Ancient humans, dubbed 'Denisovans', interbred with us

[Mark Latimour]

Originally Posted by BBC

Ancient humans, dubbed 'Denisovans', interbred with us

Scientists say an entirely separate type of human identified from bones in Siberia co-existed and interbred with our own species.

The ancient humans have been dubbed Denisovans after the caves in Siberia where their remains were found.

There is also evidence that this population was widespread in Eurasia.

A study in Nature journal shows that Denisovans co-existed with Neanderthals and interbred with our species - perhaps around 50,000 years ago.

An international group of researchers sequenced a complete genome from one of the ancient hominins (human-like creatures), based on nuclear DNA extracted from a finger bone.

According to the researchers, this provides confirmation there were at least four distinct types of human in existence when anatomically modern humans (Homo sapiens sapiens) first left their African homeland.

Along with modern humans, scientists knew about the Neanderthals and a dwarf human species found on the Indonesian island of Flores nicknamed The Hobbit. To this list, experts must now add the Denisovans.

The implications of the finding have been described by Professor Chris Stringer of the Natural History Museum in London as "nothing short of sensational".

Scientists were able to analyse DNA from a tooth and from a finger bone excavated in the Denisova cave in southern Siberia. The individuals belonged to a genetically distinct group of humans that were distantly related to Neanderthals but even more distantly related to us.

The finding adds weight to the theory that a different kind of human could have existed in Eurasia at the same time as our species.

Researchers have had enigmatic fossil evidence to support this view but now they have some firm evidence from the genetic study carried out by Professor Svante Paabo of the Max Planck Institute in Leipzig, Germany.

"A species of early human living in Europe evolved," according to Professor Paabo

Read the full story: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-12059564

There you go.

[MIJ-VI]

[jonathan_matos5]

those jerks! they shouldn't have interbred with us!


i feel so violated.

[hover]

Originally Posted by jonathan_matos5

those jerks! they shouldn't have interbred with us!


i feel so violated.

ancient racist.

[bassybill]

Although empirical evidence for our history is always fascinating, this story in itself isn't too surprising in biological terms if you consider the way early humans spread across the world from Africa starting about 100,000 years ago.

With establishment of separate populations all over the globe over the new few tens of thousands of years and very, very limited interactions between them, it was inevitable that these groups would become genetically more and more isolated from each other. The interesting thing is that these initial steps in a speciation process sort of got reversed as the interactions increased (as described here and in earlier work on our interactions with Neanderthals) and we ended up back with a single human species spread across the globe instead of several.

[Mark Latimour]

Originally Posted by bassybill

Although empirical evidence for our history is always fascinating, this story in itself isn't too surprising in biological terms if you consider the way early humans spread across the world from Africa starting about 100,000 years ago.

With establishment of separate populations all over the globe over the new few tens of thousands of years and very, very limited interactions between them, it was inevitable that these groups would become genetically more and more isolated from each other. The interesting thing is that these initial steps in a speciation process sort of got reversed as the interactions increased (as described here and in earlier work on our interactions with Neanderthals) and we ended up back with a single human species spread across the globe instead of several.

It might be surprising to those who think that humans and dinosaurs walked the earth at the same time!

[jonathan_matos5]

Originally Posted by hover

ancient racist.

im 27, not that old


and to be racist i would have to be of a specific race instead of the mixed up mutt of a human i am.

[bassybill]

Originally Posted by Mark Latimour

It might be surprising to those who think that humans and dinosaurs walked the earth at the same time!

Or think that white people aren't descended from black people. Back when I was teaching science in school, it was always fascinating to watch how some white kids in school used to react when they found out for the first time that their earliest relatives were all black. To be fair, most of them just found it really interesting and reacted with genuine curiosity rather than any negative responses.

[Mark Latimour]

Originally Posted by bassybill

Or think that white people aren't decended from black people. Back when I was teaching science in school, it was always fascinating to watch how some white kids in school used to react when they found out for the first time that their earliest relatives were all black. To be fair, most of them just found it really interesting and reacted with genuine curiosity rather than any negative responses.

