New Study: Origin of Mankind is Not What We Have Been Told! But Does the New Narrative Make Sense?

New study in "Nature Genetics" shows that human origins are very different than the narrative that has been presented in the science media. But does the narrative the researchers gave to explain the data make sense?

Link to book "Journey On the Outside" Amazon Page https://www.amazon.com/dp/1733277811

This study is called "A structured coalescent model reveals deep ancestral structure shared by all modern humans" https://www.nature.com/articles/s4158... https://www.youtube.com/redirect?event=video_description&redir_token=QUFFLUhqa0JxVUJVTVRKWkQ4LVFsdjd2eUhsdFRVcEhkUXxBQ3Jtc0ttcnh0emVfRnJuUnJ4REpubzdXM2pNM3loZDNvUjZWYU5fTklKeFNsRmctckllcm0tSUVqNERrcGE4WFVhVXNiTzBpd05MOE1RRFBrVENkdUpNanZiYkhEd3dHZ0dGWkszMFdUbmc2b2VXQ3pCZGcwMA&q=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.nature.com%2Farticles%2Fs41588-025-02117-1&v=yPu8_AO6nqI

Some other links which together show that the mainstream science media narrative about how humanity isn't that special are very wrong.

Home page of Cambridge Professor Dr. William Amos. There is a document for download(the question of neanderthal interbreeding) there which makes a devastating case, in advanced layman's terms, that the claim living Eurasians have 1.5% of their genes from Neandertal introgression is mistaken and the result of a basic and embarrassing error on the part of the most celebrated names in the field. https://www.zoo.cam.ac.uk/directory/w...
https://www.youtube.com/redirect?event=video_description&redir_token=QUFFLUhqbUJDSUU2UzFmRTVFcDEzemhUYTYtZmVVeGZYZ3xBQ3Jtc0tuUXR0SVhiRFhRUXNGalV4cXowUkFHSHZsNXZrakFLMnNSYXZhcjZiUEFhVGxXWTZZX1ItbUluY1JOajZwdjFUcG1ndndlWFJ2S1hJbjA5bTFjYzlSc2xWRU40UWh6Wm44Rm4tY2FZak8yN0ZJSXBCMA&q=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.zoo.cam.ac.uk%2Fdirectory%2Fwilliam-amos&v=yPu8_AO6nqI

Here is the article in Nature which warns DSTATS can produce "spurious admixture events" if they don't also check for population structure as an explanation for the data. It is exactly what Dr. Amos is saying happened. https://www.nature.com/articles/s4155...
https://www.youtube.com/redirect?event=video_description&redir_token=QUFFLUhqbjFEUGMtbzFQZ3dsblplby1OZ3BQeWVpTkszd3xBQ3Jtc0trSFZBTnRacEQxNlVCdk9jRFozdWl1THZsNDNGQl94OGlhRkhBZTZDRHFjRHBCenE2M24zZzIwbjl6WUx0bVlMN2dOUXYwclJiUVRzVWZzRThXdFJWYVlaT3RsNno2c3JPZF9ISkhGMjBOYnBac1N3SQ&q=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.nature.com%2Farticles%2Fs41559-024-02591-6%3Ffbclid%3DIwY2xjawHzFwpleHRuA2FlbQIxMAABHe2sznUF5my4i9KDeBDZl5tW-CCIFVgQe5fZFSngOsvXK8AEBOsGtRTElA_aem_0DfafursBz7ln0yPEV_Trg&v=yPu8_AO6nqI

Just to give a hint of how messed up "most recent common ancestor" calculations are, here is a link to a paper that says Y-chromosomes have variable mutation rates, and the "older" ones like "B" mutate 1.5 times faster than the "younger" ones they used to figure coalesce times. This implies that instead of haplogroup "B" arising from 101 to 80 KYA it would be more like 67- 53 KYA. https://academic.oup.com/mbe/article/...
https://www.youtube.com/redirect?event=video_description&redir_token=QUFFLUhqbUVwTkdIVEplaFpOV1AtaXpDZFJNSEJJZ1N4Z3xBQ3Jtc0ttei1WTWZqdkpyeml5OVhFWjRONjNxLTZrUWlUbno2YVdrRmNTMDVQbEV3XzlfbG8ydmtBZUpnSHM4cjBkOC1ZMjFQbWtBVUU4ODZuMmNUdXNLTGlnT0dBTG9EMmZleDhQaHBPYmNrU2hGNWwzSWdNRQ&q=https%3A%2F%2Facademic.oup.com%2Fmbe%2Farticle%2F38%2F3%2F1000%2F5922624%3Flogin%3Dfalse&v=yPu8_AO6nqI