Popular Post Kenemet Posted December 25, 2024 Popular Post #1 Share Posted December 25, 2024 Rather than get another thread even MORE off-topic, I thought I'd make a link to the announcement so it could be discussed here. Here's the announcement as it was presented to the press: https://www.hawaii.edu/news/2024/11/27/homo-juluensis-nature-communications/ And here's the paper about the fossils: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-024-53918-7 Right now, it's in the "possible" stages, and is not confirmed. What's interesting about this is that the discovery was made -- by analyzing already found material and not a new find from the field. Here's what the author has to say: Most recently, after a detailed study of the Xujiayao and Xuchang fossils, we have added Homo juluensis to these discussions16, see also ref. 13. Importantly, we have assigned the enigmatic Denisova, along with the Xiahe and Penghu fossils, to H. juluensis based on comparative study of the present dentognathic remains. In all likelihood, given the recent observation that the Tam Ngu Hao 2 (Laos) tooth shares traits with Denisova17, this fossil should additionally be included in H. juluensis. If this is confirmed (and accepted), it'll be as big a change as the discovery of the Hobbits (h. floresiensis) It adds more detail to how humans spread across the globe and may be at least one of the "unidentified species" in our gene pool. 7 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HandsomeGorilla Posted December 25, 2024 #2 Share Posted December 25, 2024 Thanks @Kenemet This is interesting stuff. 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kenemet Posted December 26, 2024 Author #3 Share Posted December 26, 2024 10 hours ago, HandsomeGorilla said: Thanks @Kenemet This is interesting stuff. It is, and what I gather is that it's "proposed" but not actually proven. There'll be some battles over this one, I think. 4 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+DieChecker Posted December 31, 2024 #4 Share Posted December 31, 2024 DSo this is different than the "Dragon Man" fossils? Another possible piece in the puzzle. 2 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Piney Posted January 1 #5 Share Posted January 1 On 12/31/2024 at 12:55 AM, DieChecker said: DSo this is different than the "Dragon Man" fossils? Another possible piece in the puzzle. Homo Longi is included in the chart. 6 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Puzzler Posted January 2 #6 Share Posted January 2 On 12/26/2024 at 1:02 AM, Kenemet said: Rather than get another thread even MORE off-topic, I thought I'd make a link to the announcement so it could be discussed here. Here's the announcement as it was presented to the press: https://www.hawaii.edu/news/2024/11/27/homo-juluensis-nature-communications/ And here's the paper about the fossils: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-024-53918-7 Right now, it's in the "possible" stages, and is not confirmed. What's interesting about this is that the discovery was made -- by analyzing already found material and not a new find from the field. Here's what the author has to say: Most recently, after a detailed study of the Xujiayao and Xuchang fossils, we have added Homo juluensis to these discussions16, see also ref. 13. Importantly, we have assigned the enigmatic Denisova, along with the Xiahe and Penghu fossils, to H. juluensis based on comparative study of the present dentognathic remains. In all likelihood, given the recent observation that the Tam Ngu Hao 2 (Laos) tooth shares traits with Denisova17, this fossil should additionally be included in H. juluensis. If this is confirmed (and accepted), it'll be as big a change as the discovery of the Hobbits (h. floresiensis) It adds more detail to how humans spread across the globe and may be at least one of the "unidentified species" in our gene pool. Mungo Man, one of the oldest remains found in Australia, has a mtDNA that doesn’t fir with any known Aboriginal DNA…or any DNA for that matter…it’s an enigma if you will… Maybe this is Mungo Man’s ancestry…that would be interesting, because Indigenous Australians do share some DNA with Denisovans….we know Aboriginals came from Africa via the Denisova caves area because of the DNA….but this Mungo Man has another mtDNA….of an unknown type. 2 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Puzzler Posted January 2 #7 Share Posted January 2 (edited) 1 minute ago, The Puzzler said: Double post Edited January 2 by The Puzzler Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Abramelin Posted January 2 #8 Share Posted January 2 4 hours ago, The Puzzler said: Mungo Man, one of the oldest remains found in Australia, has a mtDNA that doesn’t fir with any known Aboriginal DNA…or any DNA for that matter…it’s an enigma if you will… Maybe this is Mungo Man’s ancestry…that would be interesting, because Indigenous Australians do share some DNA with Denisovans….we know Aboriginals came from Africa via the Denisova caves area because of the DNA….but this Mungo Man has another mtDNA….of an unknown type. We all would love to see a link to a paper. