Denisovans

A single finger bone found in this Siberian cave led to an amazing discovery. Early humans and Neanderthals co-existed with another humanoid species called Denisovans. And many present-day humans carry genes that prove our ancestors had children with Denisovans, too.

Another humanoid species co-existed with early humans and Neanderthals

Any thoughts?

I was ready to snort derisively and say that you are jumping to conclusions. But with what i have gathered, this is a HUGE find!! What would be better is that they find more samples. But is this really a new species, or a offshoot of neanderthals/human?

dont you think its odd humans would hump just about anything

I do not think it is.

There are some crazy mofos out there

Cool find. Two of these

We also find Neanderthal DNA in humans...

www.huffingtonpost.com...

What is the possibility that domestication of animals occurred prior to homo-sapient spearing on Earth?

Could Humans be a Hybrid that eventually evolved the ability to reproduce?

Any thoughts?

reply to post by Kashai


I personally think that there are more ancestors such as the Denisovans and Neaderthals we have yet to find and I believe that each race is most likely a byproduct of hybridizing in one way or another from these Homo "lines" of ancestors.

They say that 2 different species can't produce viable offspring. Here's something to consider, A) Homo is a very unique species and B) nonviable offspring from hybridizing isn't necessarily fact in %100 of all life on earth.

Just my .02

I know you had to title the thread according to the link.

However... the article itself is contradicting itself.

The title says that they found another humanoid species. But then within the article you will find this:

So what makes the Denisovans and Neanderthals separate species from early humans anyway, given that all three groups co-habitated and had children together? Green said:

Answering that question – How much DNA divergence is necessary to call something a new species? – is a very difficult one. We know there was admixture between early modern humans and a population related to the Denisovans. We can see this in the genomes of individuals from Papua New Guinea, as described in the paper. Thus, from this perspective they were similar enough to successfully mate with our ancestors. The sad, frustrating truth, though is that there is no simple answer to how much divergence must be present to call something a different species or sub-species or variety or whatever.

Regardless of whether the Denisovans were another species, or just distant cousins, they are proof that humans have not always been alone among the primates. Within the last 50 thousand years, we shared the planet with other intelligent hominids who weren’t quite human.

If we want to know what humanity might look like 50 thousand years from now, after we’ve colonized space and spent millennia evolving in dramatically different environments, we should look back to the Denisovans’ humble cave in Siberia. There, three very different types of human beings met after a long time apart. And formed a community together.

So, I think you should note a few things.

They cannot agree that Neanderthals are actually a different species; neither can they agree that Denisovans are a different species. In fact, the very last two lines I quoted from that source are : "There, three very different types of human beings met after a long time apart. And formed a community together."

Okay.

Anyone who has looked into the genome at all knows that the genome differs among the races on the earth today. As well, we know that all the races have no problem mating with each other today! Is this any different? We are not different "species". We are all humans. We have different features. So they found a new race is what they found. Or so they think. They said that the Neanderthals appear in the Europe area and the Denisovans appear in the eastern areas.

I mean... I don't know, but when I take a look at europe, I see anglo features and when I look at asia I see mongolian features. Am I right?

Anyhow, I have a greater point here.

For all of you who think that proving changes in the DNA are proof of no God, you're just not even capable of having a good discussion anyway. You need more work.

But for those who are open to learning; you do realize that humans used to live close to 1000 years of age. I mean, imagine all the crazy growth and changes that would happen to the body. And remember how the earth was so drastically changed after the flood - such that Noah and his sons and then their descendants gradually stopped living quite as long but eventually a human's maximum life span decreased to around about 120 years of age. Imagine all the mutations that must have happened as a result of the great flood. Imagine the impact on the earth and the earth's ability to fight radiation. Imagine how the earth probably changed on its axis, developed a wobble, new weather and environments...

All the things that would change the way a human would grow and develop. The splitting of the land into the continents today... the completely different eco-systems that would eventually give rise to the different races of today.

I'm just saying. There is a lot that you evolutionists have chosen to avoid in the Bible that might actually help you to predict some of your discoveries. Why don't you take a stab at trying to make some connections and discerning things.

And what have you to lose regardless of your current bias? Is your time so valuable that you cannot spend time doing a little "crazy" research instead of incessantly posting the same arguments over and over and coming to no agreement because both sides believe they don't need to dive deeper to discern the reality around them; but you both ironically argue till you are blue in the face; wondering why the other side won't listen?

Here's some advice: if you're blue in the face, you're the one that needs to do the research.

I just got a funny picture in my mind of a couple of oompa-loompas debating with each other about some random nonsense. Haha.

Good day, Denisovans of ATS. I mean Denizens.

Originally posted by Kashai

A single finger bone found in this Siberian cave led to an amazing discovery. Early humans and Neanderthals co-existed with another humanoid species called Denisovans. And many present-day humans carry genes that prove our ancestors had children with Denisovans, too.

Another humanoid species co-existed with early humans and Neanderthals

Any thoughts?

Old news It is not surprising that a remote region (like Siberia) developed a hominid that was probably distinct from it's nearest neighbour on some level. I mean lets be honest the difference between Homo sapiens is small (genetically), the difference between Homo neanderthalus and Homo sapiens is also quite small. It appears that Denisovians (I am nopt sure they have been officially called Homo denisovianus or similar yet) are likewise genetically different on only a small level from neanderthals and sapiens. Hells the hobbit (Homo floresiensis) has yet to have it's sequence published (and it was living up to 12000 years ago!).

The fact that Melanesians are the carriers of Denisovian genome fragments, tells an interesting story of migration to me at least (I have a background with some genomics in it, so I get excited over this sort of thing).

