C. 2% of the H. semper unsapiens genome is Neanderthal-derived...
By what biological process did we achieve the absence of current female Neanderthals while having an abundance of male ones?
1
Now, let's prepare for the next phase of man's evolution, as adumbrated by recently twice-demo'd brain-to-brain commo--& the phenomenal uploading this week of the C. elegans neurome to, mirabile, a robot build of legos...the worm-surrogue directs merely primitive movements, but w/upgrades over the quinquennium, it can engage in 'predatory' & 'replicative' [mating] behavior...this demarche prefigures Delphi-projected uploading of mind & memory to clones, storage or exo-transmission of brain content--even to Colonia Martialis...once a risible fantasy, probabilistic [de facto] immortality is now en route for the period 2085-2120 CE...people would back toward the exits when respondent noted the logic of this outcome [while Turing was still alive]; now it accelerates at subluminal velocity...imagine the familial confusion of a time when adventurous grandfathers choose perpetual rejuvenation, while conventional grandsons take the road of all flesh--to the Void!...fertility will limited to stasis & natal stipends will ensure 'mincome' for life--as productivity-per-capita explodes under syntells & entire professions evaporate...still, NASA envisions an escape from this hermetic regime: it has awarded a $500M contract for exploration of 'Alcubierre' spacetime surfing, by which H. semper unsapiens might 'settle' the Via Lactea over 100 millennia...of course, white holes would slash that snail anabasis to a mere 10,000 years...paraphrasing Adm. Lyautey, we should get on w/it!
I LOVE SCIENCE! Along with enhancing and making our lives easier it has the capacity to unite us unlike the dated belief systems that divide us. A highly profitable return for my tax money. Carry on.
3
What interests me about this ancient skull is the seeming very wide x-axis along
almost the entire arc of the sagittal (?) suture.This suggests to me that the females of this species hadn't quite evolved the necessary pelvic adaptations
for easing the birth of their babies, whose ever increasing brain size required
either rebuild the tunnel or rebuild the car. I think the skull illustrates the
dynamo of evolution marking time while she while she did, in fact, reshape
that marvelous tunnel. SDS
almost the entire arc of the sagittal (?) suture.This suggests to me that the females of this species hadn't quite evolved the necessary pelvic adaptations
for easing the birth of their babies, whose ever increasing brain size required
either rebuild the tunnel or rebuild the car. I think the skull illustrates the
dynamo of evolution marking time while she while she did, in fact, reshape
that marvelous tunnel. SDS
2
Fascinating...BUT...I think the suggestion that modern humans left Africa via the Levant is wrong. We know from the DNA evidence that all non-Africans descended from a single group exodus and it is almost certain that this exodus happened via the horn of Africa (gate of grief), probably more in the 60-80KYA timeframe. I am convinced by the evidence (see Oppenheimer and others) that the modern human arrivals in the Levant came afterward as a branch of the original exodus that moved north either up the Arabian Peninsula shoreline or the Indus Valley. This would be consistent with all the new evidence offered by this skull...
2
Keep digging and we will get to the truth of it all.
5
If more specimens to be found, we need to start thinking what will be the “politically correct” way to characterize the group and not just branding them as the generic term “hybrids”!
Oh I dunno... I'm 2.5% Neanderthal, and I'd hugely enjoy entering Hybrid on census forms.
2
WARNING: Keep digging, and you'll stir up the Morlocks!
4
I can picture this 55,000 years ago.:
SON; "Mom, I am getteing marrierd"
Mother: "Is she .....a Homo Sapien???!!!!"
SON; "Mom, I am getteing marrierd"
Mother: "Is she .....a Homo Sapien???!!!!"
17
Scientists need look no further to make connections between cultures, than to our common evolution as historically blended societies since the ancient civilizations.
6
This article and all your (mostly wonderful) comments are why I read the NYT on line. What a feast of ideas every morning!
10
It may or may not be "a" missing link, but "the"missing linK? Rather doubtful that it is "the" (only) one. Based on what we presume from fossil evidence of animals whose evolution we have more and better "links" it might be assumed that there possibly is be a chain of missing links.
3
Very interesting and exciting news! Of course the creationists will be going crazy denying this….they believe the world is only 5000 years old and humans co-existed w/ dinosaurs etc. Plus carbon dating is a "tool of the Devil" Hope they don't fall off the edge of the world when they travel. Geeze. Science is our friend.
23
Very interesting, indeed. Of course, the anti-Christian bigots in their ignorance will post comments asserting that this will cause "creationists" (read Christians) to go crazy because, as these bigots ignorantly believe and want to accept, as both a means to deride and as a Freudian projection of their hate, Christians still widely believe in Bishop Ussher's famous chronology from the 17th century (that's what the pop media culture spreads around, anyway, so it must be true). Your misapprehensions aside, you did get one thing right, science is our friend.
6
yes, and I also know of many people who believe in alien abductions and are positive that life on earth started when aliens landed here and some stayed behind. Lets talk about that too. That's what you sound like. who cares
1
I think science is pretty much an "anti-religious bigot" because it reveals the utter lack of evidence behind religion's superstitious nonsense. If you want to believe there is some mythological Santa Claus up in the sky, recording who's been bad and who's been nice, all to determine who goes to one of two or three imaginary places after death, for eternity, be my guest. Just don't expect me or my government (or even the media) to respect your absurd, unsupported by evidence faith and beliefs.
17
I wish one day we would clone a Neanderthal (some suggested it was possible) so that we know how they really look like. Can they learn to speak? Will they be good at certain sports? Maybe winter sports? Will they eat vegetables? Will they look more like Europeans as the current theory suggests? Then we would clone a homo erectus to see how they look like.
3
Indeed! Then we can keep them in a cage, isolated from everything, and prod them with needles and torturous experiments! It's the humane thing to do, after all.
5
Wow! That sounds like *fun*!
1
Snark isn't scholarship, and I don't know about skin color, but doesn't this fossil suggest the possibility of a genetic disparity between Africans and non--Africans, whereby interbreeding imparted (at least some) Neanderthal characteristics to (at least some) non-Africans? Might it not be interesting to learn what characteristics and populations were involved? In fact, wouldn't such hybridization suggest an ongoing (even accelerating) process, whereby dividing humanity into various identifiable races or "peoples" is an unduly static model? Indeed, it's interesting (and perhaps ironic) that this "find" occurred at the location where it did. At least it's interesting to me, as a Jewish American who helped elect a President that proudly describes himself as a "mutt"! :-)
3
"Only DNA study will solve the problem"
They found the skull almost 10 years ago. What are they waiting for? And if the skull is fossilized, how can they get DNA?
They found the skull almost 10 years ago. What are they waiting for? And if the skull is fossilized, how can they get DNA?
3
There are fragments of DNA in all bone tissue. The chromosomes are not intact, but computer techniques may be used to reconstruct the original sequence of bases.
