Posted on 12/23/2010 10:27:59 AM PST by LucyT
Sequencing of ancient DNA reveals new hominin population that is neither Neanderthal nor modern human
Researchers have discovered evidence of a distinct group of "archaic" humans existing outside of Africa more than 30,000 years ago at a time when Neanderthals are thought to have dominated Europe and Asia. But genetic testing shows that members of this new group were not Neanderthals, and they interbred with the ancestors of some modern humans who are alive today.
Until last year, the mainstream view in genetics was that modern humans inherited essentially their entire DNA makeup from Neanderthal-related individuals when they migrated from Africa 40,000-55,000 years ago. It was surmised they completely replaced the humans who migrated before them, including the Neanderthals whose ancestors likely made the pilgrimage hundreds of thousands of years earlier.
The finding, based on Neanderthals discovered at Vindija Cave in Croatia, showed that modern humans outside of Africa are not all descended from a single out-of-Africa migration.
(Excerpt) Read more at eurekalert.org ...
Neanderthals really are an eigma. They were stronger than us. Their brain was of statistically equal size.
I've often wondered if they had a must faster rate of development, essentially skipping the prolonged adolesence, which is a key feature of modern humans. Going from infant to adult in 2-5 years would be very advantageous to survival in many ways (its hard to imagine any mammal surviving 5-7 years of near helplessnes, coupled with not reaching reproductive maturity until the 13th or 14th year). Fast (normal) growth would developmentally retard intellect for sure.
We may also be assuming improperly that they were less intelligent based on false qualifiers of intelligence. We presume intelligence leads to cooperation and cooperation is evidenced by living in groups, but are wildebeast more intelligent than jaguars? A lack of grouping could explain a lack of tool development (specialization). Of course there are all of the standard theories as well.
No offense, wendy1946, but that is a terrible distortion of the current consensus among physical anthropologists.
wendy1946:
I don't really give a rat's ass what anthropologists might think about it.
alexander_busek:
Don't you wish to engage in civil discourse?
On the other hand, I suppose you're right. I mean, after all, what could anthropologists possibly have to say of importance on this matter? We laypersons understand more about fossil bone fragments and DNA and stuff like that, right?
Regards,
The question was whether or not my claim that Neanderthal DNA is typically described as about halfway between ours and that of a chimpanzee was reasonable. I documented the claim and noted that anthropologists would not have anything meaningful to say on the subject and I might should have mentioned the fact that anthropology doesn’t have anything to do with DNA studies but I thought that was sort of obvious.
The survivors of the 12 colonies were definitely a superior intellect, since they had space travel 200,000 years before we did and came here fleeing the Cylon genocide of the human race. We have developed greatly from those 38,000 colonials and those Cylons who allied themselves with the survivors of Caprica and the 11 other colonies. That is the true source of this DNA quandry.
see my post #24
Thanks SM. There are a couple of topics regarding earlier physical development inferred from the remains/fossils of Neandertal juveniles.
The question was whether or not my claim that Neanderthal DNA is typically described as about halfway between ours and that of a chimpanzee was reasonable.
Correct.
I documented the claim [..]
Correct. And then I, respectfully, pointed out that that claim was nevertheless grossly wrong. In other words: You are not at fault for quoting that source, but that source terribly distorted the truth.
[...] and noted that anthropologists would not have anything meaningful to say on the subject and I might should have mentioned the fact that anthropology doesn’t have anything to do with DNA studies but I thought that was sort of obvious.
No, it is neither obvious nor correct. Paleoanthropology is the study of our (extinct) near-human ancestors (genus Homo) and our relation to them. The degree of kinship can be inferred on the basis of 1) gross morphological/anatomical features (fossil studies), 2) behavioral/cultural similarities (artifacts like tools, cave wall artwork, burial sites, remains of campsites and shelters, etc.), and 3) genetic similarities (determined as long ago as the 1950s on the basis of serological studies, and, more recently - with the advent of precise tools to recover fossil DNA and identify genetic markers - through the direct comparison of our genomes).
Now, while it's true that a biochemist or geneticist trying to extract (from fossil remains) and reconstruct the DNA of Neanderthals or Denisovans and compare it with the DNA of modern humans will probably self-identify as a "biochemist" or "geneticist," there is still no denying that he is working in the field of Paleoanthropology. Indeed, many Paleoanthropologists may also have degrees in Genetics and vice-versa. There is, of necessity, a lot of overlap between the fields. And a university degree in Physical Anthropology would be unthinkable, nowadays, which didn't include a lot of course work in genetics.
So, of course, an Anthropologist who has devoted his life only to studying, e.g., primitive metallurgical technologies and to retracing prehistoric trade routes based on the use of similar smelting/casting technologies, similar artistic styles, or the use of metal ores containing the same proportion of isotopes is NOT a metallurgist, nor an artist, nor an engineer, but he has undoubtedly acquired a great deal of competency in those related fields and could say more about them as they related to primitive metal trinkets and tools than, say, a modern industrial metallurgist.
In short: Any Paleoanthropologist who makes claims or publishes papers about our genetic relationship to other members of the genus Homo (or to non-human hominids, like the members of the genus Pan - i.e., Chimpanzees) will undoubtedly either have, himself, acquired great competency in the field of genetics or have conferred at length with geneticists.
Finally, I challenge you to find a single claim made in the past 50 years by a reputable Physical Anthropologist (not by a writer for a boulevard paper) that Neanderthals are genetically "about halfway" between modern humans and Chimpanzees.
Regards,
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.