[_ Old Earth _] Is there proof we evolved from monkeys?

[Crying Rock]

Barbarian observes:

What is odd here, is that you are willing to accept the rather large number of evolutionary changes that would have to happen to the skull of H. ergaster to become modern human, but you are not willing to accept the relatively slight number of changes to the skull between H. erectus and H. ergaster. This is puzzling.

Crying Rock wrote:

I don’t understand?

Yep. Over time, there were rather great changes in H. erectus. Early ones were more like australopithecines. Late ones look a lot more like anatomically modern humans.

Reference?

Didn’t you just get through stating: “…relatively slight number of changes to the skull between H. erectus and H. ergaster…â€Â

Apparently we’re not communicating clearly to one another.

Crying Rock wrote:

In my mind, with the current data available, H. ergaster was pretty much H. erectus…
Most of anthropology literature depicts H. ergaster as “African H. Erectusâ€Â, with emphasis sometimes placed on early “African H. Erectusâ€Â. Whereas the European and Asian types are referred to H. erectus, even if early…

Barbarian wrote:

It was rather like early H. erectus, but with less robust face, and a relatively smaller brain, like that of very early H. erectus.

Crying rock wrote:

“…H. ergaster may be distinguished from H. erectus by its thinner skull bones and lack of an obvious sulcus. Derived features include reduced sexual dimorphism; a smaller, more orthognathic (straight jawed) face; a smaller dental arcade; and a larger (700 and 850 cm³) cranial capacity…

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Homo_ergaster2.jpg

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Homo_ergaster.jpg

“…Another notable characteristic of H. ergaster is that it was the first hominid to have the same body proportions (longer legs and shorter arms) as modern H. sapiens…â€Â

Ergaster:

http://anthropology.si.edu/HumanOrigins/ha/ER3733.html

http://anthropology.si.edu/HumanOrigins/ha/ER3883.html

http://anthropology.si.edu/HumanOrigins/ha/WT15k.html

Erectus:

http://anthropology.si.edu/HumanOrigins/ha/weid.html

http://anthropology.si.edu/HumanOrigins/ha/ng6.html

http://cache.daylife.com/imageserve/0d0 ... u/610x.jpg

Crying rock wrote:

As these populations spread across Europe, Asia, and Africa, selective pressures acted on the variation available in H. erectus, resulting in H. heidelbergensis, which is just a catchall for anything between Erectus and H.s.s./ H.s.n.

The Barbarian wrote:

No. The Mt. Carmel Neandertals were more like modern humans than later Neandertals, indicating that they are a related species, not ancestors.

Indicating who were related species and not ancestors? I’m trying to understand how your statement relates to my previous comment:

Crying rock wrote:

As these populations spread across Europe, Asia, and Africa, selective pressures acted on the variation available in H. erectus, resulting in H. heidelbergensis, which is just a catchall for anything between Erectus and H.s.s./ H.s.n.

Crying rock wrote:

It is well accepted that H. heidelbergensis is the ancestor to H.s.s./ H.s.n.

Crying rock wrote:

As noted, genetically and behaviorally, H.s.s. and H.s.n are indistinguishable.

The Barbarian wrote:

No, that's wrong, too. Genetically, neandertals are about half as distant from us as we are from chimpanzees:

Crying Rock wrote:

Take it up with Paabo:

"…The Neanderthals are so closely related to us that they fall into our [genetic] variation," Professor Paabo said yesterday. In other words, it would be difficult to distinguish Neanderthal DNA from the DNA of a modern European, Asian or African…â€Â

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/scien ... 08222.html

The Barbarian wrote:
“…However, these studies were based on analysis of mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA), genetic material that lies outside the nucleus of the cell. Although mtDNA tends to remain preserved longer than nuclear DNA, it provides limited biological information. The vast majority of the genome is comprised of nuclear DNA, which contains almost all of the genes.
“Nuclear DNA is where all the biology is,†said Noonan, a post-doctoral fellow in Rubin’s research group who holds joint appointments with Berkeley Lab and JGI. “If you want to understand how traits like language and cognition are encoded, you have to study nuclear DNA…â€Â
“…While a group led by co-author Pääbo is attempting to directly sequence the Neanderthal genome…â€Â

