|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,909 Year: 4,166/9,624 Month: 1,037/974 Week: 364/286 Day: 7/13 Hour: 2/2 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: New Human Fossils found | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Artemis Entreri  Suspended Member (Idle past 4258 days) Posts: 1194 From: Northern Virginia Joined: |
Homo heidelbergensis was likely also the same species. Neanderthal genes have been found in most modern humans, indicating that some level of interbreeding occurred: this suggests that Neanderthal and sapiens are closely-related enough to be considered the same species.
is this in the same way that most canines can reproduce, even though they are not the same species?
It all depends on where you want to draw your arbitrary lines.
of course, I absolutely agree, and I am not trying to argue really or disagree with you on purpose, I just have different thoughts (my arbitrary line is elsewhere). I tend to side with more diversity in species.
I think the only "European" Homo erectus known is from the Caucasus, and it was from well before the first Neanderthals or heidelbergines began to appear there.
once again it depends on where you want to split the hairs. Boxgrove Man for instance is either Homo Erectus or very early Heidelbergensis, depends. They both had the same acheulean tool kit. what about Pakefield? Error
And, it isn't about whether the three species ever encountered each other. Homo erectus evolved in Africa and expanded into Asia. Meanwhile, heidelbergensis evolved in Africa, then expanded into Europe, and gradually diverged into a European form (neanderthalensis) and an African form (sapiens). At some later point in time, sapiens expanded and came into contact with the other species, but only after they had been partially isolated for some time, and had already evolved into distinct "species" during their isolation.
I am not saying you are wrong, but I think erectus came to europe and then evolved into heidelbergensis. More due to the pakefield dates and the consensus on the earliest heidelbergensis dates. I agree its arbitrary and spitting hairs, but then why else are we here talking about this stuff?
By comparison, habilis, rudolfensis and ergaster not only lived in the same location at the same time, but also apparently evolved into distinct "species" in the same location and at around the same time. This is called "sympatric speciation": something other than geography was a barrier to interbreeding between these "species."
ok now we are getting somewhere, yes this is very interesting.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Heathen Member (Idle past 1313 days) Posts: 1067 From: Brizzle Joined: |
Hmm.. ok.. that doesn't really enlighten me much..
So.. From this Story:New human species identified from Kenya fossils - BBC News "Anthropologists have discovered three human fossils that are between 1.78 and 1.95 million years old. The specimens are of a face and two jawbones with teeth. " how does the use of Multivariate statistics indicate that this is a new species and not just 3 individuals with physical deformities?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2136 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
One method of using multivariate statistics would involve measuring the teeth of all known fossil specimens in these various species, going back to the apes. Discriminant analysis would then be able to organize those teeth into groups according to their overall similarities.
Here is a link to an article that used this type of statistics for a related purpose: Patterns of dental development in Homo, Australopithecus, Pan, and Gorilla - PubMedReligious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Blue Jay Member (Idle past 2727 days) Posts: 2843 From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts Joined:
|
Hi, Chaoticskunk.
Chaotincskunk writes: I am not saying you are wrong, but I think erectus came to europe and then evolved into heidelbergensis. More due to the pakefield dates and the consensus on the earliest heidelbergensis dates. I agree its arbitrary and spitting hairs, but then why else are we here talking about this stuff? And you could very well be right: I'll freely admit that I don't know. But, the main thread of discussion was the coexistence of multiple hominin species. Homo erectus and H. ergaster existed across a large swathe of the Old World, and populations in different regions diverged into distinct lineages. Ultimately, these lineages encountered one another when one of them (H. sapiens) expanded out of its ancestral range. The three "species" found in Kenya around 1.7 Mya showed a similar pattern of coexistence, but on a much smaller geographical scale. This implies that there must have been a different type of mechanism isolating these "species" from each other. For example, they may have preferred different habitats, or they may have evolved in different sub-regions within the same region.-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus) Darwin loves you.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Blue Jay Member (Idle past 2727 days) Posts: 2843 From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts Joined: |
caffeine writes: Or, rudolfensis and ergaster could both have evolved in small, geographically isolated regions outside the notice of palaentology, at least up till now, before expanding back into the rest of Africa. Is there anything I've missed that argues against this alternative? I'm not sure. Just in terms of pure rationalism here, evolution into distinct lineages on a small geographic scale would suggest some measure of sedentarism. But, both habilis and erectus/ergaster had rather wide geographical distributions, which, to me, works against the notion of geographic isolation on a small scale. However, since rudolfensis is only known from Kenya, small-scale geographic isolation is a very good hypothesis for their evolution. Edited by Blue Jay, : quote tags-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus) Darwin loves you.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Artemis Entreri  Suspended Member (Idle past 4258 days) Posts: 1194 From: Northern Virginia Joined: |
The three "species" found in Kenya around 1.7 Mya showed a similar pattern of coexistence, but on a much smaller geographical scale. This implies that there must have been a different type of mechanism isolating these "species" from each other. For example, they may have preferred different habitats, or they may have evolved in different sub-regions within the same region.
