Science Genetic tests reveal unknown ancient human population.

Way down, below the ocean...
 
Despite the title of the article, the much more interesting question is the identity of this different species of "human". I refer to them as a different species in the same sense as Neanderthals are a different species, though this is a controversial question. It would be great if we could find archaeological evidence of the physical makeup of this species and for the recently discovered Denisovans.
One of the coolest articles I ever read in archaeology was this one that described a time when there were different ancestors of modern humans existing at the same time, and the more recent time when modern humans and Neanderthals existed at the same time:

Once We Were Not Alone.
Scientific American, updated from January, 2000 issue.
2a5b11f.jpg

http://www.zo.utexas.edu/courses/kalthoff/bio301c/readings/04Tattersall.pdf

The question of whether these different cases of humans that existed at the same time as modern humans should be considered different species is a fascinating one. Certainly the physical differences with the Neanderthals would lead you to think of them as as a different species. But the fact we now know they were able to interbreed with modern humans complicates the question.
It might be likened to the difference between lions and tigers for examples. A common determining factor of different species is whether they can interbreed or not to produce fertile offspring. Lions and tigers can be made to interbreed but the offspring are usually infertile. Still some small number of female lion-tiger hybrids can reproduce.
Then it could be a similar scenario with these different types of humans. Usually when they interbred with modern humans the result was infertile. Still some small percentage of the female hybrids were fertile to continue that blood line.

Bob Clark
 
Last edited:
Pablo49 said:
Under the sea? (darling, it's better!)
Click to expand...

Atlanta was a city, landlocked, hundreds of miles from the area we now call the Atlantic Ocean. Yet so desperate the city's desire for tourism, that they moved offshore, becoming an island, and an even bigger delta hub. Until the city overdeveloped, and began to sink. Knowing their fate, the quality people ran away. Ted Turner, Hank Aaron, Jeff Foxworthy, the man who invented Coca Cola, the magician, and the other gods of our legends. Though gods they were - and also, Jane Fonda was there - the others chose to stay behind in their porches with their rifles, and in time evolved into mermaids, and sing and dance, and ring in the new...
 
“What it begins to suggest is that we’re looking at a ‘Lord of the Rings’-type world — that there were many hominid populations,” says Mark Thomas, an evolutionary geneticist at University College London.

Another nail in the coffin of creationism...
 
Last edited:
Ork DNA? :blink:
 
I refer to them as a different species in the same sense as Neanderthals are a different species
Click to expand...

Well, if they were capable of producing fertile offspring, wouldn't that make them the same species by the very definition of the word?
 
jedidia said:
Well, if they were capable of producing fertile offspring, wouldn't that make them the same species by the very definition of the word?
Click to expand...

Yes - according to the modern genetic definition. But there is no generally accepted definition of what a species is. If the genetic definition would become standard, our zoological databased would radically shrink, because many classic species are actually no species.
 
Urwumpe said:
Atlanta was a city, landlocked, hundreds of miles from the area we now call the Atlantic Ocean. Yet so desperate the city's desire for tourism, that they moved offshore, becoming an island, and an even bigger delta hub. Until the city overdeveloped, and began to sink. Knowing their fate, the quality people ran away. Ted Turner, Hank Aaron, Jeff Foxworthy, the man who invented Coca Cola, the magician, and the other gods of our legends. Though gods they were - and also, Jane Fonda was there - the others chose to stay behind in their porches with their rifles, and in time evolved into mermaids, and sing and dance, and ring in the new...
Click to expand...

As an Atlantan, I can confirm this as entirely true. :P
 
jedidia said:
Well, if they were capable of producing fertile offspring, wouldn't that make them the same species by the very definition of the word?
Click to expand...

Then the question is "How many subspecies of Homo sapiens are there?".

Homo sapiens sapiens
Homo sapiens neanderthalensis
...

Maybe Homo erectus and Homo sapiens would also be able to produce fertile offspring, who knows?
 
Maybe Homo erectus and Homo sapiens would also be able to produce fertile offspring, who knows?
Click to expand...

Well, for that matter, has anyone ever tried to... Never mind, that goes into basement territory :shifty:
 
Last edited:
jedidia said:
Well, for that matter, has anyone ever tried to... Never mind, that goes into basement territory :shifty:
Click to expand...

You can be sure, since we are talking about humanity:

YES!

Whatever you wanted to ask. :lol:
 
Urwumpe said:
Yes - according to the modern genetic definition. But there is no generally accepted definition of what a species is. If the genetic definition would become standard, our zoological databased would radically shrink, because many classic species are actually no species.
Click to expand...

Yes. I think most biologists would consider lions and tigers to be different species, even though in some rare man-made scenarios they can be interbred to produce fertile offspring.

Bob Clark

---------- Post added at 11:08 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:04 AM ----------
jedidia said:
Well, for that matter, has anyone ever tried to... Never mind, that goes into basement territory :shifty:
Click to expand...

Not sure you are thinking about this issue, but I am in favor of cloning the Neanderthal, admittedly a very controversial position.
Being able to communicate with another intelligent species would give us a clue about how this would work with regard to communicating with alien species.


Bob Clark
 
RGClark said:
Yes. I think most biologists would consider lions and tigers to be different species, even though in some rare man-made scenarios they can be interbred to produce fertile offspring.
Click to expand...

Offspring fertile with other lions and tigers but not with itself. I would say that's a difference.
Not fertile with itself because the male ones are always infertile.
 
interbred with a mystery species? i'm surprised no one has gone here yet but we might as well brace our selves for the impending hysteria: this is good leverage for the theory that ALIENS (yup) came to earth thousands of years ago and got freaky with the locals.

Any takers?
 
tomthenose said:
Any takers?
Click to expand...

Every day we discover new species living on this planet RIGHT NOW.
The probability of a species thousands of years old getting preserved is quite low (all homini fossils could be fit into your car, if you have one). The probability of a subspecies of the Homo sapiens (i.e. quite similar to another species) to be discovered is even lower since you usually don't find a whole skeleton but only pieces. And it's quite hard to tell from one bone if it's a sapiens sapiens, sapiens neanderthalensis or sapiens mysterius.
So we might have already found pieces of it but don't know about it.

The only way you could tell for sure if it was a subspecies, a different species, an alien etc. is take your TARDIS, end up in their times and get them to interbred. But you might get killed while doing that so watch out not to end up in a muddy place or you'll be found thousands of years later and produce a lot of confusion.

---------- Post added at 05:23 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:17 PM ----------

Or find the keyboard, type
trace(HomoSapiensSubspecies);
Click to expand...
find the output window and see what it says. Might be more than sapiens,neanderthalensis.

Or the Array isn't found, then you have a problem. Then the TARDIS might be easier.
 
so presumably in the future someone will invent a time machine, go into the past and do just that, thus creating this genetic diversity.
 
tomthenose said:
so presumably in the future someone will invent a time machine, go into the past and do just that, thus creating this genetic diversity.
Click to expand...

No because backwards time travel is highly unlikely from a current scientific POV.
Which would explain why no one visits the 2010s. Or we end up in a huge war so the period becomes really unpopular in the future.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Soheil_Esy
Science An incredibly fascinating map of the average human brain size worldwide
Replies
0
Views
2K
Soheil_Esy
Soheil_Esy
Soheil_Esy
Science Atmospheric Science
Replies
0
Views
6K
Soheil_Esy
Soheil_Esy
Back
Top