Thread: The genealogy of the Chinese

Like everybody else, I have always wondered why the Chinese have such sharply different physical attributes than the rest of the world. Shorter statures, sunken eyes, flatter cheekbones and so on. I was watching BBC's "The Incredible Human Journey" documentary, episode 2 that studies this very subject.

It has been a popular theory and one strongly believed by the Chinese themselves that they have descended from called Homo erectus rather than the Homo sapiens from which the rest of humanity evolved. Chinese anthropologists and palaeontologists have shown modern Chinese physical characteristics in the fossil skulls, such as broad cheek bones, cranial skull shape and shovel-shaped incisors that are absent in almost all other humans. The stone tools found in China seem more primitive than those elsewhere, and infers that they were made exclusively by Homo erectus.

The study initially hypothesised that the modern Chinese population evolved from homo erectus in China but concluded that the Chinese people did in fact evolve and migrate from Africa like the rest of world's population. But, it was a was a group of homo erecti (plural ? ) who had moved out of Africa to the rest of the world. In Europe, Homo erectus evolved to homo sapiens. But what if, homo erectus that moved to Asia never evolved to homo sapiens and modern Chinese are direct descendants from erectus?
Several genetic studies have also shown that although the DNA of modern Chinese match those of the species that left Africa, it also states that it bears no similarity to the homo sapiens DNA.

Is there any conclusive proof or theory to support or discard this theory?

Originally Posted by quasistatic

Like everybody else, I have always wondered why the Chinese have such sharply different physical attributes than the rest of the world. Shorter statures, sunken eyes, flatter cheekbones and so on. I was watching BBC's "The Incredible Human Journey" documentary, episode 2 that studies this very subject.

It has been a popular theory and one strongly believed by the Chinese themselves that they have descended from called Homo erectus rather than the Homo sapiens from which the rest of humanity evolved. Chinese anthropologists and palaeontologists have shown modern Chinese physical characteristics in the fossil skulls, such as broad cheek bones, cranial skull shape and shovel-shaped incisors that are absent in almost all other humans. The stone tools found in China seem more primitive than those elsewhere, and infers that they were made exclusively by Homo erectus.

The study initially hypothesised that the modern Chinese population evolved from homo erectus in China but concluded that the Chinese people did in fact evolve and migrate from Africa like the rest of world's population. But, it was a was a group of homo erecti (plural ? ) who had moved out of Africa to the rest of the world. In Europe, Homo erectus evolved to homo sapiens. But what if, homo erectus that moved to Asia never evolved to homo sapiens and modern Chinese are direct descendants from erectus?
Several genetic studies have also shown that although the DNA of modern Chinese match those of the species that left Africa, it also states that it bears no similarity to the homo sapiens DNA.

Is there any conclusive proof or theory to support or discard this theory?

There is no proof that denisovans or neandertals evolving in africa, nor is there proof that their direct ancestors evolved in africa. The fossil record points to neandertals evolving in eurasia, and the DNA of modern humans, neandertals and denisovans show that they had common ancestors and relatively recent population splits from one and another. Now unless there is proof of neandertals, denisovans and all of our most recent common ancestors deep in africa, then I think it is safe to say or suggest that it is likely that the indigenous Chinese peoples ancestors have been in eurasia for well over a million years, at least.

There is a mystery here. Accurately get the right answer and you will become the Biological Newton and move forward the theroies of Chance and Circumstance as related to the developement of the Races as we see them today. My guess is none of the currently accepted dogma of origin is accurate. And that the real truth will astound the oracles of Science. And no. I do not have the answer. But I have my suspicions. westwind.

The Chinese are homo sapiens, just like the rest of humanity. An independent evolution from homo erectus is highly improbable.

Okay, considering that, what are the postulated theories for their many physical differences?

Originally Posted by mathman

The Chinese are homo sapiens, just like the rest of humanity. An independent evolution from homo erectus is highly improbable.

All modern humans are considered homo sapiens, which actually means nothing and tells us nothing scientifically about our species or where our species come from... The terms homo sapiens and homo sapiens sapiens are well rooted in the belief, and cannot exist, without the idea that every living human on the planet today derives from the same exact population/s over and over again in a continuous and undisturbed straight line from the very first hominids to Us today...... Which is clearly wrong, there is not a single shred of evidence to support it, but none the less, the classification of hominids into homo sapiens and homo sapiens sapiens is done so arbitrarily to promote and prolong a belief that is wrong.