4
They can get DNA from old bones. Not fossils per se.
http://www.exploratorium.edu/evidence/lowbandwidth/INT_ancient_dna.html
http://www.exploratorium.edu/evidence/lowbandwidth/INT_ancient_dna.html
5
The details of how the DNA is extracted from old bones is very nicely shown on the cited link. It provides some of the necessary background one needs to understand this newsworthy story. But it still doesn't provide me with a comprehensible explanation of "gene sequencing." -- And I've been hoping to find it without having to take a course at a university every since Watson & Crick made their public noise.
The cited link starts to do a good job at helping post-school interested people understand the potentials and pitfalls of scientific research and for making us savvy readers of wonderful articles like the one we're talking about here. But there's so much background needed to really get a the implications of the reported finding!. ... And, in this case, the relevant 'background' changes have taken place fairly recently. The view of the 'missing link' is so different from what my rather well-prepared (but not perfectly prepared) science teacher had to say 65 years ago, that I'm hardly prepared to believe anything.
So I hope NSF will continue to fund more and more projects explaining science to us 'laymen' and that the 'media' (i.e. NY Times, National Geographic etc) will continue to try to improve their modes of presentation and cross-referencing to the back-ground information to enable us to catch up with understanding new discoveries even, as readers, we come to them in the middle of things.
The cited link starts to do a good job at helping post-school interested people understand the potentials and pitfalls of scientific research and for making us savvy readers of wonderful articles like the one we're talking about here. But there's so much background needed to really get a the implications of the reported finding!. ... And, in this case, the relevant 'background' changes have taken place fairly recently. The view of the 'missing link' is so different from what my rather well-prepared (but not perfectly prepared) science teacher had to say 65 years ago, that I'm hardly prepared to believe anything.
So I hope NSF will continue to fund more and more projects explaining science to us 'laymen' and that the 'media' (i.e. NY Times, National Geographic etc) will continue to try to improve their modes of presentation and cross-referencing to the back-ground information to enable us to catch up with understanding new discoveries even, as readers, we come to them in the middle of things.
1
Human looks and anthropological development are directly connected to the language that is used. In feudal languages, it is also connected to the level a human being is placed in the hierarchical structure.
This can be very easily demonstrated by looking at the tremendous change in anthropological features in the children of an individual from India who moves to the US. The liberal atmosphere of English as different from the sniffled personality allowed in feudal languages, will be seen to have changed the very physical features and even facial demeanour of the children.
This can be very easily demonstrated by looking at the tremendous change in anthropological features in the children of an individual from India who moves to the US. The liberal atmosphere of English as different from the sniffled personality allowed in feudal languages, will be seen to have changed the very physical features and even facial demeanour of the children.
1
Lamarckian ideas of evolution have gone the way of the dinosaurs. Language and class and education have nothing whatsoever to do with a person's appearance. If there is any difference, it is due to nutrition, with people who have had the good luck to have excellent diets becoming taller than those who are at the brink of starvation.
18
This is "the upper part of the skull, the domed portion without the face or jaws", yet they refer to it as "the skull". They use words like "presumably". This wasn't called science when I was growing up. It was called being presumptuous.
Some headlines are calling this isolated find of part of a single skull "The Missing Link...". What's missing is honesty. You can look at the human eye (or an eagle eye) and the human hand and say they weren't designed if you wish. I will look at a pure gold coin (made of just one non-organic element) and say it was designed.
And you're reading this on a computer that came from a swamp, no doubt. Let the name calling begin. I will use logic.
Some headlines are calling this isolated find of part of a single skull "The Missing Link...". What's missing is honesty. You can look at the human eye (or an eagle eye) and the human hand and say they weren't designed if you wish. I will look at a pure gold coin (made of just one non-organic element) and say it was designed.
And you're reading this on a computer that came from a swamp, no doubt. Let the name calling begin. I will use logic.
5
Of course, the fact these are animals that happen to be human, and all life is the product of evolution, your myth isn't science
2
My computer was designed alright - designed by humans using the intelligence we evolved to have. I didn't get it from a swamp but I sure didn't get it from God either (where did you get yours?). As for presumption, all science is to some degree tentative, particularly that surrounding new finds. That doesn't make it illegitimate to speculate about how it fits in with the evolutionary science I was taught in school - which made no mention of unsupported religion-derived speculation like intelligent design.
11
@nuusmaan,
Sure designed - definitely. No one argues that.
But either over a very l-o-n-g time by chance and natural selection, or by an entity outside of nature in whatever "time" it chose to take is where people argue.
Of course, if you examine entity outside of nature notions, it just seems to me to be recursive, moving the original question to how did the "entity" come into being...
(Obviously, since such "entities" are by definition outside the constraints of nature, we can't study them in a naturalistic way.)
Sure designed - definitely. No one argues that.
But either over a very l-o-n-g time by chance and natural selection, or by an entity outside of nature in whatever "time" it chose to take is where people argue.
Of course, if you examine entity outside of nature notions, it just seems to me to be recursive, moving the original question to how did the "entity" come into being...
(Obviously, since such "entities" are by definition outside the constraints of nature, we can't study them in a naturalistic way.)
2
Its interesting that they chose to classify this as early humans. I find it interesting that some people believe that there could actually be a different way that we evolved. But if you think about it, at the end of it all we still originated from Africa.
4
Oops. The whole out of Africa theory was discredited some years ago. Modern humans did not originate in Africa at all. Look it up.
Twice now you've said to 'look it up' but haven't given any reference. Discredited by whom? If they didn't originate in Africa, then where did they originate and what evidence is there for it?
4
When you make an assertion this interesting it behooves you to cite your sources and not present it as some sort of challenge to the reader.
4
It seems to me that many have their geography confused. They speak of Israel as if it's in Europe. It is on the continent of Africa. So it is not a stretch that African's would be found in the caves in Israel. They would be Africans there, not Europeans. Especially in ancient times.
10
Israel is in Asia,
7
Uh.......Israel is adjacent to both Africa and Eurasia, kind of in between.
4
Nope: it's in Western Asia.
18
How could anyone know whether the fossil found is part of the human family tree or a bare branch? The fossil record is so incomplete that there may be many "missing links"
Wow...I haven't had a chance to discuss this with an "expert" like yourself in a long time.
So, in your learned opinion, between "what" and "what" does this missing link occur?
I love this argument.....
So, in your learned opinion, between "what" and "what" does this missing link occur?
I love this argument.....
15
Why assume that a person isn't just a misinformed layperson taken in by a very common cultural meme and start salivating over an argument? Some would make the case that the scientific method is more amenable to making an attempt to teach and persuade before going on the attack.
Kitty might be a creationist, but I know that there was a time when every new bone that came out of the ground warranted a new Latin name. Scientists aren't perfect, neither necessarily is the model of the day. When I was taking classes in the early 90s the molecular biologists were adamant that no Neanderthal DNA survived in modern humans. My professor, a well-known multi-regionalist even had a bumper sticker on his door that said "Ich bin ein Neandertaler" and at the time he and Wolpoff were getting shouted down pretty loudly and arrogantly in the literature.
