At https://phys.org/news/2025-07-genetic-evidence-early-colonization-timelines.html … we have further information on the genetic study that refutes the idea modern humans were in Australia prior to the 50,000 years ago Out of Africa paradigm. It seems there were two studies pubished in Nature and Science that showed modern humans only had once mated with the Neanderthals. In Europe – between 51 and 43 thousand years ago. This seems a bit of an assumption – but that is what they claim. Previous genetic evidence shows all modern humans outside of Africa carry at least 2 per cent of Neanderthal DNA in their genomes. This is true of living populations in Sahel [Australia and New Guinea, etc]. The argument then is, modern humans can only have arrived via the Out of Africa process. However, here is the rub, as pointed out by the astute author at the link above. There is evidence of people in Australia dating back 65,000 years ago. This date breaches the Out of Africa paradigm – which is why it is under attack, we may wonder. However, he points out the Sahel population has between 2 to 5 per cent of Denisovan ancestry – on top of Neanderthal. That might of course be where they get the smaller portion of Neanderthal DNA – from the Denisovans, the contemporaries of the Neanderthals, where evidence seems to show they co-existed, and share various other traits also. So, in saying this the author is actually putting a spanner in the works, one might think. Aboriginal Neanderthal DNA came courtesy of another group of people, and was not the result, as simply assumed in the recent paper, as a result of modern humans. The recent study claims, contrary to the above, that the genetic evidence supports the arrival of modern humans in Australia after 50,000 years ago. A huge leap of the imagination, one might think. However, we also have evidence that people were living in Australia and New Guinea, etc., prior to 50,000 years ago. Who were they?
The author then tells us this question was ‘not covered in the study’ or the possibility they might not have been modern humans, at all. Strange thing to omit but it would have probably made the study more complicated. Sticking to the Out of Africa paradigm seemed to take preference over everything else. The author then points at the Dragon Man skull found in NE China that has turned out to be that of a Denisovan. These people were also in central Asia, Tibet, and SE Asia in general – and no doubt in Sahel. One might imagine. For example, the Ayta Mogbukon people of the Philippines have 9 per cent Denisovan DNA whilst Papua New Guinea people and some Australian Aborigines have 6 per cent. Intriguing. In other words the author is suggesting the people dated to 65,000 years ago were, in effect, Denisovans – rather than modern humans. Sounds like he has made a good point. Especially so as the Out of Africa date, 50,000 years ago, was determined by a wide range of C14 dates. These occurred relatively early in the C14 process and most of these remains have never been redated by modern C14 methodologies. That is why the wall in which modern humans arrive is dated between 51 and 43 thousand years ago. Also, it is why you never find modern humans under the remains of Neanderthals. They always occur afterwards. Of course, a lot of Neanderthal remains do not occur with a later modern human element at all, which is why the C14 dates have taken pride of place. They are assumed to be perfectly correct – even though that might not be strictly true.
If the author’s diagnosis is correct and then the wall between Neanderthals/Denisovans, and what we call modern humans, still stands contemporary with the Laschamp event. This involved a mass die off of animals – and the disappearance of Neanderthals and Denisovans. That is what gave birth to the Out of Africa theory – although they plumped for the upper date of 50,000 years ago as the nature of the beast, the Laschamp event, was not fully understood at that time. If they now started saying modern humans arrived only 40,000 or so years ago and then the pradigm would clearly be under stress. Not enough time. Abiding by C14 dates going back to when the process was in its infancy, seems another strange bit about this paradigm. It is now a more mature methodology and intially this led to lower dates – close to 43,000 years ago. Since then C14 has been married to other methodologies including tree rings, speleotherms, and lake varves etc. The figure has now risen above 42,000 years, once again – simply by the Bayesian system itself. It has become a very murky world – dating human remains in the past. Yet, Laschamp is the perfect wall to account for mutations in animals and humans as a result of increased radiation levels arising from a weakened magnetic field shielding the Earth. We must be close to having that idea aired in public.