An evolutionary or genetic contribution from other populations into modern humans from other hominid populations that were outside of the homo erectus people/population is highly likely, not highly improbable. Again, there is not even proof that homo erectus is even one of our ancestors, let alone our only ancestor 1-2 million years ago.

Originally Posted by quasistatic

Okay, considering that, what are the postulated theories for their many physical differences?

I think it is far more probably that those differences, outward and inward, came by way of different contributions from different populations and different ancient hominids than it is to suggest that an evolutionary "adam and eve" had a lot of different looking kids.

Just think about what these type of folks are trying to sell/tell here for a minute. First they want to tell you that diversity comes from completely different and diverse environmental regions/causes/effects, and then, they expect you to forget that fact and try and tell you that a single and small population of one hominid species in a small and single environment produced an evolutionary adam and eve (the very first modern humans) and that they were already so genetically diverse that they had in them the genetics for every earthly region and every ethnic group possible.

It would make more sense if Chinese people evolved from erectus and sapiens both. Perhaps the gene mixing just occurred later in their history? Or maybe the erectus genes were more strongly mixed in?

Separate and independent evolution theories are constantly being suggested for humanity, but one has to consider the probability of getting the same results to be very poor if that happened. I can envision a world occupied primarily by erectus, into which the sapiens enter and quickly take over.

Perhaps instead of killing off all of the hapless erectus they encounter, they rule over them, and of course rulers tend to get more attention from the ladies, so a few sapiens could change the genetic direction of quite a many erectus's.

Originally Posted by gonzales56

Just think about what these type of folks are trying to sell/tell here for a minute. First they want to tell you that diversity comes from completely different and diverse environmental regions/causes/effects, and then, they expect you to forget that fact and try and tell you that a single and small population of one hominid species in a small and single environment produced an evolutionary adam and eve (the very first modern humans) and that they were already so genetically diverse that they had in them the genetics for every earthly region and every ethnic group possible.

Agreed. It could be due to intermixing of genes of different races and species. But, why then, are do only the Chinese possess such strongly different features?
How is it possible that people belonging only to a certain region on the earth look so different from the rest of the world? People all over the world have differences but they easily point to obvious evolutionary adaptations to their surroundings and environment.
They certainly are a different race. But then the fact of them being an altogether different species, seems too good to discard without serious consideration! Or probably, they evolved independently, neither the erectus nor the sapiens. The Peking man!

Originally Posted by kojax

I I can envision a world occupied primarily by erectus, into which the sapiens enter and quickly take over.

Perhaps instead of killing off all of the hapless erectus they encounter, they rule over them, and of course rulers tend to get more attention from the ladies, so a few sapiens could change the genetic direction of quite a many erectus's.

But why would sapeins and erectus be two different species belonging to the same time frame? Are they not evolutionary relatives, sapiens being the evolutionary descendant of erectus?

Originally Posted by gonzales56

All modern humans are considered homo sapiens, which actually means nothing and tells us nothing scientifically about our species or where our species come from...

it doesn't ? let's first analyse the species concept, because there's more than one
the biological species concept can be studied in the here and now, and essentially means that individuals from different populations can interbreed and produce healthy offspring - despite the difficulties of borderline cases this is a very clear-cut concept
obviously the biological species concept doesn't work on fossils, and because of this in paleontology / anthropology the morphological species concept is used, which depends on the presence/absence of certain characteristic features

in most instances the biological concept agrees with the morphological concept, but there are enough exceptions to be cautious when it comes to extinct specimens

however, if we have the answer the questions whether biologically speaking the chinese belong to Homo sapiens then the answer is an unequivocal yes
how they came about to be that way is a different matter, and given the paucity of fossils from that region one that may as yet not be settled

whenever a population of a given species shows a set of common characteristics that set them apart from other populations of the same species, the reasons are usually found in the founder effect (the initial population only contained a subset of the species as a whole) and genetic drift (loss and acquisition of characteristics after the population has remained essentially isolated from the remainder of the species)
since these principles apply to many species that we know of, i don't see why they shouldn't apply to Homo sapiens

Originally Posted by marnixR

whenever a population of a given species shows a set of common characteristics that set them apart from other populations of the same species, the reasons are usually found in the founder effect (the initial population only contained a subset of the species as a whole) and genetic drift (loss and acquisition of characteristics after the population has remained essentially isolated from the remainder of the species)
since these principles apply to many species that we know of, i don't see why they shouldn't apply to Homo sapiens

Perhaps it is easier to apply those type of beliefs to modern human origins if one believes that modern humans, homo sapiens, derived from a singular source... However, the DNA of current populations tell us that the vast majority of population diversity is not present due to "homo sapiens" being isolated from one another but, rather it is due to the presence and influence of different and multiple ancient hominid population genetics being within different modern human populations.