Crying Rock wrote:

"…The Neanderthals are so closely related to us that they fall into our [genetic] variation," Professor Paabo said yesterday. In other words, it would be difficult to distinguish Neanderthal DNA from the DNA of a modern European, Asian or African…â€Â

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/scien ... 08222.html

The Barbarian wrote:


On the other hand, we have an array of cultural differences:

Neandertals seem to have had no projectile weapons at all. Healed injuries to bones show the same pattern as those of rodeo cowboys, indicating that Neandertals took big game by closing in and stabbing.

Neandertals were remarkably conservative culturally. Their stone toolkit remained the same for a very long time, even as their anatomically modern contemporaries were making new tools in new styles. (I have been told that some "modern" stone tools were found in a Neandertal site, but that seems like the exception that proves the rule)

Neandertals seem to have made no representative art, although they did make beads of animal teeth, and so on.

Crying Rock wrote:

“…All of this has long been known and, to some extent, appreciated, but now there is a new possibility: that the Aurignacians, and indeed all people with EUP traditions, were not ‘Moderns’, but ‘Neanderthals’. In the final analysis the replacement advocates placed all their trust on the unassailability of the concept that the Aurignacian derives from their Moderns. They have for decades belaboured the cognitive sophistication evidenced by palaeoart and beads that could not possibly have anything to do with Neanderthals. If all this wonderful art were the work of Neanderthal descendents, the replacement model would be defeated on all counts: technology, culture, genetics and physical anthropology. So even if the retreating argument were to be now, perhaps the Aurignacians started out as a Neanderthaloid society, but by the time of Chauvet and Vogelherd (32 ka) their culture had become adopted by Moderns, that would still negate the integrity of the replacement model. If this ‘culture’ had been begun by Neanderthals, and then, half-way through, taken over by ‘culturally superior invading Moderns’, why should we assume the latter’s ‘superiority’? And at what specific point in time did the replacement occur?..â€Â

“…According to them, the people of the Aurignacian are ‘indistinguishable’ from us in terms of cognition, behaviour and cultural potential. Perhaps this is so, but what the evidence now shows is that the period from 45 to 28 ka BP has yielded dozens of Neanderthal remains in Europe, but no securely dated, unambiguous anatomically modern human remains. This point is reinforced by the occurrence of undisputed Neanderthal finds together with EUP lithic traditions at several sites, but no Modens have so far been found in clear association with Aurignacian or any other EUP artefacts. Therefore the proposition that the Aurignacian and other Aurignacoid or EUP industries are traditions of Neanderthals or of their descendants is supported by evidence, the proposition that it is the culture of invading ‘Moderns’ is not…â€Â

The Mythical Moderns
Robert G. Bednarik
J World Prehist
DOI 10.1007/s10963-008-9009-8

 

[Crying Rock]

The Barbarian wrote:

Neandertals seem to have made no representative art, although they did make beads of animal teeth, and so on.

They have for decades belaboured the cognitive sophistication evidenced by palaeoart and beads that could not possibly have anything to do with Neanderthals. If all this wonderful art were the work of Neanderthal descendents, the replacement model would be defeated on all counts: technology, culture, genetics and physical anthropology.

