Homo Erectus: “Nah, I don’t swing that way!”
Posted on 05/28/2026 2:11:53 AM PDT by SunkenCiv
Since humans developed the ability to study DNA extracted from fossils, we have uncovered a mystery that until now had no answer. In the DNA of some human species, including our own, Homo sapiens, there were "super-archaic" markers, vestiges of older, unknown species with which we had interbred and produced offspring. Unable to determine who these genomic intruders were, some scientists called them ghost populations...
Researchers in China have analysed proteins from the tooth enamel of six fossils dating back around 400,000 years -- five men and one woman -- found at sites across much of the country from north to south. They were able to recover two proteins, and one of them -- the M273V variant of the enamel protein ameloblastin -- is key. The results show that this protein is present in all the fossils analyzed, which belonged to our ancestor Homo erectus. The same compound had previously been identified in the teeth of another human group, the Denisovans -- close relatives of Neanderthals, themselves the species most closely related to our own.
The finding implies that, at some point around 400,000 years ago, Homo erectus, which originated in Africa, and the Denisovans, a human population adapted to Eurasia, encountered one another, had sex, and produced fertile offspring. It is the oldest known episode of interbreeding between human groups, and the first to feature Homo erectus, a species that until recently had been largely overlooked. The results were published on Wednesday in Nature.
(Excerpt) Read more at english.elpais.com ...
Homo Erectus: “Nah, I don’t swing that way!”
We’ll tell him the extraction is for a movie role.
Recently defeated Congressman Al Green underneath all the hair.
No, actually it doesn’t.
I have a lot of Neanderthal, according to my ex-wife.
We took the tooth !
Macro scale evolution (one species giving rise to another species, and so on, and so on), via genetic transcription “mistakes” purportedly producing improvement, or advancement, has been debunked as statistically impossible within the envisaged time span.
A word to the wise really ought to be sufficient, SC.
Are we not men? We are DEVO!
We are DEVO.
the guy on the left is the spitting image of a former boss o mine
yours:
“>..tooth enamel? What does that tell us about the depraved sex practices of our ancient ancestors?”
mine:
they must have bit on it. its a miracle any of us are here...
You're thinking that it's wrong to characterize them as binary? You would maybe prefer "...them as being two-spirits and lesbians?"
Seriously: They were undeniably members of the genus Homo - hence: humans.
Regards,
Muzz-tards will eff anything.🙄
Muzztards have been around less than 2000 years.
ANY young woman can get laid any time she wants to. ANY. Because there is ALWAYS some dude desperate enough. Take a look at ghetto baby-mamas for proof.
Homo Carvillus
Some of these pre-date the H. sapiens - Neanderthal split, others are thought to be the H. sapiens line leading to just after the split.
It makes perfect sense that once modern humans appeared, there would still be some "H. rudolfensis" or something similar around that they could interbreed with - they're populations on the same genetic "branch" as we are. Interbreeding with true H. erectus with their much smaller brains and more primitive culture is much less likely. Most likely humans in Indonesia hunted and ate the "hobbits" rather than mating with them!
You can use the amino acid sequences of proteins (as you would the DNA sequences that built them) to infer whether a part of our genome is consistent with the consensus for our species vs. due to something "alien", like cross-breeding with Neanderthals or archaic members of the lineage.
As to how depraved they were, you have to wonder how many of these interbreeding events were due to rape rather than consensual. I'm guessing that much of the human-Neanderthal hybridization was due to burly Neanderthal males having their way with human females.
If this study suggests a H. sapiens x "archaic" H. sapiens cross, it could have been either rape or consensual. If it happened early on, the early H. sapiens line wouldn't be all that different from H. rudolfensis, etc, maybe less so than H. sapiens and Neanderthals.
Scientifically (Biology, Anthropology 101) speaking, they were male and female, not “men and women” (Sociology 101).
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.