3 ms·

Such fictional assumptions... > Some 45,000 years ago, a tiny group of people — fewer than 1,000, all told — wandered the icy northern fringes of Europe. Is i

Such fictional assumptions... > Some 45,000 years ago, a tiny group of people — fewer than 1,000, all told — wandered the icy northern fringes of Europe. Is it not possible that: Some 45,000 years ago, a tiny group of people — fewer than 1,000, all told — wandered from sunny Australia into China, eventually reaching Africa and Europe? It is impossible to tell the direction of travel.

reedf1 2y ago
It is not really up for debate. Haplogroups provide direct lineage and evidence for migration.
pvg 2y ago
Is it not possible that: You'd be able to look for and find some evidence of their ancestors in Australia and you don't. But there's plenty of it in Africa.
- Mountain_Skies 2y ago
  That assumes all evidence is equally easy to find and has been equally searched for.
  - pvg 2y ago
    Sort of but we're not talking about apes and monkeys here, it's placental mammals in general. So the evidence is overwhelming https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mammals_of_Australia#Evolutionary_history https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mammals_of_Australia#Evolution... If we got this wrong, most of paleontology is unreliable.
- pfannkuchen 2y ago
  Africa is a static large site of habitation where the disappearance of 99% of evidence would still leave easily findable evidence. In GP’s scenario the habitation would be transient. Not really comparable.
madaxe_again 2y ago
No. The genomes tell a pretty clear story. Should your hypothesis be correct, you would find haplogroups in the 45kya group descended from the 60kya austronesian group - but you do not. Rather, you find a most recent common ancestor before the 60kya group left Africa. As to why Africa - this is where ancestral hominids and the earliest known sapiens specimens have been found. While we have found cousins elsewhere, the evidence all points towards sapiens having emerged in Africa and spread elsewhere in successive waves. When the hypothesis first appeared it was somewhat shocking to science, as the leading theory was some sort of parallel emergence of the races - but this was not grounded in the evidence being found in Africa at the time, and genetic evidence has since cemented this not as hypothesis, but well-established theory.
Cthulhu_ 2y ago
I mean the fictional assumption is that it was a single group that wandered thousands of miles across continents; it was many generations that would settle somewhere, with subsequent generations migrating and spreading slowly, leaving behind traces like gravesites and settlements and the like; combine that with accurate dating and you can in fact tell the direction of travel.

reedf1 2y ago

It is not really up for debate. Haplogroups provide direct lineage and evidence for migration.

pvg 2y ago

Is it not possible that: You'd be able to look for and find some evidence of their ancestors in Australia and you don't. But there's plenty of it in Africa.

Mountain_Skies 2y ago
That assumes all evidence is equally easy to find and has been equally searched for.
- pvg 2y ago
  Sort of but we're not talking about apes and monkeys here, it's placental mammals in general. So the evidence is overwhelming https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mammals_of_Australia#Evolutionary_history https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mammals_of_Australia#Evolution... If we got this wrong, most of paleontology is unreliable.
pfannkuchen 2y ago
Africa is a static large site of habitation where the disappearance of 99% of evidence would still leave easily findable evidence. In GP’s scenario the habitation would be transient. Not really comparable.

madaxe_again 2y ago

No. The genomes tell a pretty clear story. Should your hypothesis be correct, you would find haplogroups in the 45kya group descended from the 60kya austronesian group - but you do not. Rather, you find a most recent common ancestor before the 60kya group left Africa. As to why Africa - this is where ancestral hominids and the earliest known sapiens specimens have been found. While we have found cousins elsewhere, the evidence all points towards sapiens having emerged in Africa and spread elsewhere in successive waves. When the hypothesis first appeared it was somewhat shocking to science, as the leading theory was some sort of parallel emergence of the races - but this was not grounded in the evidence being found in Africa at the time, and genetic evidence has since cemented this not as hypothesis, but well-established theory.

Cthulhu_ 2y ago

I mean the fictional assumption is that it was a single group that wandered thousands of miles across continents; it was many generations that would settle somewhere, with subsequent generations migrating and spreading slowly, leaving behind traces like gravesites and settlements and the like; combine that with accurate dating and you can in fact tell the direction of travel.