.

Mungo Man

Turning evolution upside down

In 1974, the discovery of Mungo Man turned the conventional theory of human evolution upside-down. Mungo Man was a human-like primate who is estimated to have died 62,000 years ago, and was ritually buried with his hands covering his penis. Anatomically, Mungo Man's bones were distinct from other human skeletons being unearthed in Australia. Unlike the other bones that had big-brows, and thick-skulls, Mungo Man's skeleton was finer, and more like modern humans. The ANU's John Curtin School of Medical Research found that Mungo Man's skeleton's contained a small section of mitochondrial DNA. After analysing the DNA, the school found that Mungo Man's DNA bore no similarity to the other ancient skeletons, modern Aborigines and modern Europeans. Furthermore, his mitochondrial DNA has now become instinct. The results call into question the 'Out of Africa' theory of Human evolution. If Mungo Man was descended from a person who had left Africa in the past 200,000 years, then his mitochondrial DNA should have looked like all of the other samples.

Out of Africa Theory

The 'Out of Africa' theory proposes that 1.4 million years ago Homo erectus left Africa and spread throughout Europe and Asia. In Europe, Homo erectus evolved into the Neanderthals. In Asia, most Homo erectus stopped evolving - with the exception of a small group in the Indonesian archipelago that branched off to become Homo floresiensis (aka the Hobbit). Unlike the Homo erectus in Asia, which stagnated, the Homo erectus that stayed in Africa continued to evolve and eventually became Homo sapiens.

About 200,000 years ago, Homo sapiens left Africa. They spread throughout the globe and conquered or out-competed Neanderthals and Homo erectus. The last Neanderthal died out around 30,000 years ago. The last Homo erectus died out somewhere between 200,000 and 30,000 years ago. The last Hobbit is believed to have died out in a volcanic eruption around 10,000 years ago. After conquering Homo erectus in Indonesia, Homo sapiens moved to Australia. If Homo erectus had made it to Australia first, then they too would have been conquered.

In a nutshell, 200,000 years ago an African tribe, either through superior food gathering ability or open war, started the extinction of all humanoid species living throughout Eurasia.

Supporting the Out of Africa theory is work by Allan Wilson who proved in 1987that all modern humans share a single female ancestor who lived in Africa approximately 200,000 years ago.

Nature 408, 7 Dec 2000, p. 653

Regional Continuity or Multiregional Evolution

Mungo Man is a huge spanner in the works for the Out of Africa theory because it can't explain how Mungo Man looked liked modern humans, yet was not related to any human that had left Africa in the last 200,000 years. A 'Multiple Regions' theory is held up as the answer. If Out of Africa is a theory of war, then Multiple Regions is a theory of sex. The theory proposes that Homo erectus was not conquered. Rather, once Homo erectus left Africa 1.4 million years ago, it kept evolving on migration lines between Asia and Africa (and possibly Australia). Interbreeding among nomadic tribes kept most of the different groups on a relatively constant evolutionary track.

Most proponents of the Multiregions theory argue that the Neanderthals in Eurasia and the Hobbit in Indonesia were not unique species of humanoid and therefore must have contributed to modern Homo sapiens. However, testing of modern Europeans has found no evidence of Neandathal DNA. Hobbit DNA is yet to be tested.

However, just because the Neanderthals and the Hobbit were unique species does not mean that Multi-regions is disproved. Perhaps the two species evolved independently because they were not on the Homo erectus migration routes. The Neanderthals evolved independently because they were an ice age people living in caves. Ice age Eurasia was just too inhospitable for nomadic Homo erectus. Likewise, in the Indonesian archipelago, the ancestor of the Hobbit may have been cut off from migration routes due to changes in sea levels or volcanic activity. Consequently, they also become a unique species of humanoid

Aside from the Neanderthals and the Hobbits, all other Homo erectus keep migrating, keep breeding and kept evolving on a constant track. Eventually they evolved into Homo sapiens.

At some stage in the last 850,000 years (or longer), either Homo erectus or Homo sapiens made the crossing from Java to Australia. These humanoids were the ancestors of Mungo Man.

200,000 years ago, females from an African tribe started spreading their genes through the entire arc between Australia and Africa. This spreading of female genes could have occurred as a result of a nomadic Africa tribe emerging from Africa and breeding throughout Asia. It could also have occurred as a result of an Asian tribe going to Africa, and forcibly taking women back to Asia. (*Although evidence proves all humans had a female African ancestor 200,000 years ago, there is no evidence to show a male ancestor.)

