23 replies to this topic

[taiwan]

Until DNA is extracted and analyzed, everything we say about this Red Deer species is purely speculation. The truth is we do NOT know what was really going on in Southeast Asia. Any expert in paleoanthropology who claim to know everything is full of it, let alone people like me who are not experts in this subject.

The picture in Southeast Asia is extremely complicated. In addition to what we have in Red Deer Cave, I summarized 4 other key info that will show you how muddy the picture really is.
(1) We have homo erectus surviving as recent as 27,000 years ago in Java. Did homo sapiens interbred with them?
(2) We have homo floresiensis that survived as recent as 12,000 years ago in Indoesia, although I believe along with few other people that these are dwarf homo erectus so this could be lumped into previous bullet.
(3) We also have Denisova species leaving genes in Southeast Asia. Why do I say that when the fossil was found in Russia? 4% and 6% of the genome of Melanesians (represented by the Papua New Guinean and Bougainville Islander) derives from a Denisovan population. Also Australian Aborigines and a small (but not all) population of Negritos also have Denisovan genes. I don't understand why Denisovan genes aren't found elsewhere.
(4) We also have DNA from Lake Mungo Australia that turned out to be extinct subspecies of homo sapien. I don't understand why this is being ignored. I understand the result is being disputed. We don't have data such as when this species diverged with our common ancestor and a re-test seems to be in conflict with local custom. We have genome map from Neanderthal and Denisovan, I'd love to see Mungo man revisited and find out what's in those DNA.

[Stardrive]

taiwan, on 16 March 2012 - 03:53 PM, said:

(4) We also have DNA from Lake Mungo Australia that turned out to be extinct subspecies of homo sapien. I don't understand why this is being ignored. I understand the result is being disputed. We don't have data such as when this species diverged with our common ancestor and a re-test seems to be in conflict with local custom. We have genome map from Neanderthal and Denisovan, I'd love to see Mungo man revisited and find out what's in those DNA.

A tangled web mankind did weave. We're all hybrids! So be it.  

This is interesting about the Australian find because to my knowledge there isn't much in the Australian fossil record on primates or hominids.... that we've found as of yet. With Indonesia and the Australian continent being connected during the last ice age I'm surprised there aren't more primate or hominid fossils found in Australia.

I'm sure the book on mankinds timeline will be re-written many times, before the dust settles, as we discover more about the extent of hominid species radiation. They may have come out of Africa, but something happened in Asia.....

[taiwan]

Stardrive, on 16 March 2012 - 05:02 PM, said:

This is interesting about the Australian find because to my knowledge there isn't much in the Australian fossil record on primates or hominids.... that we've found as of yet. With Indonesia and the Australian continent being connected during the last ice age I'm surprised there aren't more primate or hominid fossils found in Australia.

If you google Lake Mungo DNA you should be able to find many articles. The fossils found were the oldest anatomically modern human in Australia. The test is obstructed by the local custom. I wish they preserve the remain in a fridge if there is future study on the fossil. The DNA is way too valuable to be lost because local aborigines claim rights to it. The DNA analysis showed they aren't even related. But this DNA analysis is being disputed and only a re-test can settle the matter, if the aborigines allow the bones to be tested again.

As I mentioned, condition in Australia is not ideal to preserve DNA. DNA can last up to 100,000 years under perfect condition. But hot and humid environment can degrade it pretty rapidly, completely destroying DNA in few hundred years. The same goes for animal remains. Humidity play the most important part. We're able to find mummified human remains in Gobi deserts because desert is very dry. But in tropical jungle everything decays pretty rapidly, as an extreme example. When we found homo floresiensis, the skulls were in semi-liquid state. Consider that finding to be pure luck. What they did with the liquified remain is what I disagreed with. You can always find more skulls of that species (which they did), but you may never get another crack at extracting DNA if you have a chance to do it.

Being one of the last places homo sapien settled, some ancient hominin may survive there much longer than the rest part of the world. It's still quite possible something will show up in the future. But we may have to fight with the aborigines who present the biggest obstacle to paleoanthropology in Australia. Maybe that's the answer to your question.

Let's hope the Red Deer Cave provided some protection to the fossil. It would be a major break if DNA can be extracted.

[DONTEATUS]

This is great ! Homo-Sweet-n-Souracus !

[Fruitbat]

I often find the simplest explanation is most likely to be correct.

I propose that the new Red Deer people actually ARE the Denisovans, who have only been identified as separate from DNA in finger bones. Skulls and other bones for Denisovans have not yet been found and confirmed, and these are the only known hominids from this period that are known without good fossil remains.

In the absence of evidence to the contrary, an existing known, but poorly evidenced candidate is more probable than a new species.

Mike

[Farmer77]

Comeon guys its obvious that these are bigfoot fossils  

[Stardrive]

big T,  if all this talk of different bi pedal primate species being discovered and discussed freaks you out,  it would do you some good to do some research on mankinds timeline. As people who work in this field make more discoveries, the timeline and evolutionary tree of mankind will remain under constant revision. Bigfeets are discussed in the Crypto section. It's been a while, but I'd be more than happy to debate that aspect with you there.

[taiwan]

Fruitbat, on 17 March 2012 - 05:05 AM, said:

I often find the simplest explanation is most likely to be correct.

I propose that the new Red Deer people actually ARE the Denisovans, who have only been identified as separate from DNA in finger bones. Skulls and other bones for Denisovans have not yet been found and confirmed, and these are the only known hominids from this period that are known without good fossil remains.

In the absence of evidence to the contrary, an existing known, but poorly evidenced candidate is more probable than a new species.

Mike

What you wrote is really not science. I remember my biology textbook from 80's and back then we only have homo habilis, homo erectus, and homo sapiens in a very simple evolutionary line. Look what we have today. Simplest explanation is not the way to go in science. We can't combine two distinct and incomplete set of data or we might as well attach a lion's skull on a horse's body because the horse skeleton is missing a head. The only way we can prove these are Denisovan is by DNA because that's all we have for Denisovan. Other hominids lived very close to that era in Southeast Asia. We may be dealing with hybrids, such as descendants of homo erectus (which has been proven to have survived in Java as recent as 27,000 years ago or homo floresiensis which lived to about 12,000 year ago in Indoesia) and modern human, which could explain moderate brain size with primitive features (such as prominent brow). Only with DNA would we know if this is a hybrid or distinct species based on divergence.

Most experts agreed that evidence found is leaning toward new species.

[psyche101]

Mr Right Wing, on 16 March 2012 - 12:42 PM, said:

I think we need to wait until the DNA is in before we start saying extinct.

When we profiled Neaderthal DNA we discovered most people on Earth have 4$ of their genes in them.

I would still call that a species extinction.