It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
After decades of digging, paleoanthropologists looking for fossilized human bones have established a reasonably clear picture: Modern humans arose in Africa some 200,000 years ago and all archaic species of humans then disappeared, surviving only outside Africa, as did the Neanderthals in Europe. Geneticists studying DNA now say that, to the contrary, a previously unknown archaic species of human, a cousin of the Neanderthals, may have lingered in Africa until perhaps 25,000 years ago, coexisting with the modern humans and on occasion interbreeding with them.
But the finding is regarded skeptically by some paleoanthropologists because of the absence in the fossil record of anything that would support the geneticists’ statistical calculations.
Originally posted by Vandettas
I apologize if I'm reading this wrong but why would
they even announce this if they have no evidence
that would support their calculations?
reply to post by 3n19m470
Digging in the dirt can't be as accurate as the genetic record, can it?
Only in the tone of your response. What I said was "It... gives lie to the claims that science clings to the status quo." What part of that statement confuses you? Is it the phrase "gives lie to", which means 'contradicts'?
Originally posted by john_bmth
reply to post by JohnnyCanuck
So a few genetic SCIENTISTS having a hypothesis that has yet to be experimentally confirmed is somehow evidence of science sticking to the status quo? Are you a bit dim of something?