View Full Version : Out of Africa Debunked? Ulfur Arnason and Shi Huang

08-03-2020, 06:27 PM
So at this point nobody actually takes Klyosov seriously, as one person years ago on this site breaking down Klyosov's methodology (https://anthrogenica.com/archive/index.php/t-1090.html) and even laymen on reddit (https://www.reddit.com/r/science/comments/uj42z/russian_scientists_disprove_out_of_africa_theory/)managing to do so.

Today I want to mention five studies that are associated with two researchers, Shi Huang and Ulfur Arnason.

Ulfur Arnason, after pointing out the Modern DNA in Altai neanderthals, the distribution of denisovans and Neanderthals, the over 100,000 fossils from South China, and Sulawesi "hominins" (he doesn't type "sapiens"), and the recent DNA of of Neanderthals from Spain, that Modern human appeared in Asia around 200,000 years ago and went into Africa around that time forming the Khoisan which was the western most end of human distributions, while future migrations form the Yoruba.

See this article (http://ancientnews.net/2017/09/16/the-out-of-europeasia-into-africa-theory-of-human-origins-new-paper-calls-for-paradigm-displacement/) to get the gist of his theory (which hasn't been pushed in a while). See here to get a partial free look at his introduction of OOA (https://daneshyari.com/article/preview/2815012.pdf)and

My thoughts? While the distribution of archaic humans places a case for the LCA to be Eurasian, the anthropological evidence and his phylogeny doesn't make the case for a geographical Asian home for Sapiens.

1. As can be seen by his explanation of OOA by physical evidence, he doesn't directly address the then 200k-150k evidence (Jebel Irhoud wasn't established as Sapiens yet) and instead emphasizes the Daoxian teeth by Liu, whose paper emphasized quite clearly that the finding was consistent with a Southern Route Hypothesis involving early Levantine Sapiens. They are also not beyond dispute (https://www.researchgate.net/publication/307465372_The_earliest_modern_Homo_sapiens_in_Chin a/citations).

2. He cites Levantine "evidence" of enduring human presence, yet fails to not that the work that he cites is based on earlier work (https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1179/009346996791974007) supporting OOA. Likewise, the 1999 study by Stiner (https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/e449/40f01d7c9b74bd7e201558384f683fa96ba2.pdf) that he notes of showing increasing densities in human populations through increased animal exploitation doesn't have any real relevance to his demonstration of a 250k divergence of Khoisan and non-Africans.

The paper notes that early Mid-Paleolithic was sparsely populated and in general experienced stasis towards the conditions that result in hominin innovation like modern behavior. The "pulses" were experienced in the later periods or the upper Paleolithic, not during the age he associates it with.

3. His basic phylogeny, in regards of which modern humans are the most basal, doesn't change except from speculating on the geographic point of radiation using ancient eurasian dna. I can't access this part beyond his graph, if anyone can please do it. All I can say is that the paleontological materials he uses doesn't support sapiens originating in Eurasia at the earliest. Likewise, the Fuyan study mentions how Northern Chinese finds were comparatively archaic.

Shi Huang, is quite different. He argues (https://www.biorxiv.org/node/95771.full)that basal Africans were Neanderthal/Denisovan related and that modern human sex chromsomes originate in Asia. He has two other studies on sex chromsomes specifically, as well as arguments on his twitter page (https://twitter.com/shi_huang5?lang=en), and his blog (http://thegoldengnomon.blogspot.com/) but it is here were the morphological arguments are asinine.

The single origin Out of Africa model assumes that there was a relatively recent common ancestral population for Homo sapiens which already showed most of the anatomical features shared by present day people. This population originated in Africa ~200 ky ago, followed by an initiation of African regional differentiation, subsequent radiation from Africa, and final establishment of modern regional characteristics outside Africa 1,10. These modern Africans replaced the archaic Homo in Eurasia with limited genetic mixing 11–15. Support for this model comes from the African location of the earliest fossils (~315 ky ago in Jebel Irhoud, Morocco) of mostly but not all AMH features 16,17 and the Neutral theory interpretation of the greater genetic diversity in Africans 10. Difficulties with this model include the discrepancy between autosomal and Y/mtDNA age, the Y haplotype A00 with age >300 ky 18, fossils with AMH features of greater than 85 ky old (upto ~260 ky) in multiple Eurasia locations (Daoxian Hunan, Xuchang Henan, Bijie Guizhou, and Dali Shaanxi in China, Misliya and Shkul/Qafzeh in Israel, and Al Wusta-1 in Arabia) 19–24 and the generally weaker support from fossils and stone tools relative to the multiregional model. While the AMH fossils found outside Africa have been assumed to originate in Africa, an origin in Asia has not been excluded. In fact, in 1983, researchers have derived an mtDNA tree rooted in Asia 25. Unfortunately, this model was overlooked without anyone ever explaining why the Asia model was less valid than the Africa model.

Aside pointed out before, none of the fossils listed compromises OOA as a whole, as close reading of the Southern Route hypothesis cited in Liu 2015 would show. Dali was concluded as overall (https://www.researchgate.net/publication/320639445_A_multivariate_assessment_of_the_Dali_ho minin_cranium_from_China_Morphological_affinities_ and_implications_for_Pleistocene_evolution_in_East _Asia/references) being more archaic than Jebel Irhoud in the Neurocranium, with it's derived features likely representing gene flow.

