[jajag]

The Nature article is here https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-024-07447-4

Somebody (I don't remember who) suggested that Australian Boabab trees were potential evidence of the direct population of Australia from Africa by a pre-Aboriginal people, based on the idea that the fruit of the Boabab tree would be an excellent food source for a long cross-ocean crossing, as well as supposed "African" characteristics in the Kimberley petrographs found in the same area as the trees. The theory is fringe-science at best (and I believe slightly offensive to Aboriginals) but I've been curious about the origin of the trees since coming across the theory. I skimmed through the paper but didn't see any estimate for a date for the genetic diversion of the Australian Boababs.

[jamincan]

Out of curiousity, why would that be considered offensive to Australian aboriginals?

[jajag]

The Kimberly rock drawings are some of the oldest in Australia, and an intrinsic part of Aboriginal culture in the region which they are found. Assigning their origin to a non-aboriginal source was considered disrespectful by some.

[blacksmith_tb]

It's generally the case that indigenous peoples have their own origin stories, which tend to not easily align with scientific explanations. Which is tricky because they have often experienced colonial exploitation and rejection of their cultures, and the science can come off as more of the same (even if it's true).