The Mythical Moderns
Robert G. Bednarik
J World Prehist
DOI 10.1007/s10963-008-9009-8

Aurignacian art:

http://uh.edu/engines/aurignacianlionman.jpg

“…"The Lion Man," found in the Hohlenstein-Stadel cave of Germany's Swabian Alb and dated at 32,000 years old, is associated with the Aurignacian culture and is the oldest known anthropomorphic animal figurine in the world…â€Â

http://www.spiegel.de/img/0,1020,898579,00.jpg

http://www.metmuseum.org/special/Genesi ... g_07.T.jpg

Mammoth-ivory image of a horse. Aurignacian, Vogelherd, Germany. Photo: Alexander Marshack.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v4 ... 3-f2.0.jpg

The Barbarian wrote:

Neandertals were remarkably conservative culturally. Their stone toolkit remained the same for a very long time, even as their anatomically modern contemporaries were making new tools in new styles. (I have been told that some "modern" stone tools were found in a Neandertal site, but that seems like the exception that proves the rule)

More than one:

Crying Rock wrote:

“…All of this has long been known and, to some extent, appreciated, but now there is a new possibility: that the Aurignacians, and indeed all people with EUP traditions, were not ‘Moderns’, but ‘Neanderthals’. In the final analysis the replacement advocates placed all their trust on the unassailability of the concept that the Aurignacian derives from their Moderns. They have for decades belaboured the cognitive sophistication evidenced by palaeoart and beads that could not possibly have anything to do with Neanderthals. If all this wonderful art were the work of Neanderthal descendents, the replacement model would be defeated on all counts: technology, culture, genetics and physical anthropology. So even if the retreating argument were to be now, perhaps the Aurignacians started out as a Neanderthaloid society, but by the time of Chauvet and Vogelherd (32 ka) their culture had become adopted by Moderns, that would still negate the integrity of the replacement model. If this ‘culture’ had been begun by Neanderthals, and then, half-way through, taken over by ‘culturally superior invading Moderns’, why should we assume the latter’s ‘superiority’? And at what specific point in time did the replacement occur?..â€Â

“…According to them, the people of the Aurignacian are ‘indistinguishable’ from us in terms of cognition, behaviour and cultural potential. Perhaps this is so, but what the evidence now shows is that the period from 45 to 28 ka BP has yielded dozens of Neanderthal remains in Europe, but no securely dated, unambiguous anatomically modern human remains. This point is reinforced by the occurrence of undisputed Neanderthal finds together with EUP lithic traditions at several sites, but no Moderns have so far been found in clear association with Aurignacian or any other EUP artefacts. Therefore the proposition that the Aurignacian and other Aurignacoid or EUP industries are traditions of Neanderthals or of their descendants is supported by evidence, the proposition that it is the culture of invading ‘Moderns’ is not…â€Â

The Mythical Moderns
Robert G. Bednarik
J World Prehist
DOI 10.1007/s10963-008-9009-8

Neanderthal bifacial points:

http://www.lda-lsa.de/typo3temp/pics/094fae3f36.jpg

http://www.spessartprojekt.de/spessart/ ... mensch.php

http://www.uf.phil.uni-erlangen.de/samm ... oehle.html

http://www.geo.de/GEO/kultur/veranstalt ... &pageview=

 

[Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
Yep. Over time, there were rather great changes in H. erectus. Early ones were more like australopithecines. Late ones look a lot more like anatomically modern humans.

Reference?

A New Body of Evidence Fleshes Out Homo erectus
Ann Gibbons
In this week's issue of Nature, an incredibly rare trunk and limb bones of early Homo erectus suggest that the species wasn't always as tall and brainy as previous fossils had led researchers to believe.
Science 21 September 2007:
Vol. 317. no. 5845, p. 1664
DOI: 10.1126/science.317.5845.1664

And this:
http://books.google.com/books?id=-UjiZw ... A1-PA31,M1

And this:

In addition, early H. erectus fossils are quite variable, and the more we look, the more we find contrasts with later hominins (the formal term for a species in the human lineage). For example, their rate of development was rapid and chimp-like, rather than slow and extended as in modern humans4. Also, brain size relative to body size in the earliest H. erectus fossils is not much different from that of many australopiths or H. habilis5. Finally, the earliest
non-African fossils of Homo from Dmanisi, Georgia, which are dated to 1.77 million years
ago, resemble H. erectus in many respects. But they are highly variable, and more in the size
range of H. habilis than of H. erectus6,7.
http://www.fas.harvard.edu/~skeleton/pdfs/2007b.pdf

Didn’t you just get through stating: “…relatively slight number of changes to the skull between H. erectus and H. ergaster…â€Â

Right. See above. H. ergaster is rather primitive in most respects, and quite similar to contemporary H. erectus. Later H. erectus is more like anatomically modern humans than H. ergaster.

