Our Species Mated With Other Human Species, Study Says

National Geographic ^ | March 6, 2002 | Hillary Mayell

[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......

[HowlinglyMind-BendingAbsurdity]

[ValerieUSA]

*LOL* Everything makes sense now.

[MissAmericanPie]

hahaha he sure does.

[ruoflaw]

Rolling on the floor...dying of laughter! Thanks!

[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 American Ornithologist's Union still classifies them as separate species.

Interfertility is not an absolute quantity; it's relative. As two species diverge genetically, their offspring first become stronger (hybrid vigor) and then weaker, and eventually non-viable. But there's no bright line differentiating two species from each other. The two warblers I mentioned are very different in appearance and are mostly geographically isolated; these two criteria are considered to outweigh the fact that they're quite interfertile. There are fertile hybrids from some plant species from different genera. For example, X Pardancanda is a hybrid of Belamcanda chinensis with an Iris.

I personally would fully expect Homo sapiens X Homo neanderthalis to be fertile. A few hundred generations isn't very far at all.

The warblers in question meet the criteria for.. subspecies'

It's not a clean distinction.

[SauronOfMordor]

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

What if Neanderthals were the superior human? They had a slightly bigger braincase, more muscular, better able to survive in the cold climates. But what if they found homo sapiens women more attractive than Neanderthal? They would preferentially take homo-sapiens women as wives, who would not be able to produce children for them unless the women mated on the side with homo-sapiens men

[medved]

Still no way you can call that PROGRESS, assuming it's meant to be seen from upper-left to lower-right...

[mamelukesabre]

What if Neanderthals were the superior human? They had a slightly bigger braincase, more muscular, better able to survive in the cold climates.

~~~~~~~~

Neandertal skeletons are more robust....EXCEPT FOR THEIR LEGS. Leg bones and knee joints of neandertals are actually smaller and weaker than those of modern humans. This being the case, I hardly consider them superior. This is also, in part, the basis for the theory that neandertal skeletons were merely individuals of an advanced age.

[HowlinglyMind-BendingAbsurdity]

Hee, hee.
I'll accept as possible that Clinton has some Neanderthal or Homo Erectus DNA.

[F16Fighter]

Well, we are stretching this theory to the max by associating Carville with any earthly species ;-)

[blam]

"Neandertal skeletons are more robust....EXCEPT FOR THEIR LEGS. Leg bones and knee joints of neandertals are actually smaller and weaker than those of modern humans. This being the case, I hardly consider them superior. This is also, in part, the basis for the theory that neandertal skeletons were merely individuals of an advanced age."

Would you be so kind and lead me to some sources of this information? Thanks.

[mamelukesabre]

Would you be so kind and lead me to some sources of this information? Thanks.

~~~~~~~~~

I read this a several years ago in one of the popular science magazines. It was Popular Science, or Scientific American, or Discover, or New Scientist, or possibly Archeology. I just made a quick search for "neanderthal morphology" on the internet and found just the opposite description. So I don't know what to say. I'm certiain the artical I read said that neanderthal skeletons had "smaller diameter upper leg bones in relation to the individual's weight" and that "there is a very high incidence of joint disease of the knee" and "a smaller bearing area of the knee joint in relation to the individual's weight".

I'm sorry I can't recall the source for you.

[blam]

"I'm sorry I can't recall the source for you."

Thanks anyway, happens to me too. I subscribe to most of the magazines you mentioned and I keep a close eye on this Neanderthal controversy but, don't recall reading that.

[grammymoon]

What would you do Without FR?????

How would You Feel without FR??? Suppose one day you tried to log on and Free Republic wasn’t there?
Where would you get your up to the minute news? How about the live threads as things are happening?
How would you know about the latest Demorat scams, anti-second amendment schemes and all the other liberal, anti-American ploys that are tried every single day?
Insight into world affairs, brilliant wit, sharp retorts, instant information gratification are a few of the things that make FR so vital.

How would you keep on top of things without FR?
How would you know who to contact to complain about the lying politicians, Media Bias, Hollyweirds latest mouth off, sponsors of these idiots, company policies that are unfair and all the other things we need to know to counteract the liberal mindset and the evil plans of liberals?
How would you be part of a Freep?

What would you do without FR????

Freedom isn’t free.

If you enjoy the site and find it a place of like minded Americans to sound off, to get together,
to fight back, to have your voice heard and make a difference, PLEASE CONTRIBUTE NOW! Jim can’t do this alone.

The liberals are sure we won’t be able to keep FR up & running. Prove them wrong. Show them we are indeed united Freepers.
Whether it is $5.00, $50.00 or more, it all adds up. Please send a donation now to Free Republic.

[mamelukesabre]

There are some things that I have learned about modern human morphology that are interesting and a little odd to me. These are the small, not usually noticed, differences between Europeans and the rest of the world. I will see if I can remember some of them here for you here.

The third molar back(the large one) on the upper jaw of white males is different than all other humans. White males have an extra bump on this tooth. This seems suspicious to me since one of the differences between neandertals and moderns is that neandertals have an over sized "cheek tooth".........the same tooth that has the extra bump in white males. Europeans have long upper leg bones and long upper arm bones in relation to their lower leg bones and lower arm bones. Neandertals have this same characteristic. European males(especially northern germany, dutch, belgian etc) tend to have pronounced nose bones and flaired jaw bones. Europeans tend to have thicker torsos in relation to overall body size. If you've ever watched a bodybuilders competition, you will notice that givin equal size and weight, the white guys tend to be more barrel chested and wider at the abdomen. Non-whites tend to be a little more "wasp-waisted" and have narrower hips/pelvis's. Since these guys all have near zero body fat, these differences are structural/genetic, not health related or environmental.

Since neandertals were a european creature, one is naturally going to suspect that the differences between europeans and others is a reslult of europeans having some neandertal genes.

[gore3000]

We have two samples of DNA from Neanderthals. They prove that they were not in any way related to humans. We have had plenty of finds of Neanderthals and homo sapiens contemporaries. All those finds have shown that Neanderthals and Homo Sapiens did not interbreed. The reason? That's easy to figure out, they could not. They were too far apart genetically to produce progeny. More important though, the fact that homo sapiens and Neanderthals existed side by side as distinct species for tens of thousands of years shows quite clearly that Neanderthal was not the ancestor of homo sapiens. Else there would have been plenty of finds showing intermediate individuals. This has never been found.

[gore3000]

The evos are spamming FR with many articles repeating the same lie as the one told here. This article needs to be repeated in all the threads.

[Valin]

Point well taken. :-)

[capitan_refugio]

You wrote:

"Gunnar Heinsohn of the University of Bremen is one of Germany's foremost scholars and a key player in the chronological revisions of near-Eastern stratigraphy."

Professor Heinsohn is straying out of his discipline. I read the geologic literature on a regular basis and I also keep up with the general scientific literature. Heinsohn is a non-entity. He might be a bigwig in creation science circles, but he is apparently not much more than an amateur in the ranks of professional geologists and archeologists.

By misrepresenting Heinsohn as a "scholar" and a "key player" in geochronology, you are simply falsifying your supporting data and information. That's what I expect from the Fish and Wildlife Service, not from a person who seems to be as well read as you are.

So I put it to you again, cite his credible publications.