Mysterious species buried their dead and carved symbols 100,000 years before humans

[Subduction Zone]

It tells the "why"

How so?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Thats a near 20 yr old link.

The reason...2017 link...

"After comparing the mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) with that of other archaic and modern humans, the researchers reached a startling conclusion: A female member of the lineage that gave rise to Homo sapiens in Africa mated with a Neandertal male more than 220,000 years ago—much earlier than other known encounters between the two groups. Her children spread her genetic legacy through the Neandertal lineage, and in time her African mtDNA completely replaced the ancestral Neandertal mtDNA."

Neandertals and modern humans started mating early

Ancient encounter completely replaced Neandertal mitochondrial DNA, German bone suggests

www.science.org

That's actually an interesting article, but I don't think it eliminates the evidence of evolving incompatibility between the two species prior to Neanderthal extinction that @Subduction Zone was pointing out. Still, as the news clip states, a startling conclusion if it has been corroborated subsequently.

 

[We Never Know]

How so?

Re-read my post

 

[We Never Know]

That's actually an interesting article, but I don't think it eliminates the evidence of evolving incompatibility between the two species prior to Neanderthal extinction that @Subduction Zone was pointing out. Still, as the news clip states, a startling conclusion if it has been corroborated subsequently.

My link was telling the why to his comment of..
"You may have Neanderthal genes, but you do not have Neanderthal mitochondria. No one has"

 

[Subduction Zone]

My link was telling the why to his comment of..
"You may have Neanderthal genes, but you do not have Neanderthal mitochondria. No one has"

But it doesn't. Since you refuse to answer I will point out what appears to be your error. I am betting that no one thinks that such an interbreeding happened only once.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

My link was telling the why to his comment of..
"You may have Neanderthal genes, but you do not have Neanderthal mitochondria. No one has"

He is telling why that may be too. It could be that hybridization was leading to sterility in the resulting male offspring. Even if the Neanderthal mtDNA had its origin in an early H. sapiens mating, the Hn-mtDNA is similar to Hs-mtDNA, not the same.

Your linked article explains why Hn-mtDNA looks so much like our own. His linked article explains how the difference reveals Hn-mtDNA didn't survive later mating between the two species with no Hn-mtDNA jumping back into our lineage. This would indicate an evolving incompatibility due to speciation. It could easily indicate that successful mating occurred only with male Neanderthal and female H. sapiens as well.

Keeping in mind that, given that I have only scanned the two articles and not read them fully or looked at other references, mine is a preliminary and very tentative conclusion at best.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

But it doesn't. Since you refuse to answer I will point out what appears to be your error. I am betting that no one thinks that such an interbreeding happened only once.

That's a good point and certainly a single mating between the two species is unlikely during the comingling of the two species during the more recent periods of the shared portions of our histories.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Since Svante Pääbo won the Nobel for his pioneering work in Neanderthal genetics, I predict we will see a growth spurt in the research on questions about the relationships of our two species. I expect a surge in the studies and data on this subject in the coming future. Then it will be a matter of finding ways to look at these same sorts of evidence much further back and in other hominin remains if possible. We could be on the cusp of a greater understanding of our own evolution with much greater resolution than ever.

 

[Subduction Zone]

He is telling why that may be too. It could be that hybridization was leading to sterility in the resulting male offspring. Even if the Neanderthal mtDNA had its origin in an early H. sapiens mating, the Hn-mtDNA is similar to Hs-mtDNA, not the same.

Your linked article explains why Hn-mtDNA looks so much like our own. His linked article explains how the difference reveals Hn-mtDNA didn't survive later mating between the two species with no Hn-mtDNA jumping back into our lineage. This would indicate an evolving incompatibility due to speciation. It could easily indicate that successful mating occurred only with male Neanderthal and female H. sapiens as well.

Keeping in mind that, given that I have only scanned the two articles and not read them fully or looked at other references, mine is a preliminary and very tentative conclusion at best.

Mine too actually. I would prefer to hear from some of the experts in the field.

 

[We Never Know]

Since Svante Pääbo won the Nobel for his pioneering work in Neanderthal genetics, I predict we will see a growth spurt in the research on questions about the relationships of our two species. I expect a surge in the studies and data on this subject in the coming future. Then it will be a matter of finding ways to look at these same sorts of evidence much further back and in other hominin remains if possible. We could be on the cusp of a greater understanding of our own evolution with much greater resolution than ever.

Pääbo Is putting a new twist to it. First paragraph of the link I provided.

"For almost a century, Neandertals were considered the ancestors of modern humans. But in a new plot twist in the unfolding mystery of how Neandertals were related to modern humans, it now seems that members of our lineage were among the ancestors of Neandertals. Researchers sequenced ancient DNA from the mitochondria—tiny energy factories inside cells—from a Neandertal who lived about 100,000 years ago in southwest Germany. They found that this DNA, which is inherited only from the mother, resembled that of early modern humans."

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Mine too actually. I would prefer to hear from some of the experts in the field.

There is a lot of new information on this and the volume looks to continue coming at a growing and fast pace. It is going to take time to sort it all out, but I'm leaning on continuing to see Neanderthals as a distinct species with a close history to our own.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Pääbo Is putting a new twist to it. First paragraph of the link I provided.

"For almost a century, Neandertals were considered the ancestors of modern humans. But in a new plot twist in the unfolding mystery of how Neandertals were related to modern humans, it now seems that members of our lineage were among the ancestors of Neandertals. Researchers sequenced ancient DNA from the mitochondria—tiny energy factories inside cells—from a Neandertal who lived about 100,000 years ago in southwest Germany. They found that this DNA, which is inherited only from the mother, resembled that of early modern humans."

