Early modern humans may have interbred with other human species
By William Atkins
Wednesday, 04 April 2007

Evidence from bone fragments in a cave near Beijing, China adds evidence that modern humans interbred with earlier human species such as Neanderthals.

U.S. paleoanthropologist Erik Trinkaus, from the Department of Anthropology at the Washington University, in St. Louis, Missouri, U.S.A., and other collaborators, found an early modern human that lived about 42,000 to 39,000 years ago. It has features that show up only in Homo sapiens, modern humans, but also has other features that are characteristic of other species of now-extinct humans, such as Neanderthals (Homo neanderthalensis).

They contend that such evidence shows that modern Man interbred with other human species that they encountered in Europe and Asia as they journeyed across the Earth.

Thirty-four bone fragments were found in Tianyuan Cave, which is located near Beijing, China.

Evidence of this kind is controversial because current theory—sometimes popularized as the Out-of-Africa theory—states that modern humans evolved in East Africa and then spread over the Earth around 70,000 years ago. These humans replaced earlier species of Man, without the use, or at least with very little use, of interbreeding.

Such research into H. sapiens and other species of Man shows little or not interbreeding. However, the movement and activities of early modern humans is still not well understood by anthropologists.

Neandertals were big boned, heavy browed humans, now extinct, that lived in Europe and parts of Asia for about 200,000 years. No fossil records have been found of them as of about 28,000 years ago.

Modern humans are classified as Homo sapiens sapiens. It is the only existing subspecies of the Homo sapiens species. The other one is Homo sapiens idaltu, which is extinct.

Source

maybe the missing rhesus factor of negative blood came from the Neanderthals?

This confirms what is written in the book of Genesis.

There's still groups of people that do this today in Utah, and in the Ozarks

What was written in the book of Genesis?

That humans interbred with other human species.

lol....well what is the verse? Just curious, not that im mocking you or anything; I just never heard of that before.

Genesis 6:1-4

i find that hard to believe, i mean this has to be one of the largest taboos.

well, unless you have lived around some of the people in question, of course you wouldn't want to believe that. BUT, it does happen, especially within the offshoot of the Church of Mormon-a lot

Really? I thought that...was rather illegal.

Gee airika, You seem to know the sex habits of a very diverse area. I live in the Ozark region, and I am not aware of the sex practices of those in your home state, other than the fact that it is often portrayed as a commodity.

Still, one from my area must wonder at the reports that for a price, ANY entertainment can be purchased in your area.

Not trying to be nasty Sweetie, but lay off the stereotypes.

It is, but it still happens. At least in some places.

It took official "study" to figure this out??

The government actually once spent $400,000 on a study, all to "discover" that the AIDS rate is higher in prison than in the general population..thank you Cptn F Obvious....

I once asked an Anthropology Proffessor when humans began wearing clothing....he couldn't tell me. Listen...start banging stones together like you're making stone tools. They tell you that the shards fly off...Do this naked...how long do you think it would take you to invent clothing while doing this little exersize....it ain't rocket science..

This is no surprise. The different species of hominids, like modern H. Sapiens and H. Neanderthalensis, would have been very closely genetically related, and possibly capable of interbreeding. You have to remember that species are not some fixed definition, where something suddenly becomes a species. Rather, the difference mounts over time, which is why two different species of hominids that branched off from a common ancestor frequently can interbreed. They usually don't, but they can - at least until the amount of differences between the populations grow so large that breeding does start to fail.

I believed this for a long time. There are too many genetic variables in the human species for "leveling drift" to occur in such a short time. Also the fact that certain Southeast Asian Hill tribes such as the Karen and certain Native Americans such as the Algonquians have shovel incisors. A feature only found in Java man, a form of homo erectus that is proported to be a evolutionary "dead end".

Lapiche

edit: typo

In nature, when there is fighting for territory or food, mates, whatever, the males will rape the females, not to be mean, but to spread their seed so that there genetics will be reproduced. This could very well have happened many times, producing new species. Lions for example, when a new male takes over the pride, he kills all the former male's young offspring to bring the females into heat so that he can breed with them.

This topic has been rumbling on for years. I remember when I started my degree seven years ago [Christ] it was one of the first things we studied. I belive the theory then was the multi-regional vs out-of-Africa 2 model. It has led to many bitter rivalries within the sphere of archaeology, mainly because really clever men act like flipping kids.

Anyway if my memory serves me correctly, the out-of-Africa 2 theory [aka replacement theory-it's coming back to me bit by bit] suggests that the line of lineage leading to the Neanderthal species evolved separately from the one "we" are descended from. about 180 000 odd years ago moden humans migrated out of Africa [like the Neanderthal's ancestors had hundreds of thousands of years before]. Modern humans then swiftly colonized the globe, replacing Neanderthals as they went, though it is unclear whether this was from violent means or just more successful adaptation to their surroundings [i.e. they out-competed the Neanderthals].

The multi-regional hypothesis states that all human ancestors migrated from the same common ancestor in Africa, and dispersed about the world. It has never been as widely accepted as the replacement theory, as it is clear from the fossil record that many early hominids co-existed. Although there has been evidence of possible hybrid skeletons in the past, as well as interpretations of DNA and mitochondrial DNA that could support this theory.

I personally subscribe to the replacement model. When you look at the [admittedly sparse] fossil record we have, it just seems like a logical path, and that's what I like about evolution.

