Great chapters that help Christians understand why evolution cannot be accepted, and a section on who wrote Genesis. This research seemed to lend credence to the 'Out of Africa' hypothesis, which states that Homo sapiens evolved in Africa and rapidly migrated across the world and replaced other hominids. Now a recent find by a team of Australian researchers claims to bolster another, competing idea concerning human origins. This would mean that Mungo Man was not descended from the small group of Homo Sapiens that allegedly evolved in Africa. Dr Carl Wieland explains both the 'out of Africa' and 'regional-continuity' ideas and offers a Biblical view in his article, No Bones about Eve .
Scientists are human.
Dr Thorne believes his age to be right. It's important to note that of the two evolutionary dates put forward, either one would further damage the credibility of Hugh Ross and other compromisers, who try to marry the Bible with billions of years and a local flood. Since he claims it was a local middle Eastern flood, he has to claim that humanity had not yet dispersed beyond the Middle East. Yet here we have humans that looked identical to modern humans living well before his date of the Flood. Of course, starting from the Biblical framework, we would say that since Mungo Man is, in fact, only a few thousand years old, it is perfectly within reason to expect some DNA to have survived.