Mankind's Close Call With Extinction

DNA Evidence Reveals How Humanity's Stone-Age Almost Went Way Of The Dodo

(AP)  Human beings may have had a brush with extinction 70,000 years ago, an extensive new genetic study suggests.

The number of early humans may have shrunk as low as 2,000 before numbers began to expand again in the early Stone Age, according to an analysis released Thursday.

"This study 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," Spencer Wells, National Geographic Society explorer in residence, said in a statement.

Wells is director of the Genographic Project, launched in 2005 to study anthropology using genetics. The report was published in the American Journal of Human Genetics.

Previous studies using mitochondrial DNA - which is passed down through mothers - have traced modern humans to a single "mitochondrial Eve," who lived in Africa about 200,000 years ago.

The migrations of humans out of Africa to populate the rest of the world appear to have begun about 60,000 years ago, but little has been known about humans between Eve and that dispersal.

The new study looks at the mitochondrial DNA of the Khoi and San people in South Africa which appear to have diverged from other people between 90,000 and 150,000 years ago.

The researchers led by Doron Behar of Rambam Medical Center in Haifa, Israel and Saharon Rosset of IBM T.J. Watson Research Center in Yorktown Heights, New York, and Tel Aviv University concluded that humans separated into small populations prior to the stone age, when they came back together and began to increase in numbers and spread to other areas.

Eastern Africa experienced a series of severe droughts between 135,000 and 90,000 years ago and the researchers said this climatological shift may have contributed to the population changes, dividing into small, isolated groups which developed independently of one another.

Paleontologist Meave Leakey, a Genographic adviser, commented: "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?"

Today more than 6.6 billion people inhabit the globe, according to the U.S. Census Bureau.

The research was funded by the National Geographic Society, IBM, the Waitt Family Foundation, the Seaver Family Foundation, Family Tree DNA and Arizona Research Labs.

[rational_1]

So-Where did Cain and Abel find their wives? Never have had anyone give me a reasonable answer to that question.
Posted by MaBa7 at 11:46 PM : Apr 25, 2008

Oooh, you missed a doozy of a ''conversation'' we had on another CBSNews board a few months back. One of the creationists admitted that Biblical literacy leads one inevitably to conclude that we''re all the progeny of an incestuous relationship between Eve and Cain. So God apparently thought incest was okay in the Garden of Eden, but no longer. Go figure - that God sounds pretty wacked to me.

[maba7]

So-Where did Cain and Abel find their wives? Never have had anyone give me a reasonable answer to that question.

[fibonacci_]

Where are the little religious brains here?

[thinkharder-]

You''''re wrong ThinkHarder. I work with a bunch of genenticists and I don''''t like ''''em. They are pretentitious to the point of boredom and overconfident in rather filmsy methods that don''''t provide the clear picture they claim to report. And in science, it''''s called "modelitis" when scientists shape their methods to fit an outcome they perceive as being more *** than plain scinece.
Posted by talkingham at 03:34 PM : Apr 24, 2008

Well...I''m a bio-chemist and I can tell you with no uncertainty that you will find no "modelitis" or other forms of shoddy research giong on in my lab. In every field or discipline you will find both the best and worst of us. however, science is DEFINED as I stated previously, and any jaded sentiment yo uhave towards our method is not a result of what is to be taught, but the result of a few misguided souls masquerading as scientists.

[johngoodnews]

I always get a chuckle from these articles--they almost always seem to imply that our presence is a foregone conclusion. **** Us''ns wouldn''t even be here but for a really, really small set of improbable events--not the least of which is the very existence of this planet--that no amount of replay could duplicate in umpteen billions of years. The fact that we''re here, however, is undeniable. Interesting entailments abound.

[usbrit-2009]

Eight? Adama & Eve, Cain and Able, Laverne & Shirley (Cain & Able''''s wives) but who are the other two? LOL

Posted by rational_1

Must have been Ozzie and Harriet - the source of all that good old ''50''s morality that the bible thumpers miss so much!! (LOL)

[rational_1]

I believe we got down to 8 just 4400 years ago...
Posted by rodbarker60 at 10:15 AM : Apr 25, 2008

Eight? Adama & Eve, Cain and Able, Laverne & Shirley (Cain & Able''s wives) but who are the other two? LOL

[rodbarker60]

I believe we got down to 8 just 4400 years ago...

[pollroller1]

I wonder, did those cave men have Gieco Insurance?