60,000 years ago, Homo sapiens with African ancestors started migrating into Australia. The first group to make the migration were known as Robust due to their heavy-boned physique. 20,000 years later, they were followed by the more slender Gracile.

Mungo Man was Gracile. This seems to indicate that the Gracile were in Australia first, then they were joined by the Robust, who became dominant. More Gracile migrated and they became dominant.

Implications for Australia

If Out of Africa is to be believed, then human occupation of Australia has to be less than 200,000 years. Exactly when humans arrived would have been determined by how long it took Homo sapiens emerging from Africa to cause the extinction of the Homo erectus tribes spread throughout Asia. If Multiple Regions is to be believed, the length of human occupation of Australia can be greatly extended. Homo erectus was known to be in the Indonesian archipelago 850,000 years ago. If they had made the crossing to Australia, then humanoid occupation of Australia could be anywhere up to 850,000 years.

It is generally believed that Homo erectus was not intelligent enough to make the boats that would have been required to cross to Australia. Arguably though, making a raft or a canoe is much much easier than making stone tools that can kill animals. Furthermore, Homo erectus obviously had a degree of intelligence about it as it had crossed rivers on its way from Africa to Indonesia.

Even if Homo erectus had been too stupid to make boats, Australia shares many plant and animals species with Papua New Guinea and Indonesian Islands. These commonalities were the result of a shared land bridge in the past. If animals and plants were able to use these land bridges, then surely Homo erectus would have as well.

The possibility that Homo erectus may have indeed been able to make a raft was supported archaeological excavations from 1968 to 1972, by Professor Alan Thorne at Kow Swamp, which found skeletons showing Homo erectus features.

Just as humans were known to have migrated from Asia into Australia, humans must have migrated from Australia into Asia. 150,000 years ago, New Guinea was joined to the Australian mainland and Java. During this period, it would have been very easy for Homo sapiens to leave Australia.

Genetic testing has found that southern Indians and Aborigines share a common ancestor 35,000 years ago. Although this could indicate that migrants from southern India reached Australia, it may equally indicate that migrants from Australia reached India.

There is also some circumstantial evidence of migration from Australia to China. The Chinese legend of the Dragon may have been based on the Megalania - a seven-meter-long lizard that terrorised the Australian outback until 20,000 years ago. The lizard was more than twice the size of Indonesia's Komodo Dragon - (which some people have previously speculated was the inspiration for the Chinese myth.) If humans were leaving Australia, they may have taken the stories of the terror lizard with them as a reminder of where they came from and a symbol of their strength and character.

Because humans must have left Australia, some people have speculated that if Eve came from Africa, then perhaps Adam came from Australia. Unfortunately, as mitochondrial DNA is only passed on by women, it is impossible to test for a male Australian ancestor in all humans today. All that is known for certain is that Mungo Man did not have an African ancestor in the last 200,000 years and the women in his tribe were not promiscuous, as the odd positions of his hands in his burial might suggest.

Implications for human evolution

Survival of the Fittest proposes that the strongest and most intelligent will eventually emerge triumphant. Out of Africa supports the theory as it proposes a smart and strong African tribe was able to cause the extinction of all other humanoid species spread across the globe. It caused the extinction due to its superior food gathering ability and/or superior battlefield might.

A Multiple Regions theory indicates that Survival of the Fittest is only half true. Physical weakness can aid promiscuity and therefore the proliferation of genes. The men in Eve's African tribe may have been unable prevent a stronger tribe carrying away its women and turning them into sex slaves. Although the tribe's men would have died out, the women would have survived to become the ancestors of all humans today. Alternatively, the African tribe may have traded its women to other tribes. The women could have resisted if they had been stronger. However the cost of being stronger would have been their genes being confined only to Africa.

Implications for the demise of the Neanderthals

The demise of the Neanderthals has always been problematic for proponents of Survival of the Fittest. The Neanderthals were far bigger and stronger than Homo Sapiens. In bare-handed fight, no Homo sapien would have stood a chance against a Neanderthal. In terms of intelligence, the Neanderthal's brain cavities were on average 10-20 per cent larger than Homo sapiens. If, as Out of Africa proposes, one tribe emerged to conquer all other humanoid species, why wasn't this tribe from the Neanderthals which were the strongest, and potentially the smartest, humanoids that have ever lived?