Most people, who use the term missing link, use it quite innocently in reference to the vast periods of time for which we do not have fossil remains, and there are many of those. This is not to say that the theory of evolution is undermined by this fact, it is just a fact, and the more we find the more we can fill those "gaps" in with morphological variation as well now with DNA marker comparison in increasing numbers of cases.
Kitty might be a creationist, but I know that there was a time when every new bone that came out of the ground warranted a new Latin name. Scientists aren't perfect, neither necessarily is the model of the day. When I was taking classes in the early 90s the molecular biologists were adamant that no Neanderthal DNA survived in modern humans. My professor, a well-known multi-regionalist even had a bumper sticker on his door that said "Ich bin ein Neandertaler" and at the time he and Wolpoff were getting shouted down pretty loudly and arrogantly in the literature.
Most people, who use the term missing link, use it quite innocently in reference to the vast periods of time for which we do not have fossil remains, and there are many of those. This is not to say that the theory of evolution is undermined by this fact, it is just a fact, and the more we find the more we can fill those "gaps" in with morphological variation as well now with DNA marker comparison in increasing numbers of cases.
14
Science learns. Creationism does not. THAT is why scientists change our views based on evidence. We do not stick with dogma, like religion does.
10
We are all Africans; even a 61 year old white guy, like me. Even the most racist white supremacist is African. It reminds me of the David Chappelle skit where the Grand Wizard of the KKK was a blind, black man who never knew he was black, until he took his hood off. It's funny on the surface, but a really, really sad commentary on society and the dunces who walk among us.
72
Actually research has shown that our common primate ancestor pre-african migration, actually originated in Asia. So we are technically all Asian.
1
But aren't people who try to argue that because all humans are members of one species (which I agree with) that therefore territorialism, hierarchy, sexual dimorphism and social aggression are therefore social constructs and not part of our evolved toolkit of phenotypic behaviors (which I disagree with because all social animals exhibit various forms of the same things)-- just as much dunces who walk among us?
2
You can say we're all Africans - just like you can say we're all lemurs or chimpanzees. But although it's politically incorrect to say so, the point of the article is that the skull find may be evidence of the process that led to the differentiation of European humans from African humans - perhaps through interbreeding with Neanderthals.
5
"And Dr. Delson said it would be interesting to test for DNA in the skull to support its possible hybrid status...."
Techniques for recovering DNA have improved tremendously, an understatement. It's these improvements that have permitted the near-sequencing of Neanderthal genomes.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v505/n7481/full/nature12886.html
Techniques for recovering DNA have improved tremendously, an understatement. It's these improvements that have permitted the near-sequencing of Neanderthal genomes.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v505/n7481/full/nature12886.html
8
"The distinctive bunlike shape at the base of the skull resembles modern African and European skulls but differs from other anatomically modern humans from the Levant…"
Are there differences between modern African and European skulls?
If so, does this correlate to the term "race"? I thought that this has been debunked as a social construct.
Are there differences between modern African and European skulls?
If so, does this correlate to the term "race"? I thought that this has been debunked as a social construct.
8
I do not think a difference in skull shape denotes "race" as the Nazis and others are want to say, but a characteristic of a certain genome shaped by environmental factors. Look across Europe, Africa, and Asia, and people have different shaped heads.
6
unique genetic mutations took hold in different isolated human properties. However, those genetic differences are not sufficient to support the separation of people into races and the races that people typically separate people into has very little correlation to genetic differences.
8
@ Steve, may I first suggest that we talk about the concept "race" rather than the term "race".
The concept "race" is the fatal invention of racists (See Dorothy Roberts, Fatal Invention-How Science, Politics, and Big Business Re-create Race in The Twenty-First Century".
Right now in Sweden the collection of skulls used in the 1920s by Swedish medical researchers in establishing the race hierarchy to be used by the Swedish Institute of Race Biology (founded 1922) has just been made public.
What this collection shows is that racists carefully selected skulls to be measured so that only the skull of an approved pure Aryan ethnic Swede would have the characteristics not seen in each of the other carefully selected skulls.
It is not the term "race" that is socially constructed but rather the groups of people to whom "race" names are assigned. Fortunately, former US Census Bureau Director, now Professor, Kenneth Prewitt is working to eliminate "race" and ethnicity categories from the next census. See his book "What Is Your Race?".
The concept "race" is the fatal invention of racists (See Dorothy Roberts, Fatal Invention-How Science, Politics, and Big Business Re-create Race in The Twenty-First Century".
Right now in Sweden the collection of skulls used in the 1920s by Swedish medical researchers in establishing the race hierarchy to be used by the Swedish Institute of Race Biology (founded 1922) has just been made public.
What this collection shows is that racists carefully selected skulls to be measured so that only the skull of an approved pure Aryan ethnic Swede would have the characteristics not seen in each of the other carefully selected skulls.
It is not the term "race" that is socially constructed but rather the groups of people to whom "race" names are assigned. Fortunately, former US Census Bureau Director, now Professor, Kenneth Prewitt is working to eliminate "race" and ethnicity categories from the next census. See his book "What Is Your Race?".
3
This article describes pure speculation .The human genome sequence research has discovered no Neanderthal gene in Africans and that the blood of Africans differs from all other races ,the skull of the African race is also different in cranial size than other races as determined by forensic anthropologists. Prior to this speculative discovery African remnants in the Middle east are extremely rare and so far non existant except one ,yet still undetermined named Rhodesia man bone fragment found in south Lebanon.
3
What human genome sequence research has actually discovered is that in Africa itself is to be found the greatest variation in mutations because that is where humans have lived the longest, and evolved the most.
So to speak as you do about "the African" this or that in terms of a unified genome compared to other human groups on other continents goes beyond speculation and comes out the other side as complete misunderstanding of the science or sheer fabrication.
So to speak as you do about "the African" this or that in terms of a unified genome compared to other human groups on other continents goes beyond speculation and comes out the other side as complete misunderstanding of the science or sheer fabrication.
21
Agreed. There are more "races" in Africa than in the rest of the world combined.
3
What fun that the distinction between present-day Africans and others may be that the non-Africans have a dose of Neanderthal as their distinguishing feature. At least thirty years ago, it occurred to me also that they should change the dioramas in museums to depict blond, pale Neanderthals (evolved that way by the cold and lightless climate of Europe) encountering more evolved, dark-skinned New Humans from Africa. Coulda happened.
9
Neanderthals had red hair and it isn't really right to say that they were less evolved than Cro-Magnons.
Probably did happen, except for the modern humans being "more evolved". Neanderthals were just as "evolved" as modern humans, just differently evolved (but not so different we couldn't interbreed!)
