The genetic survey, produced by a collaborative team led by scholars at Cambridge and Anglia Ruskin Universities, shows that Australia's aboriginal population sprang from the same tiny group of colonists, along with their New Guinean neighbours.

The research confirms the “Out Of Africa” hypothesis that all modern humans stem from a single group of Homo sapiens who emigrated from Africa 2,000 generations ago and spread throughout Eurasia over thousands of years. These settlers replaced other early humans (such as Neanderthals), rather than interbreeding with them.

Academics analysed the mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) and Y chromosome DNA of Aboriginal Australians and Melanesians from New Guinea. This data was compared with the various DNA patterns associated with early humans. The research was an international effort, with researchers from Tartu in Estonia, Oxford, and Stanford in California all contributing key data and expertise.

The results showed that both the Aborigines and Melanesians share the genetic features that have been linked to the exodus of modern humans from Africa 50,000 years ago.

Until now, one of the main reasons for doubting the “Out Of Africa” theory was the existence of inconsistent evidence in Australia. The skeletal and tool remains that have been found there are strikingly different from those elsewhere on the “coastal expressway” – the route through South Asia taken by the early settlers.

Some scholars argue that these discrepancies exist either because the early colonists interbred with the local Homo erectus population, or because there was a subsequent, secondary migration from Africa. Both explanations would undermine the theory of a single, common origin for modern-day humans.

But in the latest research there was no evidence of a genetic inheritance from Homo erectus, indicating that the settlers did not mix and that these people therefore share the same direct ancestry as the other Eurasian peoples.

Geneticist Dr Peter Forster, who led the research, said: “Although it has been speculated that the populations of Australia and New Guinea came from the same ancestors, the fossil record differs so significantly it has been difficult to prove. For the first time, this evidence gives us a genetic link showing that the Australian Aboriginal and New Guinean populations are descended directly from the same specific group of people who emerged from the African migration.”

At the time of the migration, 50,000 years ago, Australia and New Guinea were joined by a land bridge and the region was also only separated from the main Eurasian land mass by narrow straits such as Wallace's Line in Indonesia. The land bridge was submerged about 8,000 years ago.

The new study also explains why the fossil and archaeological record in Australia is so different to that found elsewhere even though the genetic record shows no evidence of interbreeding with Homo erectus, and indicates a single Palaeolithic colonisation event.

The DNA patterns of the Australian and Melanesian populations show that the population evolved in relative isolation. The two groups also share certain genetic characteristics that are not found beyond Melanesia. This would suggest that there was very little gene flow into Australia after the original migration.

Like a cancer, this groups genes metastasized to decimate other species and the planet.

Like a cancer, this groups genes metastasized to decimate other species and the planet.
It's survival of the fittest. Man is as much a part of nature as any other organism on this planet. We have caused far less damage than plants did when they began releasing oxygen thru photosynthesis and totally changed the atmosphere of the planet.

Like the anerobic organisms that had to adapt or die due to the actions of plants, organisms alive now must adapt to us (among other things).

Hmm, maybe that's why humans are so fucked up? ...the inbreeding, I mean. When one starts with such a small sampling of breeders, inbreeding is not only possible, but necessary. Hmm, so that's why humans are all so fucked up, huh?

Baron Max

How the "Out-of-Africa" group subdued the entire world, which included he bigger brain and much stronger Neanderthals, is a problem to understand, but an explanation falls naturally out of a POV that I proposed to solve dozens of other puzzles, such as: “Is free will possible?” (Consistent with physics and chemistry which control the movement of every atom in the body, including all your nerve cells) etc.

For that post go to:
http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=1294496&postcount=52
And begin to read at the bold text" Genuine Free Will is Possible

How the "Out-of-Africa" group subdued the entire world, which included he bigger brain and much stronger Neanderthals, is a problem to understand, but an explanation falls naturally out of a POV that I proposed to solve dozens of other puzzles, such as: “Is free will possible?” (Consistent with physics and chemistry which control the movement of every atom in the body, including all your nerve cells) etc.

For that post go to:
http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=1294496&postcount=52
And begin to read at the bold text" Genuine Free Will is Possible
Holy crap, Billy. Basing the existence of freewill on a model of visual perception. I wish I'd had your post back in my visual perception class. It would have made for interesting conversation.

Your theory that improved neuroprocessing might explain the cro-magnums wiping out the neandethals is also interesting, but impossible to prove. As an alternative, perhaps neanderthals were mute or possessed a more rudimentary ability to communicate with each other. So while individualy tougher, they couldn't fight off hordes of homo sapiens working together and were wiped out.

It all makes sense with the Global Flood Model, a population bottleneck with the Deluge, from a homogenous population pre-Deluge, so the genetic variations which we see amongst "the races" are because the families moved off as isolated breeding groups into disparate climates and terrains.

… the genetic variations which we see amongst "the races" are because the families moved off as isolated breeding groups into disparate climates and terrains. Of course you are not admitting here any Darwinian selection are you? :D It is just chance “genetic variation” and “coincidence.” ;)

I.e. it is just a strange set of chance coincidences (or God's long range planning?) that has made the genetic variations achieve individuals that are better suited to the new and different environments.

You know things like where there is malaria, you find the otherwise debilating blood disorder, sickle cell anemia, which Just by chance of course, no Darwinian selection :rolleyes: helps prevent that disease. Likewise you find lots of melatonin in the skin of the people you live in the hot sun areas, Larger lung capacity in the indians living in the high Andes mountains than in those that fish in the sea, etc. all by "genetic variation coincidence," nothing to do with being selected for. LOL !

I heard they found the tracks of the first bunch.

They were apparently trying to find a waterhole near the Egyption coast, and got lost when they forgot which side the ocean was on. They made it as far as Turkey, and then started going in circles.

The rest of their tribe never bothered looking for them.

Those are all variations within the human syngameon Billy T, get a grip.

Those are all variations within the human syngameon Billy T, get a grip.Isee you follow the rule: When you are wrong, "razel dazil em" (with big words). - As several other have shown, you do not even understand the meaning of "syngameon." It is certainly not explaining why the genetic variations just happen by coincidence, not Darwinian selection, in thousand of cases to produce better adaptations to the different environments. Get real that better adaptation is because it is being selected for - I.e. Darwinian selection is real - no God or pure chance coincidence being best thousand of times.

Whatever that was supposed to mean.