Perhaps the answer is sex. In their period of isolation from each other, Neanderthals and Homo Erectus had evolved such different appearances that the two humanoids would have been sexually repulsive to the other. Even if they were able to overcome their disgust, they would have been unable to have offspring or their offspring would have been sterile.

When Homo sapiens started moving into Neanderthal territory, the ugly appearance of the women may have acted as a disincentive to war. In all probability, if a Neanderthal tribe had a Homo sapien tribe on one side of the valley, and another Neanderthal tribe on the other side, it's desire for fresh women would have motivated it to attack the other Neanderthals. Consequently, the Neanderthals never attacked Homo Sapien regions because the women were too ugly and/or would not bear them children. The only area that Neanderthals pushed into were areas occupied by other Neanderthals. Regions that were weakened by Neanderthal war were subsequently over-taken by nomadic Homo sapiens. As territory was lost, the Neanderthal's range kept getting smaller and smaller until they became extinct.

Although Homo sapiens would have also warred with each other, because they were nomadic, they would have been able to move into war decimated areas at a much faster rate. If two Homo sapien tribes killed each other, another tribe would have quickly take its place.

Even taking sex out of the equation, the history of human warfare suggests that wars most likely are between similar groups, than different groups. As the Neanderthals were predominantly hunters (80 percent meat in diet) while Homo Sapiens were predominantly gatherers (30 per cent meat in diet) potentially the two groups could have co-existed quite harmoniously. Conflict for resources would have been greatest between like-minded tribes that existed on the same food, not between the species that ate different food.

Barriers to thought

A wise scientist once said:

'the very powerful and the very stupid have one thing in common. They don't alter their views to fit the facts. They alter the facts to fit the views.'

Such a problem is endemic in universities and is hindering debate on the evolution of humanity. In universities, a professor first develops a theory, and then searches for evidence in support of the theory. Evidence that contradicts the theory is discarded, or re-interpreted.

It is quite understandable why professors engage in such practices. Their power largely relies on them gaining peer acceptance. If they admit their theory has been wrong by altering their views to fit the facts, then they undermine their power. Furthermore, if they admit they have been disseminating incorrect information for thirty years, then future students are not going to take them seriously.

In rare cases, professors have even gone beyond reinterpreting evidence, and instead made moralistic cases for why the evidence should be interpreted in a different way. Colin Groves, a biological anthropologist from the ANU, was one such professor. Grove argued against the possibility that Homo erectus lived in Australia 62,000 years ago on the grounds that would mean that Homo sapiens arriving out of Africa would have exterminated them. In the opinion of Groves, such an act of genocide, committed 62,000 years ago, would decrease the case for Australian Prime Minister, John Howard, to apologise to the Stolen Generations (half caste children removed from their Aboriginal mothers and raised in Catholic missions in the 20th century).

"Unfortunately, although Alan Thorne, the describer of the Kow Swamp skeletons, never actually said that they were Homo erectus, the idea that an extremely primitive people preceded the present Aboriginal people in Australia, and was eliminated by them, seems to have seeped into some folks' consciousness just like the Negritos did. Negritos or Homo erectus - either way, the Aborigines were not the first possessors of Australia so the land doesn't really belong to them and the whites needn't feel too bad about dispossessing them. Really good fodder, this, for the One Nation Party, and the Prime Minister needn't feel he has to say "sorry"."

Groves, Colin Australia for the Australians Australian Humanities Review http://www.lib.latrobe.edu.au/AHR/archive/Issue-June-2002/groves.html

Grove is a supporter of the Out of Africa theory. Evidence of Homo erectus features in Australian skeletons is a concern for Grove, as it supports theories proposing multiple migrations to Australia, and breeding between different humanoid species.

However, it isn't only the Out of Africa theorists who seem unwilling to alter their views in response to new evidence. Dr Alan Thorne, one of the chief proponents of parallel evolution, has argued against the classification of Neanderthals into a distinct species of humanoids. For Thorne, a distinct classification would undermine his theory that although ancient skeletons were very different from others around the globe, they were all essentially Homo sapiens and thus still breeding together. With the discovery of the Hobbit in Indonesia, Thorne, quite predictably, held to his guns that there has only been one species of humanoids in the last million years. Thorne argued that the Hobbit skeletons were just a case of humans suffering from the brain-shrinking condition known as microcephaly.

When two opposing "experts" dig in their heels and refuse to consider other points of view, the only conclusion to be made is that they are not experts. By definition, they can't be an expert, if another "expert" is saying the complete opposite to them.