tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post4121240624125774960..comments2024-01-04T04:11:55.717+02:00Comments on Dienekes’ Anthropology Blog: Longer time scale for human evolution (Hawks 2012)Dienekeshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02082684850093948970noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-75298604538176279512012-09-17T04:54:49.169+03:002012-09-17T04:54:49.169+03:00"really old admixture is indistinguishable fr..."really old admixture is indistinguishable from an excess of mutation in a large population size. But, its acceptance will simultaneously solve the riddle of excess polymorphism in Africans, remove the need for an Out-of-Africa bottleneck of biblical proportions, and resolve the discrepancy between autosomal and uniparental evidence". <br /><br />And also explains a discrepancy note in Hawks' article: <br /><br />"Until now, mitochondrial comparisons have been the strongest evidence in favor of a short time scale for the dispersal and differentiation of non-African peoples, within the past 70,000 y (17). Some recent attempts to examine the relationships of non-African populations using nuclear genome data have led to time scales in excess of 100,000 y" <br /><br />There is surely really no reason why mt-DNA and Y-DNA dates should match aDNA, or each other. If we accept the wave theory of evolution we then easily accept that Y-and mt-DNA are just two more genes that have spread through the human species, independently in some cases. terrythttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17327062321100035888noreply@blogger.com