The DNA does not show a common or single origin for modern humans then a split but, rather it shows a failure to have a singular origin point, with different modern populations being more related to archaic hominids from their own regions than modern humans from different populations are.

The idea that there was a single origin, and then a split, for our species does not fit the DNA evidence. How is it that sub saharan africans are up to 13% genetically related to an archaic hominid, or hominids, that the rest of the human populations in the world is not? Likewise, how are eurasians up to 4-10% more genetically related to neandertals and denisovans than sub saharan africans are? And this is just what we know about now.... What will we know/discover as time passes?

The hypothesis of a single point of origin then a split for "homo sapiens" does not and cannot explain the origins of modern humans, the genetic differences between modern human populations nor how it is that so much different archaic hominid DNA is found within different modern human populations.

Only mixture between hominid populations and hominid sub species can explain our similarities, differences and origins...

Originally Posted by quasistatic

Originally Posted by gonzales56

Just think about what these type of folks are trying to sell/tell here for a minute. First they want to tell you that diversity comes from completely different and diverse environmental regions/causes/effects, and then, they expect you to forget that fact and try and tell you that a single and small population of one hominid species in a small and single environment produced an evolutionary adam and eve (the very first modern humans) and that they were already so genetically diverse that they had in them the genetics for every earthly region and every ethnic group possible.

Agreed. It could be due to intermixing of genes of different races and species. But, why then, are do only the Chinese possess such strongly different features?
How is it possible that people belonging only to a certain region on the earth look so different from the rest of the world? People all over the world have differences but they easily point to obvious evolutionary adaptations to their surroundings and environment.
They certainly are a different race. But then the fact of them being an altogether different species, seems too good to discard without serious consideration! Or probably, they evolved independently, neither the erectus nor the sapiens. The Peking man!

Originally Posted by kojax

I I can envision a world occupied primarily by erectus, into which the sapiens enter and quickly take over.

Perhaps instead of killing off all of the hapless erectus they encounter, they rule over them, and of course rulers tend to get more attention from the ladies, so a few sapiens could change the genetic direction of quite a many erectus's.

But why would sapeins and erectus be two different species belonging to the same time frame? Are they not evolutionary relatives, sapiens being the evolutionary descendant of erectus?

The emergence of a sub species or species from another species or sub species does not equal or mean the destruction of their predecessor/s. Erectus could very well be within our species and then again, they could not be. They could be our ancestors, or they could not be. They could have also continued to exist beyond the emergence of modern humans or they could have vanished well before that.

Originally Posted by gonzales56

The idea that there was a single origin, and then a split, for our species does not fit the DNA evidence. How is it that sub saharan africans are up to 13% genetically related to an archaic hominid, or hominids, that the rest of the human populations in the world is not? Likewise, how are eurasians up to 4-10% more genetically related to neandertals and denisovans than sub saharan africans are? And this is just what we know about now.... What will we know/discover as time passes?

The hypothesis of a single point of origin then a split for "homo sapiens" does not and cannot explain the origins of modern humans, the genetic differences between modern human populations nor how it is that so much different archaic hominid DNA is found within different modern human populations.

Only mixture between hominid populations and hominid sub species can explain our similarities, differences and origins...

where do you get the figures of DNA distance between modern human beings and archaic populations ? as far as i'm aware only DNA for neanderthals has been extracted in sufficient quantity to come to some sort of comparison, and even there it's not clear whether the similarities are a signature of intermixture or a plesiomorphic remainder of a common ancestor

The chinese? The chinese? It's as if all posters here think the chinese constitute a meaningful genetic set. On that basis, to quote from the Apprentice, "you're fired".

Originally Posted by marnixR

Originally Posted by gonzales56

The idea that there was a single origin, and then a split, for our species does not fit the DNA evidence. How is it that sub saharan africans are up to 13% genetically related to an archaic hominid, or hominids, that the rest of the human populations in the world is not? Likewise, how are eurasians up to 4-10% more genetically related to neandertals and denisovans than sub saharan africans are? And this is just what we know about now.... What will we know/discover as time passes?

The hypothesis of a single point of origin then a split for "homo sapiens" does not and cannot explain the origins of modern humans, the genetic differences between modern human populations nor how it is that so much different archaic hominid DNA is found within different modern human populations.

