This facial reconstruction represents a male individual from the Dmanisi excavation. Credit: Cicero Moraes et al. (Luca Bezzi, Nicola Carrara, Telmo Pievani) via Wikimedia / CC BY 4.0Posted on 07/01/2026 6:30:20 AM PDT by Cronos
Recent studies on fossils found at the Dmanisi archaeological site in the Republic of Georgia are changing the way scientists have understood the initial migration out of Africa by humans. For decades, the commonly accepted theory about the earliest migration out of Africa was that one species of human, Homo erectus, migrated out of Africa approximately 1.8 million years ago. But the new study, which was published in PLOS ONE, now indicates that this pivotal migration could have involved more than one human species.This facial reconstruction represents a male individual from the Dmanisi excavation. Credit: Cicero Moraes et al. (Luca Bezzi, Nicola Carrara, Telmo Pievani) via Wikimedia / CC BY 4.0
Dmanisi, located southwest of the city of Tbilisi, has given scientists the oldest known hominin remains found outside Africa. Archaeologists began excavations at the end of the 1990s and found stone tools, animal fossils, as well as five human skulls in a preserved state, dating back to the early Pleistocene era. From the outset of the research, the human skulls raised a series of questions among the scientists due to the extreme differences in their size and shape. Some skulls are relatively gracile and human-like, while others, most notably one specimen with a small braincase and a large face, look more primitive.
In order to help distinguish whether these variations represent differences between male and female members of a single species or evidence of more than one species living together, an international team of scientists studied more than just cranial shape. This includes teeth, particularly enamel, which is more resistant to distortion over time and provides valuable information about evolutionary relationships.
The team of scientists analyzed the crown surface area of premolars and molars of three Dmanisi individuals, which had enough dental material to be examined. A total of 583 fossil teeth, taken from the Dmanisi specimens, including australopiths and several early Homo species, were examined using statistical methods of classification. This large comparative framework allowed the researchers to determine whether the Georgian fossils clustered together or aligned with different branches of the human family tree.
Dmanisi Skull 5: Skull of an adult individual. Skull 5 is the first completely preserved Early Pleistocene adult hominin skull found. Credit: Gerbil / CC BY-SA 4.0
The results of the analysis showed that there was a clear split. While one of the Dmanisi fossils was more closely related to the australopiths, earlier and more ape-like ancestors, the other two were more closely related to the early members of the genus Homo. The level of difference was too large to be explained by sexual dimorphism alone, even compared to highly dimorphic great apes, such as gorillas.
Based on these results, the researchers support the idea that at least two human species coexisted at Dmanisi sometime around 1.8 million years ago. These groups are often classified as Homo georgicus, representing the more primitive form, and Homo caucasi, representing the more human-like species.
Dmanisi excavation site. Credit: Georgian National Museum / CC BY-SA 3.0
If confirmed, these findings would have major significance for human evolutionary history. Rather than one linear spread of humans from Africa led by Homo erectus, early migrations out of Africa could have involved several human species adapting in their own way to their new environments. This suggests that early human history could have been much more complex than was ever thought.
Yes, circa 4000 BC humanity transitioned from the Neolithic (Stone Age) into the Copper Age (Chalcolithic) and early Bronze Age.
The Sumerian Uruk period began. Uruk emerged as one of the world’s first true cities, featuring monumental architecture, advanced irrigation agriculture, and the earliest forms of proto-cuneiform writing
True, these were not homo sapiens - thinking, sentient human beings.
well, there WERE different species of “homo”.
Note that different “species” generally don’t produce offspring that are fertile - like horses mating with donkeys to produce mules.
All “humans” today are homo sapiens - the same species. That is why a person from Ireland can mate with someone from Papua New Guinea or a person from the KhoiSan can mate with someone from the Yaroba tribe and the offspring are fertile.
we’re all the same species no matter the color of one’s skin — in fact the dark black skinned Australian aborigines are closer related to the Irish than they are to black skinned West Africans
I don’t know that they were not thinkers. They obviously were hunter gatherers. I just think that in the Bible where God says “let us make man in our image” it sort of reveals that there was already a creature God knew as man already. Otherwise, it should say “let us make a creature called man, and make it in our image” perhaps.
