Early Evolution called into question

[Quantum Windbag]

The ice ages started about 2.6 million years ago, so this does not pre-date most of the ice ages. And this does not pre-date our 'monkey' ancestors. It does not even predate Homo Erectus. And our 'monkey' ancestors never existed. We are related to the great apes, not monkeys. And diverged from them millions of years ago.

I suggest you do a bit of research before displaying such massive ignorance concerning the human line of evolution.

Hey --------

Did I say or CARE when the Ice Ages STARTED?? No I didn't.. I put 400,000 BCE into perspective. The LAST couple of the glacial periods being much milder than the previous ones..

That 200,000 yr difference is SIGNIFICANT. Because previous knowledge was based on Homo Erectus being the first early hominids to migrate from Africa to Northern Europe and Asia about 60Kyrs ago.. But BEFORE THAT happens -- about 200,000 BCE the first DISTINCT human species emerged from these indigenous species of the icy North..

Lemme clue into what the OP is about..

Discovery of Oldest DNA Scrambles Human Origins Picture

New tests on human bones hidden in a Spanish cave for some 400,000 years set a new record for the oldest human DNA sequence ever decoded—and may scramble the scientific picture of our early relatives.

Analysis of the bones challenges conventional thinking about the geographical spread of our ancient cousins, the early human species called Neanderthals and Denisovans. Until now, these sister families of early humans were thought to have resided in prehistoric Europe and Siberia, respectively. (See also: "The New Age of Exploration.")

But paleontologists write in a new study that the bones of what they thought were European Neanderthals appear genetically closer to the Siberian Denisovans, as shown by maternally inherited "mitochondrial" DNA found in a fossil thighbone uncovered at Spain's Sima de los Huesos cave.

"The fact that they show a mitochondrial genome sequence similar to that of Denisovans is irritating," says Matthias Meyer of Germany's Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology in Leipzig, lead author of the study, published Wednesday in Nature.

"Our results suggest that the evolutionary history of Neanderthals and Denisovans may be very complicated and possibly involved mixing between different archaic human groups," he said.


Neanderthals and Denisovans arose hundreds of thousands of years before modern-looking humans spread worldwide from Africa more than 60,000 years ago. The small traces of their genes now found in modern humans are signs of interbreeding among ancient human groups.

BEFORE modern-looking humans spread worldwide from Africa more than 60Kyrs ago.. Born from the Ice Ages --- not the plains of Africa..

Don't know what you are trying to prove here, other than your profound ignorance concerning the evolution of humans.

Homo Erectus Colonization in Europe - Pakefield Homo erectus in England

The Oldest Homo Erectus

The oldest known Homo erectus site outside of Africa is Dmanisi, in the Republic of Georgia, dated to approximately 1.6 million years ago. Gran Dolina in the Atapuerca valley of Spain includes evidence of Homo erectus at 780,000 years ago. But the earliest known Homo erectus site in England prior to the discoveries at Pakefield is Boxgrove, only 500,000 years old.

Homo sap came out of Africa, the Dennisovians and Neanderthals, apparently, from Europe. And none of these groups evolved far enough apart that they could not intermix. That evidence is in the genes of modern man. All that the DNA from those bones established is that the history of our present species is a bit more complex than we previously believed. Overturned nothing, but added very interesting details.

What about Sima hominins, asswipe? Didn't you rad the article?

 

[Smilodonfatalis]

But that is what the article says...It throws Evolution in doubt.

It was a sloppily written sub-title by a lazy journalist.

The Theory of Evolution wasn't even the topic of the article.

The article was about the possible genetic relationships between 3 different species of man.

You clearly don't even understand the article. There's nothing in the article that says scientists were 400,000 years off.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

But that is what the article says...It throws Evolution in doubt.

It was a sloppily written sub-title by a lazy journalist.

The Theory of Evolution wasn't even the topic of the article.

The article was about the possible genetic relationships between 3 different species of man.

You clearly don't even understand the article. There's nothing in the article that says scientists were 400,000 years off.

The new findings have essentially destroyed the theories about the early evolution of humans.

