Genomics refutes an exclusively African origin of humans

[Nadvojvoda Janez Kranjski]

This was probably posted here before, but what the hell...

Ten years ago evidence from genetics gave strong support to the “recent Africa origin” view of the evolution of modern humans, but subsequent large bodies of data not only have failed to support the rao model, they do not support any simple model of human demographic history. In this paper we study a process in which modern humans originate in Africa, then spread across the world by local demic diffusion, hybridization, and natural selection which fixes an advantageous gene combination characterizing anatomical modernity. Numerical simulations of this process replicate many of the seemingly contradictory features of the genetic data and suggests that as much as 80% of nuclear loci have assimilated genetic material from non-African archaic humans.

full study: Download

[Agrippa]

that as much as 80% of nuclear loci have assimilated genetic material from non-African archaic humans.

Doubt that but will read it when I have time

[Gil]

Originally Posted by Nadvojvoda Janez Kranjski

... a process in which modern humans originate in Africa, then spread across the world by local demic diffusion, hybridization, and natural selection which fixes an advantageous gene combination characterizing anatomical modernity. Numerical simulations of this process replicate many of the seemingly contradictory features of the genetic data and suggests that as much as 80% of nuclear loci have assimilated genetic material from non-African archaic humans.

I don't know to which degree there was (if any) admixture from non Homo Sapiens Sapiens but I doubt it could be as high as 80% without leaving our genome as similar as it has been throughout the ages.

[Carnyx]

Which means? F.e. Europeans would be 80% of archaic human ancestry and 20% African? Did I miss something?

[Menydh]

I quote:

"We conjecture that as much as 80% of the nuclear genome is significantly affected by assimilation with archaic humans (i.e., 80% of loci may have some archaic admixture, not that the human genome is 80% archaic)."

It looks like much speculation.

"... while modern humans emerged in Africa, living human populations carry with them a substantial genetic inheritance that had its origins in non-African archaics."

It doesn't say "African ancestry" as in "Negroid ancestry".

[Gil]

African doesn't mean negroid, negroids emerged as a type long after the first modern humans left africa but, due to environment and all, can be said to be, as Agrippa puts it, less progressive.
I seriously don't know what they mean by "archaic ancestry", I think it's just another shot at trying to make an alternate version of the "Out of Africa" theory.

[Carnyx]

I didn't say Negr(o)id, just African.