Three studies have proven what scientists have known for a long time - that man's origin is in Africa * The farther the population is from Africa - the smaller the variation within it
The team examined the differences in 650 different segments of each DNA sample, which made it possible to identify the similarities and differences between people at a much higher level of accuracy than could be achieved so far.
Scientists have long believed that modern humans first evolved in Africa and spread from there to populate the rest of the planet. As mentioned, this theory is also supported by the new findings. Moreover, they claim that Middle Easterners can trace their ancestors to both Africa and Europe, and this makes sense because the region forms a kind of bridge for two-way movement between these regions.
They also commented that they found a close correlation between the Yakut population in Siberia and the Native Americans, who are believed to have migrated from Siberia via a land bridge that existed in the days when the sea level was much lower. The research was supported by the National Institutes of Health in the USA.
The day before the publication of the competing journal Nature, by researchers at the University of Chicago who examined 500 DNA markers in the human genome and compared representatives of 29 populations on five continents. "Our study is one of the first in a new wave of high-resolution scanning of the genetic variation in the population, says Prof. Noah Rosenberg from the Institute of Life Sciences at the University of Chicago and a partner in the publication of the study.
"Now, when we now have the technology to examine thousands and even hundreds of thousands of genetic markers, we can measure the relationship between different populations of humans and document ancient migrations at a more refined level than was previously possible. Research partner Rosenberg along with Andrew Cinglion from the National Institutes of Aging were able to produce a map 100 times more detailed than was achieved in previous attempts.
They used large segments of DNA called copy number. Using this segment, which constitutes a significant percentage of the DNA - sometimes even a million consecutive "letters" in the genetic alphabet that repeat themselves or are completely deleted from a particular person's genome. Several diseases can be caused by the addition or lack of copies of these genes.
The research also shows that the ancestors of a specific subject can be traced back to the population in a given geographic area. While the previous studies could indicate a wide geographic range, today the genome can be used to refine the geographic location of a person's ancestors with greater precision," said Rosenberg.
The research also shows that the genetic diversity decreases as the distance from Africa - the cradle of humanity - increases. Humans of African descent express greater genetic variability than Middle Easterners, whose variability is greater than that of Asians and Europeans. The least diverse are the Native American Indians. As a result, the search for disease-causing genes will require a lower number of genetic markers among Native Americans and the greatest number of genetic markers among Africans.
A third study was also published in Nature, in which the genes of Americans of European origin were compared with those of African origin, and it was discovered that the Europeans had a higher rate of "harmful" genes than the Africans. However, this conclusion is already in dispute amid a new wave of debates about the interpretation of the information provided by the new technologies used in genetic comparison studies of populations.
Carlos Bustamante, a genetic statistician at Cornell University in Ithaca, New York, and his colleagues compared the genetic variation of 20 Americans of European descent and 15 of African descent. They examined nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs), where the DNA differs from person to person in one "letter" of the genetic code. The researchers provided the best unbiased count to date of these mutations, a significant improvement in the field of population genetics. This study confirms the research from Stanford, because higher genetic variation means more "healthy" genes.
30 תגובות
The ascension of James, our dear, is not necessarily the desire of the ascension, but of the saga that has wonderful symbolism, brought by Sharon, no one understood Ashuram's complicated objectivity without refreshing and...far-fetched stories....except May? What happened after we left our old homeland in Africa, is in the meantime the action of time, that medicine developed rapidly in the Middle East and everything moved to Europe, and mother Africa remained dormant in this field, so that the theory, if I'm not mistaken, regarding the theoretically excessive health of Africans remains unproven. By the way The trail of the sage's ascension in the heavenly storm was probably seen all over the world, which reminded everyone of our roots where our memory indicates it.
to Sharon
Wasn't the sage's ascension to heaven contrary to the laws of gravity?
Is it possible that a dark energy flowing behind him gave him the push to the sky?
How does this stack up with the dark mass?
We would like to get more idea about this unknown and important topic.
