New Type of Ancient Human Found—Descendants Live Today?

But there are; they've been published and republished. Why ignore them?Jon

---

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

Jon,In a previous post you asked, "Are presently isolated peoples not human?".What I asked in return is if these presently isolated peoples have genetically diverged from other modern human to the extent seen in a comparison of Paleo-African, Neanderthal, and Denisovian populations.What I am getting at is that there had to be a genetic barrier between the paleo groups (be it geogrpahic or otherwise) in order to create the amount of divergence seen in these contemporaneous human populations. The isolation had to last longer than that seen for modern isolated human populations (which for Australian populations is 50,000 as a max) as demonstrated by the lower divergence of modern human populations compared to the higher divergence seen in paleo groups. This seems to argue strongly against a genetically continuous paleo-human population.Edited by Taq, : No reason given.Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

But that is simply not true. Modern humans have maintained their identity as a single species for thousands of generations (even if we just start the count at AMH) despite the rarity and sporadicness of super exoduses and mass migrationsgenetic flow is clearly sufficient, since it's been the primary method for maintaining a mostly singular human identity for at least 60,000 years or so.Along with this, no groups have been found to be isolated long enough to diverge into entirely new specieson-off periods of connectedness to the main population permits genetic flow, which either swamps out their novelties or spreads them to the population at large, in either case preventing speciation of such groups.Such an isolation is necessary for OOA. What would have permitted this?Jon

---

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

This was not so for Paleo-humans. The genetic data demonstrates that anatomically modern humans (Africans), Neanderthals, and Denisovians shared a common ancestor that existed ca. 350,000 years ago for the vast majority of the genomes. They were not a genetically continuous population. Yes, there are bits here and there which evidence limited outbreeding, but by and large the populations were separate for whatever reason. How does African DNA swamp out Siberian DNA through gene flow alone across those geographic distances? You would need intermediate populations, wouldn't you? African DNA would be diluted in each intermediate population which could not lead to the 95% African DNA found in ALL modern human populations EVERYWHERE.

Even if they show divergence, the present continuity of the genetic material of these ancient populations shows that the divergences weren't sufficient for speciation. That's all that's necessary for MH. My question was to point out that temporary isolation does not necessitate speciation. So long as any temporary periods of isolation do not produce speciation, then any such periods are not inconsistent with an MH model.MH does not require constant continuity.Jon

---

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

And so long as the inflow of African DNA is constant and large enough, that dilution is diminished over time. Hence why I pointed out apparent transitional skeletal evidence; these folk appear members of the 'diluted' generations.Jon

---

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

You also need gene flow between the non-migrating populations. This is falsified by the divergence seen in these paleo populations. It would seem to require some continuity for the last 350,000 years which, according to the evidence, did not happen between Africans, Neanderthals, and this Denisova species.

It would have to be humongous, as sfs has pointed out. It would have to be on the same scale as . . . well, as if the Africans migrated and settled in the area. The dilution is unavoidable as I have already pointed out. A paleo-human on the coast of the Pacific Ocean is much more likely to mate with someone also from the same coastal region as they are an African. This is true all the way to the intersection of Africa and the Arabian peninsula.

quote:

---

But there are; they've been published and republished. Why ignore them?

---

Which models do you mean? Every even moderately detailed demographic model of human genetic variation that I've seen has been based on some version of OoA.

Hi, Jon. Not true: humans have been moving around and migrating quite extensively. Again, I refer you to the Hyksos and the Jurchens and the Native Americans. These are groups of people that are famous for mass movements.And, there are migrations that are better documented than those: Celtic peoples used to live all across Europe. In the first few centuries AD, the Germanic peoples migrated across Europe from the North and displaced the Celts. A few hundred years later, the Slavic peoples also migrated into Eastern and Southern Europe from Siberia or Ukraine (there are competing theories). And, don't forget the Vikings.How about the Moors? They invaded Spain from northern Africa in the Middle Ages, and their descendants are still there.How about the Romani? They live all over Europe.In the 1700's and 1800's, the Russians expanded northward, eastward and westward, taking over Murmansk, Siberia and parts of the Baltic.That's just off the top of my head, and I'm not even a historian. If I were given time, I'm sure I could list dozens more large migration events like these.----- Speciation isn't really even an issue here: divergence has clearly happened, as evidenced by haplogroup distribution among different regional populations, and by the occasional observation that some races respond differently to medications, and by features like Coyote mentioned (the characteristic incisor shape of Asians). True, it's doubtful that regional populations of humans even warrant subspecies designation, but this is pretty immaterial to the whole point.

---

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

quote:

---

And, there are migrations that are better documented than those: Celtic peoples used to live all across Europe. In the first few centuries AD, the Germanic peoples migrated across Europe from the North and displaced the Celts. A few hundred years later, the Slavic peoples also migrated into Eastern and Southern Europe from Siberia or Ukraine (there are competing theories). And, don't forget the Vikings.

​

How about the Moors? They invaded Spain from northern Africa in the Middle Ages, and their descendants are still there.

​

How about the Romani? They live all over Europe.

​

In the 1700's and 1800's, the Russians expanded northward, eastward and westward, taking over Murmansk, Siberia and parts of the Baltic.

​

That's just off the top of my head, and I'm not even a historian. If I were given time, I'm sure I could list dozens more large migration events like these.

---

Add Huns, Mongols, Tatars, Magyars, Turks, Aryans in India, the Sea Peoples, the Polynesians and (one of the biggest) the Bantu speakers in Africa.

quote:

---

Speciation isn't really even an issue here: divergence has clearly happened, as evidenced by haplogroup distribution among different regional populations, and by the occasional observation that some races respond differently to medications, and by features like Coyote mentioned (the characteristic incisor shape of Asians). True, it's doubtful that regional populations of humans even warrant subspecies designation, but this is pretty immaterial to the whole point.

---

It's worth noting that the human population seems to have been much larger over the last 50,000 years or so than it was during the preceding lengthy period when the MR development was supposed to have been taking place. The recent period is also much shorter.

Is there any reason to believe such gene flow did not take place? And what sort of evidence leads you to conclude a divergence great enough for speciation? May I ask where you grabbed this number from and why you think this continuity of 350,000 years had to be seamless?Jon

---

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

I am not sure I understand the point you're trying to make. No one has ever denied the genetic dilution. And as the beneficial mutations spread through the peripheral populations, the number of genetically African based individuals would increase relative to the other members of the population, thus increasing the likelihood of an individual carrying African-based (sapiens) traits being mated with over another member of the population.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 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

HUH?Is it not possible to distinguish Neanderthal remains from Hss?

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!