Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 89 (8876 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 12-10-2018 9:15 PM
215 online now:
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Bill Holbert
Post Volume:
Total: 843,774 Year: 18,597/29,783 Month: 542/2,043 Week: 94/386 Day: 44/50 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
2
3Next
Author Topic:   New Human Fossils found
Artemis Entreri 
Suspended Member (Idle past 2204 days)
Posts: 1194
From: Northern Virginia
Joined: 07-08-2008


Message 16 of 31 (670367)
08-13-2012 12:10 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by Blue Jay
08-12-2012 6:37 PM


Re: right on
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? http://www.archaeologyuk.org/ba/ba86/feat1.shtml

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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Blue Jay, posted 08-12-2012 6:37 PM Blue Jay has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by Blue Jay, posted 08-14-2012 11:32 AM Artemis Entreri has responded

  
Heathen
Member
Posts: 1042
From: Brizzle
Joined: 09-20-2005


Message 17 of 31 (670406)
08-14-2012 5:07 AM
Reply to: Message 15 by Coyote
08-13-2012 9:49 AM


Hmm.. ok.. that doesn't really enlighten me much..

So.. From this Story:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-19184370

"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?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by Coyote, posted 08-13-2012 9:49 AM Coyote has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by Coyote, posted 08-14-2012 9:48 AM Heathen has responded

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 81 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 18 of 31 (670414)
08-14-2012 9:48 AM
Reply to: Message 17 by Heathen
08-14-2012 5:07 AM


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:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7943188


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by Heathen, posted 08-14-2012 5:07 AM Heathen has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by Heathen, posted 08-16-2012 9:02 AM Coyote has responded

  
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 673 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


(1)
Message 19 of 31 (670418)
08-14-2012 11:32 AM
Reply to: Message 16 by Artemis Entreri
08-13-2012 12:10 PM


Re: right on
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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by Artemis Entreri, posted 08-13-2012 12:10 PM Artemis Entreri has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by Artemis Entreri, posted 08-14-2012 12:17 PM Blue Jay has not yet responded

  
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 673 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 20 of 31 (670419)
08-14-2012 11:40 AM
Reply to: Message 13 by caffeine
08-13-2012 3:23 AM


Re: right on
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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by caffeine, posted 08-13-2012 3:23 AM caffeine has not yet responded

  
Artemis Entreri 
Suspended Member (Idle past 2204 days)
Posts: 1194
From: Northern Virginia
Joined: 07-08-2008


Message 21 of 31 (670422)
08-14-2012 12:17 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by Blue Jay
08-14-2012 11:32 AM


Re: right on
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 (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3149496/?tool...). 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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by Blue Jay, posted 08-14-2012 11:32 AM Blue Jay has not yet responded

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 4608
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.7


Message 22 of 31 (670467)
08-15-2012 2:15 PM


I just read this news article and it seems to me to contradict the quoted article in the OP.

http://www.cbc.ca/...15/neanderthal-human-interbreeding.html

This article says

quote:
This common ancestor lived in parts of Africa and Europe, but divided into separate populations in Europe and Africa around 300,000 to 500,000 years ago, according to the latest study.
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


Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by Lithodid-Man, posted 08-15-2012 2:41 PM GDR has not yet responded
 Message 24 by caffeine, posted 08-16-2012 3:21 AM GDR has not yet responded

    
Lithodid-Man
Member (Idle past 906 days)
Posts: 504
From: Juneau, Alaska, USA
Joined: 03-22-2004


(1)
Message 23 of 31 (670469)
08-15-2012 2:41 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by GDR
08-15-2012 2:15 PM


Eriksson & Manica paper on Neanderthals
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"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by GDR, posted 08-15-2012 2:15 PM GDR has not yet responded

    
caffeine
Member
Posts: 1551
From: Prague, Czech Republic
Joined: 10-22-2008
Member Rating: 2.4


Message 24 of 31 (670521)
08-16-2012 3:21 AM
Reply to: Message 22 by GDR
08-15-2012 2:15 PM


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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by GDR, posted 08-15-2012 2:15 PM GDR has not yet responded

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 81 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


(1)
Message 25 of 31 (670544)
08-16-2012 9:02 AM


Neanderthan interbreeding questioned
To make things more interesting, a new study is out:

Study casts doubt on human-Neanderthal interbreeding theory

Cambridge scientists claim DNA overlap between Neanderthals and modern humans is a remnant of a common ancestor

http://www.guardian.co.uk/...human-neanderthal-interbreeding

We still have a lot to learn!


  
Heathen
Member
Posts: 1042
From: Brizzle
Joined: 09-20-2005


Message 26 of 31 (670546)
08-16-2012 9:02 AM
Reply to: Message 18 by Coyote
08-14-2012 9:48 AM


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.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by Coyote, posted 08-14-2012 9:48 AM Coyote has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by Coyote, posted 08-16-2012 9:04 AM Heathen has responded

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 81 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 27 of 31 (670547)
08-16-2012 9:04 AM
Reply to: Message 26 by Heathen
08-16-2012 9:02 AM


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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by Heathen, posted 08-16-2012 9:02 AM Heathen has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by Heathen, posted 08-16-2012 10:36 AM Coyote has acknowledged this reply

  
Heathen
Member
Posts: 1042
From: Brizzle
Joined: 09-20-2005


Message 28 of 31 (670566)
08-16-2012 10:36 AM
Reply to: Message 27 by Coyote
08-16-2012 9:04 AM


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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by Coyote, posted 08-16-2012 9:04 AM Coyote has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by sayak83, posted 08-16-2012 3:26 PM Heathen has not yet responded

  
sayak83
Junior Member (Idle past 2214 days)
Posts: 1
Joined: 08-16-2012


(1)
Message 29 of 31 (670625)
08-16-2012 3:26 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by Heathen
08-16-2012 10:36 AM


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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by Heathen, posted 08-16-2012 10:36 AM Heathen has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by RAZD, posted 08-17-2012 7:47 PM sayak83 has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19719
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 30 of 31 (670731)
08-17-2012 7:46 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by Coragyps
08-09-2012 9:05 AM


can you send me one?
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.


we are limited in our ability to understand
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)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Coragyps, posted 08-09-2012 9:05 AM Coragyps has not yet responded

  
Prev1
2
3Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2018