New Type of Ancient Human Found—Descendants Live Today?

Because the major driving force (>95%) was migration of DNA instead of gene flow.

How does 'migration of DNA' differ from 'gene flow'?Jon

---

Check out No webpage found at provided URL: Apollo's Temple!
Ignorance is temporary; you should be able to overcome it. - nwr

The spread of European traits across North America is a good example (and was mentioned earlier). It was due to the migration of Europeans that selected mates within their own population for the most part. It's not as if there was free gene flow between Europeans and the regional populations that resulted in European genes spreading across the continent and swamping the regional DNA.

Hi, Jon. Modern Asians are only descended from Homo erectus to the extent that they inherited traits from them. Subsequent evolution that may have happened along the proposed H. erectus-Asian lineage is taken into account when these analyses are done, so, as far as I am aware, this is not a serious confounding factor for this type of analysis.----- But, we also don't expect the daughter varieties of one ancestor to be identical to the daughter varieties of a different ancestor. If MR is to explain the differences between regional populations (as it's supposed to), then those differences should be inherited by modern humans from the ancient humans in the same region, with or without mutations.And, there is currently extremely sparse evidence for this.----- A model that only explains 5% of the data is not essentially useless? Why not?

---

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)Darwin loves you.

Okay, so by 'migration of DNA' you mean 'migration of people'? Am I understanding that correctly?Jon

---

Check out No webpage found at provided URL: Apollo's Temple!
Ignorance is temporary; you should be able to overcome it. - nwr

I'm uncertain as to what you mean with this, though it appears this statement involves the assumption of the conclusion. The evidence regarding the amount of erectus characteristics in modern Asians doesn't point to Asians being 'only descended from Homo erectus to the extend that they inherited traits from them' in the way you imply it as an inheritance of rather negligible proportions. As I stated in the post above, even within an MH framework, given the time span, gene exchange factors, higher selection pressures, etc., there is no reason to expect resemblance at all, let alone beyond whole percentages, between present Asian populations and populations of Asians a million years ago. Given more time, the genetic and morphological evidence of regional continuity here may disappear entirely; that we have this evidence available to us at present is extremely fortuitous. Thus the degree of regional continuity is not evidence for the degree of contribution of the older regional populationsit is simply a measure of the degree of preservation/survival of the regional characteristics/DNA in question. To get to these measures (of actual contribution), we must look at the skeletal/genetic(/behavioral?) evidence from the period that sapiens is believed to have replaced erectus in these areas. But they're not identical, and even if they were, it wouldn't be a problem for MH. I already mentioned ways, means, and reasons for peripheral populations having genetic material that appears originating from other locales. In fact, given an MH model, we should quite expect the DNA of our various populations to have a variety of sources, with the primary source being the most dense, highly populated, central populations. Shared features across populations, in any degree, is in no way damning to the MH model. I'm not sure I understand this. The degree to which various regional characteristics have been preserved to the present is a factor of many things that could have occurred from the initial appearance of the characteristics up until our measuring of them in present populations. That certain traits survive while others do not isn't a problem for MH. MH explains much more than 5% of the data. By whatever means you've made this gross miscalculation it is assuredly just that: a gross miscalculation.JonEdited by Jon, : clarityEdited by Jon, : more clarityEdited by Jon, : yet more clarityEdited by Jon, : phrasing this time

---

Check out No webpage found at provided URL: Apollo's Temple!
Ignorance is temporary; you should be able to overcome it. - nwr

Ancient Denisovans and the human family tree Good article. Read it here.

Interesting. Thank you for sharing that.One part that I find problematic is the estimate Stringer gives for the initial population size differences that would be necessary for creating the present distribution:

quote:

---

Chris Stringer in Ancient Denisovans and the human family tree:

​

If the populations were very small, that component [5% Denisovan genes] might represent as few as 50 Denisovans mixing with 1000 pre-Melanesians, but it was sufficient to give the present-day inhabitants of places like New Guinea and Bougainville as much as 8% archaic genes - a small Neanderthal component they acquired first, probably in western Asia, and an additional Denisovan component they acquired later, on their long journey towards Melanesia.