Good night
Sabdarmish Yehuda
My story begins with a wise man named James Burt the soft-spoken born in 1868 in the state of England in the city of Penzance, his parents were William and Margaret Burt, his life was not the life of any ordinary child, but much more difficult and complicated. When he was only two years old, James, his father and mother went on a cruise towards the heart of the Atlantic Ocean. Several months later, it is not known how little James was found lying on the beach in South Africa. A woman passing by on the beach saw little James and took him home with her and named him Nega. Over the years, James (Nega) grew up and became an integral part of the family that included his mother, father and eight brothers and sisters, however, Nega felt that he did not fit in with the villagers. He was always mocked for his light skin color, strange behavior and speaking style. Despite all of Nega's attempts to imitate his surroundings, the pricking sensation did not leave him.
On his 10th birthday following the event that happened to him which is presented below: England's invasion of South Africa in 1878, the frightened villagers began to abandon their homes and hide. Nega's parents, who were afraid of the invaders, forbade him and his brother to make any contact with the invaders, but the curious Nega, who did not listen to his parents' voice, decided to approach the invaders' camps and suddenly noticed something very interesting, the foreign invaders were very similar in appearance to him. Every day, Nega would sneak into the camps of the invaders and observe them and their actions. One fine day Nega decided to invade one of the boats on the beach. A few hours later, Naga was discovered by one of the sailors, who noticed that the African boy was different from the rest of the villagers and decided to take him under his protection. During a conversation between them, it became clear that the group of sailors were going on a journey, so Naga decided to go out to tour the world and find out where he was from and who they were. His real parents!!!
After many years of wandering around the country (England) when he was 25 years old, the "light" was revealed to Hachem Nega while he was in the city hearing everything that had happened to him in his childhood and that his name was James discovered that: "The connection is infinite"...!" James who was considered a teacher at that time way for his shippers, he immediately gathered all his disciples from all over England and told them everything that happened that day. The wise James decided to spread his teachings throughout the country and set out on journeys around the entire world, with only a map in his hand and all his possessions amounted to wine, fruit, bread, cakes, chickens when He sailed on a ship.
His travels lasted about 10 years. With the rise of the sage in the storm of heaven. His lost disciples began to spread his teachings throughout the entire universe.
After all, it is before you: the infinite between a person and his origin and family. Even when you grow up most of your life in an area far from light from your original place of origin, there will always be something that will tie you to your origin, with it your family, skin color, facial features, a person's character, language, speech style, culture, world view. This connection is inseparable, it is a very strong and permanent connection.
moshe
Everything in the links you sent is stupid rambling.
It's really amazing how religious liars allow themselves to bend the scriptures to fit their needs.
If a rabbit is not a storage rabbit it is not ruminant then why not it is not? Why God is not Harry Potter?
And in relation to the opening of the things in the first link - have you read chapter XNUMX in the book of XNUMX Kings?
It is clearly written there that we do not have any information that came from those imaginary sixties.
jewel:
You are indeed investigating the matter.
Searching for propaganda films on the Internet is also a type of research, but of course not a study of the subject of evolution.
One child comes home and tells his father:
"Today we learned that man is the son of the monkey"
The father answers him:
"Maybe you but I don't"
This response indeed characterizes the intelligence of the evolutionists
Hill:
I just saw your comment.
She is obviously wrong and expresses a misunderstanding of my response.
There is a difference between the chance of a mutation forming in a small group (which is indeed small) and the chances of a beneficial mutation taking over the population.
If you understand this difference you will understand my words.
What did Asimov think about the deniers of evolution and in particular those who deny that man descended from monkeys
Adi
Too bad you believe some trending video someone put on the internet.
If you had detailed knowledge in the field this article deals with, you would know that we and monkeys have a common ancestor - like all other animals. In our specific case - we and the apes - have a common ancestor that existed about 5 to 10 million years ago, depending on the specific ape.
What you wrote about mutations is not true at all.
And as for mutations...
A mutation causes genes to work and it contributes to the binding of traits that were not in the genes... before that.
That is, if we had 100% genes, then after radiation we have, for example, 95% genes...
All this is very interesting, so I started researching myself...
I ran into it:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H5sfHz3xyNc&feature=related
There is an excellent explanation here as to why humans were not created from monkeys... recommended for everyone.
