Humans Interbred With Hominins on Multiple Occasions, Study Finds

Humans Interbred With Hominins on Multiple Occasions, Study Finds

The ancestors of modern humans interbred with Neanderthals and another extinct line of humans known as the Denisovans at least four times in the course of prehistory, according to an analysis of global genomes published on Thursday in the journal Science.

The interbreeding may have given modern humans genes that bolstered immunity to pathogens, the authors concluded.

“This is yet another genetic nail in the coffin of our over-simplistic models of human evolution,” said Carles Lalueza-Fox, a research scientist at the Institute of Evolutionary Biology in Barcelona who was not involved in the study.

The new study expands on a series of findings in recent years showing that the ancestors of modern humans once shared the planet with a surprising number of near relatives — lineages like the Neanderthals and Denisovans that became extinct tens of thousands of years ago.

I'd thought I would post this interesting find. I've always thought along these lines. Our genetic cousins and ours stories are about to get a bit more interesting.

Makes sense to me, variety is the spice of life. Also on a more down to earth view, I reckon back in the day our instincts were pretty free to express themselves as they arose. They still are also, but conditioning would not have meant much during some period on earth. Good to see you around Slayer and keep up the good work a reply to: SLAYER69

a reply to: SLAYER69

This doesn't surprise me at all. Honestly not trying to be flippant, but back then, there were probably only 2 rules. Screw it or kill it and eat it. If 2 groups met up and they looked enough like us, well, you know which one they did. Or, the 2 groups fought and whoever won, took the other's females and breed with them.

Maybe the hominids and Neanderthals are really misidentified humans

Just makes more sense if they were interbreeding
I know that upsets and makes the average scientists angry, but common sense

a reply to: SLAYER69

I do not find this surprising in the least bit. Any surprise might be that they could have viable offspring IMO... So, since they did, they were not that far removed from a common ancestor. Mankind really has not changed all that much as we have societies even today that the men relieve their sexual urges with such things as animals among other things..

There was an old story about a frogs intelligence that went something like this. If it is small and moves eat it... if it is the same size or bigger hop away or try and make tad poles. I guess our ancestors were not that far removed from frogs, No?

a reply to: DAVID64

Or, the 2 groups fought and whoever won, took the other's females and breed with them.

You're describing 'primitive' man? They still do that today.

a reply to: SLAYER69

Great post, Slayer.....Our hhistory is way.y.y.y.y.y.y....more complex than we know. Good thing people like you working to unravel the mystery.

a reply to: DAVID64

So you're implying they also practised cannibalism - I think you are trying to be flippant. Doesn't really make sense; those traits would tend towards human extinction. Its self evident that Man survived to prove your flippancy wrong.

a reply to: SLAYER69

Nothing new really - they've known for awhile that Neanderthals co existed with humans
But a nice reminder to quash the misconceptions most have of the Neanderthals


JUNE 16, 2009
listverse.com...

Once depicted as brutal, grunting, slouching sub-humans, Neanderthals are now known to have had brains as large as ours and their own distinct culture. They buried their dead, tended their sick and co-existed with our own ancestors in Europe for thousands of years before becoming extinct just as modern humans flourished and began to spread throughout the continent. This list looks at ten of the most persistent myths about Homo neanderthalensis.

Title

=> therefore "hominins" are indeed members of the human species.

Contemporary people born and living in the wilderness differ little in appearance from "hominins" and aren't a step closer to other species either.

If they're not too radioactive may be they've been alive millions of years ago.

a reply to: SLAYER69
Hey slayer,

Here is a graphic based on the study showing the proposed events, that I posted in your other thread on ancient Euro's

originally posted by: punkinworks10

originally posted by: peter vlar
a reply to: punkinworks10

The first wave out of Africa and into Western Eurasia? If I'm interpreting you correctly, I would agree that this is a likely answer.

Peter V.,
Have you seen this commentary on a recent paper, from Dienekes Blog?

The picture on the left[actually below] (source) shows quite nicely that according to current understanding, Africans are nested within Eurasian genetic variation. The modern humans have the following structure:

(Early modern human lineage detected as admixture in the Altai Neandertal, ((Asians, Europeans), Africans)),

and then there are two deeper layers of Eurasian hominins (Neandertal/Denisovans) and the "Mystery hominin" that mixed into Denisovans.

Africans are thus just a leaf of the Eurasian family tree, casting serious doubt -if this model is to be believed- to the position that H. sapiens originated in Africa and are descended from people who never left the continent. It seems much simpler to derive them from an early migration (~200kya?) from Asia which would nicely explain why the continent's first sapiens populations appear tentatively in the northeastern corner, and why they do not replace archaic hominins for most of the 200 thousand years until today. In a reversal of perspective it is not Skhul/Qafzeh that are the "migration that failed", but rather the Omo 1 outlier is.

Are living Africans nested within Eurasian genetic variation (?)

It's an interesting view point.

As to the language thing, there are some fascinating aspect about languages that can give us some insight into how ealry people got around.
I get into it a little later, its the first nice day in a week and the dog really wants a walk.

a reply to: punkinworks10

The most important thing about this study is that it shows Africans are nested within Eurasian genetic variation.

Seems to me this is a bit of splitting hairs. We define what constitutes "human," re-define it more narrowly, then say, "See? We mated with non-humans!" Then everyone jumps aboard and says stuff like, "We don't know half what we think we know." and off we go again criticizing ourselves and all the scientists of the past who did as best they could with the evidence and tools they had at the time. DNA analysis is still a relatively recent tool that was unavailable a few short years ago.

Neanderthal and Denisovan are ever-so-slightly different than Homo sapiens. In fact, there is still argument over whether Neanderthal should be classified as "Homo sapiens neanderthalis" compared to us as "Homo sapiens sapiens." In other words, a sub-species. Given the facts as presented, that Homo sapiens DID mate regularly with both Neanderthal and Denisovan, that's an argument for "same species." They are as "human" as we are, cousins that are perhaps a bit more remote than Aunt Suzie's kids, but well within the definition. It's not surprising that "we" mated with "them." We ARE them.

The thing is, all the recent discoveries--including and especially those based on DNA evidence, don't contradict the basic theme anthropologists laid down over a hundred years ago. They complement even the earliest findings. There is no "missing link." (Never was, either.) Recent studies fill in some gaps and show a more complex past that we were able to discern prior, but none of it is really contradictory in any meaningful sense.

a reply to: SLAYER69

Why should we be surprised if past hominids and homo sapiens enjoyed multiculturalism - we do today. In fact it would be more surprising if they hadn't.

The only thing that prohibits our accepting this interbreeding is the ideas we have culturally and religiously been brainwashed into accepting.

originally posted by: wisvol
Title

=> therefore "hominins" are indeed members of the human species.

Taxonomically, all members of the Genus Homo are considered humans. That does not mean all members of the genus are the same species however. Temporal or habitat isolation does not preclude intragenus fertility in any way. There are several examples of species which are separated by habitat that in a closed laboratory environment are still capable of fertile offspring. Their vastly differing ecological niche is what precludes them from mating with one another, not any sort of arbitrary barrier established by a conferring body. I find it amazing that so many people don't blink at the vast array of fauna that are different species of the same genus but as soon as you bring the Genus Homo into the mix all holy hell breaks loose and science is a sham forced down our throats by magical men in a high ivory tower.

Contemporary people born and living in the wilderness differ little in appearance from "hominins" and aren't a step closer to other species either.

But Neanderthal (and presumably Denisovans based on their genetic similarities to HN though it's impossible to say for certain as the amount of physical remains from H. Altaiensis are less than a bag of marbles) have distinct morphological and behavioral attributes as well as the temporal isolation of some 6-700 KA from HSS, that clearly distinguish them from HSS. And then when you add in the genetic data, they are different enough to be considered a different species. It was only climatic shifts that placed HSS into positions where they would encounter other members of our genus. There really is no comparison between what occurred in the mid Pleistocene and your example of random wild men.

If they're not too radioactive may be they've been alive millions of years ago.

The only thing radioactive is your aversion to learning about actual science because it conflicts with your young earth worldview.

a reply to: peter vlar

That does not mean all members of the genus are the same species however.

Species is defined by the ability to produce interfertile offspring, the rest is your inference.

I find it amazing that so many people don't blink at the vast array of fauna that are different species of the same genus but as soon as you bring the Genus Homo into the mix all holy hell breaks loose and science is a sham forced down our throats by magical men in a high ivory tower.

How does this relate to the post of mine you're responding to?
Science is very important, and drawing illogical conclusions from objective data isn't science even when you get a medal for it.

The only thing radioactive is your aversion to learning about actual science because it conflicts with your young earth worldview.

Thousands of years isn't what I'd say is young. That's not what radioactive means.

The real question for me was how did Denisovan DNA become so far reaching? One tiny bone found in Siberia lead us to finding their DNA showing up stronger there way out in the South Pacific than anywhere else that we are presently aware of, That's a pretty long haul by any stretch of the imagination. All in prehistory.

Does this indicate that Denisovan was a sailor?

We have found evidence that Neanderthals May Have Sailed the Mediterranean

Neanderthals, or even older Homo erectus("Upright Man") might have sailed around the Mediterranean, stopping at islands such as Crete and Cyprus, new evidence suggests. The evidence suggests that these hominid species had considerable seafaring and cognitive skills.

"They had to have had boats of some sort; unlikely they swam," said Alan Simmons, lead author of a study about the find in this week's Science. "Many of the islands had no land-bridges, thus they must have had the cognitive ability to both build boats and know how to navigate them."

It isn't too far of a stretch to imagine them island hoping, [Like their European Neanderthal or older Homo Erectus cousins had in the Med] finding a secluded South Pacific location, Ice melt off and sea level rise, they become isolated and then interbred with later waves of Homo Sapiens.

If this is more than just a theory this indicates that our Genetic cousins did in fact precede us at a time when sea levels were vastly lower than they are now which would have meant more land was exposed and the distance between island chains were shorter. I'd also like to see some DNA comparison of the oldest of Peru's elongated skulls.

Just a thought I've been toying with...

Did they even see a distinction between them and us? Maybe they just knew groups as "big heads" or "tall guys" or "muscle dark skins" or whatever. I doubt they knew we were different species or sub-species, just that this tribe had big strapping women and men and fancied a bit!