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Abramelin Posted January 2 #9 Share Posted January 2 16 minutes ago, Abramelin said: We all would love to see a link to a paper. Never mind. I found something better, @The Puzzler A 2001 study had suggested that Mungo Man was not an ancestor of Australia’s Aboriginal people, but instead represented an extinct human lineage. The new study finds that the sample from the previous test had been contaminated. “We could not, with better technology, repeat what the original study found and therefore the evidence that Aboriginal people were not the first . https://archaeology.org/news/2016/06/07/160607-australia-mungo-man/ 3 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cormac mac airt Posted January 2 #10 Share Posted January 2 23 minutes ago, Abramelin said: We all would love to see a link to a paper. Try this Abe. It corrects Puzzlers unnamed source: https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1521066113 cormac 3 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cormac mac airt Posted January 2 #11 Share Posted January 2 5 minutes ago, Abramelin said: Never mind. I found something better, @The Puzzler A 2001 study had suggested that Mungo Man was not an ancestor of Australia’s Aboriginal people, but instead represented an extinct human lineage. The new study finds that the sample from the previous test had been contaminated. “We could not, with better technology, repeat what the original study found and therefore the evidence that Aboriginal people were not the first . https://archaeology.org/news/2016/06/07/160607-australia-mungo-man/ Now you’re cookin’. cormac 3 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Abramelin Posted January 2 #12 Share Posted January 2 @The Puzzler , I don't know why you hate to post links for whatever you state as proof of the utmost truth. Personally, I google like crazy, and find a link to some paper supporting whatever Ì think is true. Why? Well, that's because I may have drawn the wrong conclusion based on what I read. By posting a link I give others a chance to draw their own conclusions. And.... contradict MY conclusions. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Piney Posted January 2 #13 Share Posted January 2 1 hour ago, Abramelin said: We all would love to see a link to a paper. One Google on Mungo Lake showed me she was out of date. Didn't Google all over one bit. I just didn't feel like engaging earlier. 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Puzzler Posted January 4 #14 Share Posted January 4 On 1/3/2025 at 4:38 AM, Abramelin said: @The Puzzler , I don't know why you hate to post links for whatever you state as proof of the utmost truth. Personally, I google like crazy, and find a link to some paper supporting whatever Ì think is true. Why? Well, that's because I may have drawn the wrong conclusion based on what I read. By posting a link I give others a chance to draw their own conclusions. And.... contradict MY conclusions. Because half my life was spent reading books, not Googling… Ill screenshot the book page…. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Puzzler Posted January 4 #15 Share Posted January 4 On 1/3/2025 at 4:26 AM, cormac mac airt said: Try this Abe. It corrects Puzzlers unnamed source: https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1521066113 On 1/3/2025 at 4:26 AM, cormac mac airt said: Try this Abe. It corrects Puzzlers unnamed source: https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1521066113 cormac cormac Exactly what I said… Two of the remains sampled contained no identifiable human DNA (WLH15 and WLH55), whereas the Mungo Man (WLH3) sample contained no Aboriginal Australian DNA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Puzzler Posted January 4 #16 Share Posted January 4 (edited) Wiki says it’s thing…..but I first read it in Archaeology of the Dreamtime by Josephine Flood….my own book, outdated, possibly but still….that’s my link. Edited January 4 by The Puzzler Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Puzzler Posted January 4 #17 Share Posted January 4 (edited) On 1/3/2025 at 4:27 AM, cormac mac airt said: Now you’re cookin’. cormac On 1/3/2025 at 4:27 AM, cormac mac airt said: Now you’re cookin’. cormac Was contaminated…I’ve heard this….note it says…. A 2001 study had suggested that Mungo Man was not an ancestor of Australia’s Aboriginal people, but instead represented an extinct human