So, if we had not found that fossil, what type of inference we would have made? If we find similar fossils in China, and in Europe, what inference we would make?
Yup, just like Eve, we're all descended from a very few individuals. There's more variation in the mitochodrial DNA of one troop of wild chimpanzees than there is in the entire human species.
We'd still think that early man originated in Africa, because that's where the oldest and greatest number of hominid fossils are found. I guess like with other species like the horse it's possible our early anscestor evolved in one part of the globe then moved elsewhere. There needs to be more than one fossil before it can be claimed that modern man evolved in China.
Have we any theory as to how the Africans become Chinese in such a short span of years? Too much sunlight, windy atmosphere and a heavy gravity?
The answers are probably found in the interactions between the DNA and epi-DNA of the various groups. While DNA tends to change slowly over time the epi-DNA which controls how genes are expressed or activated can change rapidly in response to the environment the individual is in. All humans have virtually the same genetic makeup, it just gets expressed differently in different groups.
Saw at wiki... Today, all humans are classified as belonging to the species Homo sapiens sapiens. However, this is not the first species of hominids: the first species of genus Homo, Homo habilis evolved in East Africa at least 2 million years ago, and members of this species populated different parts of Africa in a relatively short time. Homo erectus evolved more than 1.8 million years ago, and by 1.5 million years ago had spread throughout the Old World. Virtually all physical anthropologists agree that Homo sapiens evolved out of Homo erectus. Anthropologists have been divided as to whether Homo sapiens evolved as one interconnected species from H. erectus (called the Multiregional Model, or the Regional Continuity Model), or evolved only in East Africa, and then migrated out of Africa and replaced H. erectus populations throughout the Old World (called the Out of Africa Model or the Complete Replacement Model). Anthropologists continue to debate both possibilities, and the evidence is technically ambiguous as to which model is correct, although most anthropologists currently favor the Out of Africa model. so the debate still continues....
The changes are very small, and even genetic drift could account for them - there was plenty of time, for such minor variations to arise. I have a private explanation - a just so story - for the epicanthic fold. From working in environments similar to the Mongolian steppe and northern Chinese grasslands and such, I speculate gnats may have been a serious selection pressure, and even more so on horse riders. The fold seems to me to protect, fairly well, the exact area of vulnerability. There have been times when if my life had depended on running or weaponry, I'd have been dead - effectively blinded in one or both eyes. But there are so very few and such minor truly genetic changes (Chinese in general are apparently the same genetic height as Africans in general, for example) that the question need have no answer but chance.
The physical appearance of a mammalian species can change in a short period of time. Just look at the domesticated dog. After 14,000 – 15,000 years of selective breeding you can now own a wolf that is smaller than some domesticated cats. Separating a group of humans for thousands of years is like a form of selective breeding. You should watch this documentary. There are 13 parts.
First thing comes to mind is that the aborigines of India and Australia are separated by 10,000 years or more. Yet they look the same. I will be watching the video...to see if that explains it.
indeed. The skull of `Toumai` was discovered in Chad, in 2001, and was estimated to be between 6 and 7 million years old, and probably represents the first splitting of the human branch from the ape lineage.
The dating techniques don't seem to be conclusive... http://www.mc.maricopa.edu/dept/d10/asb/anthro2003/archy/dating/datingtech.html
One way of looking at evolution is to regard evolution is dictated by a landscape of set conditions and values. Evolution will act like water in a river and seek the route of least resistance. If you have similar valleys then the course of the river will be similar. The aborigines are the same because their surroundings and selection pressures are the same. Similarly a dolphin and an Ichthyosaurs are separated by millions of years and by evolution yet look the same. The topology is the same so the animals look the same.
I think there's little doubt that Africa is the site of the origin of our species. Not only are the earliest hominid fossils found there so are the fossils of closely related hominids that went extinct and left no descendents. Africa is also the home to our closest living relatives the Chimpanzees and Gorillas.
That convinced me...Great genetic investigation. Too bad we did not come from the stars... Interesting item is that Dravidians had a city civilization before the other group arrived in India. The other part is that the Aborigins did not change much over that 15,000 years even though they lived side by side with the second and third group.
