>>10984473The most infuriating thing is that the original hypothesis had A and BT/Beta on their own branches from a common ancestor, which hilariously enough doesn't specifically imply that Out of Africa is incorrect, as
>>10984445 said, only that A and BT have been their own branches for over 338,000 years - because that's the date of the oldest form of A, meaning all humans who weren't A after 338kya were implicitly BT or have not yet been found.
In
>>10984469, I show that 388kya+ years ago, humans were in India using the Levallois technique. Implicitly, these people were not A or else Y-A would be found outside of Africa. They had to be BT or something besides A or BT, and we have not found any new Y haplogroups aside from neanderthals and maybe Denisovans?
The common ancestor of A and BT must be older than 338kya, which could easily place A and BT's last common ancestor in India 388kya+.
Humans had 48 chromosomes until 4.5mya-750,000kya;
>https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/27708712/>The reduction in chromosome number was caused by the head-to-head fusion of two ancestral chromosomes to form human chromosome 2>Next generation sequencing and molecular clock analyses estimated that this fusion arose prior to our last common ancestor with Neandertal and Denisovan hominins~0.74 - 4.5 million years ago