Do you really think san bushman is your male ancestor ?

Question

This is from OUT OF AFRICA hypothesis and journey of man program from national geographic

Answer 1

I think my distant African ancestor and the San Bushmen share a common ancestor. All humans are related if you go back far enough.

Answer 2

It is stupid and simplistic to say that a living group of humans is closer to the ancestor because it has more diversity in its mitochondria.  It is only attributable to the subtle racism and blind following of "Out of Africa" mentality.  Jonmcm49 states how it is not valid to call them our ancestors but that is exactly what many actual trained paleontologists do.  That is why JimZ calls it the religion based on racism and he doesn't mean like the KKK.There are many stupid ideas that have to be swallowed for these theories to be "proven" by DNA.  You have to believe that humans don't migrate in time frames of hundreds of thousand of years.  Why would someone accept that premise.  It barely works if you use hundreds of years of recorded history.  I couldn't believe my ears as I heard one of these "scientists" claim that mitochondrial eve lived in Ethiopia 140,000 years ago.  They don't see that they are using preconceived ideas to reinforce the "Out of Africa" hypothesis and why it deserves the derision of being called a religion when taken to extremes.

Answer 3

Today's San Bushman is no more "primitive" than a New York stock broker, and certainly knows far more about his environment.  They are not ancient people, they are living and have changed throughout the years as we have.  Their ancestors, however, are of course the same as the rest of our's.

Answer 4

I don't' know there is the dispersement theory and the evolution, then migration theory.  Many early people in the Pacific, India etc.. were small, black pygmy types not necessarily the yellow/black mix of a San bushman.  Who knows?  Hard to prove what went on  hundreds of thousands and thousands of years ago.  Its all the same to me at the moment whether my ancestors were European homo sapiens who mated with Neanderthals, or .black dwarfs/ or giants cro-magnons.  Or flesh eating Javanese early man.  Or the Greek Titans for all I know!!!What matters is who we are now, and who are ancestors made us how they contributed to what we have now.  Knowing for sure who the ancestors really all were, however, is a different matter entirely. And one that the answer is to lies inside our very souls.

Answer 5

I have to go where the evidence leads me & because the bushman & I share a common ancestor, (confirmed by DNA) I will buy into the fact that we are distantly related... the same goes for Cheeta & any number of chimps.

One cannot deny conclusive evidence simply because they don't like it.  I have a number of cousins I don't like too.

Answer 6

The amount of genetic diversity among all human populations being as low as it is, I think it is fairly acceptable to say we are all related to common ancestors.   However, since the Kung San are a social grouping, I don't think it's possible to say that they are my ancestor.  However, we may share a common lineage in our own family trees if you go back far enough.

Answer 7

No it is not from the out of Africa hypothesis, but from your and others here, misunderstandings. You look at evolution as if it  is linear, when it is bush like. How could someone who is descended from the same population that went through the " bottleneck " event of 70,000 years ago be your ancestor, in the taxonomic sense.( your grandfather is your " ancestor, too ) Because we came out of Africa does not mean that Africans are any less evolved. ( whatever that means )

A little education can be dangerous, obviously. Jim Z. The " out of Africa " theory is not religion, but well supported theory, with two lines ( twice as many as the other two hypotheses ) of genetic evidence and the support of real science; not anthropological incoherence. The racial connotations are in your head and many other ideologically driven anthropological heads.

Bravozulu. It is quite obvious that you do not understand the robustness of the two lines of genetic evidence, both X and Y chromosome evidence. Nor do you seem to understand how accurate DNA " tracking " is.  Your migration time frame is not in opposition to any part of the theory as I understand it, in fact your explanation is incoherent to me.You know very well that mult- regionalism is not well supported at all and has been credited with regional ethnocentrism. And you also know d**n well that I meant that bushmen can not be called " acestor " in the same manner we mean, " the ancestor. "

And to call the " out of Africa theory " a " religion based on racism " is the typical attack of the ideologue found so often in social science. How in the name of all that is not holy could you show evidence for such a specious charge?

Answer 8

why male ancestor? Why not female? I dont get that. Supposedily we all originated there, and since they are still there, why not believe it?

Answer 9

Well, the San Bushmen have the oldest continuous culture, going back 15,000 years, when Cro-Magnon "cavemen" were still living in Europe...

Recent genetic studies indicate that these ancient Bushmen represent the ROOT of all modern H.sapiens alive today...

A secondary branch of H.sapiens, containing more genetic VARIATION than the San, moved away from the Equator towards modern Ethiopia, and it is from this secondary branch, that all living humans today, share a traceable genetic link...

Answer 10

I think understand your question and I was very much offended by the *** on that program suggesting to that Kung man that he was the trunk of the tree.  I found it offensive and racists but these people that push that theory will always vehemently deny racism has anything to do with it.  The out of Africa religion is something that Anthropologists must pay tribute to or risk their careers.  In my opinion it stems from this very thing.  They want to show that Europeans evolved from Africans making them more ancient and "primitive".  The first answer is correct of course.  We all evolved from common ancestors and noone can be shown to be more "evolved."  There have been very advanced hominids living in Asia and Africa for a million years or more and to assume that humans evolved in Africa with our limited knowledge is a huge stretch IMO.  It may be true or it may not be but in any case should not be used to suggest that the Kung! San are the "primitive" group the rest of us evolved from IMO.