Revising the human mutation rate

[Matt Winters]

Not tracking these genetics sites as closely as I once did, I'm not sure whether this has already been covered here. If accurate, seems it will upset a lot of folks who are rather strongly attached to particular haplogroup age estimates. I don't have a dog in the fight really, but am interested in hearing what people have to say. (If it's already been fought over, please give me a link to the discussion.)

http://www.nature.com/nrg/journal/v13/n10/full/nrg3295.html

The current issue of Archaeology looks at it from this perspective. In summary:

"For years, archaeologists and geneticists have been troubled by the fact that their time lines for key events in human evolution don't always match up. ...Now, new work, based on observations of the genetic differences between present-day parents and children, suggests that the genetic clock may actually run about twice as slowly as previously believed, at least for the last half million years or so of primate history."

"It can no longer be said that the genetic evidence is unequivocally against" archaeologists who ascribe substantially earlier dates to notable prehistoric milestones, one of the authors said.

[gtc]

That sounds like a very interesting article. Pity it's behind a pay wall, where it won't be read by many of us.