5
This is actually interesting considering how every fossil you uncover now seem to have been uncovered somewhere else, kind of like dinosaurs in different parts of the world, but to connect it as a 'missing link' between the African and European human species is very cool. Also, looking at the caption of the picture, they mentioned that the findings was from 2008 and an article has just been published now is mind boggling of how much research went into knowing what type of skull it is and not even the gender, age nor where it could have originated.
6
Firstly,there is no African or European Species difference in terms of The Humans in Africa and the Humans (of the same species) who left Africa either via the Middle East or the generally accepted later successful migration into the Arabian peninsula to India, Asia, Australasia, China, Siberia and then to Europe and finally to North ans South America. Both...all groups in this regards and who are our direct Ancestors were and are of the Species Homo Sapiens Sapiens. Homo Neanderthal and Homo Florensis humans are of a separate Species and thought to be evolved from the original "Out of Africa " Human Species Homo Erectus.
In terms of fossils being uncovered and being the same of others uncovered somewhere else, in regards to those of the same species, this is an integral part of determining movements and ranges of that species as it or if it and how might it disperse itself across the world.
In terms of EVERY fossil uncovered these days seem to have been already uncovered somewhere else...if you are suggesting that we have discovered all the species and fossils of species that existed (be it Human or some other Species)...nothing could be further from the truth and the current fossil record so far discovered in terms of virtually every Phylum or Animal Type is but a very TINY representation of what once lived and there is SO MUCH and MANY more that we will find and STILL not get close to all types that did once roam the Globe.
In terms of fossils being uncovered and being the same of others uncovered somewhere else, in regards to those of the same species, this is an integral part of determining movements and ranges of that species as it or if it and how might it disperse itself across the world.
In terms of EVERY fossil uncovered these days seem to have been already uncovered somewhere else...if you are suggesting that we have discovered all the species and fossils of species that existed (be it Human or some other Species)...nothing could be further from the truth and the current fossil record so far discovered in terms of virtually every Phylum or Animal Type is but a very TINY representation of what once lived and there is SO MUCH and MANY more that we will find and STILL not get close to all types that did once roam the Globe.
14
The DNA aspects are conspicuous by their absence, although that is too old for determining a genome.
Its possible that modern humans didn`t walk Out of Africa; but walked in & bred with the people who are known there, potentially like a genetic upgrade.
Note..
Ancient teeth from an unknown species of human type were discovered in Mongolia just very recently.
It is leading to the Out of Eden theory the Jews perpetuate; and I believe that even more ancient human-type bones (far older than Lucy) will be discovered eventually near the Black sea. Within 20 years...
Note..
Ancient teeth from an unknown species of human type were discovered in Mongolia just very recently.
It is leading to the Out of Eden theory the Jews perpetuate; and I believe that even more ancient human-type bones (far older than Lucy) will be discovered eventually near the Black sea. Within 20 years...
2
Based on what scientific evidence? Your assertions are clearly culturally biased.
18
Neanderthals, Denisovians, and Homo Erectus were all human species or sub-species that existed outside of Africa before Modern humans. However, the evidence it is quite clear that Modern humans came out of Africa into the Middle East and then to Asia and Europe. They interbred with Neanderthals in the Middle East About 50-80 thousand years ago and they also interbred with Denisovians in Asia. Accordingly, all non-Africans have about 1% Neanderthal DNA and some Asians have up to 5% Denisovian DNA. It is possible that some other Human sub-species existed and interbred with humans but we have no evidence of that yet.
30
Roger, you've been watching the History Channel too much and then not even paying attention to dates.
The purported Black Sea "flood" you seem to be alluding to dates to 5,600 BCE, which is 7.6 THOUSAND (7,600) years ago, while Lucy has been dated to 3.2 MILLION (3,200,000) years ago. I saw that "flood" show too.
I've also seen the shows purporting to have located The Garden of Eden somewhere in Iran or Iraq but again-- all this would have been in terms of THOUSANDS of years ago not MILLIONS of years. A million years is a thousand thousand years. That's 7,600 vs 3,200,000 years. This article is talking about a date of around 55,000 years. That's THOUSAND not MILLION.
And I'm pretty sure your Mongolian discovery of teeth actually refers to a discovery in a cave in Russia of a finger bone that has been determined by some to come from a cousin to Neanderthals and "modern" humans which is called Denisovan after the geographical location. These remains are a few tens of THOUSANDS of years old, not MILLIONS.
You can learn more about evolution by reading than by watching TV. There has been some good stuff on PBS over the years, and until 10 or 15 years ago The History Channel wasn't bad but now it's simply ridiculous what gets on there.
The purported Black Sea "flood" you seem to be alluding to dates to 5,600 BCE, which is 7.6 THOUSAND (7,600) years ago, while Lucy has been dated to 3.2 MILLION (3,200,000) years ago. I saw that "flood" show too.
I've also seen the shows purporting to have located The Garden of Eden somewhere in Iran or Iraq but again-- all this would have been in terms of THOUSANDS of years ago not MILLIONS of years. A million years is a thousand thousand years. That's 7,600 vs 3,200,000 years. This article is talking about a date of around 55,000 years. That's THOUSAND not MILLION.
And I'm pretty sure your Mongolian discovery of teeth actually refers to a discovery in a cave in Russia of a finger bone that has been determined by some to come from a cousin to Neanderthals and "modern" humans which is called Denisovan after the geographical location. These remains are a few tens of THOUSANDS of years old, not MILLIONS.
You can learn more about evolution by reading than by watching TV. There has been some good stuff on PBS over the years, and until 10 or 15 years ago The History Channel wasn't bad but now it's simply ridiculous what gets on there.
6
"The distinctive bunlike shape at the base of the skull resembles modern African and European skulls but differs from other anatomically modern humans from the Levant, and is thus a strong clue that these were among the first humans to settle Europe, scientists said."
this sentence is main point of the article, but it is not clear. bunlike shape? at the cerebellum? resembles but differs? how? why is this shape a strong clue for early settlement in europe?
citations from the journal nature might help. graphics and photos could be even better.
this sentence is main point of the article, but it is not clear. bunlike shape? at the cerebellum? resembles but differs? how? why is this shape a strong clue for early settlement in europe?
citations from the journal nature might help. graphics and photos could be even better.
10
It does seem that there are two distinct human species on Earth today: those for whom a discovery like this is wonderful and exciting; and those who say 'so what'? I have to confess that the mind of the second species is as impenetrable to me as the mind of a Neanderthal. However, to be frank, I have no interest in understanding it. If the Neanderthals were as devoid of curiosity, intellectual excitement and love of knowledge for its own sake as some commenters here seem to be, no surprise they have gone extinct - and no great loss either.
30
This seems unfair to another hominid species, Neanderthals. We can hardly know what they thought, what was of interest to them, or if they were curious about the natural world. It seems likely that they were curious and awed by the world in which they lived, and also probable that they were displaced by us, homo sapiens, as we had more advanced technology. I find it sad that our near cousins are not still alive and thriving on this earth.
