Skull suggests human-Neanderthal link
SuzannePjam
Posts: 411
Skull suggests human-Neanderthal link
Interbreeding may have occurred thousands of years ago
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16639881/
WASHINGTON - A skull found in a cave in Romania includes features of both modern humans and Neanderthals, possibly suggesting that the two may have interbred thousands of years ago.
Neanderthals were replaced by early modern humans. Researchers have long debated whether the two groups mixed together, though most doubt it. The last evidence for Neanderthals dates from at least 24,000 years ago.
The skull bearing both older and modern characteristics is discussed in a paper by Erik Trinkaus of Washington University in St. Louis. The report appears in Tuesday's issue of Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
The skull was found in Pestera cu Oase — the Cave with Bones — in southwestern Romania, along with other human remains. Radiocarbon dating indicates it is at least 35,000 years old and may be more than 40,000 years old.
The researchers said the skull had the same proportions as a modern human head and lacked the large brow ridge commonly associated with Neanderthals. However, there were also features that are unusual in modern humans, such as frontal flattening, a fairly large bone behind the ear and exceptionally large upper molars, which are seen among Neanderthals and other early hominids.
"Such differences raise important questions about the evolutionary history of modern humans," said co-author Joao Zilhao of the University of Bristol, England.
It could reflect a case in which ancient traits reappear in a modern human, or it could indicate a mixture of populations, Zilhao said. Or it simply may be that science hasn't been able to study enough early modern people to understand their diversity.
Dr. Richard Potts of the Smithsonian's National Museum of Natural History noted that the skull represents the earliest modern human ever found in Europe.
It's a big deal in that sense, he said, but the combination of characteristics don't necessarily indicate interbreeding between populations.
Overall there is no strong evidence for mixing of Neanderthal and modern human populations and "this doesn't add any," said Potts, who wasn't part of the research team.
None of the features cited as unusual in modern humans is exclusively Neanderthal, Potts said. Rather, they could be features passed down from earlier populations in Africa.
The field work that uncovered the skull was conducted in 2004 and 2005.
Meanwhile, a research team led by Svante Paabo of the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology in Leipzig, Germany, is trying to map the Neanderthal genome in hopes of better understanding any possible relationship to modern people.
The research was funded by the U.S. National Science Foundation, the Wenner-Green Foundation, Washington University, the Leakey Foundation, the Portuguese Institute of Archaeology, the Royal Belgian Institute of Natural Science, the Romanian National Council for Academic Research and the Foundation Fyssen.
Interbreeding may have occurred thousands of years ago
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16639881/
WASHINGTON - A skull found in a cave in Romania includes features of both modern humans and Neanderthals, possibly suggesting that the two may have interbred thousands of years ago.
Neanderthals were replaced by early modern humans. Researchers have long debated whether the two groups mixed together, though most doubt it. The last evidence for Neanderthals dates from at least 24,000 years ago.
The skull bearing both older and modern characteristics is discussed in a paper by Erik Trinkaus of Washington University in St. Louis. The report appears in Tuesday's issue of Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
The skull was found in Pestera cu Oase — the Cave with Bones — in southwestern Romania, along with other human remains. Radiocarbon dating indicates it is at least 35,000 years old and may be more than 40,000 years old.
The researchers said the skull had the same proportions as a modern human head and lacked the large brow ridge commonly associated with Neanderthals. However, there were also features that are unusual in modern humans, such as frontal flattening, a fairly large bone behind the ear and exceptionally large upper molars, which are seen among Neanderthals and other early hominids.
"Such differences raise important questions about the evolutionary history of modern humans," said co-author Joao Zilhao of the University of Bristol, England.
It could reflect a case in which ancient traits reappear in a modern human, or it could indicate a mixture of populations, Zilhao said. Or it simply may be that science hasn't been able to study enough early modern people to understand their diversity.
Dr. Richard Potts of the Smithsonian's National Museum of Natural History noted that the skull represents the earliest modern human ever found in Europe.