lineage. No scientific study says this. They say his maternal lineage IS NOT Aboriginal only. Not both his lineages.. Most people would glance over this but I know my mtDNA from my Y-DNA as do you. So maybe question the Wiki info a little more. And I’m telling ya, some old inland types, have quite big heads… These people are not even Stone Age, they didn’t build anything with stone, they are like a time warp from 50,000 years ago…unbelievable. There is no reason to think Mungo Man did NOT come from an older Homo species female side…one that doesn’t exist anymore. Edited January 4 by The Puzzler Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Abramelin Posted January 4 #18 Share Posted January 4 30 minutes ago, The Puzzler said: Because half my life was spent reading books, not Googling… So that's why many of your posts contain lengthy quotes from sites you don't link to. Right. I read a lot of books too, btw. And googling is not just entering a search term and hope for the best. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Puzzler Posted January 4 #19 Share Posted January 4 (edited) 6 minutes ago, Abramelin said: So that's why many of your posts contain lengthy quotes from sites you don't link to. Right. I read a lot of books too, btw. And googling is not just entering a search term and hope for the best. I love Google…my man has the T-shirt, I don’t need Google, my wife knows everything….lol I screenshot a lot of stuff I read but don’t always save the link, true, I’m a link slacker… Edited January 4 by The Puzzler Ooops…the page is from Archaeology of the Dreamtime, Josephine Flood Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cormac mac airt Posted January 4 #20 Share Posted January 4 1 hour ago, The Puzzler said: Exactly what I said… Two of the remains sampled contained no identifiable human DNA (WLH15 and WLH55), whereas the Mungo Man (WLH3) sample contained no Aboriginal Australian DNA. No, that’s NOT “Exactly” what you said. Your words from Post 6: Quote Mungo Man, one of the oldest remains found in Australia, has a mtDNA that doesn’t fit with any known Aboriginal DNA…or any DNA for that matter…it’s an enigma if you will… cormac 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Puzzler Posted January 4 #21 Share Posted January 4 (edited) 6 minutes ago, cormac mac airt said: No, that’s NOT “Exactly” what you said. Your words from Post 6: cormac Either way, what I’m saying is clear now., I stand by what I said. Mungo Mans mtDNA is unknown….of any known homo DNA, Aboriginal or not. Edited January 4 by The Puzzler Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Puzzler Posted January 4 #22 Share Posted January 4 Juluensis is a candidate for this mtDNA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cormac mac airt Posted January 4 #23 Share Posted January 4 3 minutes ago, The Puzzler said: Either way, what I’m saying is clear now. You should know by now if you’re going to make stuff up or use outdated genetic sources I’m going to point it out. cormac 2 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Puzzler Posted January 4 #24 Share Posted January 4 (edited) As per the chart before Juluensis has been groups with Denisovans…and Indigenous Australians travelled from the same area down to Australia…hence Aboriginals have Denisovan DNA….it’s only natural an unknown gene, possibly representing the mtDNA, found in an early type, comes from a similar people and time, part of the Denisova realm. But I’ll admit I don’t know really, it’s just a hunch and something I thought was interesting. Edited January 4 by The Puzzler Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cormac mac airt Posted January 4 #25 Share Posted January 4 10 minutes ago, The Puzzler said: As per the chart before Juluensis has been groups with Denisovans…and Indigenous Australians travelled from the same area down to Australia…hence Aboriginals have Denisovan DNA….it’s only natural an unknown mtDNA gene found in an early type, comes from a similar people and time, part of the Denisova realm. Per my previous link there is no “unknown” mtDNA relevant to AA. In fact: Quote We show that the remaining sample (WLH4) contains ∼1.4% human DNA, from which we assembled two complete mitochondrial genomes. One of these was a previously unidentified Aboriginal Australian haplotype belonging to haplogroup S2 that we sequenced to a high coverage. The other was a contaminating modern European mitochondrial haplotype. Although none of the sequences that we recovered matched those reported by Adcock et al., except a contaminant, these findings show the feasibility of obtaining important information from ancient Aboriginal Australia There is nothing “unknown” about S2, it exists and it’s part of AA. cormac 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now