The person who made the film is a person who believes in Islam, that's why he mentions Allah... but it's worth remembering that Muslims and Jews believe in the same God...
Recommended viewing for anyone who thinks we were created from monkeys!
Michael
You wrote in one of your comments here
Quote "From time to time, some of the humans who developed in Africa migrated to other continents but they did so in small groups that the chance of a significant mutation occurring that would create a new species in the content is much lower than in the main populations that, as mentioned, continued to inhabit Africa."
This claim completely contradicts what you or your friends claimed in the debate about the five pairs of lizards. There you said that the chance of a significant mutation forming increases when there is a small population because it helps to spread the mutation.
The hominids developed in Africa because that is where their ancestors lived. There were no primates in the Americas, nor in Europe. We stayed with Africa and South Asia.
and legal answer c. – Hermpithecus is probably the father of the orang-utang, not of man
Michael, I responded to your response as intended, but for some reason "the system does not approve", apparently they are excerpted from the same material as yours,
Michael,
A, your reference is not to the very subject on which I responded,
B. I specifically wrote our Torah, "the Torah of Israel", and you write "in your scriptures" and I have no intention of entering into an argument with a foreigner, a member of another religion and nation,
C, only if you are Jewish according to Halacha, then I bring you a link regarding the topic you wrote about: http://hydepark.hevre.co.il/topic.asp?topic_id=2164439&forum_id=18667
D, another link:http://www.haemet.net/downloads/books/know_the_truth.doc
God' ,
If it weren't for the Torah, "we" have no hold and/or claim on the "Land of Israel", this is the taboo / Kushan, the only one we have "the Jewish people" on "our" land.
moshe
It is also anchored in your scriptures that the rabbit and the rabbit chew the cud, that the trachea of the cow splits into three parts, one of which reaches the liver, that a shepary equals three, and that rodents and mice are created from inanimate matter
Anchored in the scriptures: although it is true, according to the writings of the late Ari, the place of the lower paradise is in the area where day and night are equal all year round,
And as is known according to our teachings, "Torat Israel", the creation and position of the first Adam in the Garden of Eden,
Slowly, slowly, the reasons for Africa's uniqueness are added.
Africa is actually almost an entire island connected to Asia only by a tiny desert connection in the Sinai.
So only by chance could the hominids move on.
Also, there are probably hints of the development of hominids in other parts of the world as well.
Although they did not survive in the world, they also did not survive in Africa when a more developed race was created.
I am happy about the answers of the respondents, and it was said:- Of all my respondents I was educated.
May we have a quiet evening and recovery for the wounded in the south.
Sabdarmish Yehuda
What I would add to this matter is the fact that apparently the tropical region was more sympathetic to the development of animals of our kind. If we take into account the fact that we descend from the monkey, which is a type of animal that excels at exploiting the trees of the forest and that its natural migration skills are not sailing, and if we add to that the fact that in order to reach other continents it was necessary very long from a geological point of view) to cross deserts and reach the Suez Canal area which is a very small point on the circumference of Africa, after all, apparently, it is not really a large-scale migration at the beginning of our journey.
The development of new species is the result of evolutionary pressure - on the one hand - and the development of the appropriate mutations - on the other hand.
What happens when there is a very strong pressure of an environment that the animal is not adapted to and the probability does not brighten its face in terms of the availability of mutations that make it possible not to live in this environment?
A new species does not develop, but the old species still passes from the world.
Given the fact that we are talking about human species that did not survive, it must be assumed that this is what happened to most of the hominids that migrated out of Africa.
Our migration and survival skills developed greatly with the development of Homo sapiens and its equipping with the box of wonders in our heads and this species was apparently the first that could wander away and also survive the hostile living conditions outside the forest and savannah.
That is why homo sapiens reached many places and we are indeed witnessing the beginning of the process of evolution in the creation of distinct human species.
These species come back today and interfere with each other thanks to the development of culture and this will probably prevent the development of man in the different regions into really separate species.
