Archaeologists are constantly making adjustments to the age of Homo sapiens, despite the fact that this is not at all like the orthodox from science. So, as a result of a recent paleontological find on the territory of Morocco, the skeletons of ancient people have been studied, which, by all indicators, fit the definition of Homo sapiens. The age of the remains is more than 315 thousand years, from which it can be concluded that Homo sapiens is 100 thousand years older than previously assumed by academic science.
Paleontologists presented their findings in a scientific work published recently in the journal Nature. In it, the researchers focus on the fact that the five skeletons found near the city of Marrakech do not in any way indicate the origin of Homo sapiens in the north of the African continent. Most likely, civilization originated throughout Africa, as evidenced, for example, by the study of the DNA of a boy from the south of this continent, whose progenitors, as it turned out, separated from other African branches about 260 thousand years ago.
The published work has caused heated debate among scientists, inveterate "academics" do not agree with the current conclusions of paleontologists, seeing in the skeletons found some details in the form of a protruding chin and forehead, which are characteristic of Neanderthals, and not for Homo sapiens.
At the same time, independent researchers remind the orthodox of science about the Texas find of 1934 - the "London hammer", which is more than 100 million years old. But what about shoe prints on fossils that are 200 to 500 million years old? Moreover, such mysterious traces are found in different parts of the world. There are numerous other "inconvenient artifacts" (see video below), indicating that Homo sapiens existed much earlier and, moreover, not only on the African continent. Therefore, talking about such a scanty age of Homo sapiens as 200 or 300 thousand years, and even ascribing the origin of civilization to Africa - this is long outdated data that it is time to throw into the dustbin of history.
However, academic science relies and will rely only on established historical data, even if they contradict new findings and the long-known truth that history, including the birth of our civilization, has been written and rewritten dozens (if not more) times. It's not for nothing that conspiracy theorists argue that the most inaccurate science is history. It is quite comparable to fiction, at least to historical novels. But can novels really be considered history?..