/editline] By about the 300s, when second part of the bible was being 'refined', homosexually was generally looked down upon, and became outright illegal. Of course the Christians still taxed homosexual prostitutes for about a hundred years. Islam is based in part on the New and Old testament, except they take the view that the works have been corrupted by men (and are no longer the word of god), and only the Quran is 'pure'. Still relatively similar, though.

[QUOTE=MrJazzy;31938568]Except it was probably frowned upon before the bible was written, where it was written. It was based upon Judaism and perhaps som islam, no? How is homosexuality looked upon in those religions?[/QUOTE] Islam is about 600 years younger than Christianity, and the old testament part of the Bible that states the sinfulness of homosexuality is conveniently copy/pasted from the Torah, the Jewish holy book.