GENEALOGY-DNA-L Archives

Archiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2012-02 > 1328893095


From: Daniel Jenkins <>
Subject: Re: [DNA] Out of Africa
Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2012 16:58:15 +0000
References: <mailman.775.1328878324.1055.genealogy-dna@rootsweb.com>,<1157687709.748747.1328892245262.JavaMail.root@sz0002a.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net>
In-Reply-To: <1157687709.748747.1328892245262.JavaMail.root@sz0002a.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net>


If I recall properly , Findings in caves , in Australia of human inhabitation have been dated to pre 60,000 years ago , albeit Neandertal . A good answer on how they got there has remained elusive . I have a theory that was laughed at a few years ago , if you are interested ? Dan Jenkins
> Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2012 16:44:05 +0000
> From:
> To:
> CC:
> Subject: Re: [DNA] Out of Africa
>
>
>
> >From: kevin brewer
> >Why do these people persist with the 60k date? Modern humans were in
> India as late as 74k when Toba blew up, as there are modern human
> artefacts under and over the deposition layer.
>
>
>
> My response:
>
>
>
> Dear Kevin,
>
>
>
> It is such a game. A sort of an adult kindergarten. Here is a quotation from my paper on "Out of Africa "theory", though in order to read it one needs a translator. It was published in "Proceedings", 2011 October, vol. 4, No. 10, pp. 1908-1977 (the list of Proceedings is at the end of http://aklyosov.home.comcast.net )
>
>
> **************
>
>
> Most papers in "academic journals" begin with a statement that "modern humans came out of Africa approximately 50 thousand years ago (Jobling and Tyler-Smith, 2003), or "50-60 thousand years ago" (Shi et al, 2010; Mellars , 2011), or "50-70 thousand years ago" (Hydjasov et al, 2007; Stoneking and Delfin, 2010), or "60 thousand years ago" (Li and Durbin, 2011; Henn et al., 2011), or "50-75 thousand years ago" (Patin et al, 2009), or "70-80 thousand years ago" (Majumder, 2010), or "40-80 thousand years ago" (Campbell and Tishkoff, 2010), or "55-70 thousand years ago" (Soares et al, 2009), or, more carefully, "between 50 and 100 thousand years ago" (Hu b lin, 2011) and "between 27-53 thousand years ago" and "58-112 thousand years ago"(Carrigan and Hammer, 2006). Incidentally, nobody mentions, or, more likely, nobody knows, that no one actually calculated those dates, that they are absolutely imaginary, they are "conceptual", based on "general considerations" made some 15 years ago, and since then just recycling as a reference on a reference on a reference. In order to actually calculate those dates there was no methodology up to the very last time. For the last (many) years all new "data" have been just making "similar" with those dates whichever was preferred by the authors.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ****************
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Anatole Klyosov
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> -------------------------------
> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message


This thread: