David Reich

Which of them were modern?

Were they both archaic?

Was one of them modern?

Was one of those more closely related to Neanderthals and the possibly higher proportion of ancestry?

It's not obviously wrong that the model's very, very different from the standard one that we currently have.

I'm very agnostic.

I really, really don't know.

I think the models that are considered to be standard dogma are now low probability.

There's a standard dogma that's developed over an accretion of papers where the history gets patched.

Someone sequences a genome, someone performs an analysis, someone proves something that wasn't known before.

And so we claim a mixture event we didn't know about it before, an event that we didn't know before.

And that gets patched onto the current model, which is now a series of patches.

And nobody has really rethought the whole thing very hard.

And the whole thing is not obviously very, very different.

So you can actually reassemble the whole model in a new way without doing it from the ground up or from the simple model up, but in fact, thinking about it again and seeing if it can be all related in new ways.

And in fact, it might be actually quite different in the way that I just described.

Even that's not clear, but probably such a thing would have occurred somewhere in the Near East or in Western Eurasia somehow.

And it's not even clear where the modern human lineage at that time was residing.

So probably the modern human lineage was leading to the great majority of the ancestors of people today was in Sub-Saharan Africa for the last 500,000 years at least, and maybe might be much more.

Certainly, our main lineage was in Africa probably 3 million, 5 million, 7 million years ago.