Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Our Species Mated With Other Human Species, Study Says
National Geographic ^ | March 6, 2002 | Hillary Mayell

Posted on 03/06/2002 7:38:41 PM PST by ValerieUSA

A new piece of evidence—one sure to prove controversial—has been flung into the human origins debate.
A study published March 7 in Nature presents genetic evidence that humans left Africa in at least three waves of migration. It suggests that modern humans (Homo sapiens) interbred with archaic humans (Homo erectus and Neandertals) who had migrated earlier from Africa, rather than displacing them.

Ancient Origins
In the human origins debate, which has been highly charged for at least 15 years, there is a consensus among scientists that Homo erectus, the precursor to modern humans, originated in Africa and expanded to Eurasia beginning around 1.7 million years ago.
Beyond that, opinions diverge.
There are two main points in contention. The first is whether modern humans evolved solely in Africa and then spread outward, or evolved concurrently in several places around the world.

The second area of controversy is whether modern humans completely replaced archaic forms of humans, or whether the process was one of assimilation, with interbreeding between the two groups.
"There are regions of the world, like the Middle East and Portugal, where some fossils look as if they could have been some kind of mix between archaic and modern people," said Rebecca Cann, a geneticist at the University of Hawaii.
"The question is," she said, "if there was mixing, did some archaic genetic lineages enter the modern human gene pool? If there was mixing and yet we have no evidence of those genes—as is indicated from the mitochondrial DNA and y chromosome data—why not?"
Alan Templeton, a geneticist at Washington University in St. Louis who headed the study reported in Nature, has concluded that yes, there was interbreeding between the different groups. "We are all genetically intertwined into a single long-term evolutionary lineage," he said.
To reach his conclusion, Templeton performed a statistical analysis of 11 different haplotype trees. A haplotype is a block of DNA containing gene variations that researchers believe are passed as a unit to successive generations. By comparing genetic differences in haplotypes of populations, researchers hope to track human evolution.
Templeton also concluded that modern humans left Africa in several waves—the first about 1.7 million years ago, another between 800,000 and 400,000 years ago, and a third between 150,000 and 80,000 years ago.
Alison S. Brooks, a paleoanthropologist at George Washington University, is more cautious about Templeton's conclusions. "Archaeological evidence supports multiple dispersals out of Africa," she said. "The question has always been whether these waves are dead ends. Did all of these people die? Templeton says not really, that every wave bred at least a little bit with those in Eurasia.
"This has not been the majority viewpoint of geneticists up to this point," said Brooks.

Dueling Theories
The fossil record shows that about 100,000 years ago, several species of hominids populated Earth.
Homo sapiens could be found in Africa and the Middle East; Homo erectus, as typified by Java Man and Peking Man, occupied Southeast Asia and China; and Neandertals roamed across Europe.
By about 25,000 years ago, the only hominid species that remained was Homo sapiens. Scientists have conducted a considerable amount of both genetic and archaeological research in an effort to understand how this outcome occurred.
....More at link......


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Miscellaneous
KEYWORDS: archaeology; bunchofhomos; crevolist; evolution; ggg; godsgravesglyphs; healthcare; helixmakemineadouble; history; youareamonkeyiamaman
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100101-120121-140 ... 241-254 next last
To: blam
But over a long time there was sufficient genetic interchange to insure that all humanity evolved as a single species."

Well, okay I'll join in on this parade of hominids. :^)


101 posted on 03/07/2002 8:43:43 AM PST by AndrewC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Polybius
By biological definition, if two organisms can mate and produce fertile offspring, they belong to the same species.

~~~~~~~`

There are instances where mules are able to procreate. It doesn't happen often, but it is possible.
102 posted on 03/07/2002 8:51:24 AM PST by mamelukesabre
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: twigs
"Have you read the Seven Daughters of Eve by Bryan Sykes? He has been testing mitachondrial DNA for a decade now and says he has found no evidence that Neanderthals mated with homo sapiens."

I've read his theories. The downside to his work is that it only comprehends female DNA. (..And a couple other thing I already forgot.)

103 posted on 03/07/2002 9:21:36 AM PST by blam
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 93 | View Replies]

To: blam
With the [I assume] differences in genetic or DNA structure of the various hominids, how can it be that modern humans all have the same basic DNA structure, only the genes showing varibility, if our ancestors interbred with different species?
104 posted on 03/07/2002 9:29:01 AM PST by RightWhale
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Polybius
By biological definition, if two organisms can mate and produce fertile offspring, they belong to the same species.

Not really. For example blue and golden winged warblers are separate species, but in the zone where they overlap, they produce fertile F1 hybrid offspring. 'Species' is one of those categorizations that resists being defined too narrowly.

105 posted on 03/07/2002 9:43:46 AM PST by Right Wing Professor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: RightWhale
A quick answer. I don't think we have a good or complete understanding of DNA. I've read to many DNA reports/results that heurestically do not seem correct.
106 posted on 03/07/2002 9:47:38 AM PST by blam
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 104 | View Replies]

To: F16Fighter
ROFL! That was the first thing that popped into my mind upon reading this post!!!
107 posted on 03/07/2002 9:49:19 AM PST by BBT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Right Wing Professor
Genesis 6

1 And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them,

2 That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose.

108 posted on 03/07/2002 9:49:52 AM PST by SharpEye
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 105 | View Replies]

To: SharpEye
Perhaps a remnant of some really, really old folk tales based on true events 40,000 years ago or more.
109 posted on 03/07/2002 9:53:30 AM PST by RightWhale
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 108 | View Replies]

To: BBT
ROFL! That was the first thing that popped into my mind upon reading this post!!!