[rational_1]

This article is false. If humans were to become extinct 70,000 years ago, the aliens would just come back and drop off a few more, and start all over again.
Posted by incog-nito at 11:05 PM : Apr 24, 2008

Hmmm, an interesting hypothesis. I propose an extension; the spaceship is made of wood and shaped like a gigantic boat and has pens for two of each kind of animal. I love doing creation science - you just say whatever pops into your mind and you don''t have to provide any evidence. Can I have tenure at the Institute for Creation Research now?

[brianbwb-2009]

Posted by bobbyduck1

Let us continue your line of supposition, suppose that subsequent generations re-interpreted and twisted the original information, to fit more mundane agendas such as greed, and power-hunger, until it was so far from the truth as to be opposed to all empirical evidence, and those re-interpretations were accepted as the original truth, which of course by that time is empirically incorrect.

At that point, does not the re-interpreted information become irrelevant, useless, and serving of the opposite purpose of which it was originally intended?

[newsterl]

y. 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"

Yeah, and now we are rapidly destroying the planet by TOO MANY being born!

[jimfinster]

gaye5:

Take a basic geology course and you WILL understand. Good luck.

[incog-nito]

This article is false. If humans were to become extinct 70,000 years ago, the aliens would just come back and drop off a few more, and start all over again.

[prohb]

Gaye5 continues the same old mantra of the naysayers -"See! There were cycles in the past!" Of course there were! No reputable scientists denies that. But...because of human activity we are making this cycle worst and jump-starting some really bad effects. Look at the ice core data and the studies about the synergistic effect of the water vapor and CO2 in the atmosphere.

[gaye5]

How on earth can they conclude that humans separated into small populations prior to the stone age, then they came back together and began to increase in numbers and spread to other areas.
The bones of perhaps 99% of any living things disappear within a few years of dying. There could have been masive populations then and they have all become dirt.. Humanity has a great capacity to adapt and survive.. I cannot see how anyone can deduce the population of thousands of years ago, there were no records to tell us and now no bones.. Tomorrow someone else well qualified, will come out and tell us that we were over populated back then or something... I object to having my well earned taxes spent on speculation like this which cant be proved one way or the other, surely there is more worth while things to be studying like destroying cancers..

[gaye5]

Eastern Africa experienced a series of severe droughts between 135,000 and 90,000 years ago.

Oh my gosh, dont tell me that global warming happened then..oh no dont tell me that we have gone through many cycles of this..
I am printing this with tongue in cheek and of course we have, many scientists have reported that we have gone through cycles of great climate change before, but the media wont print it as it is not popular for the global warmers of today and the money that will be made out of this scam..remember that Vikings used to be able to grow crops in Greenland, but cant now.

[tlobe]

I''m no longer convinced that we all evolved from Lucy. If onditions were right on the African continent for early humans to evlove from other species, then were those same conditions likely present at other dispersed locations. We would all have similar genetic codes since we are all advanced biped homosapiens. If the earth has had many past climatic changes due to comet and/or meteor impacts, then it makes sense that the population of the human species would have ebbed and grown. I am sometimes amazed at science frequently overcomplicates simple things.

[bobbyduck1]

cbscrash07: You''d probably be surprised at what I would/do or wouldn''t/don''t accept/believe. It seems that as soon as anyone mentions the Bible as any kind of reference, the majority immediately classify that person as belonging in either nursery school or at a religious camp or something.

Personally I think the accounts of creation and the great flood are a means for a very advanced intelligence to relate important events to a very un-evolved audience, that being all of humanity at the time these early telling/writings took place.

But I also think that the evolution of all of the interwoven complex beings and their societies - both "animal" and "human" was no accident of nature.

Suppose for a moment that "God" "created" human life on earth via DNA manipulation and/or some other means that we haven''t learned of yet. Now to explain all of that to the slowly evolving results of this "creation" you would need some nursery-rhyme type simplicity when you set down to talk to them about it. My opinion (and it''s only that) is that this is kind of what happened. It''s perhaps why creationists and evolutionists can''t give up their core beliefs, they are both kind of right. In my opinion.

What if "human-ness" was introduced into one (or even several) relatively high-level animal species on earth via DNA manipulation. Could that not be explained by what we see around us? Just food for thought, I don''t have the answers but at least I know it.

[jcr103]

Did you notice the picture accompanying the article? The shadow of the woman...she''s hot!!!