---

It seems that given the regular variations in population sizes and the selective favoring of fully AMH traits that an original contribution of 5% would have disappeared long ago. As a matter of common sense, I'd say the original contribution would have had to have been greater than what is found today as a continuity in the regional populations. Thus, his statement that a 50:1000 mix of 'archaics' to moderns would be sufficient just seems baseless.Jon

---

Check out No webpage found at provided URL: Apollo's Temple!
Ignorance is temporary; you should be able to overcome it. - nwr

Actually, I was thinking more along the lines of a migrating population. Obviously, there will be many generations in this migration just as there was in the migration of Europeans from Europe to the coast of the Pacific Ocean. The important mechanism is that members of this population showed strong mate selection for those within their own population. Gene flow was within the population, and the increase in population numbers is what explains the spread, not gene flow into indigenous gene pools.

But as this discovery, along with others, shows there was gene flow. Furthermore, your assumptions regarding mate selection are misplaced, as the continuation of pre-sapiens traits clearly shows selection of mates outside of the sapiens group, not to mention the fact that it is fallacious to impose a model based on modern racial behavior onto a group of people so far removed in time and culture from the moderns.But now given your clarification on 'migration of DNA', I can say that your statement that 'the major driving force (>95%) was migration of DNA instead of gene flow'¹ is exactly the claim that remains to be proven. One way we can check for verification is, as I've already mentioned, to look at actual evidence from the time of the supposed replacement.Jon
__________
¹ From Message 151.Edited by Jon, : Added reference.

---

Check out No webpage found at provided URL: Apollo's Temple!
Ignorance is temporary; you should be able to overcome it. - nwr

There was not the same gene flow between the populations as there was within each population. The major mechanism was migration, not gene flow. Divergence between the human groups evidences interrupted gene flow through mate selection, as does the 95% dominance of African DNA in modern populations.Also, xenophobia amongst human groups seems to be the norm, not the exception. I don't see why earlier humans would be any different. This is given by Y-chromosome data. It demonstrates the timing of the migration and subsequent replacement:http://nadge.org/...igration-Map-Spencer_Wells2-1024x524.jpgWe see zero Y-chromosome haplotypes from Neanderthals and the Denisova species moving from outside of African into Africa. All of the movement is out of Africa.

Hi, Jon. You're mincing words, Jon. If there is no resemblance between modern Asian and ancient Asian populations, then what, exactly, is MR meant to be explaining?How on earth do you draw a distinction between the "degree of regional continuity" and the "degree of contribution of older regional populations"? What is continuous about them if not the traits that came from the older populations?OoA and MR are hypotheses about the actual, genealogical descent of modern humans. "Regional continuity," as claimed by MR, refers to genealogical descent from older regional populations, which entails genetic contributions to the modern regional gene pool. Otherwise, MR is not a hypothesis about the descent of modern humans.

---

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)Darwin loves you.

I think I already addressed this: Whatever the initial contribution, we cannot determine its size by only making measurements of the present population; all our measurements of present populations tell us is whether or not we have evidence of continuity and how much of that evidence remains. These contributions have been shown. Nevertheless, MH does not require a survival of these 'genetic contributions to the modern regional gene pool'. Furthermore, the degree of survival of regional characteristics is not a measurement of how much of a present population's decent can be traced to the same region's earliest populations.Jon

---

Check out No webpage found at provided URL: Apollo's Temple!
Ignorance is temporary; you should be able to overcome it. - nwr

This claim is based on ... ? Again, this is the claim to be supported. You cannot continue stating it as fact without any supporting evidence. Interrupted, but not permanently ceased. What of this DNA tells you it is African? And, why is genetic distribution a measurement of population movements? How are these measurements taken? Are only modern populations used? All the same, though, these distributions are neither a problem for MH nor evidence for OOA. Indeed, most of the genetic evidence involved in the debate is entirely ambiguous.Jon

---

Check out No webpage found at provided URL: Apollo's Temple!
Ignorance is temporary; you should be able to overcome it. - nwr

The genetic divergence of anatomically modern humans, neanderthals, and the Denisova species. This genetic divergence required 300,000 years of very limited to no gene flow. Which I supplied with the Y-chromosome haplomap, the dominance of African DNA across the globe, and modern examples of the mechanism in action. Since these populations no longer exist I think it is quite permanent. The most diverse genetic groups are found in Africa, and they include the alleles found in human groups outside of Africa. Regional alleles are modifications of these African alleles (except for the tiny percentage of alleles from non-African, non-modern human populations). This means the source was Africa.Also, when people migrate they tend to bring their gonads along for the ride. When you find their DNA somewhere else in such a large bloc (95%) it is because it was taken there. These measurements are taken using molecular clock data using modern DNA. Since we are talking about the evolution of modern humans this seems to be a viable sample pool.