“I just think that in the Bible where God says “let us make man in our image” it sort of reveals that there was already a creature God knew as man already. Otherwise, it should say “let us make a creature called man, and make it in our image” perhaps”
That’s actually a very well thought out point.
Thank you for expressing it!
That's up there with Idiocracy showing Clevon's family tree.
SUB “species”
The thing is the different “races” are not even SUB-species of homo sapiens sapiens —> all living humans belong to a single, undivided subspecies: Homo sapiens sapiens
Why?
Any two humans on Earth share roughly 99.9% of their DNA —> even the Yoruba and the KhoiSan have that level of closeness in their genes
It is weird, but chimpanzees in west and central africa have MORE genetic variation than the Khoi San vs Yoruba.
Look at these;
1. Lactose intolerance - “White” people from Northern Europe are lactase persistent, but “White” people from the Mediterranean often are not. Similarly, some Black African populations can digest milk perfectly, while neighboring Black African populations cannot. It is tied to agricultural history, not race
2. Sickle-cell. I used to think this was purely a black/ sub-Saharan african trait, but one reading more, you can see that it is completely absent in Black populations from South Africa where malaria is rare. Conversely, it is highly prevalent among non-Black populations in Greece, Italy, India, and the Middle East where malaria was historically common. It is a map of mosquito habitats, not a map of race
3. Height - The tallest and shortest populations on Earth both reside within the exact same continent and racial category (Sub-Saharan Africa). The South Sudanese Dinka people average nearly 6 feet (183 cm) tall, while the Mbuti people of the Congo average around 4 feet 6 inches (137 cm). Grouping them into a single “race” erases the massive genetic differences between them
4. Predisposition to obesity - again, this varies within the ‘races’.
I think if we had spent a few more tens of thousands of years apart, then we would have probably become sub-species separate, but we didn’t — the Turks cutting off European trade with India is what pushed the mingling of “Indo-european” and sub-saharan and later “American” genes together while the Mongols merged the Indo-european and east Asian together.
btw, all of these, indo-european, etc. are definitely not precise terminology, i’m just grabbing linguistics, geographic etc. terms together
There are human sub species....
I see you don’t seem to have a wide enough reading/breath of knowledge. let me remind you.
Did you forget Darwin’s Finches?
Nope, I didn’t forget about Darwin’s finches - hence my “I think if we had spent a few more tens of thousands of years apart, then we would have probably become sub-species separate, but we didn’t “
your analogy is scientifically flawed when applied to modern humans. Darwin’s Finches are a classic example of adaptive radiation where geographic isolation on different islands led to significant morphological and reproductive divergence. Humans have not experienced the level of long-term, reproductive isolation required to create such distinct lineages. Using finches to argue for human subspecies ignores the fact that human populations have maintained high levels of gene flow throughout our history.
In fact, the comparison to Darwin’s Finches actually illustrates why humans are not divided into subspecies. The finches became distinct because they were isolated on different islands for long periods, preventing interbreeding and allowing unique traits to become fixed in those populations.
Humans, by contrast, have never experienced that kind of prolonged, absolute reproductive isolation. Our history is defined by constant migration and gene flow, which is exactly why our genetic variation is so low compared to other primates and why our traits—like skin color, height, or disease resistance—are distributed in clines rather than in distinct, hard-divided groups.
In biology, a ‘subspecies’ is a specific taxonomic rank that requires a level of genetic divergence and isolation that simply does not exist in Homo sapiens.
Ha Ha Wow what a wonderful Unilateral moron post......
Science says we are all animals, all animals have sub species ... but according to you humans don’t.
Lets stand a 100 IQ specimen next to a specimen with 68 IQ ...
