Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Ehh, all this shows is that a very early ancestor of humans lived in what is now modern Europe but as far as we know all modern day humans came from Africa. It is interesting to see how the climate and land may have supported this relative in the very distant past, but saying mankind evolved from Europe is really reaching.
All humans descend from DNA haplogroups L0, L1, L2, L3, L4, L5 and L6.
Native Africans can be from any of those groups (L0 - L6), while ALL Europeans, Asians, Native Americans etc. descend from just L3. "Life" may have began in several places at once, but the human beings alive today all come from Africa.
This is something I don't understand. When I took Biology, they said that fertile offspring could only be produced by members of the same species. e.g, dog and cats don't produce fertile offspring. Horses and mules can breed and produce donkeys but donkeys aren't fertile.
So, by definition I suppose, the offspring of members of two species breeding together are evolutionary dead end.
But, they also say that modern humans, in Europe anyway, contain DNA from Neanderthals. So doesn't that mean Neanderthals are the same species as Homo Sapiens? Maybe they are a race, a race which has been absorbed as it were in the Homo Sapiens mainstream, of humans rather than a separate species?
I hate quoting myself, but it looks like some people here might be able to answer my questions: Were Neaderthals a different species of human or were they a race of humans? If the former, is breeding between species that results in viable and fertile offspring possible? I was taught it wasn't.
I hate quoting myself, but it looks like some people here might be able to answer my questions: Were Neaderthals a different species of human or were they a race of humans? If the former, is breeding between species that results in viable and fertile offspring possible? I was taught it wasn't.
Neanderthals were most likely a separate species, at best a subspecies, and no, races are not subspecies, and yes two separate species can create fertile hybrids so long as they are closely related and their chromosomes match up. A perfect example of this is the genesis of the new species, the eastern coyote. In fact "In 2016, a proposal was made to recognize the eastern coyote as a separate species, Canis oriens (Latin for eastern canid), due to its morphologic and genetic distinctiveness. Additionally, it has bred with other northeast coyotes across the majority of its range, without further hybridization with parent species, except for on the edges of this range. The range includes areas where the western coyote would find it difficult to survive. The designation Canis latrans × Canis lycaon × Canis lupus is unwieldy, with the scientific name of Canis oriens and the common name of coywolf being proposed as an alternative"
I hate quoting myself, but it looks like some people here might be able to answer my questions: Were Neaderthals a different species of human or were they a race of humans? If the former, is breeding between species that results in viable and fertile offspring possible? I was taught it wasn't.
Fertility really depends on genetic closeness of the two species. Wolf-Coyote hybrids and Polar Bear-Brown Bear hybrids are fertile despite being technically interspecies hybrids.
More distant hybrids like mules or lion-tiger hybrids are usually sterile, but not always, as there have been rare instances of the offspring of these unions being fertile.
And of course, truly distant types of animal such as canines and felines could not even mate let alone reproduce.
Humans have a very small % of Neanderthal DNA. Whether this is due to low interaction alone or also due in part to low fertility levels in the offspring is the question.
Humans are Homo sapiens. The preponderance of data suggests that Homo sapiens originated in Africa, so Afrocentrists and other insecure individuals can relax.
Proto-Human species may well have appeared elsewhere, and even earlier rodent like ancestors as well.
Who knows what chunk of primordial soup swamped crust of the earth our single celled ancestors developed on.
Neanderthals were most likely a separate species, at best a subspecies, and no, races are not subspecies, and yes two separate species can create fertile hybrids so long as they are closely related and their chromosomes match up. A perfect example of this is the genesis of the new species, the eastern coyote. In fact "In 2016, a proposal was made to recognize the eastern coyote as a separate species, Canis oriens (Latin for eastern canid), due to its morphologic and genetic distinctiveness. Additionally, it has bred with other northeast coyotes across the majority of its range, without further hybridization with parent species, except for on the edges of this range. The range includes areas where the western coyote would find it difficult to survive. The designation Canis latrans × Canis lycaon × Canis lupus is unwieldy, with the scientific name of Canis oriens and the common name of coywolf being proposed as an alternative"
Thanks. It seems to have gotten a bit more subjective than when I learned it. I forget if it was in genetics or evolutionary theory. On the other hand, most of biology is fuzzy around the edges.
As to where this is going, one of these researchers is from the University of Toronto and the the University of Tübingen. I think they are reputable universities. On the other hand the article quotes someone from Bulgarian Academy of Sciences, heretofore best known for its quidditch team.
Right. The evolutionary history of mankind is similar to archeology. Just as new discoveries through archeological excavations give us more knowledge of our historical past, and cause us to revise human history; so continual new discoveries will revise the history of the evolution of human beings. It's going to be a bumpy ride for racialists of all stripes (so to speak.)
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheArchitect
This discovery means nothing political. These places we call Africa and Europe are modern geo-cultural inventions. In the prehistoric past they were simply landmass A and landmass B. Best not to let contemporary psychological, ethno, religious nonsense trespass into the realm of archeological research.
Easier said than done in this age of global plantation identity politics.
There is an Oceanic/Eastern Asian/American (Aboriginal, I presume?) cluster (p. 546, figure 4, a) which is in the same manner as divergence from other populations as that between SOME African populations and other continental clusters, which could also suggest that the those of the Pacific Islands & adjacent coast of Asia could be the direct descendants of hypothetical "Adam & Eve". Some of the groups known as "negritos", Papuans & other groups seem to grade into Eastern African & South Asian populations (physical anthropologists like Irish & Brace also noted phenetic similarities).
Its probably more realistic to think of things in terms of gradients but due to historical events & politics, most seem to get their rocks off & jollies when it comes to racialism. Sigh.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AFP
Homo Sapiens Sapiens is estimated to have diverged from a common ancestor with Chimps 5.5 million YBP, that is what the best science currently indicates. It sound likes they found an interesting specimen of an evolutionary dead end.
The origin of the Hominid lineage as a whole is a different but related story to how homo sapiens specifically came to be.
Last edited by kovert; 05-27-2017 at 01:53 PM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
