Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

Homo juluensis discovery


Kenemet

Recommended Posts

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.

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

DSo this is different than the "Dragon Man" fossils?

Another possible piece in the puzzle.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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. 

  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

diagram and charts of human evolution

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.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
1 minute ago, The Puzzler said:

 

Double post

Edited by The Puzzler
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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/

 

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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’. :yes:

cormac

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@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.

 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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. 

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

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

Posted (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.

IMG_9217.jpeg

Edited by The Puzzler
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
On 1/3/2025 at 4:27 AM, cormac mac airt said:

Now you’re cookin’. :yes:

cormac

 

On 1/3/2025 at 4:27 AM, cormac mac airt said:

Now you’re cookin’. :yes:

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…

IMG_9218.jpeg
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.

IMG_9219.jpeg

Edited by The Puzzler
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (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…

 

IMG_9220.jpeg

Edited by The Puzzler
Ooops…the page is from Archaeology of the Dreamtime, Josephine Flood
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (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 by The Puzzler
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Juluensis is a candidate for this mtDNA.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

  • Like 2
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (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.

IMG_9221.jpeg

Edited by The Puzzler
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

IMG_9221.jpeg

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

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.