Today... in Science! Or, what do the expansion of Homo into Europe and the colonization of the New World have in common?

What the article, after a QUICK reading, is suggesting is this:  the hunter-gatherer indigenous population(s) of 'europe,' when the last major ice sheets retreated north, were mostly replaced by agrarian settlers from the 'middle east.'  It suggested that this was similar to the experience of many first nations in the western hemisphere upon their 'meeting' major colonizing efforts of the Europeans.

The article, also suggests that the methodologies used by many scientists who use statistical analysis of mitichondrial DNA to 'track' population patterns in the past is less accurate than previously thought.  Mitiochodria have their own ring of DNA totally separate from the parent cell.  If fact, mitrochondria have lots more in common (structurally) with bacteria than they do with the more  advanced animal cells that house them.  They dipulace on their own schedule, etc, as well.  Now, the assumption:  since sperm cells have very few mitochondra, while egg cells have many - the offspring of a mating will have many,  many more mitochondra from 'momma', than from 'pappa.'  Hence, it is supposed, there is more accuracy in some measures using mitochondrial DNA as opposed to the DNA in body cells when trying to track past population patterns. Based on this new evidence, their modeling of past population patterns seems to be less accurate than previously thought.    

Bottom line, what the Europeans did to the pre-colombian nations in the western hemisphere, their ancestors had done before to many of the earlier residents of 'europe.'   

BTW, I am neither a geneticist, nor an advanced mathematician...  just someone who likes to learn.  

Thanks for the summary, I was just too lazy to sum it up myself, but I agree completely with what you said. I guess what I really found interesting about the interpretation of their data is summed up by the quote: "History doesn't repeat itself, but it rhymes."

The other part that I found interesting was the suggestion that Slavic populations (and forgive me if this isn't the PC term) may have more in common genetically and culturally with the original hunter-gatherer peoples due to an increased carrying capacity of the area. I'm not sure what this means (if anything), practically speaking, but interesting nonetheless. As a cognitive scientist, it makes me want to ask and answer:

1) Do modern day Slavic people show any differences in spatial memory or navigation ability?
2) Do similar 'genetic' analyses of Slavic languages support this theory?

Cheers- glad you found it at least partly as interesting as I did.

I like the phrase the musician uses to sum up history.  "History ...rhymes."   

 Iin ST Next Generation, where the enterprise finds 3 in-stasis persons from pre-warpdrive earth, floating in space, 'asleep for ages.'   Also, the Romulus, who have been 'busy' elsewhere show up to re-assert their own unique form of snobbery (accompanied with their typical display of nasty weapon-threats). 

The three survivors of the derelict pod are revived and healed by the enterprise crew... and past meets present.   Everyone is so amazed at how calm the musician is... he see the anger of the Romulons, and calmly says,   "same dance, different tune."   This has  become my mantra about history repeating itself (OR humans refusing to learn from past mistakes).  Yes, it all rhymes... its the same dance, just a different tune....  hope you enjoyed this little diversion..

The Native Americans shared a line with the poor Neanderthals: "There goes the neighborhood."

Hey Doc, the cartoon you posted reminds me of a wonderful poster i saw once, and have not been able to find since.  (Wish i had a link...)

The poster showed four north American Indians (first nations warriors) standing together, some with bows, some with rifles, all dressed with stereo-typical garb.  The caption read:

"Doing homeland security since 1492."        

My understanding of ancient human history has always been that every time one tribe gained an advantage(ie the wheel, bronze working etc)  they spread and wiped out, integrated, or enslaved weaker tribes. Only to see the same thing happen to them in return. I see pretty much every war in these terms. All civilizations compete during peace and when resources get low they compete in war. The colonization of America and it's effect on the natives was hardly a unique event, just an extreme case because of the huge technological and social advantage gap caused by the isolation of America from the rest of the world. In fact this same thing is happening around the world right now, we simply don't care. Even the modern world's just a big mosaic of more advanced societies replacing less competitive one. Which used to happen more physically but because the powerful social forces today also cause low birth rate it is more information based today.

The ability for a tribe to boost it's population by farming the land caused the farmers to constantly need new land which led them to take land from the now hugely outnumbered hunter gatherers. In fact this same situation is probably exactly what happened in both ancient Europe, and North America. Although yes some native tribes had agriculture, the Europeans had many other advantages.

So ya I guess I am a social Darwinist. The above is also why I believe the following. That people who talk about pure ethnic groups are stupid.  That people who complain about injustices done to their ancestors are stupid; because there is no such thing as noble savages, everyones ancestors used to be primitive and they all acted the same way. The probably stole the land from another weaker tribe, and would do it again given a social advantage.

DsRider, I agree with your statements about how groups with an advantage over other groups will 'crowd' them out, and you are accurate that its been done for as long as history has been recorded among humans.  And yes, the advent of agriculture meant, most importantly, the production of a food surplus, which in turn allowed specialization (soldiers, scientists, child rearing, etc.)  which lead to the insatable drive to get more land to farm, and feed the cycle.

Do before you are done by... 

However, past practice does not condone present or future behavior.   Otherwise, all our reason, and technology, and skill, and knowledge are merely another set of weapons to use against 'those others."  Perhaps its time Homo homo sapiens decided to take evolution (social Darwinism) by the horns and decide for ourselves how it should continue instead of leaving it to rationalized hard wired self-centerness (the animalistic nature) and its most effective handmaiden, treating 'others' as objects.'

The problem is that the predominant growth and expansion oriented paradigm that prevailed in violent clashes with more peaceful, stable and steady-state societies will now bring a huge disaster on itself via population overshoot, resource depletion and environment destruction. The Animal has eaten all there was to eat, and now is starting to chew its own tail.

In other words - the only sustainable, stable systems are those that move in a circle. Pre-industrial, isolationist Japan was such a system, hunter-gatherer societies and Amazon Indians are another. They can exist for thousands of years, while the industrial societies' existence will be over in decades from now.

kama,  your comment is sad, and probably true.  Alas Babylon....

You mean these?

http://www.coyotescorner.com/tshirts-hs.htm