"That the Y haplotype NO of the ~45,000 year old Ust’-Ishim differs from the putative ancestor F by only ~27 SNPs whereas a present day haplotype could differ from the F ancestor by as much as ~740 SNPs (Fig. 2) indicates that the ancestor F should not be much older than ~45,000 years. This relatively young age is remarkably consistent with the time point for the replacement of Neanderthals by AMH but appears to contradict the oldest AMH fossils in Africa or in Hunan China 19. However, nearly all AMH fossils older than 40,000 years still have certain archaic features and independent evolution of modern features has been noted to occur periodically over the past 950,000 years since the time of H. antecessor 87."

Given how modern human genetic variation likely exists between 200-300ka, this is once again asinine. Retention of archaic traits would be expected.

"Our finding of Neanderthals and Denisovans as primarily Africans with Eurasian admixture is well supported by fossil data indicating H. heidelbergensis, present in both Africa and Europe, as ancestors of Neanderthals. The taurodont teeth are common in Neanderthals, Heidelbergensis and certain South African fossils 90. The occipital bunning of Neanderthals are also common in modern Africans 91. Neanderthals are known to share multiple traits with Europeans such as the prominent shape and size of the nose 30,92, which supports our finding that Europeans are often genetically the closest to Neanderthals (2/3 examined here) after Africans. Our result that Denisovan is nearly equally related to East Asians and Europeans (slightly more related to East Asians) is consistent with where Denisovan was found. Seemingly unexpectedly, certain Neanderthals found in Europe is most closely related to Asians (Vi33.25) or Americans (Vi33.26), and one of the three Neanderthals closest to Africans was closer to East Asians than to Europeans. However, this would be expected if Africans associated with the Neanderthal exit had entered Asia or South Asia via the Northern route from Siberia or possibly a Southern route. The general lack of Neanderthal fossils in this Southern route may reflect the relatively small effort so far invested in this region (with only few Homo fossil finds like Narmada from ~200 kya who is broadly classified as H. heidelbergensis). Indeed several fossils in China show Neanderthal features such as the inner-ear formation in the ~100 ky old Xujiayao and Xuchang Man 4,93–95. Certain mysterious Southern China fossils such as the 11-15.5 ky old ‘Red Deer Cave’ people with hybrid features of modern and archaic humans may also be candidates for Asian relatives of Neanderthals, especially considering their taurodont teeth 96. Early modern human fossils with typical Mongoloid features in South West China (Liujiang, Ziyang, Lijiang, and Chuandong) also have weak occipital buns commonly found in Neanderthals 4,94,97. Mousterian stone tools commonly associated with Neanderthals also existed in Shuidonggou and Chenggong in South West China 4,98. Thus, although Neanderthals were mostly found in Europe and Middle East, they likely also made their way to North East Asia (Denisovan and Teshik-Tash) and South East Asia 99."

1. Besides being an old study, the category of teeth without actual taxonomic value through further studies hardly supports that assertion.

2. "Bunning" (https://scholar.harvard.edu/files/dlieberman/files/2000a.pdf) while higher in this African sample than most others, as this study points out this is a function of human cephalic index rather "neanderthal ancestry" As genetically Eurasian Egyptians approach Ashanti measures than to Chinese or Italian.

3. The Shape of Neanderthals' noses are unique (https://anatomypubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/ar.20776) to them, contra Wolpoff.

"Fossils or traits indicating AMH migration from East Asia into Africa or Europe have been noted before. First, native Africans such as Khoisans are well known to have certain East Asian features such as shoveling teeth, epicanthic fold, and lighter skins. Mbuti pygmies look very much like the Andamanese. The much lower frequency of shoveling teeth in African fossils and Khoisan relative to ancient and modern Chinese suggests that this type of teeth could only originate in China with its African presence due to migration. The type of shoveling teeth found in Neanderthals and Pleistocene Homo from Atapuerca-Sima de los Huesos may either be a different type from that of Asians and Africans or come from early disposal of Homo from Asia to Europe 100,101. Second, a combination of three features has been noted to be region-specific to China fossils with lower frequency also found in North Africa: a non-depressed nasal root, non-projecting perpendicularly oriented nasal bones and facial flatness 102. Third, Dali man of China (~260 kya) had lower upper facial index and flat nasomolar angle, but these two modern features only first appeared in Europe in Cro Magnons (Xinzhi Wu, personal communication)."

1. The Light skin architecture (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5884124/) of the Khoisan have little in common with known alleles. Shovelling teeth in Asians are a late (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0092867413000676), not ancient, trait with the Khoisan (https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/4781/99d0f87806204be6dec63715b8f36489f2ad.pdf) having a lower incidence compared to West Africans. Otheriwse, Khoisan skulls (http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi= or other physical traits for taxonomy show little in common with East Asians.

2. SE asian Pygmies and Mbuti Pygmies have little genetic affinity (https://digitalcommons.wayne.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2060&context=humbiol)to each other.

3. Dali, having African admixture which neanderthals would lack, explains this.

If anyone is better at Genetics, and wouldn't mind going over his Y-chromosome data (https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Shi_Huang/research) as well as the data from this study, that would be great.

If anyone sees issues in my logic or can provide more details of Arnason's or Huang's points on genetics, let me know. Huang also seems associated with an opponent to Neutral theory of molecular evolution called "Maximum genetic Diversity (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maximum_genetic_diversity)" hypothesis. Problem? Only his work seems to use this phrase, and while work other than his is listed on the wiki page, I'm not exactly sure they support his actual methodology as oppose to simply being deviation from neutral theory. Anyone able to follow the sources and see if they match up?