Posted on 07/25/2016 7:47:39 PM PDT by Fractal Trader
A new study of the genomes of Australasians has revealed sections of DNA that do not match any known hominin species. The dramatic findings mean that a mystery species bred with ancient humans in the distant past and that our family tree is much more complex than previously believed.
New Scientist reports that the unknown species bred with early human ancestors when they migrated from Africa to Australasia. The surprising finding, published in the journal Nature Genetics , was made by Jaume Bertranpetit at Pompeu Fabra University in Spain and his colleagues, who examined the genomes of living Indigenous Australians, Papuans, people from the Andaman Islands near India, and from mainland India. The results revealed sections of DNA that did not match any previously identified hominin species.
“These DNA sequences are not present in the genomes of living Europeans or east Asians,” reports New Scientist, “suggesting that the ancestors of these people met and bred with a mystery hominin in south Asia or the Pacific region, who left their genetic legacy in the area’s present-day populations.”
One theory is that the mystery species was Homo erectus, which was present in Asia between about 1.8 million and 33,000 years ago . However, there is no DNA from Homo erectus with which to compare to the samples from current Australasian populations.
(Excerpt) Read more at ancient-origins.net ...
Probably more Homeo Viagrus than Homo Erectus.
I must have enjoyed it more than you did, I kind of liked it. You’re right about Ron Perlman, who was also good playing the hunchback in The Name of the Rose.
“Hogwash—pure unadulterated hogwash.”
Pretty much, yes.
Sensationalism in science reporting is too great these days.
I sort of enjoyed it when I saw it in a theater as it first came out. But I caught it again on Netflix a few weeks ago. The only things that made it at all watchable were Rae Dawn Chong clothed only in white paint and Ron Perlman playing caveman. The plot and acting (if you can call chimpanzee grunting acting) were just awful and the “bad creatures” were on a par with Three Stooges guys in gorilla suits. Let’s just say it hasn’t aged well.
I had this theory 25 years ago. Nothing new.
I’m not going to type it. I’m not going to type it. I’m not going to type it. I’m not going to type it. I’m not going to type it. Whew!
You misspelled frogsnot.
how did homo erectus get to an island?
Does this mean we’re more human than human?
So. Are you saying that the Nephilim were extremely hairy
ape-like creatures?
Genesis 6:1 is most peculiar.
It’s reinforced by the Book of Enoch, though Apocryphal, is still good reading.
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.