do you think it was a pattern of coexistence or one species supplanting another? if coexistence is the answer then I would guess they occupied similar but slightly diffenrt niches or share a large habitat. All I can compare it to in my amatuer thoughts on this is three similar and definately related species that live in the similar Kenyan Region today: All Canines, Lycaon pictus, Canis mesomelas, and Otocyon megalotis African Wild Dog, Black-backed Jackal, and Bat-Eared Fox respectively. now you can say they are not all part of the same Genus like the homo example, but they all live in the same habitat and have a similar function of semi-omivourus predator, most of the time scavenger (probably like earlier hominids), I am not saying one way or the other as this is very interesting information, and great news. I just feel like animals that are so similar they share a genus classification would be interbreeding or supplanting each other like the case of the North American Red Wolf, instead of coexisting. but I guess that is my bias. your location says Kentucky so I would think you live in or close to former red wolf habitat (though they could still probably exist in eastern KY). you have the Red Wolf, the Red fox, and the Coyote. two Canis and Vulpes. the Canis can breed so interchangably that The Red "Wolf" may be nothing more than a hybrid of the coyote and the gray wolf (A genome-wide perspective on the evolutionary history of enigmatic wolf-like canids - PMC). Which kind of ties into the questions that heathen is asking. I don't know myself, it will be interesting, I look forward to further research and future conclusions.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
I just read this news article and it seems to me to contradict the quoted article in the OP.
Neanderthals, humans didn't make whoopee, study says | CBC News This article says quote:which seems to run counter to the idea that our lineage is strictly out of Africa. As I have zero knowledge of the field there is a very good chance I'm missing something. One way or the other it is all very interesting. He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God. Micah 6:8
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Lithodid-Man Member (Idle past 2960 days) Posts: 504 From: Juneau, Alaska, USA Joined:
|
I have been getting a number of links to articles on this recently. I think it is fascinating, but also important to not jump the gun, so to speak. The popular press seems to be presenting this as if it overturns the 2010 hybridization results (they love a good headline!).
As I understand it this paper was presented at a meeting a year ago, at the same time one or two other papers supporting the hybridization were also presented but are not yet published. Reichs, one of the author of the 2010 paper, is publishing another analysis that apparently falsifies the Erisson & Manica model (and supports hybridization). I also heard that a second paper is also in the pipeline by another researcher who used a completely different analysis to support hybridization. Anyhow, point is that there are some really fun times ahead for those of us on the sidelines with an interest in this kind of stuff!Doctor Bashir: "Of all the stories you told me, which were true and which weren't?" Elim Garak: "My dear Doctor, they're all true" Doctor Bashir: "Even the lies?" Elim Garak: "Especially the lies"
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
caffeine Member (Idle past 1054 days) Posts: 1800 From: Prague, Czech Republic Joined: |
We are all still out of Africa. All this article is suggesting (if I understand it right) is that one African species of human - our ancestors - spread out and colonised Europe, whilst still maintaining gene flow with the African population. Eventually, the two populations became isolated reproductively, and evolved into sister species. The ones in Europe became Neanderthals, while the Africans became modern humans.
The idea is that the shared DNA between Neanderthals and humans from outside sub-Saharan Africa is simply due to the fact that the more northern populations of Homo sapiens in Africa - the ones which later colonised the rest of the world - still had alleles shared with Neanderthals at a higher frequency than the southern populations who stayed in Africa, and so more survived till today. I remember somebody posted speculation along the same lines here when they first announced the interbreeding study.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2136 days) Posts: 6117 Joined:
|
To make things more interesting, a new study is out:
Study casts doubt on human-Neanderthal interbreeding theory We still have a lot to learn!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Heathen Member (Idle past 1313 days) Posts: 1067 From: Brizzle Joined: |
That doesn't seem to explain how three pieces of bone could be confirmed as an entirely separate species and not just an aberration in a single, or handful of individuals.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2136 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
You are correct, that particular study doesn't deal with these most recent finds.
I posted it to try to illustrate one of the methods used.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Heathen Member (Idle past 1313 days) Posts: 1067 From: Brizzle Joined: |
I guess I don't see how that method can apply to a sample of 3 bones.
Genuinely trying to find out how this was deemed to be a new species.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
sayak83 Junior Member (Idle past 4269 days) Posts: 1 Joined:
|
Most deformities that affect apes and primates are known as well as how they affect bones. So those are usaully detectable. The paper itself will be able to tell you why they classified it as a distict species. Somebody had the pdf and offered to share I believe.
The skull itself was discovered in 1970s and as far as I remember had a cranial structure very different from habilis of erectus grades. But check a review paper on that.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Hi Coragyps, I've been lurking this thread so far ...
As always, I can email the pdf of Nature's paper ... Can you send me one via messaging? (or email if you still have it) Enjoy.by our ability to understand Rebel American Zen Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024