Europe was the birthplace of mankind, not Africa, scientists find

May 2017
278
China
genetic has the same ''assumption'' case as the archaeology does, genetics cannot solve crap until and unless we have the genetic data from archaeology itself which will be impossible esp for the regions like india, one may get it from artics but not damp and humid places like india.

archaeology does show the possibility of multiple case of independent modern humans and their cultures have affinities across the world.

the thing about australian and indian connection is a pseudo science as well, that thing has been debunked few years ago. probably the assumption is based on some superficial resemblence with tamil population with the australian aboriginal.

the western geneticists seem to be concocting few stuff based on their assumptions as well, collecting data and manipulating them according to their wishes, all their conclusions have also been challenged.

why does ''aryan migration genetics'' not proved through the anthropological studies conducted on the harappan skeletal remains?

people making genetic conclusions are doing confirmation bias nothing else.

genetic research is also at its very infancy.

regards
human can breed with each other between negroid, caucasoid, mongoloid, and australoid, and create fertile and healthy offsprings, which mean human still same species maybe different sub-species.

different species can forced breeding but will create steril offspring like horse with donkey, lion with tiger, etc.
 
Mar 2019
1,535
KL
May 2017
278
China

other source stated 50.000++ years ago
Deep Roots for Aboriginal Australian Y Chromosomes
Australia was one of the earliest regions outside Africa to be colonized by fully modern humans, with archaeological evidence for human presence by 47,000 years ago (47 kya) widely accepted [1, 2]. However, the extent of subsequent human entry before the European colonial age is less clear. The dingo reached Australia about 4 kya, indirectly implying human contact, which some have linked to changes in language and stone tool technology to suggest substantial cultural changes at the same time [3]. Genetic data of two kinds have been proposed to support gene flow from the Indian subcontinent to Australia at this time, as well: first, signs of South Asian admixture in Aboriginal Australian genomes have been reported on the basis of genome-wide SNP data [4]; and second, a Y chromosome lineage designated haplogroup C∗, present in both India and Australia, was estimated to have a most recent common ancestor around 5 kya and to have entered Australia from India [5]. Here, we sequence 13 Aboriginal Australian Y chromosomes to re-investigate their divergence times from Y chromosomes in other continents, including a comparison of Aboriginal Australian and South Asian haplogroup C chromosomes. We find divergence times dating back to ∼50 kya, thus excluding the Y chromosome as providing evidence for recent gene flow from India into Australia.

fx1.jpg
 
Mar 2019
1,804
Kansas
I think we are debating two separate issues here. I am discussing the very first migration into Australia between 60 and 100k years ago. Not fresh injections later. I have never even heard of the theory that Indians migrated around 4000 years ago.

It would be an easy theory to test. We should see significant differences between Tasmanian Aboriginals and mainland. And as of the latest research I have seen, they are virtually indistinguishable.
 
Mar 2019
1,535
KL
all this is BS, as proven that one study has been debunked by another study, same will be the case for the one suggesting older migrations. but as the admin stated, this place is not for genetic discussions.

regards
 

sculptingman

Ad Honorem
Oct 2009
3,618
San Diego
This article that is not founded in actual scientific conclusions.

Graecopithoicus was NOT a human being. It was an APE. ( hint- "pithicus")
there is No evidence it was a direct ancestor of human beings... and, in fact, at the age of this fossil, there were already other pre-human ancestors in africa that were direct ancestors.

Additionally, that a species of apes was found in Europe is meaningless. Graecopithicus did not evolve in Europe separately from apes in africa. Its ancestors were from africa.

And finally, genetic analysis has proven that all modern humans are related to an african population of hominids from a time far later than Graecotpithicus.

So, sorry- but whoever wrote that article just doesn't understand the findings.
 

authun

Ad Honorem
Aug 2011
5,219
I remember Dr Paul Budd who did the Amesbury Archer isotope tests, the guy buried near Stonehenge, tell his story of the media. at the press conference about the findings, he stated:

"we had great fun trying not to answer the journalists' questions in such a way that would allow them to tell the sory that they wanted to tell"

Always go to the original study and never rely on what the media says about the study.
 
  • Like
Reactions: sparky

botully

Ad Honorem
Feb 2011
3,545
Amelia, Virginia, USA
So, sorry- but whoever wrote that article just doesn't understand the findings.
Your cogent analysis aside, whoever wrote that article was looking for clicks and shares, something neither the paper’s title nor findings are likely to elicit.
So mission accomplished, I guess, at the cost of a tiny fraction of the sum knowledge of mankind.
 

Linschoten

Ad Honoris
Aug 2010
16,210
Welsh Marches
I remember Dr Paul Budd who did the Amesbury Archer isotope tests, the guy buried near Stonehenge, tell his story of the media. at the press conference about the findings, he stated:

"we had great fun trying not to answer the journalists' questions in such a way that would allow them to tell the sory that they wanted to tell"

Always go to the original study and never rely on what the media says about the study.
The trouble with researchers in this area is that they're often all too eager to sell their latest scraps of bone to the press as representing the missing link!
 
  • Like
Reactions: Olleus