New Type of Ancient Human Found—Descendants Live Today?

Of course it's an issue. OOA has held for the longest time that sapiens, erectus, Neanderthals, etc. are all separate species. The new genetic evidence has disproven this claim. MH, on the other hand, has held that these critters are all of the same species. The new genetic evidence has corroborated this claim.Sure, you can switch up OOA to account for the new information, but why? There's another theory that's already accounted for it and that is completely consistent with the other data that we have available. On to the point that I have been attempting to make all along: this new evidence is support more for MH than it is for OOA.Jon

---

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

Wouldn't this make it even more possible for the population disparities necessary for a 95% swamping of non-African populations by the genetic information from the more dense, more central, and more largely populated African regions?Don't smaller populations serve to magnify the impact of these disparities on the genetic makeup of the population as a whole?Jon

---

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

Of course, but physical differences do not indicate speciation. Look at early and late erectus skeletal differences.When we look at Neanderthal and sapiens, we are likely just looking at the same species at different times in its evolution, just like with early and late erectus.Jon

---

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

It may relax these, but then where does that get us? We may assimilate as we wish, but then where does that get us?Jon

---

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

And what of the point of an alternate theory with verified predictions? This has me a little confused. Could you expand?Jon

---

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

Well, my claim was regarding the continuity of regional traits. The main issue is that the old OOA model proposes a replacement with no continuity of regional characteristics (especially genes). Certainly, we can alter the old model to include the new evidence of such continuity. However, the MH model (old and new) does propose such continuity, both morphological and genetic.Granted, we can conceive of OOA and MH models that are not only compatible but almost identical. But, of course, using such models makes debating one against the other pointless. So, clearly, the debate must be made involving the incompatible versions of the models, and this means regional continuity for MH and none for OOA. If you want to say that OOA and MH are identical in regards their proposals on regional continuity (and not adhere to the full-replacement scheme), then there's really no debate as far as the discovery laid out in the OP is concerned.Doing this, however, requires alteration of the OOA model to incorporate what is a prediction in the MH model, so that, as was originally the theme of this discussion, the discovery in the OP of regional continuity is a point in favor of the MH model.Jon

---

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

Like I said, the discovery in the OP does not disprove OOA. The reason it adds support to MH is because it verifies a prediction made by the MH model. This cannot be said of the OOA model, since its traditional form was against regional continuity. Yes, OOA can be altered to fit this new evidence, but a theory that makes accurate predictions is stronger than one which must constantly shim-shammy around to keep up with new discoveries.Since OOA and MH are both compatible with the other available genetic evidence (e.g., mtDNA), verification of predictions is all we have for judging the strength of each of the theories (especially since both are likely wrong anyway).Jon

---

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

Not really; I've mentioned that I find diffusion and gene flow more plausible and inline with other evidence, but I don't think I've made the argument that the evidence from the OP is more compatible with either gene diffusion or migration. Depending on the degree of 'absoluteness' in any given diffusion or migration model, the new evidence can be incorporated rather effortlessly into either. In fact, I've admitted to it several times that the OOA model is perfectly capable of incorporating the evidence of regional continuity. I am guilty of going off-topic from the original theme. Some of my posts were not in the vein of which theory's predictions are better confirmed by the new evidence, but were simply arguments in favor of MH and against OOA. However, strictly on the topic of the discovery from the OP, I would definitely not argue that it disproves or casts doubt on the OOA model beyond simply strengthening an alternative model. I think 'admixture' is the wrong word to use in terms of the MH model. The degree to which various erectus traits in Asians, for example, survive to the present day should not be seen as a measure of the degree to which Asian sapiens can be linked to Asian erectus. That we see few pure erectus characteristics in Asian AMH is no more evidence against Asian erectus being ancestral to Asian sapiens than the lack of pure Australopithecus traits in any modern sapiens is evidence against Austra. being ancestral to AMH. In evolution, we do not expect daughter varieties to be identical to their ancestors. So, to really get to the heart of this issue, we cannot rely on present genetic/skeletal evidence; instead, we have to look at the skeletal(/behavioral?) evidence from the period that sapiens is believed to have replaced erectus. Absolutely false.Jon

---

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

Why is this a problem for an MH model?

---

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

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

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

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

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

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