There is a very fascinating, preliminary press report out tonight of some
work done with Mungo man, an early anatomically modern human from Australia.
In fact, there is absolutely no doubt that this fossil is an anatomically
modern form--he is what anthropologists term 'gracile', meaning thinned
boned like us. And earlier report of the morphology of this man said:
"In the June Journal of Human Evolution Thorne and his colleagues report
that the fossil, known as Lake Mungo 3, now looks to be some 60,000 years
old--nearly twice as old as previously thought--and unlike the other early
Australian remains (all of which date to less than 20,000 years ago), this
one bears delicate, modern features. To Stringer, this gracile form
indicates the arrival of modern humans from Africa, albeit an early one.
Over time, he reasons, selection could have led to the robust morphology
seen 40,000 years later."
http://www.scientificamerican.com/1999/0899issue/0899infocus.html
Now, it appears that Mungo man has had mtDNA removed from his bones, and
guess what---this mtDNA is much different than any we find in modern humans
today. Here is what the article says:
"Earlier studies suggested that our most recent common ancestor lived
200,000 years ago, and traced the root of the gene tree to Africa. But the
mitochondrial DNA from Mungo Man does not exist in modern
mitochondria. This suggests that the most ancient lineage of the
anatomically modern human tree so far found emerged in Australia, then
became extinct.
Dr John Relethford, of SUNY College at Oneonta, New York State, said the
study highlights the danger of reading too much into mitochondrial DNA
evidence. But it could renew debate about the 'out of Africa'
hypothesis. Previous studies of mitochondrial DNA from three Neanderthal
specimens were sufficiently different from modern humans to rule out
Neanderthals as our ancestors. This suggests that they were displaced by
modern humans, supporting the hypothesis.
Today's study shows that it is possible to be anatomically modern but
still have different mitochondrial DNA. Thus the lack of Neanderthal
mitochondrial DNA in modern humans does not rule them out as our
ancestors, said Dr Relethford.He said: "This weakens the case that the
Neanderthals are somehow separate."
If this report is confirmed, then this is exactly what I have been saying
we should be aware of when using mtDNA in the apologetical manner in which
we have been using it. Hugh Ross and others in the apologetical game have
been saying that the mtDNA of modern humans proves that mankind arose within
the last 60-120,000 years and that the different mtDNA of the Neanderthals
means we are not related to them. This simply may not be the case. An
modern human with non-modern mtDNA shows several things, among them,
1. mtDNA is not a measure of humanity
2. mtDNA was inherited from people on earth MORE ANCIENT THAN ANATOMICALLY
MODERN HUMANS--meaning the archics like archaic Homo sapiens
(500,000-100,000 years ago), and/or Neanderthal (230,000-27,000 years ago)
or even H. erectus (1.8 million years ago-33,000 years ago).
3. If this is true, it means that we cannot exclude the archaics from our
family tree
4. If true, it means that my views have been verified and other apologetical
schema that limit mankind to the last 100,000 years have been falsified.
One note of a recent issue concerning Mungo man. He has been dated to 60,000
years +. Some authorities believe that he is around 30,000 years old. It
really doesn't matter how old his is if this report is true. Why? Because
this would be an anatomically modern human with very ancient mtDNA which HAD
TO HAVE COME FROM PARENTAGE TRACED BACK FARTHER THAN 120,000 YEARS!
glenn
see http://www.glenn.morton.btinternet.co.uk/dmd.htm
for lots of creation/evolution information
anthropology/geology/paleontology/theology\
personal stories of struggle
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Jan 09 2001 - 17:21:59 EST