It's a big deal in that sense, he said, but the combination of characteristics don't necessarily indicate interbreeding between populations.
Overall there is no strong evidence for mixing of Neanderthal and modern human populations and "this doesn't add any," said Potts, who wasn't part of the research team.
None of the features cited as unusual in modern humans is exclusively Neanderthal, Potts said. Rather, they could be features passed down from earlier populations in Africa.
The field work that uncovered the skull was conducted in 2004 and 2005.
Meanwhile, a research team led by Svante Paabo of the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology in Leipzig, Germany, is trying to map the Neanderthal genome in hopes of better understanding any possible relationship to modern people.
The research was funded by the U.S. National Science Foundation, the Wenner-Green Foundation, Washington University, the Leakey Foundation, the Portuguese Institute of Archaeology, the Royal Belgian Institute of Natural Science, the Romanian National Council for Academic Research and the Foundation Fyssen.
"Where there is sacrifice there is someone collecting the sacrificial offerings."-- Ayn Rand
"Some of my friends sit around every evening and they worry about the times ahead,
But everybody else is overwhelmed by indifference and the promise of an early bed..."-- Elvis Costello
"Some of my friends sit around every evening and they worry about the times ahead,
But everybody else is overwhelmed by indifference and the promise of an early bed..."-- Elvis Costello
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
Cool find...it'll be interesting to read the report when it comes out.
Comparing physical traits (and carbon dating the fossil to stick it roughly on a timeline) could (and has it would seem) suggest all sorts of conclusions. Mixed physical traits and accurate age based on our expectations suggests that creature was the result of interbreeding between neanderthal and modern humans.
What a hell of a thing to try and pick apart.
Forming a hypothesis is pretty much saying "this is what the evidence suggests".
http://www.wishlistfoundation.org
Oh my, they dropped the leash.
Morgan Freeman/Clint Eastwood 08' for President!
"Make our day"
i didn't try to pick anything apart, so quit reading into. i merely said that an inanimate object cannot suggest. People can suggest things about it, but a skull cannot suggest. Good grief, you can't even look past that to the last comment of it's a good find and will be interesting to read the study.
if i wanted to try to pick something apart i would have used this quote from the article
"Overall there is no strong evidence for mixing of Neanderthal and modern human populations and "this doesn't add any," said Potts, who wasn't part of the research team." But i want to read the journal article myself and see what the co-authors said. The little snippet from the article also said that, It could reflect a case in which ancient traits reappear in a modern human, or it could indicate a mixture of populations, Zilhao said. Or it simply may be that science hasn't been able to study enough early modern people to understand their diversity." Which is a fancy way of saying, "we're not quite sure, but we found something and we need to do more work to figure it out"
all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
Maybe Skull was a reference to Rumsfeld.
all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
don't insult the skull
Freedom is Slavery
Ignorance is Strength
Damn right!!!
Evolution and science is for suckers!
i know you're joking, right? right?
http://www.wishlistfoundation.org
Oh my, they dropped the leash.
Morgan Freeman/Clint Eastwood 08' for President!
"Make our day"
Yes I was. I read an article recently about a creationist museum that believes dinosaurs and man were living together when the world was created 5000 years ago. Seriously.
Freedom is Slavery
Ignorance is Strength
They say that all dinosaurs (for instance the T-rex with it's gigantic fangs designed for ripping apart flesh) were vegetarians, which is why humans could co-exist with them.
http://www.wishlistfoundation.org
Oh my, they dropped the leash.
Morgan Freeman/Clint Eastwood 08' for President!
"Make our day"
thank you. now i know you're going to hell, hell, hell to get burned by the devil, sinner.
Yes and do you know why tigers have such sharp claws? Not to shred animals into pieces but to climb trees! Of course that was when Adam and Eve didn't fuck Paradise up yet.
naděje umírá poslední
fair enough. *Cheers* to OCD BS
A few months I was placed in a school as part of my grad diploma of education, to become a science teacher.