 

[flacaltenn]

OK --- I am confused.. More and more evidence of man's closest ancestors (Neanderthal, Denisovans, H. Erectus) living OUTSIDE OF AFRICA for longer and longer periods of time..

And evidence that there were MULTIPLE migrations out of Africa separated by potentially MILLIONS of years..
What did NatGeo mean when they said...

Neanderthals and Denisovans arose hundreds of thousands of years before modern-looking humans spread worldwide from Africa more than 60,000 years ago.

So what am I supposed to believe about a direct line of descendcy here? That multiple hominid species sprang from the apes --- migrated North into the glaciers by choice and interbred THERE?
Implying that for the last several million years --- mans' closest ancestors had very little contact with their simian ancestry and largely evolved outside of Africa?

Or the old fiction that MOST of man's development was accomplished alongside other primate lines on the plains of Africa?? Just like in the NatGeo TV presentations??

This always makes my head hurt --- because so much interpretation is based on so little fossil evidence. Help if you can...

 

[Smilodonfatalis]

But that is what the article says...It throws Evolution in doubt.

It was a sloppily written sub-title by a lazy journalist.

The Theory of Evolution wasn't even the topic of the article.

The article was about the possible genetic relationships between 3 different species of man.

You clearly don't even understand the article. There's nothing in the article that says scientists were 400,000 years off.

The new findings have essentially destroyed the theories about the early evolution of humans.

No it doesn't. The article is about the evolutionary relationships between humans during the middle Pleistocene (780,000 BP--300,000 BP). That is not the early evolution of humans. The early evolution of hominids occurred approximately 3 million years BP.

Here's a better article about the same findiing written by a journalist who actually seems to understand the science. Discovery of oldest-yet human DNA muddies family tree

 

[Smilodonfatalis]

OK --- I am confused.. More and more evidence of man's closest ancestors (Neanderthal, Denisovans, H. Erectus) living OUTSIDE OF AFRICA for longer and longer periods of time..

And evidence that there were MULTIPLE migrations out of Africa separated by potentially MILLIONS of years..
What did NatGeo mean when they said...

Neanderthals and Denisovans arose hundreds of thousands of years before modern-looking humans spread worldwide from Africa more than 60,000 years ago.

So what am I supposed to believe about a direct line of descendcy here? That multiple hominid species sprang from the apes --- migrated North into the glaciers by choice and interbred THERE?
Implying that for the last several million years --- mans' closest ancestors had very little contact with their simian ancestry and largely evolved outside of Africa?

Or the old fiction that MOST of man's development was accomplished alongside other primate lines on the plains of Africa?? Just like in the NatGeo TV presentations??

This always makes my head hurt --- because so much interpretation is based on so little fossil evidence. Help if you can...

It's thought that some Homo erectus migrated out of Africa about 1 million years ago. This is nothing new.

The population of Homo erectus that stayed in Africa evolved into Homo sapiens.

Some Homo sapiens migrated out of Africa about 60,000 years ago.

Homo neanderthalis and the Denisovans are thought to have evolved from Eurasian Homo erectus in 2 different geographic locations. Now it looks like these 2 species of humans interbred.

Homo sapiens also interbred with Homo neanderthalis.

Homo sapiens probably killed off most of the Neanderthals and Denisovans but also bred with some of them.

Simple enough for me to understand.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

It was a sloppily written sub-title by a lazy journalist.

The Theory of Evolution wasn't even the topic of the article.

The article was about the possible genetic relationships between 3 different species of man.

You clearly don't even understand the article. There's nothing in the article that says scientists were 400,000 years off.

The new findings have essentially destroyed the theories about the early evolution of humans.

No it doesn't. The article is about the evolutionary relationships between humans during the middle Pleistocene (780,000 BP--300,000 BP). That is not the early evolution of humans. The early evolution of hominids occurred approximately 3 million years BP.

Here's a better article about the same findiing written by a journalist who actually seems to understand the science. Discovery of oldest-yet human DNA muddies family tree

I actually read the original article before this thread was posted, thanks for trying to clear up the idiocy.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nature12788.html

Hominin DNA baffles experts : Nature News & Comment

My suggestion to you, and everyone else, is to stop getting science news from reporters and get it from the source. This raises a lot more questions than it answers. Pretending that you understand how it all fits into current theories just proves that you aren't any smarter than the reporters.

