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...
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