Modern humans descended from not one, but at least 2 ancestral populations that drifted apart and later reconnected, long before modern humans spread across
Thank you for your answer. Correct me if I’m wrong but this sounds like they are doing a lot of guess work in that. I’m really trying to wrap my head around it but basing your findings over 26 modern human populations and going back doesn’t sound like solid way to go since you’re looking for something you have and interpreting it based on that modern data while it can be something else and/or you’re biased (like assuming that you have human DNA from dozen or more base pairs).
Also finding certain mutations sounds good but considering the rarity, the age of these findings, natural degradation and base pair counts in their findings makes it very iffy to believe it’s exactly what they say it’s. How can you be so lucky to find such discerning markers all the time and this consistently? It sounds improbable to me. I might be missing something in-between and I’m trying to find it but so far couldn’t. If you or anyone else knows please let me know. Thanks in advance.
According to the paper, they tested ten different split-and-merge scenarios and this one was the most likely. But they give some important caveats, including:
They assume that the smaller group had a more-or-less constant population size—if it fluctuated significantly, some of their other predictions on the dating of the split and merge might be off.
They can’t rule out more complicated scenarios, like three or more splits and merges (but they can rule out the simpler scenario of no splits).
They do say that they tested their model on a number of other species (including chimps, bats, and dolphins), and got results consistent with those species’ known evolutionary histories.
Thank you for your answer. Correct me if I’m wrong but this sounds like they are doing a lot of guess work in that. I’m really trying to wrap my head around it but basing your findings over 26 modern human populations and going back doesn’t sound like solid way to go since you’re looking for something you have and interpreting it based on that modern data while it can be something else and/or you’re biased (like assuming that you have human DNA from dozen or more base pairs).
Also finding certain mutations sounds good but considering the rarity, the age of these findings, natural degradation and base pair counts in their findings makes it very iffy to believe it’s exactly what they say it’s. How can you be so lucky to find such discerning markers all the time and this consistently? It sounds improbable to me. I might be missing something in-between and I’m trying to find it but so far couldn’t. If you or anyone else knows please let me know. Thanks in advance.
According to the paper, they tested ten different split-and-merge scenarios and this one was the most likely. But they give some important caveats, including:
They assume that the smaller group had a more-or-less constant population size—if it fluctuated significantly, some of their other predictions on the dating of the split and merge might be off.
They can’t rule out more complicated scenarios, like three or more splits and merges (but they can rule out the simpler scenario of no splits).
They do say that they tested their model on a number of other species (including chimps, bats, and dolphins), and got results consistent with those species’ known evolutionary histories.