Apparently we’re not communicating clearly to one another.

Does that help?

 

[Barbarian]

A modern human humerus from the early Aurignacian of Vogelherdhöhle (Stetten, Germany) = Humérus d'un homme moderne de l'Aurignacien ancien de Vogelherdhöhle (Stetten, Allemagne)
Auteur(s) / Author(s)
CHURCHILL S. E. (1) ; SMITH F. H. (2) ;
Affiliation(s) du ou des auteurs / Author(s) Affiliation(s)
(1) Department of Biological Anthropology and Anatomy, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina 27708, ETATS-UNIS
(2) Department of Anthropology, Northern Illinois University, DeKalb, Illinois 60115, ETATS-UNIS
Résumé / Abstract
Implicit in much of the discussion of the cultural and population biological dynamics of modern human origins in Europe is the assumption that the Aurignacian, from its very start, was made by fully modern humans. The veracity of this assumption has been challenged in recent years by the association of Neandertal skeletal remains with a possibly Aurignacian assemblage at Vindija Cave (Croatia) and the association of Neandertals with distinctly Upper Paleolithic (but non-Aurignacian) assemblages at Arcy-sur-Cure and St. Césaire (France). Ideally we need human fossil material that can be confidently assigned to the early Aurignacian to resolve this issue, yet in reality there is a paucity of well-provenanced human fossils from early Upper Paleolithic contexts. One specimen, a right humerus from the site of Vogelherd (Germany), has been argued, based on its size, robusticity, and muscularity, to possibly represent a Neandertal in an Aurignacian context. The morphological affinities of the Vogelherd humerus were explored by univariate and multivariate comparisons of humeral epiphyseal and diaphyseal shape and strength measures relative to humeri of Neandertals and Early Upper Paleolithic (later Aurignacian and Gravettian) modern humans. On the basis of diaphyseal cross-sectional geometry, deltoid tuberosity morphology, and distal epiphyseal morphology, the specimen falls clearly and consistently with European early modern humans and not with Neandertals. Along with the other Vogelherd human remains, the Vogelherd humerus represents an unequivocal association between the Aurignacian and modern human morphology in Europe.
Revue / Journal Title
American journal of physical anthropology ISSN 0002-9483

So that puts a rather hard edge on the argument.

 

[Barbarian]

Take it up with Paabo:

"…The Neanderthals are so closely related to us that they fall into our [genetic] variation," Professor Paabo said yesterday. In other words, it would be difficult to distinguish Neanderthal DNA from the DNA of a modern European, Asian or African…â€Â

Well, let's take a look...

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/mtDNA.html

I don't see how he gets his ideas. The data shows rather distinct ranges for humans and Neandertals. We're closer to them than we are to chimps, but they fall outside the normal range of human variation.

 

[Crying Rock]