18
Isn't it pretty much settled science that Neanderthals had bigger brains than the folks coming out of Africa? (and) The folks coming out of Africa likely had much better speech and dexterity- better command and control and so they "won".
2
But if you've been paying attention over the last few years and, as pointed out in this case, the issue is hybridization between homo sapiens and Neanderthals. In short, you're part Neanderthal, too. The pejorative use of the word Neanderthal predates the discovery that they bred with your ancestors and mine. Look inside yourself, Grasshopper, there is Neanderthal beauty within you. And it says not to slam people who aren't interested in this as "Neanderthals." Get it?
13
Is it the age of the head that tells them that it is not one of the earlier human species that didn't "win out" along the corridor? Did those earlier species also originate in Africa?
It is the skull's features which suggest that it is an early arrival of a group whose skulls differ in certain key ways from the typical Neanderthal skulls which are the only ones to be found in the region earlier.
All humans, modern and extinct, are thought to have emerged from ancestral forms originating in Africa.
All humans, modern and extinct, are thought to have emerged from ancestral forms originating in Africa.
4
This is an interesting discovery and poses some very interesting questions. Given the mixture of Neanderthals and other human sub-species that seems to have made up today's man, given some of the differences we appear to be seeing in the skulls across different regions, we arrive at the question: as all men are not the same, are all men really equal in every respect? Hmm…. I wonder f we will ever take this one up. Too much dynamite here.
7
Since no two individuals are equal in every aspect (including identical twins), the answer seems obvious.
10
Who ever argued that all men are "equal in every respect"? We all have strengths and weaknesses, we all are an unfathomable stew of nature and nurture. And we all are entitled to the same degree of respect and opportunity.
25
I was quite suprised that the findings of fossil of the skull found in a cave in 2008 had just been published now, seven years later. When we read about scientific discoveries we often overlook the work and time that is put in to figure out the age, gender, ect. of these fossils. This specific fossil is a step towards bridging the link between Neanderthals and modern man and maybe more fossils were found in that same cave, but their findings are just not published yet.
15
I'm surprised by the current thinking on Neanderthals. Tattersall, in his book The Last Neanderthal (1996), persuasively argues that modern man (Homo Sapien Sapien) and Neanderthal were separate species given the fact that we share no skeletal similarities. Only animals of the same species can breed offspring, and that offspring would share characteristics of both. Not so between Man and Neanderthal. Tattersall further proposes that Neanderthal's sudden demise, only 20-30,000 years ago, was due primarily to being exterminated by modern man. For whatever the reason, competition for resources, aggression, Neanderthal was simply murdered off, a sad part of our pre-history. We only need to look at the treatment of the American Indians to see the same outlines.
7
Yes, that was the prevailing belief back then. But more recent DNA analysis shows that all Eurasian races have Neanderthal DNA. It's been the subject of a number of Scientific American articles (likely NYT too).
17
Neanderthal DNA has been found in the human genome. That should settle your first point and shows that Homo sapiens sapiens and Homo nedanderthalenis are members of the same species
12
Cyclone: You are living up to your handle. A lot of wind that has nothing to do with modern DNA research that proves we all have Neanderthal genes.
3
Most interesting, but why no information about the individual's approximate age and gender?
It is very difficult to determine either age or sex from a cranium, much less a partial cranium. Sex determination can be approximated from the skull if there is a large enough population (sample) to study, as males tend to be larger and more robust than females, But it is virtually impossible to assign sex to a single skull from an otherwise unknown population.
The part of the human skeleton most useful for determining sex is the pelvis, but this is not present in this specimen. Age can be determined in sub-adult crania based on the pattern of the closing of the cranial sutures. But, it is virtually impossible to determine the age of an adult from the cranial sutures, once that have all fused at the time of biological maturity.
The pattern of tooth eruption can be used to age a specimen, as can the pattern of wear on the teeth. But, it seems that there are no teeth in this specimen.
The part of the human skeleton most useful for determining sex is the pelvis, but this is not present in this specimen. Age can be determined in sub-adult crania based on the pattern of the closing of the cranial sutures. But, it is virtually impossible to determine the age of an adult from the cranial sutures, once that have all fused at the time of biological maturity.
The pattern of tooth eruption can be used to age a specimen, as can the pattern of wear on the teeth. But, it seems that there are no teeth in this specimen.
13
How do you determine gender from a part of a skull? Structural differences between male and female include brows, hip girdles, shoulder width, none of which are available here.
5
paragraph 11 -
"The partial skull, designated Manot 1, is of a fairly small adult individual, its sex undetermined."
"The partial skull, designated Manot 1, is of a fairly small adult individual, its sex undetermined."
1
I always wonder if the first CroMagnon who decided he wanted to have sex so badly, he hooked up with a Neanderthal, was the same person hungry enough to be the first to try eating a lobster.
22
When science can answer your question, JW, then we'll know that all the billions we've spent on research over the decades has not been in vain.
1
...and all the money I've spent on lobster?
2
My understanding of anthropology is that morphology (i.e. comparative anatomy) has largely been rejected as a means of placing human fossils. Like Dr. Delson I should like to know the DNA comparison. given all the time since the fossil's discovery, I am surprised it was not reported.
2
This is so interesting. Every time a discovery like this is made we learn so much more about our species, how we evolved, how we migrated, and how interrelated we all are. If we manage to survive I wonder what generations in the distant future will think of us when they make their excavations into the past.
18
I suspect that we have passed the point at which history goes unrecorded, except in the event of a massive global war that wiped out a huge portion of the global population. It's more likely we will just continue to learn more about our past moving forward, building on what we already know. How can we lose any information we have with the internet, after all?
5
We may be on the verge of a mass extinction (including the preponderance of humans) that will reveal externalized memory (i.e., history, recorded language as we know it) to have been an evolutionary non-starter, if not a downright malignancy.
1
Interested to hear from our Republican scientists, and how this new, interesting and scientifically challenging discovery cannot be true since earth is 6,000 years old.
118
I think you are confusing fundamentalists with the Republican Party. Some of the fundamentalists are Democrats.
9
@FreeThink
Okay, and you point is what? I am no Republican, but have we learned from this theory?
Verify it with DNA evidence, and my question stands.
The leading lights among Biblical scholars, your point I believe, do not cling to the 6 day and rest theory. Catch up with the discussion. And try to ask bigger questions.
Okay, and you point is what? I am no Republican, but have we learned from this theory?
Verify it with DNA evidence, and my question stands.
The leading lights among Biblical scholars, your point I believe, do not cling to the 6 day and rest theory. Catch up with the discussion. And try to ask bigger questions.
7
A cheap shot ignoring the complexity of the political fabric.
