Posted on 09/08/2006 7:50:32 PM PDT by blam
Contact: Neil Schoenherr
nschoenherr@wustl.edu
314-935-5235
Washington University in St. Louis
Modern humans, not Neandertals, may be evolution's 'odd man out'
Looking incorrectly at Neandertals
Could it be that in the great evolutionary "family tree," it is we Modern Humans, not the brow-ridged, large-nosed Neandertals, who are the odd uncle out?
New research published in the August, 2006 journal Current Anthropology by Neandertal and early modern human expert, Erik Trinkaus, professor of anthropology at Washington University in St. Louis, suggests that rather than the standard straight line from chimps to early humans to us with Neandertals off on a side graph, it's equally valid, perhaps more valid based on what the fossils tell us, that the straight line should be from the common ancestor to the Neandertals, and the Modern Humans should be the branch off that.
Trinkaus has spent years examining the fossil record and began to realize that maybe researchers have been looking at our ancient ancestors the wrong way.
Trinkaus combed through the fossil record, identifying traits which seemed to be genetic markers those not greatly influenced by environment, life ways and wear and tear. He was careful to examine traits that appear to be largely independent of each other to avoid redundancy.
"I wanted to see to what extent Neandertals are derived, that is distinct, from the ancestral form. I also wanted to see the extent to which modern humans are derived relative to the ancestral form," Trinkaus says. "What I came up with is that modern humans have about twice as many uniquely derived traits than do the Neandertals."
"In the broader sweep of human evolution," says Trinkaus, "the more unusual group is not Neandertals, whom we tend to look at as strange, weird and unusual, but it's us - Modern Humans. The more academic implication of this research is that we should not be trying to explain the Neandertals, which is what most people have tried to do, including myself, in the past. We wonder why Neandertals look unusual and we want to explain that. What I'm saying is that we've been asking the wrong questions."
The most unusual characteristics throughout human anatomy occur in Modern Humans, argues Trinkaus. "If we want to better understand human evolution, we should be asking why Modern Humans are so unusual, not why the Neandertals are divergent. Modern Humans, for example, are the only people who lack brow ridges. We are the only ones who have seriously shortened faces. We are the only ones with very reduced internal nasal cavities. We also have a number of detailed features of the limb skeleton that are unique.
"Every paleontologist will define the traits a little differently," Trinkaus admits. "If you really wanted to, you could make the case that Neandertals look stranger than we do. But if you are reasonably honest about it, I think it would be extraordinarily difficult to make Neandertals more derived than Modern Humans."
My comment was regarding this particular article - no mention of DNA at all. For completeness, one would think at least some passing reference to ongoing DNA analysis would be made.
One thing we know.....WHoops..let me correct that...my silly beliefs... maybe...but GOD...breathed life into "MORDERN MAN"
That was very interesting to read and think about. Thanks.
Don't lets get confused about who said what, here.
LMAO!!!!!!!...Thats only funny to those that saw Katrina man..or what ever his scientific name is...
I didn't. Notice the post number responded to, not the addressee.
If they don't have any Neanderthal DNA, it has to be bones.
Neanderthal DNA has been sucessfully recovered from teeth.
They have Neanderthal DNA. There have been several threads in the past few years on the subject.
With new techniques, they are likely to have even more in the near future.
I remember studying the human characteristics of neotony in college back in the early 70s, the theory being that 'childlike' facial features made us more attractive to potential mates but you have a different take on it that rings true.
Agreed. I've seen the dog example used numerous times.
I'm being picky, but what chimp with a rock is going to be able to take on a lion? The cats are killing machines, and a chip with a rock wouldn't stand a chance, no matter how big the rock or smart the chimp. "If your pet cat was as big as your dog, you would be lunch", as someone pointed out
OK -- it's a good thing that I said "If".
For one thing, modern human fossils are far more common and widespread than Neanderthal fossils. Moreover, Homo erectus fossils are far more widespread than Neanderthal fossils.
My guess is that both Neanderthals and modern humans were side branches, passing through genetic bottlenecks from the root stock, with the former outcompeting the descendants of the root stock in Europe, and latter outcompeting the root stock (and more recently the Neanderthals) throughout the range, and subsequently expanding the range worldwide.
I think you'll enjoy this Dog
Whoops...Never mind...*W*..if u had been u wouldnt be here..
If you want to take issue with this article, fine. But it's downright dishonest of you to pretend that this article indicates a failure by the anthropological profession to consider genetics. Nothing could be further from the truth.
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.