Oh Dear

[Guy Etchells]

It seems that the previous thought that Homo Sapiens came from sub Saharan Africa has just been given a kick and in fact re-written.
New fossils from Morocco show skulls 100,000 years earlier than those previously thought to be the oldest.
Perhaps the theories now have to be re-thought.

I am not suggesting you through your results in the bin, just be aware DNA theory is still theory and not fact.
Things are changing and will change in the future.

Cheers
Guy

[joboy]

"The only thing constant is change" is what a teacher kept on telling me Guy and I must agree with that.
Joe

[rsel]

It seems that the previous thought that Homo Sapiens came from sub Saharan Africa has just been given a kick and in fact re-written.
New fossils from Morocco show skulls 100,000 years earlier than those previously thought to be the oldest.
Perhaps the theories now have to be re-thought.

I am not suggesting you through your results in the bin, just be aware DNA theory is still theory and not fact.
Things are changing and will change in the future.

Cheers
Guy

Hi Guy,
   I think you are confusing two completely different parts of DNA test results offered by the well known companies!!!   Yes, this will have to cause a re-think in the models used for predicting where people came from (i.e. some of the Ethnicity estimates), but that is separate from the actual true DNA test results which you use to connect to other family members, which will not be impacted at all

Richard

[Guy Etchells]

Hi Guy,
   I think you are confusing two completely different parts of DNA test results offered by the well known companies!!!   Yes, this will have to cause a re-think in the models used for predicting where people came from (i.e. some of the Ethnicity estimates), but that is separate from the actual true DNA test results which you use to connect to other family members, which will not be impacted at all

Richard

No Richard, exactly the opposite actually, I am viewing all new possibilities with an open mind but some seem to have a closed mind when it comes to DNA.

We do not yet know if any DNA has been or can be extracted from the skulls found.
The images of the skulls show jaw bones and teeth so there may be the possibility.
If any can it may blow the current theories that every man alive today is descended from a single man and every man and woman alive today is descended from a single woman out of the water (“Y-Chromosomal Adam” and “Mitochondrial Eve”).

The fact that the skulls are 100,000 years older than the previously thought earliest humans opens the possibility of new discoveries in DNA and new discoveries opens the possibilities of amending or even abandoning old theories.
Remember science is not based on fact but on theories which stand until another theory is shown to be more accurate.

Cheers
Guy

[RobertCasey]

These findings are speculative nature compared to findings based on DNA testing. These are all based on scull metrics, etc. and the dating is based on sharpening tools that were put into fire to make the crack - this dating is not that accurate according to others for the time frame involved.

However, the hot climate in these areas result in degraded DNA - so this is the only methodology left for this kind of analysis. Also, this is not the first discovery of these kinds of bones - just an new batch of better bones (with dating added from the stones that were put into a fire). This article is not being real well received by many academics but still is a valid paper - but much more speculative than any DNA confirmed analysis.

[Guy Etchells]

These findings are speculative nature compared to findings based on DNA testing. These are all based on scull metrics, etc. and the dating is based on sharpening tools that were put into fire to make the crack - this dating is not that accurate according to others for the time frame involved.

Yes the dating was done by testing flint tools that had been subjected to fire millennia ago. Some of those flint tools were tested using a process called thermoluminescence which re-subjects the artefact to heat (similar to the way they data lava, and ceramics).
The accuracy of the samples is not disputed but the classification of the skull and bone fragments is.
Some paleoanthropologists dispute whether the artefacts were really Homo sapiens or should be classified as a sub-species of Homo sapiens.

One of the reasons why this places doubt on the claims of some DNA “experts” is the fact that our ancient ancestors did not fit neatly into the 7 daughters of Eve groupings but in fact originated from not simply one species but hundreds and possible thousands of sub-species some yet to be discovered.

This means that until vastly more people alive today have their DNA tested all those claims made about DNA are simply theories open to change (as with all reputable science).

Those who claim DNA theories are fact do not understand science.

Cheers
Guy

[RobertCasey]

Thermoluminescence methodology is being challenged for the time frame being claimed - so the dating could have issues. The vast majority of early subspecies will be in Africa where heat degrades DNA too much to be a significant player (with the exception of mummies in Egypt) - so we have to revert back to skull metrics, etc. for subspecies - which is more reliable than most believe.

I really think that archaic remains will tell us more than more extensive testing (with the exception of A00 YDNA). Also, using the "Seven daughters of Eve" as DNA experts is a real stretch as that book is more or a romance novel than an academic study.

[Guy Etchells]

Thermoluminescence methodology is being challenged for the time frame being claimed - so the dating could have issues. The vast majority of early subspecies will be in Africa where heat degrades DNA too much to be a significant player (with the exception of mummies in Egypt) - so we have to revert back to skull metrics, etc. for subspecies - which is more reliable than most believe.

I really think that archaic remains will tell us more than more extensive testing (with the exception of A00 YDNA). Also, using the "Seven daughters of Eve" as DNA experts is a real stretch as that book is more or a romance novel than an academic study.

The "Seven daughters of Eve" refers to the DNA research Bryan Clifford Sykes, (Fellow of Wolfson College, and Emeritus Professor of Human Genetics at the University of Oxford, founder of Oxford Ancestors) based his theory of mitochondrial markers. I was rather clumsily referring to that research rather than the book itself.
Yes his research into Cheddar man is questioned due to claimed contamination with modern DNA and I should add that Professor Sykes himself believes that there are more than the seven haplogroups first suggested but of course we must not forget that certainly some of his work had been discredited.

You cannot claim any DNA if found has been degraded by heat until or unless you know what heat the fragments have been exposed to, they could have been found in cool locations, I believe they were found in the coastal region which is relatively cold.

Cheers
Guy