[mindbass]

Originally Posted by bassybill

Or think that white people aren't descended from black people. Back when I was teaching science in school, it was always fascinating to watch how some white kids in school used to react when they found out for the first time that their earliest relatives were all black. To be fair, most of them just found it really interesting and reacted with genuine curiosity rather than any negative responses.

Is there any evidence that 'humans' 100.000 years ago were in fact black? Not that it would bother me, but just curious.
The theory that humans come from Africa is disputed, some suggest that 'humans' developed simultaneously in Africa, Asia and Eurasia. Most discoveries about early human history have been made in Kenya or something, but that might just be because the climate there is more suited to preserving skeletons and the landscape makes discoveries easier than in Siberia for example.

[machine gewehr]

Originally Posted by bassybill

Or think that white people aren't descended from black people. Back when I was teaching science in school, it was always fascinating to watch how some white kids in school used to react when they found out for the first time that their earliest relatives were all black. To be fair, most of them just found it really interesting and reacted with genuine curiosity rather than any negative responses.

WHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAT????????????????????:ee k:





















































To be honst,no disrespect to any racists (oh really?) but racism is absurdly ridicilous.We were all black and came from Afrika.Hell if some people have the right (no nobody does) to be racist it is the black people.After all they are the pure ones,we changed color man...

[bassybill]

Originally Posted by mindbass

Is there any evidence that 'humans' 100.000 years ago were in fact black? Not that it would bother me, but just curious.
The theory that humans come from Africa is disputed, some suggest that 'humans' developed simultaneously in Africa, Asia and Eurasia. Most discoveries about early human history have been made in Kenya or something, but that might just be because the climate there is more suited to preserving skeletons and the landscape makes discoveries easier than in Siberia for example.

A moment's thought will make it clear that there is no way biologically that humans could develop "simultaneously" (from what?) in separate regions and end up as a single species. Our genetic similarities show that we're all related, and the only way for anyone to be related to anyone else is by sharing a common ancestry. That's one of the most obvious bits of science that can be imagined, I think. Otherwise, it's a bit like expecting identical twins to be born from different sets of widely separated parents. The fact that we can all interbreed is a sure sign that we come from a single common ancestral point and can, given sufficient data, be traced back to that point. And we have a LOT of data nowadays!

As for whether that person was black or not, we can't say for certain. But it does seem an almost overwhelmingly likely assumption (like, 99.99999% or better) given that all the evidence supports the idea that our common ancestor came from sub-Saharan Africa. I would guess that people from that region were just as black then as they are now.

[Kosko]

Originally Posted by bassybill

A moment's thought will make it clear that there is no way biologically that humans could develop "simultaneously" (from what?) in separate regions and end up as a single species. Our genetic similarities show that we're all related, and the only way for anyone to be related to anyone else is by sharing a common ancestry. That's one of the most obvious bits of science that can be imagined, I think. Otherwise, it's a bit like expecting identical twins to be born from different sets of widely separated parents. The fact that we can all interbreed is a sure sign that we come from a single common ancestral point and can, given sufficient data, be traced back to that point. And we have a LOT of data nowadays!

As for whether that person was black or not, we can't say for certain. But it does seem an almost overwhelmingly likely assumption (like, 99.99999% or better) given that all the evidence supports the idea that our common ancestor came from sub-Saharan Africa. I would guess that people from that region were just as black then as they are now.

Thank you for saying it more eloquently than I have the ability to. Evolution is the one of the most facinating topics in existence, and its effects are seen in every single plant, animal and mineral.

I watched a documentary about human migration and mapping the genes of random participants to their most recent origins (which can then be mapped to the origin before that, etc.)

Also, my favorite humans have to be the Homo Florensiensis, the wee lil pygmy humans.

[mindbass]

Well, i don't have the answer to this, but the OP and the Neanderthal would suggest that there wasn't a single starting point. Humans, Neanderthal, and the Denisovans apparently lived together to merge into one. Did these three species have the same ancestor? In some ways it must be the same as we are not some conglomerate of bird, reptile and mammal. If you go back far enough the common ancestor was some bacteria in the deep see, so yes, every living thing on earth has the same ancestor.

Some years go a now extinct human subspecies was discovered in Indonesia, and it's DNA was quite different from what we have today. Scientists used this example to show that some sort of simultaneous development must have taken place. It's not proof by any means, but just a small piece in the picture which until now haven't discovered fully yet. We have a lot of data, but sometimes it contradicts itself and that's where it gets interesting.

