'Ghost' DNA In West Africans Complicates Story Of Human Origins

[tn1911]

'Ghost' DNA In West Africans Complicates Story Of Human Origins

https://www.npr.org/2020/02/12/80523...-human-origins

About 50,000 years ago, ancient humans in what is now West Africa apparently procreated with another group of ancient humans that scientists didn't know existed.

There aren't any bones or ancient DNA to prove that theory, but researchers say the evidence is in the genes of modern West Africans. They analyzed genetic material from hundreds of people from Nigeria and Sierra Leone and found signals of what they call "ghost" DNA from an unknown ancestor.

[Kyohte]

Not saying it was reptilians, but it was reptilians.

In all honesty, this isn’t surprising knowing what we know about interbreeding with other homonids (Neanderthal and Denisovan).


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Kyohte]

Woops

[SteyrAUG]

[Business_Casual]

So there’s no evidence but we are supposed to just take it as read that the DNA is “ghost” DNA. RIGHT.

[kirkland]

It's not so far fetched, there were many different groups of hominids during the time that humans were evolving.

[Dr. Bullseye]

So there’s no evidence but we are supposed to just take it as read that the DNA is “ghost” DNA. RIGHT.

It's kinda like the theology threads on this forum, this is not the place to discuss anthropology/genetics. But here is the real article

https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/6/7/eaax5097

Yes, you can find real evidence for a ghost lineage within DNA and they explain, fully, how it was done. The "ghost" means you have no holotype, no one fossil you ascribe to that name.

[SteyrAUG]

It's kinda like the theology threads on this forum, this is not the place to discuss anthropology/genetics. But here is the real article

https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/6/7/eaax5097

Yes, you can find real evidence for a ghost lineage within DNA and they explain, fully, how it was done. The "ghost" means you have no holotype, no one fossil you ascribe to that name.

Yep, basically an unknown source and that happens all the time. We constantly find fossils and have to play "What is it?" because we've never seen one like that before. But if the article read "previously unencountered human DNA from unknown source" 99% of the internet would be "pffffft, who care."

But if you call it ghost DNA then everybody checks right in. Personally I think they should have gone full hyperbole and announced that they might have found traces of original "Adam the first human" DNA. If you add enough "might" and "could prove to be" you can get away with a lot and still claim to be discussing science.

[The_War_Wagon]

Not saying it was reptilians, but it was reptilians.

SLEESTAK!!!




Land of the Lost had it right all along!!!

[sundance435]

Yep, basically an unknown source and that happens all the time. We constantly find fossils and have to play "What is it?" because we've never seen one like that before. But if the article read "previously unencountered human DNA from unknown source" 99% of the internet would be "pffffft, who care."

But if you call it ghost DNA then everybody checks right in. Personally I think they should have gone full hyperbole and announced that they might have found traces of original "Adam the first human" DNA. If you add enough "might" and "could prove to be" you can get away with a lot and still claim to be discussing science.

I think dinosaurs are a good analogue - as much attention as they've received in the last 30 years, there's a good chance that most of the "complete" or semi-complete fossilized specimens are at least partly, if not totally wrong. We simply don't know enough about them to be able to classify them with any degree of accuracy, which will happen when your evidence is millions of years old and fossilized. A lot of dinosaur "knowledge" today can still be traced back to completely erroneous assumptions from the 1800's and 1900's. The same could be said for study of human anthropology. Technology is great, but the output is only as good as the input.