See the sub species yet?
you are definitely talking about your post as a “unilateral moron post”
And don’t fret about your IQ of 68, you can mow the lawn, buddy
Modern humans (Homo sapiens) do not have any subspecies because we are a relatively young, highly mobile species that constantly interbreeds across the globe, we lack the geographic isolation and deep, fixed genetic differences required to split into distinct biological subspecies.
In taxonomy we use the term sub-species mainly for breeding purposes to specify species with a designated collective trait. However, since we are humans with no definite collective trait among groups - we dont use the term subspecies
For clarity, the group of Homo (bipedal walkers and tool users) group of primates have multiple species but all are extinct except for H. sapiens (modern humans).
Humans share more genetic traits even separated by whole oceans than chimpanzees from the same troops. We can’t have a subspecies as we don’t have even half the genetic diversity as most other species. https://www.ashg.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/genetic-variation-essay.pdf
btw, you do realize intelligence is a complex trait and is not a taxonomic marker, right?
And at the same time you say “ all animals have sub species” - that is false. In biology a subspecies is a taxonomically recognized category used for populations that have become genetically and morphologically distinct due to long-term reproductive isolation—like when populations are physically separated for vast periods of time. ‘Subspecies’ is a population-level classification, not a label applied based on individual variation in traits like intelligence, height, or skin color.
Homo sapiens sapiens have just NOT been separated for long enough to develop sub-species.
Show me the evidence of fixed genetic divergence that ties in to ‘races’ - as I showed you above: lactose tolerance, sickle-cells, height, tendency to obesity, etc. are distributed across the “races”
however if you can show a fixed genetic divergence that aligns with the common concept of “races”, i would like to read it - do you have any?
Awwwww, did I step on your inferiority complex.
Keep posting, so people can laugh at your antics.
As for me you’re just boring, yawn.
BFW, you are projecting your inferiority complex out for everyone to see.
I was simply clarifying the biological definition of ‘subspecies’ and how it applies to human genetics.
You on the other provided.... nothing... no evidence of any sort.
you did comment on Darwin’s finches - and I showed you how the comparison to Darwin’s Finches actually illustrates why humans are not divided into subspecies. The finches became distinct because they were isolated on different islands for long periods, preventing interbreeding and allowing unique traits to become fixed in those populations.
I know it may be hard for you if you have, as indicated in your post above, an IQ of 68, but don’t worry, we don’t look down upon you - you’re doing great, able to type and everything. Good on you!
And now you are talking about projecting, YEAH projecting your own inadequacies. Since I not only know your tired little playbook but you being so predictable It may be based on the one I wrote. You want to try and draw me in to posting link after link to waste my time and energy. So confounded with no means of leverage what will you do?
Ha Ha .. Let me see the next thing on the list you are using ... (I say a list because from your post I see a lot of C&P and no original thinking) is you will declare victory and crawl back in to your hole.
Oh also if you are NOT a lot more entertaining I will end just ignoring you because of your lack of ... well just about everything.
So do try harder.
Modern humans (Homo sapiens) do not have any subspecies because we are a relatively young, highly mobile species that constantly interbreeds across the globe, we lack the geographic isolation and deep, fixed genetic differences required to split into distinct biological subspecies.
In taxonomy we use the term sub-species mainly for breeding purposes to specify species with a designated collective trait. However, since we are humans with no definite collective trait among groups - we dont use the term subspecies
For clarity, the group of Homo (bipedal walkers and tool users) group of primates have multiple species but all are extinct except for H. sapiens (modern humans).
Humans share more genetic traits even separated by whole oceans than chimpanzees from the same troops. We can’t have a subspecies as we don’t have even half the genetic diversity as most other species. https://www.ashg.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/genetic-variation-essay.pdf
And your statement “ all animals have sub species” - is false. In biology a subspecies is a taxonomically recognized category used for populations that have become genetically and morphologically distinct due to long-term reproductive isolation—like when populations are physically separated for vast periods of time. ‘Subspecies’ is a population-level classification, not a label applied based on individual variation in traits like intelligence, height, or skin color.
Yawn.....meh
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.