A team of Genographic researchers and their collaborators have published the most extensive survey to date of African mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA). Over 600 complete mtDNA genomes from indigenous populations across the continent were analyzed…
Doron Behar said: “We see strong evidence of ancient population splits beginning as early as 150,000 years ago, probably giving rise to separate populations localized to Eastern and Southern Africa. It was only around 40,000 years ago that they became part of a single pan-African population, reunited after as much as 100,000 years apart.”
Recent paleoclimatological data suggests that Eastern Africa went through a series of massive droughts between 135,000-90,000 years ago. It is possible that this climatological shift contributed to the population splits. What is surprising is the length of time the populations were separate – as much as half of our entire history as a species…
Dr. Spencer Wells said: “This new study released today illustrates the extraordinary power of genetics to reveal insights into some of the key events in our species’ history. Tiny bands of early humans, forced apart by harsh environmental conditions, coming back from the brink to reunite and populate the world. Truly an epic drama, written in our DNA.”Paleontologist Meave Leakey added: “Who would have thought that as recently as 70,000 years ago, extremes of climate had reduced our population to such small numbers that we were on the very edge of extinction.”
Our species survived an environmental threat of extinction when we were as scarce as 2,000 individuals. Now that we number in the billions, I hope we can keep from killing ourselves off – on our own.
19-amodedoma.
Nobody will follow this, but…just struck me.
We’re talking women here. Maybe aggressiveness didn’t had a part in it. Maybe other earthly advantages played their role. Remember we’re talking mitochondrial DNA from mother to daughter. Maybe our common mother was beautiful beyond belief for the time, and her daughters too. Maybe they were the prized catch of the finest warriors.
…
Man, earlier on I talked about the fantastic Epic this tale would be. And it gets juicier and juicier as I think of it.
10 M. Scott Re Humans responsible for extinctions.
90% of all the species we know about are extinct. The Paleobiology Database lists 120,641 described taxa, and most of these are Genera to say nothing of the 100 million + species all this encompasses. These are but the slightest of shadow of the number of species that once actually existed through the eons.
I don’t have a handy guide as to how many of those extinctions were caused by one species out-competing another but you can bet it is significant. Death is the engine that powers evolution.
So though animals have been ripping apart and eating other living animals for much longer than 65 million years (as per their evolved DNA programming & reflecting the sublime beauty of nature), isn’t it gratifying to know that the “more evolved” humans among us are above that sort of thing?
Now, I’m sorry, I’m about to get up onto my soap box because… isn’t it really high time those same enlightened humans – guided by the strong leadership of PETA – finally does something about the savage and pathetic “cold-blooded” killings between animals within our political jurisdictions? Think terrorized little deer and baby seals getting their throats torn out while alive by predators. No, I’m sorry, we have to take a stand, and it all must now stop.
If we can be upset about any cruel treatment of our pets and food animals, then we should equally be upset about the obvious cruelty that exists day & night in our forests and oceans. The animals don’t know the difference between “good” politically acceptable cruelty in the wild, and “bad” cruelty by people! Suffering is suffering is all they know.
If we can attempt to force thousand year old stubborn cultures like Saudi Arabia to suddenly embrace our more enlightened Western ideals, why shouldn’t we also impose our standards upon all life that is so clearly within our responsible stewardship?
Even if stopping all this vicious animal bloodshed turns out to be more challenging than expected to enforce, I still believe we should at least take a stand and organize protests as an expression of the solidarity of our ethics on this matter.
We create impractical policies reflecting our principles all the time. If good people have the insight, will and political savvy to create “nuclear-free” cities, we can also create “Animal Savagery-free” countries.
RBG
#22–RBG==good post. Rhapsodic almost. Scott enjoys displaying his nickname as far as he can push it. My own emphasis is one that Scott agrees with and that is that as we exercise our dominion over the animals, the problem is we are killing off species that will ultimately result in our own demise. We simply don’t understand the living web we remain a part of.
You touched on it but lost it. The key is we are stewards, and animals don’t have a choice.
But we do. Scott and I depart here–I think the choices should be made to maximize human culture, and Scott wants to favor the animals. In the end, we may be closer together than that characterization may indicate.
RBG,
Get off your soapbox. Your numbers are likely correct for past species extinction. They may even be higher. However, our current extinction rate is over 1,000 times the normal background rate of extinction. We have already caused a mass extinction greater than the one that took out the non-avian dinosaurs 65.3 MYA.
Don’t cut humans short.
We’ve earned our rightful place in the history of this planet as the cause of the sixth great extinction.