Originally posted by SepticSceptic
I was ready to snort derisively and say that you are jumping to conclusions. But with what i have gathered, this is a HUGE find!! What would be better is that they find more samples. But is this really a new species, or a offshoot of neanderthals/human?

The analysis of the mitochondrial DNA (which you only get from your mother) suggests that neanderthals and denisovians shared a common ancestor, and neither came from the other. It's hard to tell with a single individuals finger bone however, hell we only know a little about Neanderthal genomes from what we have sequenced so far. Imagine if you sequenced the elephant man as your only example of Homo sapiens? It is like having a single partial skeleton for old school archaeology, its not a complete picture of a species.

This is an interesting topic, and one of the more interesting findings was , Did Sex with Neanderthals and Denisovians Shape Our Immune Systems?

Looking into the information out there currently about the Denisovians says there are some interesting research projects going on.

I can't help think of Mu, Lemuria and Atlantis in the echos of the talk about different humanoid species living with Homo Sapien Sapiens. Root Races and All!

More Research needs to be done for me to form a good opinion, but I find it very interesting for humanity.

Sexual contact between the various proto-humans could have resulted in a new species. Much like Horses and Donkeys, resulted in Mules. Homo-Sapient initially could have not have the ability to reproduce but, about 100 thousand years ago that could have changed.

I am suggesting of course that the effort to domesticate animals could have begun about a million or so years ago.

Homo-sapient being a result of that effort...

Any thoughts?

Originally posted by Kashai
Sexual contact between the various proto-humans could have resulted in a new species. Much like Horses and Donkeys, resulted in Mules. Homo-Sapient initially could have not have the ability to reproduce but, about 100 thousand years ago that could have changed.

I am suggesting of course that the effort to domesticate animals could have begun about a million or so years ago.

Homo-sapient being a result of that effort...

Any thoughts?

Perhaps, though not really. Most of us (including myself) consider those from Africa to be Homo sapiens (if you do not, kindly DIAF), they do not have Neanderthal or Denisovian genes. While everyone else seems to have a small percentage of DNA from Neanderthals and or Denisovians (for Melanesians). Remember the percentage of either of these hominids in our species has been detected at about 2 to 4% at most. Given the percentage differences inside our various ethnic groups are tiny, that is very tiny.

From the context of development humans appeared on Earth 250,000 years ago. Alternatively, evolution has no real explanation for macro-evolution.

Hybrids in general offer at the very least a rational conclusion that fits in with what we comprehend with respect to evolution.

Any thoughts?

Originally posted by Kashai
From the context of development humans appeared on Earth 250,000 years ago. Alternatively, evolution has no real explanation for macro-evolution.

Hybrids in general offer at the very least a rational conclusion that fits in with what we comprehend with respect to evolution.

Any thoughts?

edit on 27-8-2012 by Kashai because: modifed content

Through the study of Human population genetics we'e seen evidence of evolution. For example lactose tolerance, generally follows with the domestication of cattle. Hunter Gatherers as a whole are intolerant, and in nations that have cows (and sheep, goats, etc) intolerance is not the norm. It can thus be inferred that a selection for the tolerance of dairy occured, from a random mutation in an individual.

reply to post by Noinden


The necessities of survival prior to Homo-Sapient may have resulted in the development by proto-humans of domestication and even Farming,

Ergo, Humans could have developed as a result of Hybridization

Any thoughts?

Originally posted by Kashai
reply to post by Noinden

 

The necessities of survival prior to Homo-Sapient may have resulted in the development by proto-humans of domestication and even Farming,

Ergo, Humans could have developed as a result of Hybridization

Any thoughts?

Domestication and farming are very recent phenomena on an evolutionary timescale. Genetics and archaeology agree on this. Thus hybridization had nothing to do with it. You could not grow crops in the landscapes of Deniosvians and Neanderthals, nor herd. Hence you hunted, and gathered (if lucky). Farming requires a specific climate, and that is a recent thing. Note the lack of large glaciers on most land masses

reply to post by Noinden

The most puzzling fact of the DNA evidence is that the variability in molecular distance between dogs and wolves seems greater than the 10,000–20,000 years assigned to domestication. Yet the process and economics of domestication by humans only emerged later in this period in any case. Based upon the molecular clock studies conducted, it would seem that dogs separated from the wolf lineage approximately 100,000 years ago. While evidence for fossil dogs lessens considerably beyond 14,000 years ago and ending 33,000 years ago, there are fossils of wolf bones in association with early humans from well beyond 100,000 years ago.[31]

Ergo proto-humans could have had something to do with domestication.

Any thoughts?

Originally posted by Kashai
reply to post by Noinden

 

The most puzzling fact of the DNA evidence is that the variability in molecular distance between dogs and wolves seems greater than the 10,000–20,000 years assigned to domestication. Yet the process and economics of domestication by humans only emerged later in this period in any case. Based upon the molecular clock studies conducted, it would seem that dogs separated from the wolf lineage approximately 100,000 years ago. While evidence for fossil dogs lessens considerably beyond 14,000 years ago and ending 33,000 years ago, there are fossils of wolf bones in association with early humans from well beyond 100,000 years ago.[31]

Ergo proto-humans could have had something to do with domestication.

Any thoughts?

It still places it's self in the "human" (Homo sapien) time scale, it also does not take into account that another species was the intermediary between wolf, and domesticated dog. Dogs also would have been of use for hunter gatherers.

So yes it is unclear, remember Australian aboriginals have the dingo, and they did not tend to run herds of kangaroo, but do/did hunt them. So I will agree that domestication of canines predates agriculture.

reply to post by Kashai


Please use one of the ongoing threads already started on this topic.


New Type of Ancent Human Found – Descendants Live Today?
and here
Neanderthals and Denisovans Our Genetic Cousins

Thread closed

Sauron
Super-Moderator