1. TheDiverseApe. So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he As we continue on our journey – above the same enormous body of . Citation: H-Net Book Channel. New Book - The Journey of Man: A Genetic Odyssey. The H-Net Book Channel. The journey of man: a genetic odyssey. byWells, Spencer, Publication date For print-disabled users. Borrow this book to access EPUB and PDF files.
|Language:||English, Spanish, French|
|Genre:||Politics & Laws|
|ePub File Size:||19.58 MB|
|PDF File Size:||8.18 MB|
|Distribution:||Free* [*Register to download]|
Request PDF on ResearchGate | On Jul 1, , Margaret I. Gradie and others published The Journey of Man: A genetic odyssey. Editorial Reviews. echecs16.info Review. Spencer Wells traces human evolution back to our very first ancestor in The Journey of Man. Along the way, he sums up . Journey of Man: A Genetic Odyssey. By Spencer Wells. By analyzing DNA from people in all regions of the world, geneticist Spencer Wells has concluded that.
Modern humans, he contends, didn't start their spread across the globe until after that time. Most archaeologists would say the exodus began , years ago-a 40,year discrepancy. Wells' take on the origins of modern humans and how they came to populate the rest of the planet is bound to be controversial. His work adds to an already crowded field of opposing hypotheses proposed by those who seek answers in "stones and bones"- archaeologists and paleoanthropologists - and those who seek them in our blood-population geneticists and molecular biologists. Over the last decade, major debate on whether early humans evolved in Africa or elsewhere, when they began outward migration, where they went, and whether they interbred with or replaced archaic species has moved out of scientific journals and into the public consciousness.
download Instant Access.
View Preview. Learn more Check out. Related Information. Email or Customer ID.
Forgot your password? Forgot password? Old Password.
New Password. Your password has been changed. Returning user. Request Username Can't sign in? Probably it was the acquisition of language and its associated symbolic perception of the world. Efficient tools, art, and the better use of food resources were the result. Social organisation deepened. Together with natural curiosity climatic change became the driver of expansion at this point.
If Africa was our cradle, Australia was the continent humans settled first — so the genetic markers tell us.
How did we get there? Humans simply walked the beaches, exploiting food from both sea and land As the ice age advanced and water became locked in the ice caps, the sea level dropped by over m and the exposed swaths of continental shelf brought islands and continents in view of each other and within easy reach of makeshift rafts.
Any archaeological trace of this passage would have been subsequently submerged, but for a genetic marker found along the coast of Southern India. They split into two groups, one moving to the north of the Hindu Kush, the other to the south into the Indian subcontinent.
Those that went north moved into central Asia — Mongolia and Siberia — as they followed the steppe antelopes only to switch to the bigger game to be found in colder climate mammoth. Again a split took place, with some groups continuing eastward and others dropping south towards China and Southeast Asia, while others detoured through southern Siberia before descending towards Korea, Japan and China.
Genetically, even today northern and southern Chinese are clearly distinct.
And what about the Europeans? Surprisingly, they did not move northwest from the Levant, but circled back from central Asia into Europe, where they became the Cro-Magnons and probably drove the Neanderthals to extinction by excluding them from their food resources - it takes only a reduction in fertility or an increase in mortality of 1 percent to wipe out a small population within 1, years.
Alaska became accessible to a few humans from the eastern Siberian clans probably less than once the Bering Strait dried up. About , years ago the ice that covered much of the north American continent began to melt, and a passage opened, through which these tiny populations of Siberian hunters expanded south, reaching the tip of South America within 1, years.
There was another wave of migrants, though, coming up from Southeast Asia, that settled in the American southwest.
They are puzzled by the fact that scientists have come up with contradictory interpretations of the past based on genetic evidence. This does not correspond to their understanding of good science.
Being unfamiliar with the technical and computational tools of modern genetics, they cannot evaluate the data and do not know which laboratory to trust.
Most importantly, they regard most historical frameworks used in genetic publications as outdated. Attempts are under way, on a local and broader institutional level, to break down the barriers between the different disciplines and to facilitate dialogue.
One such example is the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology in Leipzig, which houses departments for evolutionary genetics, human evolution, linguistics, primatology and developmental and comparative psychology under one roof, thus encouraging collaboration.
The division between the social and the biological sciences is particularly deeply guarded for historical and disciplinary reasons.
The significance of the interdisciplinary conversation lies in confronting these divisions and finding a common ground. Collaboration alone, of course, is not a guarantee against ideological or essentialist interpretations of history. Yet, accompanied by a critical analysis of the tools and aims of genetics to which historians, sociologists and anthropologists of science have much to contribute, it promises a fair hearing of the potentialities of the new genetic tools for history. An important premise for a fruitful conversation between the disciplines is that genetic evidence is not understood in essentialist, deterministic or reductionist terms.
Cultural and historical notions inform the questions, the sampling practices and interpretations of genetic projects at all stages and rather than providing final answers genetic studies establish probabilistic relationships between possible historical interpretations.
Genetic evidence thus never stands alone and must always be considered in the context of other evidence. Such a critical understanding will help avoiding some of the pitfalls of genetic history, especially at a time when DNA-based technologies command broad cultural prestige and seem to provide answers to pivotal questions, such as those concerning guilt, innocence and identity. Besides the intricate questions about the status of genetic evidence, other questions raised by genetic history and human population studies more generally are: How new is the field?
Are there continuities with earlier biological approaches to human history? Can we learn from those experiences?