Only mixture between hominid populations and hominid sub species can explain our similarities, differences and origins...

where do you get the figures of DNA distance between modern human beings and archaic populations ? as far as i'm aware only DNA for neanderthals has been extracted in sufficient quantity to come to some sort of comparison, and even there it's not clear whether the similarities are a signature of intermixture or a plesiomorphic remainder of a common ancestor

I do not have the time to post the papers this morning, however, I will later but I have posted the papers on a few other threads.

With that said, how different archaic hominid dna is within different modern populations is irreverent.. Right? If it was passed down, derived, or if it was due to later admixture, it just does not matter. The fact that the different dna is there, that it is present, shows that modern human populations owe their origins, at least in part, to different and differing hominid families/populations.

An identical single hominid and identical place for the source and creation for all modern humans cannot be true if these type of dna discoveries/studies are factual and there is different and differing archaic dna within different modern human populations. Right or wrong?

Originally Posted by gonzales56

With that said, how different archaic hominid dna is within different modern populations is irreverent.. Right? If it was passed down, derived, or if it was due to later admixture, it just does not matter. The fact that the different dna is there, that it is present, shows that modern human populations owe their origins, at least in part, to different and differing hominid families/populations.?

But admixture is evident to a degree and acknowledged by the mainstream, yet you find it not good enough?

An identical single hominid and identical place for the source and creation for all modern humans cannot be true if these type of dna discoveries/studies are factual and there is different and differing archaic dna within different modern human populations. Right or wrong

We have been through this before. The definition of "modern human" does not exclude admixture during the last 200k years. The observation is simply that anatomically modern looking fossils (to within a defined degree) found in Africa, seems to point towards an African origin of that set of defined characteristics. Nobody is saying that humans emerged from a single group and have radiated all over the planet from that, without ever mixing with other hominins. Your claims that various features of different populations are mostly due to admixture with other himinins might be true, but is not substantiated. Again, it still seems that you are fighting against some perceived injustice in Anthropology involving politics and whatnot, and emotionally so at times.

Originally Posted by KALSTER

Originally Posted by gonzales56

With that said, how different archaic hominid dna is within different modern populations is irreverent.. Right? If it was passed down, derived, or if it was due to later admixture, it just does not matter. The fact that the different dna is there, that it is present, shows that modern human populations owe their origins, at least in part, to different and differing hominid families/populations.?

But admixture is evident to a degree and acknowledged by the mainstream, yet you find it not good enough?

An identical single hominid and identical place for the source and creation for all modern humans cannot be true if these type of dna discoveries/studies are factual and there is different and differing archaic dna within different modern human populations. Right or wrong

We have been through this before. The definition of "modern human" does not exclude admixture during the last 200k years. The observation is simply that anatomically modern looking fossils (to within a defined degree) found in Africa, seems to point towards an African origin of that set of defined characteristics. Nobody is saying that humans emerged from a single group and have radiated all over the planet from that, without ever mixing with other hominins. Your claims that various features of different populations are mostly due to admixture with other himinins might be true, but is not substantiated. Again, it still seems that you are fighting against some perceived injustice in Anthropology involving politics and whatnot, and emotionally so at times.

Admixture is fine with me and I think it is highly likely that mixture between hominids has been happening for millions of years. It is, IMO, just better to know which hominids bred with each other rather than assume hominids did or even assume that certain hominids existed at a time when they did not (mainly the belief that modern humans existed 150-200 kya ago). Cant have different hominids breeding to each other 150-200 kya when one of them did not exist then.

I do not see an injustice.
Politics is a reality.
I am not emotionally so concerning this or these type of topics.

the funny thing appears to be that you consider any type of variation to be the result of admixture with other populations
what's wrong with genetic novelties and changes in gene frequencies through population bottlenecks

these can just as well explain some of the features that are seen in population that have been relatively isolated from other populations

Originally Posted by Gonzales56

It is, IMO, just better to know which hominids bred with each other rather than assume hominids did or even assume that certain hominids existed at a time when they did not (mainly the belief that modern humans existed 150-200 kya ago). Cant have different hominids breeding to each other 150-200 kya when one of them did not exist then.

Like I said, the given tentative time of emergence of anatomically modern humans is based on the fossils found in Africa that have a set of skeletal features that have been defined as that of Homo sapiens sapiens. As you know, the whole taxonomic system is one that consists out of man-made distinctions between the various levels of organisation. This is acknowledged by the mainstream community. Genetically, those that fall under the demarcation of Homo sapiens sapiens are sufficiently similar to each other and different to other hominins to justify a roughly distinct species or subspecies grouping for modern humans.