2
It is amazing how a simple skull from many centuries ago can hold so much information as to how the modern human came to be. Through interbreeding with other species like our own, we came to be what we are now. The story that this skull can give us may be the one that fills the holes in our ancestry evolution, but its not strong enough evidence to prove that modern humans interbred with Neanderthals. Although this amazing discovery can give us many answers as to how we descended from Neanderthals and modern humans, we need to try to be a little skeptical as to how much this artifact can truly tell us. This is only one artifact that can tell us how our ancestors evolved. After all, scientists have been wrong about our evolution before as in the case of Sarah Baartman. Her body was used for science to supposedly prove that Africans were inferior to Caucasians. As readers and consumers, let’s be skeptical about the story that those archeologists are telling us and about how many answers this artifact can truly give us.
9
Whenever I can, I boast that I am 2.5% Neanderthal. I am strong evidence that modern humans interbred with Neanderthals. Come to think of it, I am proof.
1
It takes more faith to believe what's in this article than it does to believe in God.
1
You're not supposed to believe. You're supposed to take in the information, and make a judgment.
Believing can be easier.
Believing can be easier.
8
James. The difference between science and religion, is that the information that is presented and hypotheses proposed by these researchers will be carefully scrutinized, criticized and otherwise examined. Others may take the information and propose entirely different interpretations. There is NO FAITH in what these investigators wrote. It will be based on evidence. One can't say the same for the books presenting the concept of god.
18
Nope.
5
All this from 1 skull? I understand the excitement of finding something new but drawing such broad conclusions from the finding of just one single skull i overreaching to say the least. It is a unfortunate that in their zeal to get published or promote themselves and their ideas that people (yes folks, even scientists who claim to look for only the observable "facts" ) will jump to conclusions. If you give me that same skull I can find an identical (99%) match from a living human being. When they find a sufficient number of them to solidly back up their theory along with enough of the skeletal structure to draw intelligent conclusions you can get back to me. Until then it is one skull and one theory and one guy who just got published.
7
Did you miss the words "international team of researchers' when you said 'one guy who just got published"- and why would they bother to get back to you- publish your facts and analysis in a peer reviewed journal and you will be another 'guy who just got published', but one who now has some credibility.
16
Perhaps it's you who's jumping to conclusions in your zeal to comment. This is not "one guy," but--as the article clearly says--"an international team of researchers." There are in fact 25 authors of this paper.
43
One skull? It's one skull among many, from all over the old world.
The conclusions relate to how this skull fits in to what's already known (which is considerable).
Nobody needs to "get back to you." What you need to do is spend a little time with any modern paleoanthropology textbook. There are many introductory texts, and any one of them will show you where you're going wrong.
Or you can use the internet, but you'll need to stay away from creationist sites.
The conclusions relate to how this skull fits in to what's already known (which is considerable).
Nobody needs to "get back to you." What you need to do is spend a little time with any modern paleoanthropology textbook. There are many introductory texts, and any one of them will show you where you're going wrong.
Or you can use the internet, but you'll need to stay away from creationist sites.
41
Our time machine is cranked up and spinning! It must be a very exciting time for anthropologists everywhere. I can hardly wait for the next piece of the grand jigsaw to be revealed.
29
To quote Mr. Spock, "fascinating".
I've often imagined, if "nature" didn't work quite the way it does, how it would've been if several of those other variations of homo hadn't been either possibly absorbed by us (Neanderthals), or extinguished by us, and still co-existing with us to this day.
I mean, what would it be like with different "human" species walking around? It would be analogous to the modern horse, the donkey, and the zebra, all separate species with relatively recent common ancestors. More recent than our 7 Million-year separation from the chimpanzee, or 10 Million-year separation from the gorilla.
I've often imagined, if "nature" didn't work quite the way it does, how it would've been if several of those other variations of homo hadn't been either possibly absorbed by us (Neanderthals), or extinguished by us, and still co-existing with us to this day.
I mean, what would it be like with different "human" species walking around? It would be analogous to the modern horse, the donkey, and the zebra, all separate species with relatively recent common ancestors. More recent than our 7 Million-year separation from the chimpanzee, or 10 Million-year separation from the gorilla.
11
Neanderthals and Denisovans contributed to our gene pool, so they do still exist.
6
It is quite fascinating that anyone considers this fascinating.
I find this, and wondering whether life exists in some distant galaxy, equal in all respects: of no particular use to any of the issues confronting humanity, save for the thrill it gives middle school children and Hollywood producers.
Sorry to be a wet blanket. I have a life in the present to go and figure out.
I find this, and wondering whether life exists in some distant galaxy, equal in all respects: of no particular use to any of the issues confronting humanity, save for the thrill it gives middle school children and Hollywood producers.
Sorry to be a wet blanket. I have a life in the present to go and figure out.
4
Sorry that you take so little interest in crucial information about humanity's heritage or the composition of the universe.
37
Stuart: "Middle school children and Hollywood producers?"
You missed "people who have a craving to learn, and unable to even explain why to people like Stuart."
You missed "people who have a craving to learn, and unable to even explain why to people like Stuart."
38
I respect the fact that you have a life in the present to go and figure out. But I find it fascinating that you consider it fascinating that anyone considers this fascinating.
31
I'm 2.8 % Neanderthal. A living breathing bridge in humanity. I'd like to know when that happened. Keep digging boys!
49
Ah, we're just great big old apes at heart.
6
If DNA testing suggests that the ancestors of modern-day Eurasians interbred with Neanderthals, we could get a better understanding of societal differences that this older NYT article covers:
http://www.nytimes.com/books/first/j/jencks-gap.html
http://www.nytimes.com/books/first/j/jencks-gap.html
2
Some people are so hungry to have their prejudices confirmed that they are willing to make fools of themselves in public.
You know, of course, that there is a similarly persistent test results gap involving people of Korean descent living in Japan. It turns out that Koreans, who perform above average in the US, perform below average in Japan, strongly suggesting that these gaps are better indicators of the effects of racism than of inherited intellectual capacity.
There are a bunch of these gaps and what they show is that racially stigmatized people perform more poorly on average than non-stigmatized people. Subject any group to the conditions African Americans endure and you'll get similar results.
Sorry if that pops your master race fantasy bubble.
You know, of course, that there is a similarly persistent test results gap involving people of Korean descent living in Japan. It turns out that Koreans, who perform above average in the US, perform below average in Japan, strongly suggesting that these gaps are better indicators of the effects of racism than of inherited intellectual capacity.
There are a bunch of these gaps and what they show is that racially stigmatized people perform more poorly on average than non-stigmatized people. Subject any group to the conditions African Americans endure and you'll get similar results.
Sorry if that pops your master race fantasy bubble.
19
Korean and Japanese languages are related to Ob Ugric,or Inuit.
Chinese is Sino Tibetan, and southeast Asian languages are related to Sanskrit.
Chinese is Sino Tibetan, and southeast Asian languages are related to Sanskrit.