A modern human humerus from the early Aurignacian of Vogelherdhöhle (Stetten, Germany) = Humérus d'un homme moderne de l'Aurignacien ancien de Vogelherdhöhle (Stetten, Allemagne)
Auteur(s) / Author(s)
CHURCHILL S. E. (1) ; SMITH F. H. (2) ;
Affiliation(s) du ou des auteurs / Author(s) Affiliation(s)
(1) Department of Biological Anthropology and Anatomy, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina 27708, ETATS-UNIS
(2) Department of Anthropology, Northern Illinois University, DeKalb, Illinois 60115, ETATS-UNIS
Résumé / Abstract
Implicit in much of the discussion of the cultural and population biological dynamics of modern human origins in Europe is the assumption that the Aurignacian, from its very start, was made by fully modern humans. The veracity of this assumption has been challenged in recent years by the association of Neandertal skeletal remains with a possibly Aurignacian assemblage at Vindija Cave (Croatia) and the association of Neandertals with distinctly Upper Paleolithic (but non-Aurignacian) assemblages at Arcy-sur-Cure and St. Césaire (France). Ideally we need human fossil material that can be confidently assigned to the early Aurignacian to resolve this issue, yet in reality there is a paucity of well-provenanced human fossils from early Upper Paleolithic contexts. One specimen, a right humerus from the site of Vogelherd (Germany), has been argued, based on its size, robusticity, and muscularity, to possibly represent a Neandertal in an Aurignacian context. The morphological affinities of the Vogelherd humerus were explored by univariate and multivariate comparisons of humeral epiphyseal and diaphyseal shape and strength measures relative to humeri of Neandertals and Early Upper Paleolithic (later Aurignacian and Gravettian) modern humans. On the basis of diaphyseal cross-sectional geometry, deltoid tuberosity morphology, and distal epiphyseal morphology, the specimen falls clearly and consistently with European early modern humans and not with Neandertals. Along with the other Vogelherd human remains, the Vogelherd humerus represents an unequivocal association between the Aurignacian and modern human morphology in Europe.
Revue / Journal Title
American journal of physical anthropology ISSN 0002-9483

So that puts a rather hard edge on the argument.

Crying Rock quoted:

The replacement model has also heavily depended on the anatomically modern
Vogelherd specimens to believe that the people of the Aurignacian, the first Upper
Palaeolithic ‘culture’, were in fact ‘Moderns’. This was particularly precipitate, because
anyone who has actually examined the Vogelherd skull (Stetten I: from Vogelherd cave,
near Stetten in the Swabian Jura, southwestern Germany) will have been struck by its
modern appearance, both anatomically and in terms of its preservation. More careful
commentators have long warned that ‘judging by its appearance it would fit much better
into a late phase of the Neolithic’ (Czarnetzki 1983, p. 231). Gieseler (1974) had expressed
similar concerns about Stetten II, a cranial fragment, and others also favoured an
attribution to the site’s Neolithic occupation. The placement of the Vogelherd individuals
in the Aurignacoid deposits always seemed incongruous, and yet Stetten I has long been
one of the replacement camp’s key exhibits. Its putative age of 32 ka now stands refuted by
its direct dating to the late Neolithic period (Conard et al. 2004), confirming the obvious:
that it is part of an intrusive burial. Direct carbon isotope determinations, of samples taken
from the mandible of Stetten 1, the cranium of Stetten 2, a humerus of Stetten 3 and a
vertebra of Stetten 4, all agree, falling between 3,980 ± 35 BP and 4,995 ± 35 BP. Contrary
to Churchill and Smith (2000), Bra¨uer (1989: 136) and numerous others, the Stetten
specimens tell us therefore absolutely nothing about the skeletal anatomy of the
‘Aurignacians’.

The Mythical Moderns
Robert G. Bednarik
J World Prehist
DOI 10.1007/s10963-008-9009-8

Conard, N. J., Grootes, P. M., & Smith, F. H. (2004). Unexpectedly recent dates for human remains from Vogelherd. Nature, 430, 198–201.

 

[Crying Rock]

Take it up with Paabo:

"…The Neanderthals are so closely related to us that they fall into our [genetic] variation," Professor Paabo said yesterday. In other words, it would be difficult to distinguish Neanderthal DNA from the DNA of a modern European, Asian or African…â€Â

Well, let's take a look...

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/mtDNA.html

I don't see how he gets his ideas. The data shows rather distinct ranges for humans and Neandertals. We're closer to them than we are to chimps, but they fall outside the normal range of human variation.

Note that Paabo refers to nDNA versus mtDNA.

 

[Barbarian]

Yes, but that doesn't help his case, since mitochondrial DNA for Neandertals is well beyond normal human variation.