Judah and Roy,
Not only the amount affects the development of new species, but also the pressure of the environmental conditions (a worsening of the conditions leads to faster changes) as well as the free life niches (which include types of food, living areas, etc.), and this is the answer to the great diversity in the Galapagos Islands that was created despite, and perhaps because of , the small number of species. By the way, a small number of species is not necessarily a small number of individuals.
In my opinion, hominids (forms of man before modern man) were created several times and in different places in the world - simply because this niche existed - and the meaning of the results of the research is that it is the form of the hominid that was created in Africa that survived/took over this niche throughout the world while the extinction and even the destruction of the other forms (e.g. In Europe there is evidence of wars with the Neanderthals with many cracked Neanderthal bones...). If I am not mistaken, the species Homo robustus was a different species that did not evolve from our same branch.
Many years ago I heard about the discovery of a hominid in India that dates back to a period of 14 million years ago and was called Ramapithecus. I have not heard from him since, and this discovery may have been disproved. If not, this could be further support for the possibility that hominids arose several times during prehistory.
Yehuda,
I'm afraid I don't have enough information to answer this interesting question. I will content myself with supporting Michael's answer.
To Michael
It is most likely the quantity that determined where the major change in the development of the species would be. Although there are also opposite examples, for example:-
With the exception of the creatures that arrived in the Galapagos Islands, more mutations were created than the creatures that remained on the continent, so that a tiny population can give the impetus for change and development.
But, if the Neanderthal evolved elsewhere, it would lower the uniqueness of Africa and show that the evolution could have happened elsewhere as well.
I wonder what about other African animals, did their development also take place mainly in Africa? After all, we know about elephants in India that developed a little differently from the African elephants and the same with the African tiger and the Siberian tiger
Anyway thanks for the answer
Sabdarmish Yehuda
By the way, I don't know if the Neanderthal man first developed in Africa. In my opinion, it actually developed in Europe.
Yehuda:
If the ancestor of all human species developed in Africa, then most of his species probably lived there.
That's why all the mutations that created human races that are his descendants also happened there.
Occasionally, some of the humans who developed in Africa migrated to other continents but they did so in small groups that the chance of a significant mutation occurring that would create a new species in the content is much lower than in the main populations that, as mentioned, continued to inhabit Africa.
To Roy and Michael
We are not only talking about a one-time development of a transition from an ancient ape to man, but a development that has continued for the past millions of years and always started only in Africa, for example the Lucy, the Cro-Manion, the Neanderthal and of course the Homo sapiens, and every such development started in Africa. I asked:- Why, for example, the Cro-Magnon would not develop for the first time in Indonesia and the Neanderthal in India, what is there in Africa that for millions of years existed there, which always brought about the great change in the human race? Why exactly is it the source of all the important changes in human development?
I will bring a possibility for a solution, for example, if for example Africa was cut off from the other continents in the last millions of years so that man could only develop there? I don't know that this was a real possibility that really existed. If it were not so then an ancient species of man would have dispersed to other parts of the world, there would be no reason why it would not accumulate enough mutations there for a serious change in the race.
I hope I understood and would love to receive an answer
Sabdarmish Yehuda
The study from Stanford is the first
a question:
At the end of the article there is a reference to a study from Stanford, but nowhere else is it made clear which of the studies described was done at Stanford.
The sentence referring to this study is also not very clear. Genetic variation may be a good trait for the population but it is not necessarily good for the individual. From the content of this sentence, I conclude that the research at Stanford is probably the one that discovered the "harmful" genes, but as mentioned, the logic doesn't quite add up.
Yehuda:
I don't understand your question.
If the human race first developed in Africa then this is the case forever. Nowhere else will the human race develop for the first time. Therefore, it is not clear to me what the matter of many years has to do with the subject.
I repeat - I do not disagree with your words. I just did not understand them and it is desirable that you elaborate more.
Yehuda,
I'm not sure I understand the question. What peculiarity has been preserved in Africa over a long period of time?
A question for the science responders
Why Africa?
What is it about her that gives her this uniqueness?
It must be remembered that this is a peculiarity that has been preserved over a long period of time, that is, the last millions of years.
Waiting for an answer from all the wise.
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Middle East junction.
It is good to see how the competition between Science and Nature leads to more and more careful studies.