Anyhoo that's sort of it in a nutshell I think. It's been a long time, been a long time, been a long lonely lonely lonely lonely lonely time [oops distracted] since I last studied it. I'm sure things have moved on, any errors are because I'm a bit thick.

i Believe in the out of africa theory, however it doesn't mean it's the definitive explaination of human migration... as people, we are too proud of who/what we are to consider even that we came from humble beginings or from a mixed heritage with inferior species..... im sure its a non spoken international agreement to not reveal the evidence of such cross-breeding for no one people would want the other to think that they came from a mixed race of sub-human species..cross between an apeman... it has such political, and social implications that would disturb the current social and economic status and thus will eventually lead to global conflict... with all that aside..no matter what race you are one can just look at ourselves and others to know that the difference among us is the same as the difference among the domestic animals we bred to obtain that particular look, the hair, color of skin, facial structure,build etc. even though we look different doesn't mean we are different species.. a chiuahua is still a domestic dog as it is a great dane...even though they look like complete different species.. you can breed a dog and a wolf and still get something that looks like a dog... the reason that none of the archaeic human traits are show or remains is because of the generations that took each people to get here and that the homo sapien gene is a dominant gene, but once in a while you'd get a guy whos so hairy he'd look like teen wolf.. no doubt is a drawback to their ancestral days as neanderthals or homo erectus..
if homo sapiens did not interbred with other species of humans, we'd probably all look somewhat like africans.. but we did... some of the people went to asia, bred with homo erectus who possibl have lighter hairless skin due to living in the asian forested environments..... and some of us who went north and mixed with the neanderthals, and got their light hair and eye traits, and mixing with the neanderthals, the europeans got their classic european features.. alon with the prominant noses that all other races seem to lack..but the neanderthals have them... and modern europeans have a less pronounce versions of it....but anyways... we are all humans...whether part neanderthals or part homoerectus...doesn't matter.. eventually, when religion and global conflic ends...the races will once again melt together and everyone will eventually all look the same.

Same Professor from the original post says he's got European samples of modern human exhibiting Neanderthal traits...this guys is busy!

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/200...s-tef042307.php

For nearly a century, anthropologists have been debating the relationship of Neandertals to modern humans. Central to the debate is whether Neandertals contributed directly or indirectly to the ancestry of the early modern humans that succeeded them.

As this discussion has intensified in the past decades, it has become the central research focus of Erik Trinkaus, Ph.D., professor of anthropology at Washington University in St. Louis. Trinkaus has examined the earliest modern humans in Europe, including specimens in Romania, Czech Republic and France. Those specimens, in Trinkaus' opinion, have shown obvious Neandertal ancestry.

In an article appearing the week of April 23 in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Trinkaus has brought together the available data, which shows that early modern humans did exhibit evidence of Neandertal traits.

"When you look at all of the well dated and diagnostic early modern European fossils, there is a persistent presence of anatomical features that were present among the Neandertals but absent from the earlier African modern humans," Trinkaus said. "Early modern Europeans reflect both their predominant African early modern human ancestry and a substantial degree of admixture between those early modern humans and the indigenous Neandertals."

This analysis, along with a number of considerations of human genetics, argues that the fate of the Neandertals was to be absorbed into modern human groups. Just as importantly, it also says that the behavioral difference between the groups were small. They saw each other as social equals.

wooooord my part neanderthal honky friend.

When you think about how kinky modern homo sapiens are, it's difficult to believe that they never interbred with Neanderthals.

A couple weeks ago, my husband and I went to see a sci-fi/horror film in New York. It turned out to be so gross that we had to leave 15 minutes into the movie. Back outside, we were looking at eachother wondering "now what should we do?", when we noticed that there was another movie theater nextdoor; an *** theater featuring a movie called "Wanda Whips Wall Street". Neither one of us had ever seen a movie of this gendre (well, at least I hadn't) so we went in. It was boring. After the feature presentation they showed a number of shorts. One was a guy trying to make it with a fluffy white dog. The guy was over-acting, pretending this was a big turn on, while the dog kept hitting him in the face with a wagging tail and turning to beg for biscuits. Once again, we had to abandon the theater (this time because we were laughing so hard that other people in the theater were getting angry).

I assume that this film wouldn't have been made if it didn't appeal to someone. Supposedly, the mythological Greek character the satyr is partially based on ancient shepherds getting bored just watching their flocks. So here we have examples of homo sapiens being attracted to sheep and dogs.

Neanderthals were sentient beings that looked pretty human. OF COURSE ancient homo sapiens were intimate with them.

There is actually evidence to suggest that the genes that cause red hair come from neanderthals.

I would debate whether the Neanderthals are extinct! I have worked with a couple of guys that are just exactly what has always been pictured as Neanderthal .., short, thick body, very strong limbs, sloped forehead with heavy brows. Sure wish I had a picture of these guys to post so you could see what I mean.
By the way, neither of them could ever be considered as dumb! Both would qualify as good engineers.

AH HAH!! i knew it! that totally explains carrottop!!!

archaeological remains do indicate that homo erectus bred with homo Sapien and we r the result. Although Homo Africanus is definately our original ancester. Read Mary Leaky, I know shes old but she really knew her stuff

Giants?



I totally see it.

RAWR, look at mah pecks!