Fossil of "unknown human type" unearthed

[I.Drink.Your.Milkshake]

http://news.uk.msn.com/world/articles.aspx?cp-documentid=155640795

Possibly giving some credence to those guys in the far east who think that asiatic humans descended from an alternate lineage?

Anyway, it's interesting.

[Manic Impressive]

Yeah I saw that on the news earlier, the BBC said that Europeans had traces of Neanderthal DNA like it was well known or something. when did they find that out or is it lies?

[Revy]

http://news.uk.msn.com/world/articles.aspx?cp-documentid=155640795

Possibly giving some credence to those guys in the far east who think that asiatic humans descended from an alternate lineage?

Anyway, it's interesting.

How could this possibly give credence to that idea?


It looks different from the teeth of modern humans and Neanderthals, and more closely resembles those of much older human ancestors such as Homo erectus.

They're stretching it by using the word "human", this is just a fossil of a potential newly discovered hominid species.

[Pavlov's House Party]

They're stretching it by using the word "human", this is just a fossil of a potential newly discovered hominid species.

I don't see how you can make that assumption; for humans to be able to successfully breed with another species* and produce fertile offspring they must be extremely closely related to us. If anything, the Denisovan hominid is likely an extinct subspecies of Homo Sapiens rather than a new species all together.

* "Species" is a very fluid concept as taxonomy makes us group different animals into rigid groups, regardless of their biological relationship to others.

[I.Drink.Your.Milkshake]

Yeah I saw that on the news earlier, the BBC said that Europeans had traces of Neanderthal DNA like it was well known or something. when did they find that out or is it lies?

Modern european humans have something like 5% DNA in common with neanderthal man.

[I.Drink.Your.Milkshake]

How could this possibly give credence to that idea?


Dunno I just said it without thinking, really. Give me a few weeks I might find some tenuous link, if i've the inclination. Dont wait on it though.

[Manic Impressive]

Modern european humans have something like 5% DNA in common with neanderthal man.
It was only a couple of years ago they were saying there was no evidence of that. Mind = Blown

[Jalapeno Enema]

I don't see how you can make that assumption; for humans to be able to successfully breed with another species* and produce fertile offspring they must be extremely closely related to us. If anything, the Denisovan hominid is likely an extinct subspecies of Homo Sapiens rather than a new species all together.

* "Species" is a very fluid concept as taxonomy makes us group different animals into rigid groups, regardless of their biological relationship to others.Correct me if I'm wrong, but I can't recall a single example of natural interspecific breeding that produces fertile offspring.

Mules/hinnies are the closest I can think of, but they're. . .well, mules (infertile)

[I.Drink.Your.Milkshake]

Mind = Blown


:lol: Yeah me too, totally!

[Dimentio]

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/science/biology_evolution/article6888874.ece

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Svante_P%C3%A4%C3%A4bo

Here's the articles you need.

[Pavlov's House Party]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I can't recall a single example of natural interspecific breeding that produces fertile offspring.

Mules/hinnies are the closest I can think of, but they're. . .well, mules (infertile)

That's why I said it is probably a subspecies. For example, dogs are a subspecies of wolves, yet they can breed and produce fertile offspring.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I can't recall a single example of natural interspecific breeding that produces fertile offspring.

Mules/hinnies are the closest I can think of, but they're. . .well, mules (infertile)

Off the top of my head I can think of a few canine hybrids which are fertile; eg. coywolf (canis latrans x canis lupus) and jackal dogs (canis lupus familiaris x canis aureus).

Although there is some question over whether or not coyotes and wolves are actually separate species because of the fertility of their offspring.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Classifying hominid remains will always be tricky and contraversial, for a number of reasons, including but not limited to:

1) Evolution just doesn't operate according to categories - the only reason we can sensibly have a classification system for living things is because the intermediaries are all dead and not around to inconvenience us.

2) Somewhat related to the above, humans as a species haven't been around long, and physically speaking we haven't diverged that greatly from our simian ancestors.

3) Small sample sizes. Fossilisation is a staggeringly rare occurrance compared to the amount of creatures that have actually lived, making it difficult to determine just how "typical" of a species a given specimen is. If fossilisation was a lot more common, I doubt that would help either, as we would be swamped with intermediaries.

As to the possibility of a seperate human lineage in Asia, it's entirely possible so I would not dismiss it out of hand. However, even if that turns out to be the case, I don't think it has any meaningful ideological consequences as the Neanderthals demonstrate - human migration and interbeeding has been going on long enough such that any racist hypotheses are scientifically invalid.

[Pavlov's House Party]

3) Small sample sizes. Fossilisation is a staggeringly rare occurrance compared to the amount of creatures that have actually lived, making it difficult to determine just how "typical" of a species a given specimen is. If fossilisation was a lot more common, I doubt that would help either, as we would be swamped with intermediaries.

Indeed, and to make it worse; in paleontology and anthropology whenever a new bone is discovered it is often hailed by its discoverer to belong to a new species in the scramble for tenure and recognition in their field.