 

[flacaltenn]

The new findings have essentially destroyed the theories about the early evolution of humans.

No it doesn't. The article is about the evolutionary relationships between humans during the middle Pleistocene (780,000 BP--300,000 BP). That is not the early evolution of humans. The early evolution of hominids occurred approximately 3 million years BP.

Here's a better article about the same findiing written by a journalist who actually seems to understand the science. Discovery of oldest-yet human DNA muddies family tree

I actually read the original article before this thread was posted, thanks for trying to clear up the idiocy.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nature12788.html

Hominin DNA baffles experts : Nature News & Comment

My suggestion to you, and everyone else, is to stop getting science news from reporters and get it from the source. This raises a lot more questions than it answers. Pretending that you understand how it all fits into current theories just proves that you aren't any smarter than the reporters.

I can take a bunch of abuse pal.. But when you start comparing me to a reporter --- then we have a problem..

Thanks for the articles..

 

[Quantum Windbag]

No it doesn't. The article is about the evolutionary relationships between humans during the middle Pleistocene (780,000 BP--300,000 BP). That is not the early evolution of humans. The early evolution of hominids occurred approximately 3 million years BP.

Here's a better article about the same findiing written by a journalist who actually seems to understand the science. Discovery of oldest-yet human DNA muddies family tree

I actually read the original article before this thread was posted, thanks for trying to clear up the idiocy.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nature12788.html

Hominin DNA baffles experts : Nature News & Comment

My suggestion to you, and everyone else, is to stop getting science news from reporters and get it from the source. This raises a lot more questions than it answers. Pretending that you understand how it all fits into current theories just proves that you aren't any smarter than the reporters.

I can take a bunch of abuse pal.. But when you start comparing me to a reporter --- then we have a problem..

Thanks for the articles..

I should have been clearer, the people I am comparing to the reporters are the idiots that think a guy with a journalism degree, and no science training, are qualified to explain science.

 

[Smilodonfatalis]

The new findings have essentially destroyed the theories about the early evolution of humans.

No it doesn't. The article is about the evolutionary relationships between humans during the middle Pleistocene (780,000 BP--300,000 BP). That is not the early evolution of humans. The early evolution of hominids occurred approximately 3 million years BP.

Here's a better article about the same findiing written by a journalist who actually seems to understand the science. Discovery of oldest-yet human DNA muddies family tree

I actually read the original article before this thread was posted, thanks for trying to clear up the idiocy.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nature12788.html

Hominin DNA baffles experts : Nature News & Comment

My suggestion to you, and everyone else, is to stop getting science news from reporters and get it from the source. This raises a lot more questions than it answers. Pretending that you understand how it all fits into current theories just proves that you aren't any smarter than the reporters.

Your second link was written by a ...journalist.

Here is the abstract from your first link:

Excavations of a complex of caves in the Sierra de Atapuerca in northern Spain have unearthed hominin fossils that range in age from the early Pleistocene to the Holocene1. One of these sites, the ‘Sima de los Huesos’ (‘pit of bones’), has yielded the world’s largest assemblage of Middle Pleistocene hominin fossils2, 3, consisting of at least 28 individuals4 dated to over 300,000 years ago5. The skeletal remains share a number of morphological features with fossils classified as Homo heidelbergensis and also display distinct Neanderthal-derived traits6, 7, 8. Here we determine an almost complete mitochondrial genome sequence of a hominin from Sima de los Huesos and show that it is closely related to the lineage leading to mitochondrial genomes of Denisovans9, 10, an eastern Eurasian sister group to Neanderthals. Our results pave the way for DNA research on hominins from the Middle Pleistocene.

Nothing in the abstract from the actual scientific paper claims that early hominid evolution of called into question. It doesn't even discuss early hominid evolution.

In your response you completely failed to register my point which I shall repeat--The article is about the evolutionary relationships between humans during the middle Pleistocene (780,000 BP--300,000 BP). That is not the early evolution of humans. The early evolution of hominids occurred approximately 3 million years BP.