~~~~~~~

carville is way too slight of build to be compared to a neandertal. Think: short, barrel-chested, no neck, huge head, jutting jaw....GERARD DEPARDIEU
110 posted on 03/07/2002 10:00:42 AM PST by mamelukesabre
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 107 | View Replies]

To: Right Wing Professor
By biological definition, if two organisms can mate and produce fertile offspring, they belong to the same species.

Not really. For example blue and golden winged warblers are separate species, but in the zone where they overlap, they produce fertile F1 hybrid offspring. 'Species' is one of those categorizations that resists being defined too narrowly.

"Species" is a man-made definition with certain man-made criteria. The blue and golden winged warblers may have been classified as different species by an ornithologist who believed them to be different species. Mother Nature subsequently proved the ornothologist wrong.

The warblers in question meet the criteria for:

Subspeies = a taxonomic rank immediately below species, indicating a group of organisms that is geographically isolated from and may display some morphological differences from other populations of a species, but is nevertheless able to interbreed with other such groups within the species where their ranges overlap.

111 posted on 03/07/2002 10:11:53 AM PST by Polybius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 105 | View Replies]

To: #3fan
bump
112 posted on 03/07/2002 10:20:04 AM PST by gnarledmaw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 111 | View Replies]

To: Polybius
Ok. If you want to enforce your definition of "species", then the title of the artical could simply be changed to "our sub-species mated with other human sub-species, says study". I think we can agree on the meaning of the title, regardless of the terms or definitions of those terms, can't we?
113 posted on 03/07/2002 10:25:23 AM PST by mamelukesabre
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 111 | View Replies]

To: Polybius
Not always. Some seperate species can interbreed and produce viable, fertile offspring, and hybrid species can arrise from crosses of two species. Then again, I wouldn't say the distinction between species, sub-species, and variety is always clear-cut- it's not. I suspect Neanderthals to perhaps merely be a subspecies or even just a variety.
114 posted on 03/07/2002 10:35:06 AM PST by Cleburne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: mamelukesabre
Ok. If you want to enforce your definition of "species", then the title of the artical could simply be changed to "our sub-species mated with other human sub-species, says study".

That would be the taxonomically correct way to phrases it.

I think we can agree on the meaning of the title, regardless of the terms or definitions of those terms, can't we?

As long as the author was just careless in his definitions and not trying to convey a sensationalist "Tarzan mated with Chita to produce Boy's ape-man step-brother" headline.

My own personal opinion is that Homo sapien males probably never mated with Neandertal females until they had invented alcoholic beverages. ;-)

115 posted on 03/07/2002 10:46:42 AM PST by Polybius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 113 | View Replies]

To: Polybius
Would you say a donkey is merely a subspecies of horse? Because there have been rare instances where mules have been able to reproduce.
116 posted on 03/07/2002 10:52:11 AM PST by mamelukesabre
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 115 | View Replies]

To: ValerieUSA
To ValerieUSA and All:

Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't I read something awhile back stating that Neanderthal was not a direct descendent of modern man - that the variation in DNA was something like 12% as compared to the couple of percent variation between us and chimps?

It seems they are still guessing and calling it science. LOL

117 posted on 03/07/2002 10:57:03 AM PST by MEGoody
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Polybius
Neandertal females

My uncle Nub used to call them sheep.

118 posted on 03/07/2002 10:58:16 AM PST by scouse
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 115 | View Replies]

To: umgud
Don't you get it-- Cain was a Southerner (the kind on Jerry Springer)... : )
119 posted on 03/07/2002 11:02:33 AM PST by GraniteStateConservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: MEGoody
some experts say that the differences in bone structure between modern and neanderthal could be the effects of chronic iodine deficiencies and very old age(as in the individual lived to be 100 years old). Often times modern humans of advanced old age in the present begin to resemble neanderthals.
120 posted on 03/07/2002 11:03:18 AM PST by mamelukesabre
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 117 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100101-120121-140 ... 241-254 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson