Re: Neanderthal DNA may refute 65,000-year-old date for human occupation in Australia

On 7/5/25 2:07 AM, JTEM wrote:

On 7/5/25 1:09 AM, Primum Sapienti wrote:
 

The reasoning behind the finding is that modern
humans didn't mate with Neanderthals until around
50,000 years ago, but Indigenous Australians have a
small percentage of Neanderthal DNA.

 This is insane.
 It literally can't see any model aside from a ready
population pulling up stakes, marching to Australia
and then settling down.
 Which is dumb.
 https://www.science.org/content/article/neanderthals-and-modern-humans- made-babies-47-000-years-ago
 Oops.

Okay, I doubt anyone actually read the article I cited above,
maybe glanced the headline AT THE MOST, but the point is that
it includes a link to this:
https://www.nature.com/articles/nature16544
So what they're saying is that they have evidence of so called
"Moderns" and archaic types interbreeding in the east as far
back as 100,000 years ago.
Alternatively, is evidence for an Asian origins of some DNA
believed to have only originated in Africa...
REMEMBER:  All this printed crap is stuffed silly with
conclusions, which are opinions, and should NOT be mistaken
for raw data.
THIS is a very common -- extremely common -- "error" of the
Out of Africa purity nonsense:  Focusing like a laser beam
on a small piece of evidence while ignoring all others.
They come to the rock solid conclusion that settlement of
Australia could only have happened AFTER 50k years ago,
because so called "Moderns" never interbred with archaics
before that, but apparently they did. Before that. Interbreed.
Supposedly.
Again:  Can be seen as evidence for an Asian origins of the
DNA in question...
And this DNA claim, about 100k year old interbreeding, isn't
isolated. There's supposedly fossil evidence for the hanky
panky going back at least that far...
But ignore it... "Pay no attention to that man behind the
curtain!"
--
https://jtem.tumblr.com/tagged/The%20Book%20of%20JTEM/page/5