 

[jwoodie]

These Darwinian contortions remind me of Climate Change arguments: Even if the Earth gets colder, it will be due to Global Warming.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

No it doesn't. The article is about the evolutionary relationships between humans during the middle Pleistocene (780,000 BP--300,000 BP). That is not the early evolution of humans. The early evolution of hominids occurred approximately 3 million years BP.

Here's a better article about the same findiing written by a journalist who actually seems to understand the science. Discovery of oldest-yet human DNA muddies family tree

I actually read the original article before this thread was posted, thanks for trying to clear up the idiocy.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nature12788.html

Hominin DNA baffles experts : Nature News & Comment

My suggestion to you, and everyone else, is to stop getting science news from reporters and get it from the source. This raises a lot more questions than it answers. Pretending that you understand how it all fits into current theories just proves that you aren't any smarter than the reporters.

Your second link was written by a ...journalist.

Here is the abstract from your first link:

Excavations of a complex of caves in the Sierra de Atapuerca in northern Spain have unearthed hominin fossils that range in age from the early Pleistocene to the Holocene1. One of these sites, the ‘Sima de los Huesos’ (‘pit of bones’), has yielded the world’s largest assemblage of Middle Pleistocene hominin fossils2, 3, consisting of at least 28 individuals4 dated to over 300,000 years ago5. The skeletal remains share a number of morphological features with fossils classified as Homo heidelbergensis and also display distinct Neanderthal-derived traits6, 7, 8. Here we determine an almost complete mitochondrial genome sequence of a hominin from Sima de los Huesos and show that it is closely related to the lineage leading to mitochondrial genomes of Denisovans9, 10, an eastern Eurasian sister group to Neanderthals. Our results pave the way for DNA research on hominins from the Middle Pleistocene.

Nothing in the abstract from the actual scientific paper claims that early hominid evolution of called into question. It doesn't even discuss early hominid evolution.

In your response you completely failed to register my point which I shall repeat--The article is about the evolutionary relationships between humans during the middle Pleistocene (780,000 BP--300,000 BP). That is not the early evolution of humans. The early evolution of hominids occurred approximately 3 million years BP.

The second link was written by a microbiologists who works as a science journalist at a science journal, not a reporter at a daily paper who gets stuck with the science beat because he is too stupid to handle traffic.

Feel free to read the actual article, which is available at the first link. If you went past the synopsis you might learn you don't know everything. Then again, since you already have all the answers, nothing is going to change your mind. I already knew that before I posted.

 

[Smilodonfatalis]

I actually read the original article before this thread was posted, thanks for trying to clear up the idiocy.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nature12788.html

Hominin DNA baffles experts : Nature News & Comment

My suggestion to you, and everyone else, is to stop getting science news from reporters and get it from the source. This raises a lot more questions than it answers. Pretending that you understand how it all fits into current theories just proves that you aren't any smarter than the reporters.

Your second link was written by a ...journalist.

Here is the abstract from your first link:

Excavations of a complex of caves in the Sierra de Atapuerca in northern Spain have unearthed hominin fossils that range in age from the early Pleistocene to the Holocene1. One of these sites, the ‘Sima de los Huesos’ (‘pit of bones’), has yielded the world’s largest assemblage of Middle Pleistocene hominin fossils2, 3, consisting of at least 28 individuals4 dated to over 300,000 years ago5. The skeletal remains share a number of morphological features with fossils classified as Homo heidelbergensis and also display distinct Neanderthal-derived traits6, 7, 8. Here we determine an almost complete mitochondrial genome sequence of a hominin from Sima de los Huesos and show that it is closely related to the lineage leading to mitochondrial genomes of Denisovans9, 10, an eastern Eurasian sister group to Neanderthals. Our results pave the way for DNA research on hominins from the Middle Pleistocene.

Nothing in the abstract from the actual scientific paper claims that early hominid evolution of called into question. It doesn't even discuss early hominid evolution.