No Evidence of Neandertal mtDNA Contribution to Early Modern Humans

David Serre1, André Langaney2,3, Mario Chech2, Maria Teschler-Nicola4, Maja Paunovic5‡, Philippe Mennecier2, Michael Hofreiter1, Göran Possnert6, Svante Pääbo1*

1 Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology, Leipzig, Germany, 2 Laboratoire d'Anthropologie Biologique, Musée de l'Homme, Paris, France, 3 Laboratoire de Génétique et Biométrie, Université de Genève, Genève, Switzerland, 4 Department of Anthropology, Natural History Museum, Vienna, Austria, 5 Institute of Quaternary Paleontology and Geology, Croatian Academy of Sciences and Arts, Zagreb, Croatia, 6 Ångström Laboratory, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden

The retrieval of mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) sequences from four Neandertal fossils from Germany, Russia, and Croatia has demonstrated that these individuals carried closely related mtDNAs that are not found among current humans. However, these results do not definitively resolve the question of a possible Neandertal contribution to the gene pool of modern humans since such a contribution might have been erased by genetic drift or by the continuous influx of modern human DNA into the Neandertal gene pool. A further concern is that if some Neandertals carried mtDNA sequences similar to contemporaneous humans, such sequences may be erroneously regarded as modern contaminations when retrieved from fossils. Here we address these issues by the analysis of 24 Neandertal and 40 early modern human remains. The biomolecular preservation of four Neandertals and of five early modern humans was good enough to suggest the preservation of DNA. All four Neandertals yielded mtDNA sequences similar to those previously determined from Neandertal individuals, whereas none of the five early modern humans contained such mtDNA sequences. In combination with current mtDNA data, this excludes any large genetic contribution by Neandertals to early modern humans, but does not rule out the possibility of a smaller contribution.

If there was regular interbreeding between the two species, one would see some evidence of it, in mt-DNA. There is some fossil evidence to suggest it happened now and then, but nothing conclusive.

 

[Crying Rock]

Yes, but that doesn't help his case, since mitochondrial DNA for Neandertals is well beyond normal human variation...If there was regular interbreeding between the two species, one would see some evidence of it, in mt-DNA. There is some fossil evidence to suggest it happened now and then, but nothing conclusive.

nDNA trumps. mtDNA only indicates maternal lineage. Think of it this way: Native American mtDNA Hg X2a is only found among indigenous Americans, well beyond normal human variation outside this hg. Does this make them less than modern human?

 

[Barbarian]

nDNA trumps. mtDNA only indicates maternal lineage.

Seems a bit odd to argue that the only interchange was male Cro-Magnons to female Neandertals.

Think of it this way: Native American mtDNA Hg X2a is only found among indigenous Americans, well beyond normal human variation outside this hg. Does this make them less than modern human?

I suspect you're making a joke here. Are you really arguing that the mtDNA of Native Americans is as different from other anatomically modern humans as that of Neandertals? If so, you've been badly misled.

Their mtDNA, for example, is closer to that of Siberian tribes than either is to Africans. Compare that to Neandertals, whose mtDNA is far out of the normal range for modern humans.

Am J Hum Genet (1993) 53: 591-608.
mtDNA variation of aboriginal Siberians reveals distinct genetic affinities with Native Am
A Torroni, RI Sukernik, TG Schurr, YB Starikorskaya, MF Cabell, MH Crawford, AG Comuzzie, DC Wallace
The mtDNA variation of 411 individuals from 10 aboriginal Siberian populations was analyzed in an effort to delineate the relationships between Siberian and Native American populations. All mtDNAs were characterized by PCR amplification and restriction analysis, and a subset of them was characterized by control region sequencing. The resulting data were then compiled with previous mtDNA data from Native Americans and Asians and were used for phylogenetic analyses and sequence divergence estimations. Aboriginal Siberian populations exhibited mtDNAs from three (A, C, and D) of the four haplogroups observed in Native Americans. However, none of the Siberian populations showed mtDNAs from the fourth haplogroup, group B. The presence of group B deletion haplotypes in East Asian and Native American populations but their absence in Siberians raises the possibility that haplogroup B could represent a migratory event distinct from the one(s) which brought group A, C, and D mtDNAs to the Americas. Our findings support the hypothesis that the first humans to move from Siberia to the Americas carried with them a limited number of founding mtDNAs and that the initial migration occurred between 17,000-34,000 years before present.