It was a christian school that still taught creationism as part of the science curriculum. My favorite bits of creation science that were actually taught to the students by other science teachers included:
* The dinosaurs went extinct in Noah's flood- which is why we don't have to worry about them anymore.
* All fossil fuels were created during the great flood.
And my personal favorite:
* David Attenborough is a deceiver and a prophet of evil for abandoning the church and 'preaching' evolution.
Belief in god is not for me, but if it is your thing- go for it. But lets not bring up our kids in a culture of complete ignorance. (And I know that this school does not represent the majority of the christian faith- at least not here in Australia). Creationism goes beyond faith in the absence of evidence... It is faith despite the evidence.
I remember science once told me that pluto was a planet...now its not?!
A team discovered an object (Eris) in 2005, Eris is larger than Pluto and the question came up whether to call Eris a planet or not, since it's bigger than Pluto. The IAU pick a group of astronomers to come up with a new definition of the term 'planet'. According to this new definition Pluto is no longer a planet but a dwarf planet.
I don't know how you can compare redefining an object because of a new scientific discovery with just making up random stuff.
naděje umírá poslední
there was an article posted about a year ago discussing the possibilities of a link between Neanderthals and homo sapiens based on the artifacts and bones they had at that time. This skull was found after that. Here's the link to the article you may be referring to.
http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/discoveries/2005-02-08-skeletons_x.htm
"Some of my friends sit around every evening and they worry about the times ahead,
But everybody else is overwhelmed by indifference and the promise of an early bed..."-- Elvis Costello
No, that's not the article.
The idea that homo sapiens and neanderthals interbred has been around nearly as long as its been that neanderthal fossils were identified as a unique species. The DNA test, apparently, put the idea to rest.
all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
Im just going to show how science is never right because it always changes...
No offense friend, but that is an ignorant statement. Scientists initially called Pluto a planet knowing it was much different from the other 8 planets, but having nothing else to compare it to reluctantly called it the 9th planet. As new evidence has come to light it seems there are lots of Pluto-like objects out there it made sense to come up with a new name and definition of objects like this.
A planet is not a thing, there are lots of individual planets out there, all unique, but similar in that they share some characterics: they're round, they rotate on a axis, they follow an eliptical orbit with the sun in its centre.
But the word planet is nothing, it is just a term for lumping all planets together for comparision and analysis. What changed was the definition of that unit of classification. Pluto and its charicterists have not changed, been revised, or been reported in error. It's just been reclassified so as to make it easier to compare it to other things that it is similar to, and not things that it is different from making the information more easily understood and accesible. This happens ALL THE TIME in science. Pluto is just a very high profile case.
My point is that scientist were not wrong about Pluto. It was not a mistake to classify Pluto as a planet when it was discovered. It just now, with new data, makes sense to classify it differently to better understand it.
You see this as a weakness of science? That, my friend, is obtuse.
Regarding the neanderthal thing. My opinion is that humans and neanderthals could probably interbreed, but the offspring would be infertile hybrids, similar to a horse and a donkey making an infertile mule.
-Ashley Montagu
Science is never right?
naděje umírá poslední
http://www.wishlistfoundation.org
Oh my, they dropped the leash.
Morgan Freeman/Clint Eastwood 08' for President!
"Make our day"
You guys don't get what he's saying? Science changes all the time, you think we still believe some of the medical science that used to be SOP back in the 19th century? How about more recently, I recall the media reporting that scientific studies suggested a glass of wine a day is good for your heart, then bad, and now it's good again.
That's what he means by "it's always changing".
Science doesn't change all the time. It does however leave room for further experiments and research, it can progress. But it doesn't change all the time.
The example you gave, fine, but how does that make 'science never right'.
naděje umírá poslední
Did you and Miller have a conference call so you can get out his message?
Freedom is Slavery
Ignorance is Strength
I don't agree with miller who says science is NEVER right, I do agree that some of it changes all the time, sometimes drastically.
Yeah buddy :rolleyes:
The irony of this statement arriving on my computer via a network of connected computers, all designed and constructed based on sound scientific principles that have not changed significantly in decades... is substantial.