1
One should not confuse the influence of Pali and Sanskrit on SE Asian alphabets with the origin of the languages themselves. The Thai language, for example, is almost certainly an Austronesian language, definitely not an Indic language.
1
Fascinating! 55,000 years old! I suppose we can wait a wee bit longer to learn more. Let's not crowd the scientific team, and just be happy with the find.
1
Perhaps all this inter-breeding happened during a Paleolithic "Summer of Love"
15
my first thought, don't talk absolutes such as migrated out of Africa. intellect is a predilection that wanders. point of origin may and could be anywhere. science is getting sloppy because of need for recognition.
slayerwulfe cave
slayerwulfe cave
Might have been better to have second thoughts. But that's not very American, is it?
3
Science is not getting sloppy. There are just some racist people who don't want to believe that modern humans evolved in Africa. Why the original location of modern humans 100,000 years ago upsets their sensibilities is hard to understand, but racists are not logical.
10
I'm white American of near history Irish descent. I like to say I'm an albino black guy whose ancestors were from Africa. In all seriousness, I'm right but still like to be funny about having heard of the migration of African natives to Europe and Asia, and onward through many Millenia. Now I have to think about the Neanderthal angle. I think the most aggressive species of animals always dominate and succeed less dangerous species so I have to guess that Neanderthals were more peaceful than modern day humans. Their extinction was probably through violence, but I'm hopeful that they simply assimilated through "Love" as the the theories presented here suggest. However modern man in all his forms arose, the violent animal instincts still remain as I truly believe that man is a self-limiting species whose future is in question now that the fruits of his evolved mind are now more powerful even than the combined power of all humans. Will all humans become extinct through the ultimate violence? Recent history seems to support that outlook.
26
Perhaps humans were more intelligent and thus able to procure resources for themselves, which led to the gradual dying off of Neanderthals.
5
andrew...yes indeed they were more intelligent and more dangerous. I'm sure they "procured" those resources from the neanderthals.
" I think the most aggressive species of animals always dominate and succeed less dangerous species"
No, the best adapted succeed.
People seem to get their view of nature more and more from very poor quality TV programs these days.
No, the best adapted succeed.
People seem to get their view of nature more and more from very poor quality TV programs these days.
9
At first I thought, how cool it would be if the Neanderthals had not died out, and modern earth was populated with two distinct types of co-existing "human." But I quickly realized that by now one of the types would be dominating and marginalizing the other. That is our way.
6
Credit (or blame) Darwin's Law of Natural Selection, survival of the fittest. And we're still subject to it, for all our amazing tools, advanced technologies and rarified social refinement. Because we are, our eventual fate will be the same shared by 99.5% of all species that came before us on this planet during its 4.5-billion+ years of existence: extinction.
Sooner or later we will follow our distant cousins, the Neanderthals, into the fossil record; probably sooner given our hubris and collective folly.
Sooner or later we will follow our distant cousins, the Neanderthals, into the fossil record; probably sooner given our hubris and collective folly.
13
Exactly. If we are all going into the dark, why put all this energy into determining our origins? More likely they can be determined than that we can prevent our own extinction. Strange that there's more will, interest, and money going into this than into preventing the end.
How do you know that two (or more) distinct types of humans, or their ancestors, are not populating the planet at this moment? Have you seen no evidence of one set of humans dominating/marginalizing another set? I'd say that that if there is one overarching characteristic of human history, it is exactly the never-ending struggle of one set of humans to dominate/marginalize another set. It's the most fundamental characteristic of our species.
Less proof for the argument that there is a superior race. It's becoming apparent race is a construct created to devide and conquer. Let's put an end to racial categories. Facts are everywhere we go there we are . . . it's all relatively simple. We are all relatives.
31
I (and most biologists and anthropologists) agree that, "race" is a human, cultural construct, and has no basis in biological fact, and anytime the subject comes up, I always put "race" in quotations.
But who is talking about "superior race" these days?
But who is talking about "superior race" these days?
15
Becoming? It's been readily apparent from genetics for many years now that "race" is nothing more than a social construct.
15
Zen, biologists and biological anthropologists are quite divided on what race signifies according to the surveys I've seen.
I had just been thinking that I hadn't seen any really interesting anthropology articles at NYT in a while. This is really amazing, I hope that many more such fossils will be found and examined and also wish they had already done the DNA analysis.
14
This is fascinating. I wish the article was much longer.
As I understand current accepted theory of human migration to Europe, (mostly from PBS) genetic testing has shown that the epicenter of the migration was southcentral Asia, somewhere north of Iraq. It has also been determined that all humans carry some Neanderthal DNA with white Europeans carrying much more than black Africans. This indicates that the European modern humans interbred much more with them than black Africans. The theory continues that modern humans just bred out the native Neanderthals. That is, they were diluted out of existence.
This finding indicates that the inter-breeding process began much earlier, before modern humans settled into south central Asia. That's a really big deal and could drastically change current understanding.
As I understand current accepted theory of human migration to Europe, (mostly from PBS) genetic testing has shown that the epicenter of the migration was southcentral Asia, somewhere north of Iraq. It has also been determined that all humans carry some Neanderthal DNA with white Europeans carrying much more than black Africans. This indicates that the European modern humans interbred much more with them than black Africans. The theory continues that modern humans just bred out the native Neanderthals. That is, they were diluted out of existence.
This finding indicates that the inter-breeding process began much earlier, before modern humans settled into south central Asia. That's a really big deal and could drastically change current understanding.
37
I think this should be free to read, if you'd like to know more.
http://www.nature.com/news/neanderthals-gain-human-neighbour-1.16802
http://www.nature.com/news/neanderthals-gain-human-neighbour-1.16802
5
Based on when Neanderthals lived in Eurasia and when humans arrived there, most scientists believe that the interbreeding took place as early as 60,000 years ago or as recently as 40,000 years ago. Whether at some point we humans had more Neanderthal DNA is not known - unlikely because it would be difficult to jettison huge amounts of alien DNA from our genome.
2
Regarding the frequency of interbreeding difference between Europeans and black Africans, this was due to the the fact that Neanderthals only lived in Europe and the Middle East. Currently, there is not evidence that they counter-migrated into sub-Saharan Africa. So, that interbreeding opportunity did not exist for black Africans.
7
"Dr. Delson said it would be interesting to test for DNA in the skull"
Nice thinking out of 6 years of rigorous examination. But don't the photos showi the contemporary scientists passing their own DNA onto the skull?
Nice thinking out of 6 years of rigorous examination. But don't the photos showi the contemporary scientists passing their own DNA onto the skull?
4
Typical "scientists are as clueless as I am" response. Do you really think that contemporary scientists would lift DNA from a skull's surface and say "Wow! Amazing! This surface DNA is just like ours!"
Please, learn at least a little bit about how DNA analysis is done before posting.
Please, learn at least a little bit about how DNA analysis is done before posting.
