The most recent mtDNA study we stumbled across, is from our perspective the final nail in the coffin of the Out-of-Africa theory. Once, twice and a third time over, separate genetic studies of Homo sapien sapiens, dingoes and now song birds, stand united in ascribing the same place of origin: Australia.
The genetic facts in these equations are incontestable, the distinctive and unique nature of the mitochondrial DNA of both the dingo and Mungo Man (WLH 3) cannot be matched to any like species on this planet.
[…]
The insurmountable problem these genetic studies creates is obvious, if both Australian dingo and human are unique, the question that demands to be answered relates to how can it be that there is common belief that Original Australians came from Africa and the ancestor of the dingo lived in Southern India? What is puzzling is that despite the imposing evidence to the contrary, every text, university and lecturer will earnestly claim that the Out-of-Africa theory is an unquestionable fact. Equally, from the same department their books assure us that all dogs, canines and wolves share the same ancestry, but that is not true in the dingoes’ case. All of this smells like bad science and lazy thinking, but it gets worse, there are birds in the air to reconsider and reposition.
Yes an interesting read. Unfortunately all the artifacts from Lake Mungo are considered under the protection of the local Aborigine population. The chances of getting any further samples to test will be slim and border on none. There is quite a bit of controversy surrounding ML3, especially in regards to the dating of how old he is.
Seems pretty racist of the main stream scientists to deny the aboriginals of Australia their proper place.
Having been to Australia, I must say it is special. Definitely different. Even the people 🙂
Yeah, Australia as the origin of Man, ok. But there’s those pesky bones Louis Leakey dug up…
I’ll have to go with fossil evidence myself, because there’s lots of it in the world that’s older than 60,000 years. Plenty of sites in Europe older than 200,000 years.
Then there’s all that DNA evidence which suggests that the Modern Europeans didn’t wipe out the Neanderthals, they married them. Us crazy White people are their kids.
That one is kind of inconvenient for the Lefty narrative. People getting along without supervision doesn’t support their world view.
Also, I have to say I find the “multiple origins” theory hilarious. Two different kinds of monkeys in two different places turned into exactly the same thing, independently? Right down to the biochemistry and tooth structure? So close they can interbreed? Really?
Doubt it.
Wasn’t that long ago that Piltdown Man was a featured player. My Mothers natural history text from her college days had a picture of a recreation.
aaahhhh yes, another burst of “The Scinece is Settled”
Like the discussion on climate change, this sort of issue helps to neatly highlight the difference between science and scientism.
The former offers no ideological concessions; the latter demands them.
“Doubt it.”
I do to.
Australian negroes survived genome extinction events like the Black Death which wiped out whole groups of blood types in the rest of the world is my guess.
As to the dingoes, can they be interbred with other canines?
Probably can.
That site also has articles claiming that Pleiadan spaceships visited Australia during the Dreamtime. I’d be careful about taking anything it says at face value without a load of independent confirmation. Some very learned people also ascribe to the “aquatic ape” hypothesis.
actually there may have been a split before “man”. And Neanderthals may just have died off slowly for reasons unknown, but did interbreed to some extent, whole sale interbreeding is not considered to have happened, but then that consideration may yet change, and that is what science is supposed to be about. These “science is settled” jackasses need some re-education:-)
IIRC, the Honorable Elijah Mohammed taught that Africans used to have wings before an evil white scientist took them away somehow.
Couldn’t Africans have flown over to Australia and set up a colony?
http://dingo.livingin-australia.com/dingo-dog-crossbreeds.html
Australian aborigines are not negro. They are Caucasians.
Theories are only as good until a new one comes along to disprove it. Skepticism is built in if you are a true scientist. This does not apply to the science of Global Warming, which is more a cult then science.
They’re Caucasian? Those negro facial features had me fooled.
Well they aren’t aborigines either.
The Caucasus is too far away and last I checked it isn’t part of Australia.
This map illustrates the currently accepted theory on early human migrations according to mitochondrial population genetics (numbers are millennia before present)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dymaxion_map#mediaviewer/File:Map-of-human-migrations.jpg
Bogus story. Dingos and dogs can interbreed and have fertile offspring.
Citing Will Durant, the historian, the Caucasus have no relation to a certain group of people. Aussie aboriginals are certainly not Caucasian either way.
Yeah, I didn’t say or even suggest that they were Caucasian.
You obviously understand how the reply link works, why don’t you use it to see who and what I was replying to?