Monday, February 24, 2020

New Study Opens Door to Mankind Being Much Younger (No YEC, Not THAT Much Younger)


A recent study now proposes that Sub-Saharan Africans also had introgression from a non-Sapiens source. They don't have a species to match with the alleged introgression, but the contribution in some extant African groups would reach double-digits! I think these statistical models have gotten out of hand and are connecting dots that don't really connect, but let's say they are right. Wouldn't this open the door to the distinct possibility that much of what we now think of as human genetic diversity is in fact from limited introgression?

So instead of the genetic evidence suggesting that our kind has been around 200K years or more there could have been a distinct low-diversity Homo Sapiens core group around for a far shorter time period. Maybe so distinct that there was only a short time at the start where they even interbred with the hominin zoo even a little bit. So Sub-Saharan Africans would not be older than the rest of humanity. They would just look older because a more heterogeneous genome has a higher mutation rate (W. Amos) and some introgression has not been labeled as such- we think its diversity picked up over a long period of time when in fact it was introgression of other-hominin genes that were just a little more diverse than ours.

No matter how they got here, "True" Homo Sapiens could have been a distinct population only as recently as the proposed introgression- 55-60K ago. Since the term "human" has been expropriated by naturalists to mean any hominin, I propose the term "Adamics" for this group. They started in the mid-east and NE Africa, and that's why the most "diversity" and "introgression" shows up in populations farthest from that area- in three different directions. I note that either this idea, or the ideas of Dr. William Amos cited above could produce a false "appearance of age" in a Mankind that started as a group rather than as a single couple. Calculations of "Most Recent Common Ancestor" don't really apply to any type of living thing which started as a population for reasons described here

*******

This article is not directly related to the Christ-centered model for early Genesis as described in my book. Still, I ask you to get the book...

Get the book.



Please "like" and "share".


1 comment:

  1. Are "Basal Eurasians" /"Deep" genes actually the signature of the original "Adamics", with any diversity beyond that actually a result of limited introgression? This is speculation and so far I still hold to the conclusions of Dr. Amos on this supposed "introgression". But if he is wrong then why is this view ruled out?

    ReplyDelete

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.