User:Wikiuser1314/sandbox1

To determine time frames on population splits and divergence patterns, one must use the full genome, f-stats, etc., and take higher/lower archaic admixture into account, as well as drift and bottleneck events. One must not base estimates solely on mitochondrial (and or Y chromosome) haplogroups... thats more than just outdated. Best case: triangulation between genetic, archaeologic, and environmental data; archaeology alone (without genetic analyses on remains) can not surely inform on the exact demographic patterns (non-demic diffusion, adoption, etc.), thus being speculative. Inferring population splits solely based on morphology/craniometrics is pseudo-science. E.g. "A likely consequence of the documented additional Denisovan ancestry in Papuan (Meyer et al. 2012) is that no comparison involving Papuan passed the outgroup tests." "Single loci like mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) can only provide biased estimates of population split times". "They are sensitive to “ghost” admixture, which occurs when a population receives archaic DNA from sources not acknowledged by the statistical model." "...genetics is playing an authoritative role in the interpretation of human history. Thus, when archaeology places the origin of modern humans more than 300,000 years ago (ya) or its Eurasian expansion from Africa more than 120,000 ya dates significantly older than the genetic estimates (150,000–200,000 and 50,000–60,000 respectively), archaeological findings are considered genetically irrelevant because they may not have contributed to the gene pool of current human populations". "We therefore conclude that mtDNA alone cannot be used to reliably infer population history" (tested on athropods/insect variation already in 2005).

Critic: The preferred use of only mitochondrial DNA, ignoring aDNA results and reburying important remains (even against the whishes of affilated indigenous peoples) is questionable.

Critic: It should be clear that making statements such as: "...separated from other OoA migrants shortly after the initial Eurasian dispersal..." but citing papers such as Lipson&Reich 2017 and M.A. Yang 2022 for this claim, who however state the contrary, is misrepresenting results = bad scholarship, dear ACAD. – E.g. if a group diverged from another group, and than this group subsequently trifurcated into three subgroups, the ignoring one of these three subgroups and making the specific statement just for two of them, is simply nonsense and misleading. Because of this, papers which could actually be quite usefull, became worthless.

Further relevant: