New Type of Ancient Human Found—Descendants Live Today?

While it is true that the Human population can be split quite easily as "those who never left Africa" and "everyone else", I think what Jon's shooting for is: "They are all human".The difference between the most "African" African and the most "Swedish" Swede really isn't that different at all.Scientists have been very successful at picking out and labeling differences between various populations, largely because the differences give us information. Noting the 99% of genes that are identical and provide no usable information about population dynamics or movements, doesn't really make for good publishing material.Further I think Jon is trying to point out that in the pre-historical past, the historical past and the present, humans are particularly good at getting around and getting it on.It's hard to find anyone in a modern society who is ethnically pure. But that's not just something from a modern society. I'm sure if you were in ancient Rome, you'd likely meet someone who's father was a Gaul and who's mother came from Egypt or whatever.The lack of differences between populations, and our ability to flow genes between groups which are relatively isolated, means that it is extremely unlikely in our current situation that we'll see a split of humanity into two distinct species.At least, that's what I'm getting from him.

Not trying to be relevant, trying to explain what he's trying to convey.

Don't seem like much point to trying to make it OoA _or_ MR.Clearly it's both.Looking at just the Neanderthal genes in populations outside of Africa demonstrates that MR and OoA played a role.Call Neanderthals are "human population" as the cladists would, and you've got gene flow coming from a group which clearly evolved in isolation from the OoA group.Unless the entire argument is being rolled back to "did H. Erectus evolve into three + different populations which each interbred and therefore it's all MR".But if we're doing roll backs, why not just roll it back again and say: "All H. Erectus populations arose from a seeder population which originally arose in Africa". So it's back to OoA.Someone has to set a specific point of reference in order for the debate to have any meaning.

I dunno. I suspect that Flores was actually isolated enough for no gene flow. It's features are really early homonid compared to later groups.

Depends on what you mean by MR.If you are saying MR is Erectus etc populations evolved in isolation from one another to create Asians, Africans, Europeans - then yeah, that's wrong.However, if you are saying that genes developed in isolated homonid groups and that those genes appear in current human populations as a result of gene flow into the group that left Africa - that's right.All groups outside of Africa have the Neanderthal genes. So clearly a group left Africa (OoA) and picked up some genes from other groups (MR) along the way.

So the problem here is one of principles.One group is saying that if _any_ contribution was made then an OoA claim is refuted because clearly not all the genes came from Africa.One group is saying that the genes contributed by MR groups are small or insignificant in number, therefore they should be ignored.The truth is that a wave of people whose offspring represent the vast majority of genetic survivors left Africa to sweep across a world where other human groups already existed.Along the way, that wave absorbed and/or replaced those existing groups, picking up some additional genes which were not present in the initial wave.It's not 100% OoA, it's not 100% MR. they both factor into the real events.Yes, OoA is more influential. I agree. But, existing populations did contribute as well.

That's what I was saying a few posts back.If you want to move back the line for what homonids you are talking about, then you change the discussion.If we're talking strictly modern homo sapiens, then it's OoA.
If we're talking about homo sapiens and groups they can exchange genes with, then it's both
If we're talking about H. Erectus only and how it got to Java etc, then it's probably OoA, however Flores makes it unclear.
If we're talking about whatever population founded Flores, then we're back to OoA.
If we're talking about anything from the genus homo, then it's back to OoA.
If we're talking anything mammal, then maybe it's NOT OoA, whatever landmass first hosted mammals.You can move the line anywhere you want and change the rules for the discussion. Unless people are able to agree where the line is set, then discussion is useless.We might as well be saying "The week begins on Sunday" or "The week begins on Monday". It depends on who you ask and what they mean by "week".

Well, that's not much of a debate. Clearly all the populations outside of Africa arose from a very limited number of mDNA sources, back tracking location and dating demonstrates the OoA.

What's there to interpret? If we're talking about strictly modern H. Sapiens, and the 3 mDNA lineages that survived to populate everything outside of Africa - we're talking about "out of Africa" pretty much by definition.