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

Naomasa298

Forum Staff
Apr 2010
35,217
T'Republic of Yorkshire
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.

View attachment 20628
WHAT did I say about discussing genetics?
 
Feb 2019
345
California
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.
I couldn't bear to read most of the paper. I have to go to the dentist tomorrow (read the paper).
 

Haakbus

Ad Honorem
Aug 2013
3,778
United States
There are so many problems with this. They found a single fragmented jaw missing many teeth. Some of the tooth roots resembled those of Homininae. This is spun into "origin of humans is in Europe, not Africa". Blatantly untrue, though it could potentially indicate the line that later split into Chimpanzees, Humans, and Gorillas originated in or at least partly lived in what is now Europe.
 
  • Like
Reactions: VHS

VHS

Ad Honorem
Dec 2015
4,603
Florania
There are so many problems with this. They found a single fragmented jaw missing many teeth. Some of the tooth roots resembled those of Homininae. This is spun into "origin of humans is in Europe, not Africa". Blatantly untrue, though it could potentially indicate the line that later split into Chimpanzees, Humans, and Gorillas originated in or at least partly lived in what is now Europe.
Then, what do you think of the flimsy Denisovan fossils?
 

Haakbus

Ad Honorem
Aug 2013
3,778
United States
Then, what do you think of the flimsy Denisovan fossils?
With Denisovans we have their DNA which is pretty conclusive, and there's a LOT more resemblance between humans, neanderthals, and Denisovans even in what little we do have.

The Graecopithecus might be related to the human line or the homininae line, but we need a lot more evidence to say for sure, especially since it's found so far from where all the other known fossils are from.