It has been quite a while since it was thought that Neanderthals might be human ancestors. And you are possibly misinterpreting the article. The gene flow went in both directions. Neanderthals bred with some humans that remained with human population s and some humans and Neanderthals bred but the descendants lived with Neanderthal populations. The last that I heard it was still the Neanderthals that were though to have separated from Homo erectus first. They were "sister species" of ours. Neither of us were the main ancestors of either one.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Pääbo Is putting a new twist to it. First paragraph of the link I provided.

"For almost a century, Neandertals were considered the ancestors of modern humans. But in a new plot twist in the unfolding mystery of how Neandertals were related to modern humans, it now seems that members of our lineage were among the ancestors of Neandertals. Researchers sequenced ancient DNA from the mitochondria—tiny energy factories inside cells—from a Neandertal who lived about 100,000 years ago in southwest Germany. They found that this DNA, which is inherited only from the mother, resembled that of early modern humans."

We share a common ancestry, whether we are separate species or subspecies. This would indicate that divergence wasn't so complete 250,000 years ago that viable offspring of both sexes couldn't survive. This is demonstrated in evidence from specimens as recent as 100,000 years ago.

Pääbo is adding rocket fuel to the search for the evidence of human origins.

 

[Subduction Zone]

This source puts Neanderthals quite a bit before Homo sapiens. That does not mean that either of us were "more evolved". They merely split off from our common ancestors than we did:

From the vault: A primer on early human evolution

Human evolution is not a line of cartoons from a bent-over chimpanzee to a modern human, it's a complex business according to the experts.

cosmosmagazine.com

"Neanderthals were the first on the scene: the oldest remains put their emergence back at around half a million years ago. From their European homeland, they moved east as far as Siberia in Central Asia, but never crossed into Africa."

 

[John53]

I'm pretty sure all my direct male ancestors were fertile. I'm don't have proof or anything like that. It's not like I can name them all, but I feel pretty confident all the same.

You were a test tube wabbit.

 

[Subduction Zone]

We share a common ancestry, whether we are separate species or subspecies. This would indicate that divergence wasn't so complete 250,000 years ago that viable offspring of both sexes couldn't survive. This is demonstrated in evidence from specimens as recent as 100,000 years ago.

Pääbo is adding rocket fuel to the search for the evidence of human origins.

Dang it, now the more that I think about my reasoning may be faulty. The problem appears to be that children from Neanderthal females may not have survived.

I need a biologist!!

 

[Dan From Smithville]

It has been quite a while since it was thought that Neanderthals might be human ancestors. And you are possibly misinterpreting the article. The gene flow went in both directions. Neanderthals bred with some humans that remained with human population s and some humans and Neanderthals bred but the descendants lived with Neanderthal populations. The last that I heard it was still the Neanderthals that were though to have separated from Homo erectus first. They were "sister species" of ours. Neither of us were the main ancestors of either one.

What the article is indicating is that an early modern H. sapiens may be ancestral to H. neanderthal in part. This would explain the unexpected similarity, not exactness, of Neanderthal mtDNA to modern human mtDNA. I agree, we may end up being ancestral to later Neanderthals, but that would be only in part and then we scooped up genes from them along the way too. As you say, the gene flow wasn't one way and this flow varied over time, changing as we became less and less compatible. And I think it is worth saying that compatibility and incompatibility are not homogenous states through the entire populations of diverging groups. Some portions of each may have been more or less compatible than other portions.

This happens so quickly, but to add to what you are saying, Denisovans and Neanderthals share a common ancestry after that initial branching from the species ancestral to us all. This may have been H. erectus, but it could have been H. heidelbergensis. This is uncertain at this point.

Even as an entomologist, I find this all very fascinating. A bias I don't intend to see as a negative.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Dang it, now the more that I think about my reasoning may be faulty. The problem appears to be that children from Neanderthal females may not have survived.

I need a biologist!!

We need a bunch of primatologists and the Human Evolution Dancers to keep the shows ratings up.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

You were a test tube wabbit.

I don't remember, I was young then.

 

[Subduction Zone]

What the article is indicating is that an early modern H. sapiens may be ancestral to H. neanderthal in part. This would explain the unexpected similarity, not exactness, of Neanderthal mtDNA to modern human mtDNA. I agree, we may end up being ancestral to later Neanderthals, but that would be only in part and then we scooped up genes from them along the way too. As you say, the gene flow wasn't one way and this flow varied over time, changing as we became less and less compatible. And I think it is worth saying that compatibility and incompatibility are not homogenous states through the entire populations of diverging groups. Some portions of each may have been more or less compatible than other portions.

This happens so quickly, but to add to what you are saying, Denisovans and Neanderthals share a common ancestry after that initial branching from the species ancestral to us all. This may have been H. erectus, but it could have been H. heidelbergensis. This is uncertain at this point.

Even as an entomologist, I find this all very fascinating. A bias I don't intend to see as a negative.

That s more or less what I was saying. In the same sense Neanderthals are ancestral to us. But what appears to be the case is that they left Africa first. Our ancestors followed. They were the pioneers, the trendsetters. Some of our ancestors interbred with their ancestors when we first left Africa, but an article that I closed and may have lost indicates that later generations did not interbreed. I guess once the populations of humans were large enough we were more tribal.