Ursus Posted June 19, 2011 Report Share Posted June 19, 2011 A long-studied archaeological site in a mountainous region between Europe and Asia was occupied by early humans as long as 1.85 million years ago, much earlier than the previous estimate of 1.7 million years ago, researchers report in Tuesday's edition of Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. Early human Homo erectus is known to have occupied the site at Dmanisi later. Discovering stone tools and materials from a much earlier date raises the possibility that Homo erectus evolved in Eurasia and might have migrated back to Africa, the researchers said Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
caesar novus Posted June 20, 2011 Report Share Posted June 20, 2011 (edited) Aha! I thought there were irrational assumptions in the common migration path explanation. Click thru some steps on the world migration map here and see if you think it looked a little gimmicky http://www.bradshawfoundation.com/journey/ The last interpretation I heard of DNA "breadcrumbs" left behind in migration paths left me with the idea that nothing proves that Africa was the origin; rather someplace on the arc from Africa to Australia could give the same DNA trail. I think the main issue to me was the Aussie aborigine DNA trail from Africa was entirely missing. Therefore between Africa and Australia there could be an origin that fed into Africa as well as Australia. It probably would be closer to Africa than Australia to account for missing fanout, and could be now submerged. Edited June 20, 2011 by caesar novus Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
caldrail Posted June 20, 2011 Report Share Posted June 20, 2011 According to the latest New Scientist which I browsed through this morning by sheer coincidence, it appears that african proto-humans interbred with homnid populations en-route. Proof that humans were never fussy about what they had sex with, but also an indicator that mankind is not a pure-blood strain, that local evolution produced similar species where conditions were compatible, and that our evolution was actually assisted by this interbreeding by the genetic inheritance of disease resistance. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tribunicus Potestus Posted September 29, 2011 Report Share Posted September 29, 2011 According to the latest New Scientist which I browsed through this morning by sheer coincidence, it appears that african proto-humans interbred with homnid populations en-route. Proof that humans were never fussy about what they had sex with, but also an indicator that mankind is not a pure-blood strain, that local evolution produced similar species where conditions were compatible, and that our evolution was actually assisted by this interbreeding by the genetic inheritance of disease resistance. If two individuals can interbreed then by definition they are the same species. My argument is not with the interbreeding which if it could have happened then it must have happened. But rather with the use of the term "species". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Melvadius Posted September 29, 2011 Report Share Posted September 29, 2011 If two individuals can interbreed then by definition they are the same species. My argument is not with the interbreeding which if it could have happened then it must have happened. But rather with the use of the term "species". Actually it doesn't; if you consider the fact that lions (Panthera leo) and tigers (Panthera tigris) can interbreed as can some of the variosu species/ subspecies of horses and donkeys all it actually means is that the individuals concerned are to some extent or otherwise interfertile even if such offspring may themselves usually be sterile. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tribunicus Potestus Posted September 29, 2011 Report Share Posted September 29, 2011 If two individuals can interbreed then by definition they are the same species. My argument is not with the interbreeding which if it could have happened then it must have happened. But rather with the use of the term "species". Actually it doesn't; if you consider the fact that lions (Panthera leo) and tigers (Panthera tigris) can interbreed as can some of the variosu species/ subspecies of horses and donkeys all it actually means is that the individuals concerned are to some extent or otherwise interfertile even if such offspring may themselves usually be sterile. Yes, I knew that but was too lazy to come back and fix that. Nonetheless we are speaking of fertile offspring if we want to speculate on differing groups of humans interbreeding and passing their genes down to us. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.