In your response you completely failed to register my point which I shall repeat--The article is about the evolutionary relationships between humans during the middle Pleistocene (780,000 BP--300,000 BP). That is not the early evolution of humans. The early evolution of hominids occurred approximately 3 million years BP.

The second link was written by a microbiologists who works as a science journalist at a science journal, not a reporter at a daily paper who gets stuck with the science beat because he is too stupid to handle traffic.

Feel free to read the actual article, which is available at the first link. If you went past the synopsis you might learn you don't know everything. Then again, since you already have all the answers, nothing is going to change your mind. I already knew that before I posted.

It costs $32 to read the full article in your first link. I'm pretty sure you didn't pay $32 to read it. Therefore, I have come to the conclusion that you are lying and have not read it yoursef.

There is nothing in the 2nd link that claims early hominid evolution has come into question.

And for the 3rd time, here is my point that you are failing to respond to--The article is about the evolutionary relationships between humans during the middle Pleistocene (780,000 BP--300,000 BP). That is not the early evolution of humans. The early evolution of hominids occurred approximately 3 million years BP.[/quote]

Time to simply admit that you are wrong.

 

[Smilodonfatalis]

These Darwinian contortions remind me of Climate Change arguments: Even if the Earth gets colder, it will be due to Global Warming.

What contortions?

You are full of shit.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Your second link was written by a ...journalist.

Here is the abstract from your first link:

Excavations of a complex of caves in the Sierra de Atapuerca in northern Spain have unearthed hominin fossils that range in age from the early Pleistocene to the Holocene1. One of these sites, the ‘Sima de los Huesos’ (‘pit of bones&#8217, has yielded the world’s largest assemblage of Middle Pleistocene hominin fossils2, 3, consisting of at least 28 individuals4 dated to over 300,000 years ago5. The skeletal remains share a number of morphological features with fossils classified as Homo heidelbergensis and also display distinct Neanderthal-derived traits6, 7, 8. Here we determine an almost complete mitochondrial genome sequence of a hominin from Sima de los Huesos and show that it is closely related to the lineage leading to mitochondrial genomes of Denisovans9, 10, an eastern Eurasian sister group to Neanderthals. Our results pave the way for DNA research on hominins from the Middle Pleistocene.

Nothing in the abstract from the actual scientific paper claims that early hominid evolution of called into question. It doesn't even discuss early hominid evolution.

In your response you completely failed to register my point which I shall repeat--The article is about the evolutionary relationships between humans during the middle Pleistocene (780,000 BP--300,000 BP). That is not the early evolution of humans. The early evolution of hominids occurred approximately 3 million years BP.

The second link was written by a microbiologists who works as a science journalist at a science journal, not a reporter at a daily paper who gets stuck with the science beat because he is too stupid to handle traffic.

Feel free to read the actual article, which is available at the first link. If you went past the synopsis you might learn you don't know everything. Then again, since you already have all the answers, nothing is going to change your mind. I already knew that before I posted.

It costs $32 to read the full article in your first link. I'm pretty sure you didn't pay $32 to read it. Therefore, I have come to the conclusion that you are lying and have not read it yoursef.

There is nothing in the 2nd link that claims early hominid evolution has come into question.

And for the 3rd time, here is my point that you are failing to respond to--The article is about the evolutionary relationships between humans during the middle Pleistocene (780,000 BP--300,000 BP). That is not the early evolution of humans. The early evolution of hominids occurred approximately 3 million years BP.

Time to simply admit that you are wrong.[/QUOTE]

It is free to read through the library at the local college. I am willing to bet a library in your area has a similar arrangement, you should look into it.

 

[rdean]

Evolution is thrown in doubt by the examination of bones that are 350 thousand years old?

Seems to me that the only theory being thrown into doubt is the one that says the earth is less than 10,000 years old. What theory says that? Oh yeah, Creationism.

350,000 > 10,000

Almost NO ONE believes the Earth is only 6000 plus years old. That is a red herring. Creationism does not say it. Some people that believe creationism make the claim based on the bible when God clearly said one could not establish a time line from said Book.

"Almost no one?"

How old do you think it is?

