Eduardo, Thanks for the question. I'll see if I can get our heads around it.
Firstly the article mentions genes that show a point of origin within the human species going back over the last two million years. The first of these genes to be studied was mitochondrial DNA. This was because there is so much of it and it doesn't recombine. The results showed the mtDNA line split in two about 180,000 years ago. Allan Wilson (a New Zealnder, yay) jokingly called the common female ancestor Eve and immediately regretted it. Aha, the Bible is basically correct after all. What a relief. As a result the distinctiveness of mtEve's line has been greatly exaggerated. Try finding it in the fossils for example. Or any change in technology. No can do.
As the article points out Alan Templeton of Washington University has developed techniques from those used for mtDNA to look at single genes. PCR has allowed him to multiply the DNA strands and so supply is not a problem either. As he says in the article he has traced the regional origin of many of those genes.
How much interbreeding between mtEve's descendants from Africa and the original inhabitants in each region? I think the evidence shows: quite a bit.
The modern Asian type seems to have been developing by about 300,000 years ago. Also there are similarities between some early Australian fossils and Javan H. erectus. Many modern European skulls are closer to Neanderthal skulls than are Polynesian skulls.
Of course including Neanderthals in our species means the Bible falls to pieces again. We have to be cleverer than those Neanderthals. After all we replaced them. But did we? I think the evidence shows overwhelmingly that we did not. Unfortunately the complete proof for substantial hybridizing is long and complicated.
What do you think of that?
