.
Nature doesn't come with labels stating where everything came from and how it got here. Scientists have to gather evidence and build hypotheses and theories about what happened. It's quite normal for these to be revised and updated as more evidence comes to light. It isn't an "Oh no!" situation, and it doesn't mean the UB's discarded 1930's science will be accepted as true any day now, like science is a gaming machine that randomly throws up three lemons if you pull the handle enough times. The revisions that take place in science are meaningful and deliver progressively more accurate approximations of reality. While it's true that religious texts have the comforting feature of never being subjected to revision, this comes accompanied by the unfortunate fact that they're wrong about almost everything.



A good example of what I stated above. The UB is wrong that humans evolved in Asia. Sadler was apparently basing this claim on information that was current among some evolutionists in the 1930's. The closest cousins of humans— chimpanzees and bonobos, live in Africa, and all of the earliest hominid fossils have been found in Africa, so it seems very unlikely that the earliest human ancestors will be found to have originated outside Africa. The "Out of Africa" theory concerns not whether but how humans left Africa. Did modern humans evolve from a single population that migrated from Africa, or did Homo erectus leave Africa and colonize Europe and Asia and these various populations then evolve into modern humans separately? The former view represents the current scientific consensus.


I've had a look at reports of these latest findings. Very interesting, but unsurprising. It seems inconceivable that several species of human would once have co-existed on earth without some contact and an element of sexual fraternization taking place. The same situation is thought to have taken place between the two lineages that produced humans and chimpanzees, with the different species interbreeding for at least a million years after the initial split from a common ancestor.

An old news article from 2006. I don't know if tis hypothesis has been updated or revised since then:

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/18/science/18evolve.html?pagewanted=all

.
The previous estimate would only be in error if the researchers claimed at the time that it was a set in stone figure that wouldn't be subject to revision if new information came to light. Do you have evidence that this is the case?