We are a catastrophe.
The only thing left to think about now is how bad this extinction will become. Will it be only as bad as the extinction of the non-avian dinosaurs?
Or, will we cause severe and runaway global warming at the same level that cause the Permian Triassic extinction event 250 MYA, the current record holder for worst extinction ever, and also caused by global warming, though obviously not human caused?
This is not a PETA issue. It’s not about killing individual animals. I eat meat. So, I’m no angel here. The difference is the willful destruction of habitat that is causing whole species to go extinct at the rate of one per hour. While you were reading this blog, another one died.
So how did that last big global extinction work out? The mass extinction of 160 million years of the dinosaurs almost certainly paved the way for the rodent-like animal that evolved into man. Evolution’s version of the high colonic was a good thing.
So by my calculation, the next big extinction ought to produce the Arthur C. Clarke’s evolutionary Star Child.
RBG
RBG,
Get the dates right. Non-avian dinosaurs went extinct 65.3 million years ago. The biggest extinction was 250 million years ago. The former was caused by a cometary impact. The latter was caused by … brace yourself … global warming. Of course it was not human caused. If we go that route, yes, it may open many doors for other species. However, those doors may not open for ten million years or more.
Are we willing to play games with time frames like that?
Can we call ourselves a moral species if we do?
Some might argue that the extreme improbability of this indicates intelligent design.
Not that I would argue that. I’m just saying…
#27 – Greg Allen,
Yes. Some might make that argument. However, they’d be flat dead wrong. Even if something were to disprove evolution actively, as opposed to arguing by probabilities and statistics when evidence is required instead, it would not add weight to ID.
ID is quite simply a failed hypothesis. In order to explain complexity, we must first postulate complexity. Or, in order to explain intelligence we first postulate intelligence. Or, whatever. It flies up its own asshole in infinite recursion.
If intelligence was required to create (blah) then intelligence was required to create the intelligence that created (blah). And, intelligence was required to create the intelligence that created the intelligence that created (blah).
It’s turtles all the way down.
And how is it you know that the current species extinction rate is faster? That more species are observed now which have gone extinct than what we can find in the fossil record?
>>If intelligence was required to create
>>(blah) then intelligence was required to
>>create the intelligence that created (blah).
Ah, Scottie, you’re so militant. As all we believers know, God is the ultimate intelligence, and nothing was required to “create” him/her. As it was in the beginning, is now, and ever shall be, world without end. Amen.
As to people who deny evolution, pfffft. There’s a dipshit fucktard born every minute, or whatever it was that PT Barnum said.
26. Scott.
I didn’t provide any dates, only the span of time dinosaurs dominated the Earth.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dinosaur
yes, it may open many doors for other species. However, those doors may not open for ten million years or more.
It’s short term gain that has caused the threat of Global Warming. (That’s the best I can do.)
RBG
#30 – MM,
Ah, Scottie, you’re so militant. As all we believers know, God is the ultimate intelligence, and nothing was required to “create” him/her. As it was in the beginning, is now, and ever shall be, world without end. Amen.
And yet, you can’t just apply that logic to the quantum state of the universe before the big bang?
Further, you seem unwilling to explore the origins of god. Since you believe in one, I would think you’d want to know more about him/her/it. Why is it that only nontheists feel comfortable asking about the origins of god?
Wouldn’t it be a way to grow closer to your creator to ask questions and investigate?
BTW, why god? Why not turtles? Why not FSM? Why not many gods? Ganesh is so cute!! And, then there’s always Thor; if I can’t see Thor, at least I can hear him.
How do you choose which one? And how do you choose that there is only one?
And, again, by continuing this thread, we both prove to be equally militant. So, you can stop trying to be holier than thou. You’re not. And, you can stop claiming to not be proselytizing. You are. As assuredly as I am opposing religion, you are trying to spread it. You do an excellent job of convincing yourself that this is not true. But, it is.
#32–Scott==I don’t think Mustard offering his opinion, nor defending it, is the same as intending to spread it. It could be, but it is not necessarily so. Painting him with that overbroad brush is what some here criticize Mustard for in his mischaracterization of atheism as a belief system. It can be, but almost always isn’t.
Maybe I have missed enough of Mustards posts to not observe where he does more than offer an opinion/defense, but I doubt it from what I have seen. One or two exceptions would not a trend make.
Equally militant? We’d have to collect threads, but my impression is that you and I both inject our anti-religion bias more than Mustard injects his pro religious nonsense. Everyone tends to remember unpleasant experiences longer than pleasant ones.