Against Australian Aborigines Admixture with Denisovans

I noticed that Cambridge University reported on a study on Australian Aborigines and Papuans that reflects on the debate about proposed Denisovan introgression into our species. 

They basically said that it wasn't Denisovans per se which mixed with the ancestors of people from this region, but rather a related unknown species which was much like them. That is, the mutations were similar in Denisovans and Papuans, but not the same. 

At the same time, the study claimed that Australian Aborigines got their present language and culture from a group of Asians who swept through the continent only 4,000 years ago but then died out leaving little or no genetic trace. 

If you think there is something in-congruent about the idea that the people they got their language and culture from 4,000 years ago being virtual genetic ghosts while this other unknown hominid's signature stuck around for a dozen times longer despite making no known contribution to their language or culture then congratulations, you are a thinking individual. 

There is a large segment of our society very determined to make humanity just another species, like a chimp or a pig or a rat. So much so that they have mis-appropriated the word "human" and applied it to all these other hominids (so I have taken to calling what was "humanity" by another term, "Adamics"). I am convinced that many others push the idea of other-hominid introgression without even knowing or understanding why they are emotionally invested in it. These are almost always people who are also invested in a macro-evolutionary framework, which to be fair could still be true even if their ideas on other hominid introgression are false. All it would indicate if the introgression model was false was that Man was somewhat set apart from these others, it wouldn't in itself undermine the larger framework. Yet even the idea of a potential crack in the wall seems to much for some of these folks to contemplate. 

For example, I have tried at many online watering holes to get qualified people to take a look at the work of Dr. William Amos of Cambridge, who has an alternative explanation for all or almost all of the supposed genetic signal from Neanderthals. I've yet to encounter a single individual who dares to seriously engage with the work of this distinguished professor at Cambridge University. 

This mental block extends so far as to seemingly throw out everything they have learned, believed, and taught about convergent evolution with regards to hominids. If Tibetans have a mutation which allows them to function better at high altitudes, and Denisovans had a similar mutation, then by golly it must have been from introgression! The same thing regarding genetic adaptations in fat burning so as to better deal with cold weather, or resistance to similar pathogens. For some reasons, when other species develop similar mutations, they can see that it is a result of convergent evolution. For example, here is a report on a study on mammoths and neanderthals developing a similar gene as an adaptation to cold. Yet when human groups have some adaptation to cold or to high altitudes or exposure to the same pathogens and a similar adaptation is found in another hominid there is always a chorus quick to say it is due to introgression! 

And many if not most of the genes that we supposedly inherited from other hominids are mildly deleterious or neutral. I suspect these are from populations that have always been small or lacking in diversity, and they just couldn't shed these genes fast enough. The reason a small part of the Aborigine's genes look different from the rest of us isn't because of Denisovan introgression, but that they were an isolated group with lower diversity to start with. That changed over time as they have been living in place for a long time, but they diversified from an initial population that was low in diversity and isolated from other human genes. That means any peculiar variants they had would be more likely to be preserved in some form while in the rest of humanity such variants would be more likely to get washed out in a flood of other genetic material. 

***********
My book on early Genesis really isn't much about all that, but something more incredible. Jesus said in John 5:46 that Moses wrote about Him! And it turns out when you read it through that lens it is also far less contentious regarding evidence from history and the natural universe. Obviously this could not be true unless He is who the scriptures say that He is and the scripture, even Genesis, was inspired by God. The Christ-centered model for early Genesis is what this book is really about.

Get the book.

You Tube Channel

Please "like" and "share".