103
Please, Laurence is not as clueless as you make it sound. Unfortunately anthropologists are still not used to work with gloves and other protection to prevent contamination. Geneticists can minimize the presence of modern human DNA in these specimens and detect modern DNA sequences by using bioinformatics, but neither of this is 100% effective. So the less there is in the first place the better.
7
Skeletal DNA is extracted from the interior, spongy layers of the bone, not the surface. Think about it--the surface of this skull fragment has been exposed to the soil for thousands of years, so it contaminated with the dna of soil bacteria, insects, pollen, etc. being touched by an anthropologist would not contaminate it any more, and would not affect the portion from where the study dna would be extracted.
8
For all of you going off the deep end, keep the following two quotes in mind.
"The discovery team urged caution on the interbreeding issue . . . ."
' “Only DNA study will solve the problem,” he said.'
"The discovery team urged caution on the interbreeding issue . . . ."
' “Only DNA study will solve the problem,” he said.'
60
Are people really going, "off the deep end" over this?
I've read at least a score of comments here, and I don't see anyone freaking out or anything.
I've read at least a score of comments here, and I don't see anyone freaking out or anything.
1
Is your maternal great-grandfather's line extinct? Even if your maternal great-grandfather was quite different from your other 7 grandparents, the answer is no, by definition. If you're reading this, you're part of your great-grandfather's progeny. No extinction has occurred.
In the same way, Neanderthal can't still meaningfully be placed in opposition to another clade called "human". They are among the lineages that contributed significantly to modern humans.
It makes no sense to talk about "modern Homo sapiens and their Neanderthal cousins interbreeding". Modern Homo sapiens is in part the progeny of Neanderthals.
I suspect part of the problem here is the concept of anatomically modern human used to describe findings that seemed likely to have shared many behavioral traits with modern humans. Many older exemplars of AMH were found in Africa, and it's these examples of AMH that the author must be describing as "human" or modern Homo sapiens. Which they are, but not as distinct from Neanderthals.
The non-Neanderthal portion of our ancestry at that time period now needs a new name. At a minimum, science journalists need to internalize the new understanding so they can describe it accurately without the old terms. Using anatomically modern humans, modern Homo or humans in opposition to Neanderthal is flat out wrong. The journal used the concept "African modern humans". The author would do well to understand why.
In the same way, Neanderthal can't still meaningfully be placed in opposition to another clade called "human". They are among the lineages that contributed significantly to modern humans.
It makes no sense to talk about "modern Homo sapiens and their Neanderthal cousins interbreeding". Modern Homo sapiens is in part the progeny of Neanderthals.
I suspect part of the problem here is the concept of anatomically modern human used to describe findings that seemed likely to have shared many behavioral traits with modern humans. Many older exemplars of AMH were found in Africa, and it's these examples of AMH that the author must be describing as "human" or modern Homo sapiens. Which they are, but not as distinct from Neanderthals.
The non-Neanderthal portion of our ancestry at that time period now needs a new name. At a minimum, science journalists need to internalize the new understanding so they can describe it accurately without the old terms. Using anatomically modern humans, modern Homo or humans in opposition to Neanderthal is flat out wrong. The journal used the concept "African modern humans". The author would do well to understand why.
97
@ryanwc,
Over the l-o-n-g haul, new species develop. Darwin distinuished different species by their inability to produce fertile offspring together (no "grandchildren"). The development of distinct species is part of evolution and is called "speciation. So there may be gray zone situations where some individuals from different environments run across each other and breed with limited success; this may be called "subspecies" and represent intermediary states between the same species or different species categories.
I disagree with you in lumping all our ancestors in one pot; currently, I believe the mainstream classification of Neanderthals and "modern man" as different subspecies of Homo sapiens is conceptually useful.
I understand Neanderthals and H. sapiens sapiens to have common ancestor but not that H. sapiens neanderthal was an ancestor of H. sapiens sapiens.
(Just as some (?all) of us H. sapiens sapiens have some Neanderthal DNA, it seems likely that some H. sapiens neanderthal individuals might have H. sap sap DNA.)
My clade - I assume - includes a lot of single-celled organisms. I don't see that changing the nomenclature I use about "humanity".
Over the l-o-n-g haul, new species develop. Darwin distinuished different species by their inability to produce fertile offspring together (no "grandchildren"). The development of distinct species is part of evolution and is called "speciation. So there may be gray zone situations where some individuals from different environments run across each other and breed with limited success; this may be called "subspecies" and represent intermediary states between the same species or different species categories.
I disagree with you in lumping all our ancestors in one pot; currently, I believe the mainstream classification of Neanderthals and "modern man" as different subspecies of Homo sapiens is conceptually useful.
I understand Neanderthals and H. sapiens sapiens to have common ancestor but not that H. sapiens neanderthal was an ancestor of H. sapiens sapiens.
(Just as some (?all) of us H. sapiens sapiens have some Neanderthal DNA, it seems likely that some H. sapiens neanderthal individuals might have H. sap sap DNA.)
My clade - I assume - includes a lot of single-celled organisms. I don't see that changing the nomenclature I use about "humanity".
However modern homo sapiens came about it would appear that the larger brain has not come with an enlarged moral sense as human-to-human exploitation and destruction of habitat continues with little signs of abatement.
146
In Mensa, it is said that the amount of human intelligence on the planet is constant. The population is increasing.
23
While modern humans might have a larger cranial case than this particular find, most researchers believe homo sapiens have a smaller brain than Neanderthals. I realize that is not the point you were making, but the point you were making did not have anything to do with the article.
13
The implication is that the intelligence required to manage the population is dwindling, relatively speaking, as we head further into the loss of control. Great, transformative historical figures who have salvaged crumbling social structures and values can no longer emerge, since no person can wrap his or her mind around the size and complexity of what we have become.
6
Perhaps some evidence at last to support the migration theory of the albino outcast communities that migrated North from africa to europe that have become known as causcasian.
3
Erm, I can assure you that isn't the case. Nor did modern humans inherit pale skin from neanderthals.
"Vitamin D plays an important role in bone growth and the body's natural protection against certain diseases, and the inability to absorb enough in areas of less-powerful sunlight would have decreased life expectancies in our African ancestors. The further north they trekked, the more vitamin D they needed and the lighter they got over the generations, due to natural selection."
http://www.livescience.com/7863-people-white.html
"Vitamin D plays an important role in bone growth and the body's natural protection against certain diseases, and the inability to absorb enough in areas of less-powerful sunlight would have decreased life expectancies in our African ancestors. The further north they trekked, the more vitamin D they needed and the lighter they got over the generations, due to natural selection."
http://www.livescience.com/7863-people-white.html
79
How did you get that from the article? It's a hybrid skull, not an African skull of an individual what had white skin.
37
What? Let's hear a bit about this theory (hypothesis, is probably what you mean). Over many decades teaching prehistory I haven't run into it. Maybe it's an internet "theory?"
53