 

[Crying Rock]

Crying Rock wrote:

nDNA trumps. mtDNA only indicates maternal lineage.

The Barbarian wrote:

Seems a bit odd to argue that the only interchange was male Cro-Magnons to female Neandertals.

Crying Rock wrote:

That's one possibility. Another possibility is both male and female H.s.n had nDNA

indistinguishable from H.s.s. H.s.s. and H.s.n. were separated for ca. 200kya. I may be

mistaken, but I recall reading that mtDNA mutates at a higher rate than nDNA. That's what

makes it a great tool for tracking human migrations.

Crying Rock wrote:

Think of it this way: Native American mtDNA Hg X2a is only found among indigenous Americans,

well beyond normal human variation outside this hg. Does this make them less than modern

human?

The Barbarian wrote:

I suspect you're making a joke here. Are you really arguing that the mtDNA of Native Americans

is as different from other anatomically modern humans as that of Neandertals?

Crying Rock wrote:

No, you're missing the point: mtDNA Hg X2a, for example, is much more distinguishable from

other populations than the nDNA for the two populations. mtDNA mutates at a much faster

rate. This may be the reason why H.s.n. mtDNA is distinguishable from extant H.s.s. mtDNA but

H.s.n. nDNA is not.

 

[Barbarian]

No, you're missing the point: mtDNA Hg X2a, for example, is much more distinguishable from
other populations than the nDNA for the two populations.

What you did, was suggest an equivalent case between indigenous Americans and Neandertals. And one point of difference is not the same thing as having a huge amount of difference in many genes.

mtDNA mutates at a much faster rate. This may be the reason why H.s.n. mtDNA is distinguishable from extant H.s.s. mtDNA but H.s.n. nDNA is not.

In fact, your own sources say it is. Otherwise, there wouldn't be any differences at all. And the differences, although a fraction of the differences between modern humans and chimpanzees, are still there.

 

[Crying Rock]

Crying Rock wrote:

No, you're missing the point: mtDNA Hg X2a, for example, is much more distinguishable from other populations than the nDNA for the two populations.

The Barbarian wrote:

What you did, was suggest an equivalent case between indigenous Americans and Neandertals. And one point of difference is not the same thing as having a huge amount of difference in many genes.

Crying Rock wrote:

I'm not following you. What's the longest amount of time H.s.s. populations have
been separated. How long were H.s.n and H.s.s. populations separated? One would
expect the longer the separation time, the more mutational differences between
populations, especially with the relatively fast mutating mtDNA What are the largest
mtDNA mutational differences between extant H.s.s populations? What is the
smallest difference between extant H.s.s. mtDNA and H.s.n. mtDNA. Is this a "huge
amount of difference"? How many H.s.n. mtDNA have been sequenced? How many
H.s.s mtDNA have been sequenced?

Crying Rock wrote:

mtDNA mutates at a much faster rate. This may be the reason why H.s.n. mtDNA is distinguishable from extant H.s.s. mtDNA but H.s.n. nDNA is not.

The Barbarian wrote:

In fact, your own sources say it is. Otherwise, there wouldn't be any differences at all. And the differences, although a fraction of the differences between modern humans and chimpanzees, are still there.

Crying Rock wrote:

Yes, H.s.n. mtDNA is distinguishable from extant H.s.s. mtDNA, just like Native American mtDNA is distinguishable from Native African mtDNA. Here's the big question, though: what determines if an individual is modern human or not: mtDNA or nDNA?

 

[Barbarian]

Yes, H.s.n. mtDNA is distinguishable from extant H.s.s. mtDNA, just like Native American mtDNA is distinguishable from Native African mtDNA.

