DNAprint Genomics (DNAG)

[dgplexus]

Yes, it'a a dramatic reversal. I think the major turning point, in the literature, is the Nature paper on human CNV (copy number variation in the human genome.) But the big messages aren't put front and center, you have to examine it with a magnifying glass to see: the three major races sampled (Asian, European, African,) cluster distinctly and quite differently from each other, not a random distribution, but a distribution which (according to the paper's 43 authors, from multiple nations and of different races, I might add,) fits best with a model of three separate ancestral groups (ancient origins for those three races, not merely a recent "Out of Africa" shebang.) The extent of CNV in the human genome, in that paper, was pegged at 12% of the genome (a VAST quantity,) with up to 10% overall genetic difference observed between sampled individuals of different races. That's the kind of difference normally seen between different species. I think it strongly supports a multiregional model of evolution, and strongly contradicts/refutes "Out of Africa." The implications in medicine, forensics, geneaology, paleoanthropology, etc., are monolithic.

Here's a link to the 43-author paper I mention:
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v444/n7118/abs/nature05329.html

And a few other links (to Google searches on the subject):
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=human+copy+number+variation
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=human+cnv
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=nature+human+cnv

Quite a dramatic reversal in science. Politics is perhaps the largest factor to blame in the previous erroneous statements; when contradictory results were seen (and they were, many many times,) they were always swept under the carpet, ultimately turning into a monster under the carpet, which has crawled out to show itself (though the overall media and the public, and even most academics, continue to try to ignore it.)