Just some background on Alan Thorne (who is from a research school on the other
side of the campus). He is a strong advocate of the antiquity of racial
differentiation, that broad regional differences in human anatomy can be traced
back from modern H. sapiens to H. erectus. for example, he argues that modern
Chinese share many anatomical characteristics of H. erectus from China. He is
thus a long standing opponent of the idea that H. sapiens has a common origin
"out of Africa". In no way is he arguing that some modern races are more
primitive than others. At least, that is if I understand him correctly.
Respectfully
Jon
Glenn Morton wrote:
> 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 - 17:37:16 EST