Jeffrey H. Schwartz' radical "primitive retention" critique of "molecular anthropologists" - coexisting species of hominins

 

 300,000 year old specimen from Morocco doesn't look like Sapiens at all

"you broaden the sphere of Homo Sapiens that you could be anything in it. .... I think we should just throw away all these names....treat these as fossils...and we don't know anything about them and build it up that way....it's not like this secret society that molecular anthropologists have constructed."

  Assuming a 6.5 ma human-Pan split, Reich et al. estimated an N-D split at
640 ka, and an N/-African H split at 804 ka. All conclusions conflict with the mtDNA analysis. Most significantly is the conflict between molecules and morphology: Even the
authors (p. 1058) recognized that in size, crown morphology, and root splay the D M 3 is most like early hominins, not N, H, or H. heidelbergensis (H.h.), which, morphologically, form a clade (see prior; Figure 4).

 Schwartz critiquing mitochondrial DNA

Rethinking Human Evolution - Schwartz' book - AI reading 

Schwartz' big critique of DNA analysis is similarity could be an ancient, non-changed similarity ["primitive retention"] - not a recent "interbreeding" similarity.

 They further suggested Neanderthals originally had Denisovan-like mtDNA that was
replaced via gene flow from another unknown, early, human-related lineage. I doubt any paleontologist would take seriously a similarly-convoluted scenario based on morphology.

 So the point being that mitochondrial DNA actually does pass on via males also and not just females.

Evolution of human–ape relationships remains open for investigation 

  And the only way in which one can suggest that a feature is uniquely possessed by two or more taxa is by demonstrating that the same feature is not present in members of a broader taxonomic group. Furthermore, although we would hope this would be self evident, one cannot know prior to pursuing the broader taxic comparison which or how many features will emerge as unique to a subset of that larger taxonomic assemblage (see review in Schwartz, 2008).

.........

Furthermore, while the unity of Hylobatidae is based on various craniodental and forearm morphologies that only gibbons and siamangs among anthropoids possess, the task of rooting a tree in an outgroup demands that any morphology found in the defined outgroup is de facto primitive relative to features possessed by ingroup taxa. Clearly, however, the autapomorphies that distinguish hylobatids from all other anthropoids – including the large-bodied hominoids – cannot also be primitive relative to large-bodied hominoid features.

The same contradiction pervades the analysis of molecular data. For how can the common ancestor of hylobatids both inherit a history of molecular change that accumulated after this ‘outgroup’ diverged from its common ancestor with the ‘ingroup’ and yet also remain primitive relative to the ingroup in the molecular sequences being compared (see discussion in Schwartz, in press b). It should also be self-evident that this contradiction exists regardless of the approach one uses to align sequences.

 https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/j.1365-2699.2012.02759.x

 Molecular Anthropology and the Subversion of Paleoanthropology: an Example of "the Emperor's Clothes" Effect? Jeffrey H. Schwartz

 

 

Schwartz argues Neanderthals are not the same genus? Meanwhile mainstream science argues Neanderthals are most closer to Sapiens than we realize.

 

 Critics who disagree that H. neanderthalensis and H. sapiens are two separate species can now cite supporting evidence from recent genetic research.

https://www.nhm.ac.uk/discover/are-neanderthals-same-species-as-us.html