From Newsgroup: sci.anthropology.paleo


https://www.livescience.com/archaeology/human-evolution/neanderthal-dna-may-refute-65-000-year-old-date-for-human-occupation-in-australia-but-not-all-experts-are-convinced

Humans did not arrive in Australia 65,000 years ago,
and likely didn't reach the land down under until
around 50,000 years ago, a controversial new paper
reports.

The reasoning behind the finding is that modern
humans didn't mate with Neanderthals until around
50,000 years ago, but Indigenous Australians have a
small percentage of Neanderthal DNA. So, the first
Australians could not have arrived until after
humans mated with Neanderthals.

But we can't yet rule out archaeological evidence
that places humans on the continent much earlier
than genetic models do, other experts say.
...


https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/arco.70002

Recent DNA Studies Question a 65 kya Arrival of
Humans in Sahul

ABSTRACT
Recent reports present evidence of Neanderthal
introgression among all non-African human
populations after 50 kya. Here we trace the
implications of this claim for Sahul history.
If correct, ancestral Sahul populations bearing
Neanderthal DNA must have arrived after this date.
Such data offer no support for a purported 65 kya
human presence on the continent.
...


There is a questioning response here

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/arco.70005

which unfortunately is in image pdf format. The
response is short, relates that all but one Sahul
site dates are 50kya or less and that the authors
of the paper relied on only two genomic papers.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.anthropology.paleo

On 7/5/25 1:09 AM, Primum Sapienti wrote:

The reasoning behind the finding is that modern
humans didn't mate with Neanderthals until around
50,000 years ago, but Indigenous Australians have a
small percentage of Neanderthal DNA.

This is insane.

It literally can't see any model aside from a ready
population pulling up stakes, marching to Australia
and then settling down.

Which is dumb.

https://www.science.org/content/article/neanderthals-and-modern-humans-made-babies-47-000-years-ago

Oops.

Paleo anthropology is not a real science, or it's
to science what biblical archaeology is to archaeology.

There's no profit in it, there's no national security
applications so it's fair game for any agenda that can
control the purse strings...

"Grant money" isn't free. You have to please the people
"Granting" the grants.

YOU KNEW HOW POLITICAL IT WAS when Bush was President.
You just all agreed to "Forget" once Bush was gone...

Remember? The creationists? People were actually fearful
of doing work relating to evolution?

Hello? "A Flock of DoDos?" The documentary?

Anyway, you once knew that science was politics, that it
ran on grants and the grant money was controlled by
political people with agendas.

That never changed. You did.
--
https://jtem.tumblr.com/tagged/The%20Book%20of%20JTEM/page/5
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.anthropology.paleo

On 7/5/25 2:07 AM, JTEM wrote:

On 7/5/25 1:09 AM, Primum Sapienti wrote:

The reasoning behind the finding is that modern
humans didn't mate with Neanderthals until around
50,000 years ago, but Indigenous Australians have a
small percentage of Neanderthal DNA.

This is insane.

It literally can't see any model aside from a ready
population pulling up stakes, marching to Australia
and then settling down.

Which is dumb.

https://www.science.org/content/article/neanderthals-and-modern-humans- made-babies-47-000-years-ago

Oops.

Okay, I doubt anyone actually read the article I cited above,
maybe glanced the headline AT THE MOST, but the point is that
it includes a link to this:

https://www.nature.com/articles/nature16544

So what they're saying is that they have evidence of so called
"Moderns" and archaic types interbreeding in the east as far
back as 100,000 years ago.

Alternatively, is evidence for an Asian origins of some DNA
believed to have only originated in Africa...

REMEMBER: All this printed crap is stuffed silly with
conclusions, which are opinions, and should NOT be mistaken
for raw data.

THIS is a very common -- extremely common -- "error" of the
Out of Africa purity nonsense: Focusing like a laser beam
on a small piece of evidence while ignoring all others.

They come to the rock solid conclusion that settlement of
Australia could only have happened AFTER 50k years ago,
because so called "Moderns" never interbred with archaics
before that, but apparently they did. Before that. Interbreed.

Supposedly.

Again: Can be seen as evidence for an Asian origins of the
DNA in question...

And this DNA claim, about 100k year old interbreeding, isn't
isolated. There's supposedly fossil evidence for the hanky
panky going back at least that far...

But ignore it... "Pay no attention to that man behind the
curtain!"
--
https://jtem.tumblr.com/tagged/The%20Book%20of%20JTEM/page/5
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.anthropology.paleo

On Fri, 4 Jul 2025 23:09:55 -0600
Primum Sapienti <invalide@invalid.invalid> wrote:

https://www.livescience.com/archaeology/human-evolution/neanderthal-dna-may-refute-65-000-year-old-date-for-human-occupation-in-australia-but-not-all-experts-are-convinced

Humans did not arrive in Australia 65,000 years ago,
and likely didn't reach the land down under until
around 50,000 years ago, a controversial new paper
reports.

The reasoning behind the finding is that modern
humans didn't mate with Neanderthals until around
50,000 years ago, but Indigenous Australians have a
small percentage of Neanderthal DNA. So, the first
Australians could not have arrived until after
humans mated with Neanderthals.

But we can't yet rule out archaeological evidence
that places humans on the continent much earlier
than genetic models do, other experts say.
...

Of course not; what if the people that arrived 65,000 years ago were
"pure" human, and a subsequent people ("contaminated" by Neaderthal genes) immigrated later than 50,000 years ago and interbred in the
subsequent years?

What's needed is some DNA from bones from 55,000 years ago.

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/arco.70002

Recent DNA Studies Question a 65 kya Arrival of
Humans in Sahul

ABSTRACT
Recent reports present evidence of Neanderthal
introgression among all non-African human
populations after 50 kya. Here we trace the
implications of this claim for Sahul history.
If correct, ancestral Sahul populations bearing
Neanderthal DNA must have arrived after this date.
Such data offer no support for a purported 65 kya
human presence on the continent.
...

There is a questioning response here

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/arco.70005

which unfortunately is in image pdf format. The
response is short, relates that all but one Sahul
site dates are 50kya or less and that the authors
of the paper relied on only two genomic papers.

--
Bah, and indeed Humbug.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2