Genetic Data and Fossil Evidence Tell Differing Tales of Human Origins

Don't know a lot about this subject but, there are some here who do. So I am posting this in case it gets missed for everyone who enjoys discussing and debating the topic.

"The geneticists reached this conclusion, reported on Thursday in the journal Cell, after decoding the entire genome of three isolated hunter-gatherer peoples in Africa, hoping to cast light on the origins of modern human evolution."

Source

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.

They continued with the article after that sentence?

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?

"No Evidence"

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?

The geneticists interpret their data and reach their conclusions independent of what the paleoarcheaologists see in the ground. It's a healthy basis for debate, and again, gives lie to the claims that science clings to the status quo. Nice grab...S&F!

interesting remarks in the source article. the issue is the classification of the data the geneticist have concluded regarding classifying the genetic differences of a past cousin to neanderthal and east african human kinds through interbreeding. this is not in the spiritual or religions conspiracy sections and the source is scientific; withstanding, the paleoanthropological record seems to be intact with different types of remnant fossils (like enlarged heads). in the old testament the Nephilim were persecuted in the area in which the data groups represent in the source article, but the distinction between neanderthal and the variable the subject portends seems documented through the books of numbers.

reply to post by Vandettas


It said "nothing IN THE FOSSIL RECORD to support..."

I am not a geneticist nor am I a paleotologist, but the second or third comment down comparing the two, on the article itself, made sense to me.

Digging in the dirt can't be as accurate as the genetic record, can it?

Or am I just really confused about the argument here?

Digging in the dirt can't be as accurate as the genetic record, can it?

reply to post by 3n19m470


I would put more certainty on the genetic findings than on the result of digs. There is still much we do not know about genetics but what we know is more reliable that even carbon dating. As for the issue with a mere probabilistic analysis a dig has more or less the same issue not all stuff survives the ages and we are not digging everywhere...

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?

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?

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'?

In other words, the fact that geneticists and paleoarchaeologists/anthropologists are debating the subject is a healthy indication that such debate occurs, contradicting claims by many (especially on this site) that to academics, the status quo is sacred. As far as being 'experimentally confirmed' goes, certainly the results of the testing were repeated and consistent enough to pass the peer review of the journal. So it ain't hooey, though it ain't the new yet paradigm either. Science marches on...

reply to post by JohnnyCanuck

My apologies, upon a cursory read it appeared that you were claiming that science was "sticking to the status quo" (i.e. closing ranks against new discoveries),a claim is all too commonplace amongst creationists in this forum.

Interesting find and yes, it does bring up an interesting debate. I tend to lean toward the geneticists, mainly because absence of fossils, is not evidence FOR something. It is lack of evidence for something, so if we find that evidence in another form, it is still evidence. Fossilization is incredibly rare, and Africa is by far once of the least conducive environments for that to happen. It's possible that this cousin of Neanderthal burned their dead, or we just haven't found them yet because they lived in countries we can't explore. Don't forget Neanderthal had similar intellect to modern day humans. I wouldn't dwell on lack of fossils. They also didn't mention Denosivans so I don't think they are talking about them. Very good article. I will be following this.

Perhaps interbreeding is a much bigger determining factor in evolution than we originally thought.