This is semantic, but why would you assume that the common ancestor was just as black as people are in that region today? If there is any evidence for that i'm more than happy to accept that, but I'm not sure that there is any evidence.

[Jazz Ad]

There is none since the few DNA samples we have at hand are too damaged to decipher skin color from them and all soft tissues are gone.
For all we know, they could have been green.

[invader3k]

Interesting. Boy, that human evolutionary tree sure is getting convoluted, though.

[Phalex]

I'm confused by the whole "species" thing. Isn't one of the criteria of a different species the inability to mate and create viable offspring? If they had the same number of chromosomes, wouldn't they really be a different race of human? Human is a species, another species of human is an oxymoron.

[bassybill]

Originally Posted by mindbass

Well, i don't have the answer to this, but the OP and the Neanderthal would suggest that there wasn't a single starting point. Humans, Neanderthal, and the Denisovans apparently lived together to merge into one. Did these three species have the same ancestor? In some ways it must be the same as we are not some conglomerate of bird, reptile and mammal. If you go back far enough the common ancestor was some bacteria in the deep see, so yes, every living thing on earth has the same ancestor.

Some years go a now extinct human subspecies was discovered in Indonesia, and it's DNA was quite different from what we have today. Scientists used this example to show that some sort of simultaneous development must have taken place. It's not proof by any means, but just a small piece in the picture which until now haven't discovered fully yet. We have a lot of data, but sometimes it contradicts itself and that's where it gets interesting.

This is semantic, but why would you assume that the common ancestor was just as black as people are in that region today? If there is any evidence for that i'm more than happy to accept that, but I'm not sure that there is any evidence.

You have the answer to it now.

Humans today are a single species.
That means we have a relatively recent common ancestor (more recent than our common ancestor with other animals that are not in our species, by definition).
The evidence from archaeology and DNA analysis points overwhelmingly to our common ancestry being sub-Saharan in origin.
People from that region are black. I think it's unlikely that at any point in the past they were green.

Ther's nothing even remotely controversial in any of those points.

Sure, people all over the world have developed "simultaneously", of course. But from what? Other humans of course.

Look at it this way. If you built a time machine and went back to the dinosaurs, there would not be a single living thing on the Earth that you could mate with. No humans. Move forward in time, and the earliest opportunity you would have to mate successfully would be the appearance of the first humans, descended from earlier hominids you couldn't mate with because they would be genetically too dissimilar to you, same as you can't mate with a gorilla or a triceratops.

Now think about those early hominids. Do you think it's likely that people similar enough to you to be a prospective mate would be born "simultaneously" on three or four different continents? That would be like winning the gene shuffling lottery three or four times in quick succession. The first people who had DNA close enough to ours to be considered the same species as we are all came from the same place at the same time. Those people were Africans, and they weren't green.

This is the great thing about science. Opinions don't come into it, only facts, or our best stab at the facts based on, in this case, overwhelming probabilities. Anyone who thinks there's any opinions expressed in this post simply doesn't understand the science behind what's being discussed.

[bassybill]

Originally Posted by Phalex

I'm confused by the whole "species" thing. Isn't one of the criteria of a different species the inability to mate and create viable offspring? If they had the same number of chromosomes, wouldn't they really be a different race of human? Human is a species, another species of human is an oxymoron.

Deepnds how you define "human" - hominids, or Homo sapiens.

Early hominids were different species to us, for the reasons you mention. Homo sapiens are a single species, and includes everyone alive today. There is no way that our single species could have arisen independently from multiple disparate ancestors. That goes back to my first post in this thread - as a species, we arose from a common source, diverged without quite reaching speciation, and then converged again.

Like I said, there's absolutely nothing controversial about any of this. The only questions being asked here are based on misunderstandings about fairly basic facts of biology, rather than anything that is open to genuine scientific debate. This is one of those situations where you don't need a personal view.

[hover]

Originally Posted by jonathan_matos5

im 27, not that old


and to be racist i would have to be of a specific race instead of the mixed up mutt of a human i am.

methinks the joke doth goest over yonder head.