You're saying Native American mtDNA is completely outside the normal range of African mtDNA? Really? If not, it's not "just like" Neandertal/Modern Human mtDNA, is it?

Here's the big question, though: what determines if an individual is modern human or not: mtDNA or nDNA?

Both are important clues. And they are both different, albeit not as different as that of chimpanzees.

 

[Crying Rock]

Study this for a bit, and I'll be back with you this evening...kids' soccer, parties, etc...

http://www.mitomap.org/mitomap-phylogeny.pdf

In this chart, at what number of mutational differences does mtDNA indicate anything other than modern human?

 

[Crying Rock]

Quick hit here, and then back to my taxi driver duties. ;)

Crying Rock wrote:

Yes, H.s.n. mtDNA is distinguishable from extant H.s.s. mtDNA, just like Native American mtDNA is distinguishable from Native African mtDNA.

The Barbarian wrote:

You're saying Native American mtDNA is completely outside the normal range of African mtDNA? Really? If not, it's not "just like" Neandertal/Modern Human mtDNA, is it?

Crying Rock wrote:

Yes, Native American mtDNA is completely outside the normal range of Native African mtDNA.

 

[Barbarian]

I'm sure we'd like to see your data. With a checkable source.

 

[Crying Rock]

I'm sure we'd like to see your data. With a checkable source.

Apparently you didn't bother to study the peer-reviewed data I provided:

http://www.mitomap.org/mitomap-phylogeny.pdf

In this chart, at what number of mutational differences does mtDNA indicate anything other than modern human?

http://www.mitomap.org/

 

[Barbarian]

The link seems to indicate that all human populations overlap considerably in m-DNA, unlike modern humans and Neandertals. And I'm wondering if you're thinking of copy number, not differences in genes. I ask this, because there are huge differences in copy number in human n-DNA.

And yet...

Firstly, by estimating the rate at which mutations occur in mtDNA Cann et al. were able to estimate the age of the common ancestral mtDNA type: "the common ancestral mtDNA (type a) links mtDNA types that have diverged by an average of nearly 0.57%. Assuming a rate of 2%-4% per million years, this implies that the common ancestor of all surviving mtDNA types existed 140,000-290,000 years ago." This observation is robust, and this common direct female line ancestor (or mitochondrial most recent common ancestor (mtMRCA)) of all extant humans has become known as mitochondrial eve. The observation that the mtMRCA is the direct matrilineal ancestor of all living humans should not be interpreted as meaning that either she was the first anatomically modern human, nor that there were no other female humans living concurrently with her. A more reasonable explanation is that other women who lived at the same time as mtMRCA did indeed reproduce and pass their genes down to living humans, but that their mitochondrial lineages have been lost over time, probably due to random events such as producing only male children. It is impossible to know to what extent these non-extant lineages have been lost or how much they differed from the mtDNA of our mtMRCA. Cann et al.
http://www.statemaster.com/encyclopedia ... man-beings)#Molecular_genetics:_lineages_and_clusters

This seems to indicate a very small variation between groups with regard to m-DNA.

Can you explain this?

 

[Crying Rock]

Thje Barbarian wrote:

This seems to indicate a very small variation between groups with regard to m-DNA.

Can you explain this?

This chart of all extant mtDNA hgs does not seem to indicate a very small variation between all extant mtDNA hgs:

http://www.mitomap.org/mitomap-phylogeny.pdf

The virtue of much variation makes mtDNA ideal for tracking human migrations over time. Because there are so many different mutations between populations it's easy to tell if a particular hg had it's origin in Asia, Europe, Africa, the Americas, Australia, etc...If there weren't so much variation, mtDNA would not make a great tool for tracking human migrations.

The Barbarian quoted:

A more reasonable explanation is that other women who lived at the same time as mtMRCA did indeed reproduce and pass their genes down to living humans, but that their mitochondrial lineages have been lost over time, probably due to random events such as producing only male children. It is impossible to know to what extent these non-extant lineages have been lost or how much they differed from the mtDNA of our mtMRCA.

Like H.s.n.?