New Type of Ancient Human Found—Descendants Live Today?

I see you've met Jon.Get used to it... that's the only way he plays.

Hi Bluejay,I'm having trouble following where your disagreement is. I wasn't exactly sure of the differences between the OOA and MH models, so I went to wiki. Here's what it says:On MH:

quote:

---

The {MH} hypothesis holds that the evolution of humanity from near the beginning of the Pleistocene two million years ago to the present day has been within a single, continuous human species. This species encompasses archaic human forms such as Homo erectus and Neanderthals as well as modern forms, which are held to be subspecies, and evolved worldwide to the diverse populations of modern Homo sapiens sapiens. The theory contends that there was some human genetic continuity in various regions of the world as well as gene interchange between the regions. Proponents of multiregional origin point to fossil and genomic evidence as support for their hypothesis.

​

The primary competing hypothesis is recent African origin of modern humans (also known as "Out of Africa"), which contends that modern humans arose in Africa around 100-200,000 years ago, moving out of Africa around 50-60,000 years ago to replace the other human forms without interbreeding.
sauce

---

On OOA:

quote:

---

{For OOA}, archaic Homo sapiens evolved to anatomically modern humans solely in Africa, between 200,000 and 100,000 years ago, with members of one branch leaving Africa by 60,000 years ago and over time replacing earlier human populations such as Neanderthals and Homo erectus.

​

The recent single origin of modern humans in East Africa was the near-consensus position held within the scientific community until 2010. However, recent sequencing of autosomal DNA from neanderthals and from an archaic human from denisova suggest that these populations, which were already outside of Africa at the posited time of the recent African human origin, also contributed to the modern human gene pool.
sauce

---

It seems like you're disagreeing that the finding in the OP supports the MH model.Would you explain, again, what the problem is?

But with MH, the DNA still originated in Africa. But the denisovian DNA came from another region thereby making it "Multiregional", no? Yes, the origin of the DNA is primarily from Africa, but the OOA model says that the other DNA came about relatively recently after Africa was left.The MH says that there was already that other DNA there when Africa was last left.Doesn't the fact that the other DNA came from outside of Africa suggest that it was outside after the Africans left? i.e. The MH model. I'm asking.I'm just trying to understand it, I don't care what Jon is arguing.

Thanks, its much clearer now. And isn't that, pretty much, what the MH model is saying? But it seems to me that the OOA model specifically excludes that assimilation.So, it looks like you're actually agreeing more with the MH. It seems like you think that the MH doesn't include as much from the OOA as it does, and that what inclusion of OOA it should have would thereby make it OOA, but that doesn't look correct from what I've been reading on wiki. OOA seems to exclude any non-African origins while MH incorporates the OOA origin along with other origins for other DNA. Ah well, how about clarity for clarity's sake then? I'm not concerned with Jon's proposal, but the findings shown in the OP do seem to challenge the core of OOA that is that there wasn't any non-African sources for the DNAs.Like, OOA is saying everything came from Africa and now we find something that didn't. That doesn't mean that almost everything didn't come out of Africa, just that some things did. Doesn't that challange OOA?

Hi bluejay,In Message 108, you wrote:

quote:

---

It seems silly to me to formulate a theory about biology---a field in which essentially all data sets are messy---so that it can't tolerate any deviance from 100% purity.

​

This seems like what the new MR-proponents are doing: they're arguing that any deviance from the most stringent interpretation of OoA is vindication of MR.

---

In light of new evidence, in Message 180, Jon writes:

quote:

---

On top of this, these findings verify a prediction of the MH model and are supported by the OOA model only through the introduction of further ad hoc explanation.

​

Anyone still attempting to hold to anything even resembling a strict OOA model is no longer doing science.

---