 

[rdean]

You don't need to finish a jigsaw puzzle to know what it's going to look like when it's done.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

You don't need to finish a jigsaw puzzle to know what it's going to look like when it's done.

That would depend on the puzzle, not everyone restricts themselves to the 500 piece puzzles.

 

[Smilodonfatalis]

The second link was written by a microbiologists who works as a science journalist at a science journal, not a reporter at a daily paper who gets stuck with the science beat because he is too stupid to handle traffic.

Feel free to read the actual article, which is available at the first link. If you went past the synopsis you might learn you don't know everything. Then again, since you already have all the answers, nothing is going to change your mind. I already knew that before I posted.

It costs $32 to read the full article in your first link. I'm pretty sure you didn't pay $32 to read it. Therefore, I have come to the conclusion that you are lying and have not read it yoursef.

There is nothing in the 2nd link that claims early hominid evolution has come into question.

And for the 3rd time, here is my point that you are failing to respond to--The article is about the evolutionary relationships between humans during the middle Pleistocene (780,000 BP--300,000 BP). That is not the early evolution of humans. The early evolution of hominids occurred approximately 3 million years BP.

Time to simply admit that you are wrong.

It is free to read through the library at the local college. I am willing to bet a library in your area has a similar arrangement, you should look into it.[/QUOTE]

I know for sure you are lying and have not read the article.

And once again, you failed to respond to my point.

Case closed! You are not knowledgeable enough about this subject to even comment on it.

 

[Old Rocks]

Hey --------

Did I say or CARE when the Ice Ages STARTED?? No I didn't.. I put 400,000 BCE into perspective. The LAST couple of the glacial periods being much milder than the previous ones..

That 200,000 yr difference is SIGNIFICANT. Because previous knowledge was based on Homo Erectus being the first early hominids to migrate from Africa to Northern Europe and Asia about 60Kyrs ago.. But BEFORE THAT happens -- about 200,000 BCE the first DISTINCT human species emerged from these indigenous species of the icy North..

Lemme clue into what the OP is about..

BEFORE modern-looking humans spread worldwide from Africa more than 60Kyrs ago.. Born from the Ice Ages --- not the plains of Africa..

Don't know what you are trying to prove here, other than your profound ignorance concerning the evolution of humans.

Homo Erectus Colonization in Europe - Pakefield Homo erectus in England

The Oldest Homo Erectus

The oldest known Homo erectus site outside of Africa is Dmanisi, in the Republic of Georgia, dated to approximately 1.6 million years ago. Gran Dolina in the Atapuerca valley of Spain includes evidence of Homo erectus at 780,000 years ago. But the earliest known Homo erectus site in England prior to the discoveries at Pakefield is Boxgrove, only 500,000 years old.

Homo sap came out of Africa, the Dennisovians and Neanderthals, apparently, from Europe. And none of these groups evolved far enough apart that they could not intermix. That evidence is in the genes of modern man. All that the DNA from those bones established is that the history of our present species is a bit more complex than we previously believed. Overturned nothing, but added very interesting details.

What about Sima hominins, asswipe? Didn't you rad the article?

Yes, I read the newspaper article, and was amused by the lack of knowledge displayed by the journalist that wrote that article. Here is a much better and informative article;

Hominin DNA baffles experts : Nature News & Comment

Nuclear DNA, by contrast, contains material from both parents (and all of their ancestors) and typically provides a more accurate overview of a population’s history. But this was not available from the femur.

With that caveat in mind, researchers interested in human evolution are scrambling to explain the surprising link, and everyone seems to have their own ideas.

Pääbo notes that previously published full nuclear genomes of Neanderthals and Denisovans suggest that the two had a common ancestor that lived up to 700,000 years ago. He suggests that the Sima de los Huesos hominins could represent a founder population that once lived all over Eurasia and gave rise to the two groups. Both may have then carried the mitochondrial sequence seen in the caves. But these mitochondrial lineages go extinct whenever a female does not give birth to a daughter, so the Neanderthals could have simply lost that sequence while it lived on in Denisovan women.

When dealing with complex scientific subjects, newspaper articles invariably get the details totally screwed up.