Scientists are well aware that the process of speciation is a messy one and that admixture from genetically close relatives are not uncommon. Again, I think the main point of contention here is one of semantics, apart from your contention that ethnic-specific features are due to admixture, instead of regional divergence. The reality is that we still don't know as much as we would like about our development from ancient forms. There are bound to be some surprises.

Taxonomic delineations have changed with dna evidence
"Early taxonomic systems had no theoretical basis; organisms were grouped according to apparent similarity"
and so it goes with the bones of our ancestors
....that being said:
the shovel shaped incisor
sold me on the continuation of a "blood line" from "peking man" to modern chinese when I studied the subject many years ago
Back then, the western tradition was for asia to have been enhabited by "proto-caucasoids"--eg: ainu of japan and some amer-indians while the chinese were located in the arctic. Then, they moved south into china displacing other groups in their paths. There is some linguistic evidence to support this view.
I suspect that current Chinese anthropologist are a tad reactive to those early prognostications.

A completely seperate peoples with a completely different lineage bypassing all other homo-sapiens-sapiens seems implausable.

Originally Posted by sculptor

A completely seperate peoples with a completely different lineage bypassing all other homo-sapiens-sapiens seems implausable.

Yep. The Chinese long held/hoped that they descended straight from Homo erectus somewhere around Asia. This has been shown not to be the case with, among others, DNA evidence.

Originally Posted by sculptor

the shovel shaped incisor
sold me on the continuation of a "blood line" from "peking man" to modern chinese when I studied the subject many years ago

how precise is the similarity ?
remember that when you encounter an analogous structure and you want to determine whether it is a homology, you have to determine that the similarity goes deep instead of just being a superficial one
also, how easy is it for a similar tooth shape to evolve independently ? if it's not easy then it may count as a strong synapomorphic feature, on the other hand if it's relatively easy (i.e. there's only a small number of tooth shapes that can form) then its value as a synapomorphy is greatly diminished

Originally Posted by quasistatic

Originally Posted by kojax

I I can envision a world occupied primarily by erectus, into which the sapiens enter and quickly take over.

Perhaps instead of killing off all of the hapless erectus they encounter, they rule over them, and of course rulers tend to get more attention from the ladies, so a few sapiens could change the genetic direction of quite a many erectus's.

But why would sapeins and erectus be two different species belonging to the same time frame? Are they not evolutionary relatives, sapiens being the evolutionary descendant of erectus?

Maybe I misunderstand speciation, but I'm thinking a new species has to emerge in a new environment. Polar Bears didn't break off from brown bears down in the warmer woodlands. I'm expecting that a small group of erectus found themselves in a place that had new selection criteria and then gradually changed to match it, only to discover that their new traits made them good at surviving in a lot of other places as well. So then they would spread out and conquer the world.

Probably they were a good deal smarter than the erectus, so the erectus followed them as leaders. Or maybe they were just better at drawing interesting cave paintings, but still.... same effect. Their skills would amaze erectus tribes into wanting to follow them. Naturally their role as leaders would give them increased access to mates, so their genes start spreading around rapidly through the populations.

It's just a narrative. It has no guarantee of being accurate.

Originally Posted by gonzales56

The emergence of a sub species or species from another species or sub species does not equal or mean the destruction of their predecessor/s. Erectus could very well be within our species and then again, they could not be. They could be our ancestors, or they could not be. They could have also continued to exist beyond the emergence of modern humans or they could have vanished well before that.

But then you're overlooking their ability to interbreed. Once every last Erectus has married into Sapiens, there would be many partial Erectus left, but no pure blood Erectus. And also there may come to be no pure blood Sapiens.

Apes won't assimilate like that because they can't breed with Sapiens anymore.

Originally Posted by marnixR

the funny thing appears to be that you consider any type of variation to be the result of admixture with other populations
what's wrong with genetic novelties and changes in gene frequencies through population bottlenecks

these can just as well explain some of the features that are seen in population that have been relatively isolated from other populations

No evidence for a human bottleneck in africa
Archaic homo admixture in europeans and west africans
Archaic admixture in sub sarahan africans

We have no human bottleneck in africa. No bottleneck, no isolated populations, no genetic variations created by a bottleneck or isolated populations.

What we do have though is multiple and different hominid populations in africa and eurasia that contributed to the development, origin and DNA of modern humans.

Originally Posted by kojax

But then you're overlooking their ability to interbreed. Once every last Erectus has married into Sapiens, there would be many partial Erectus left, but no pure blood Erectus. And also there may come to be no pure blood Sapiens.

Apes won't assimilate like that because they can't breed with Sapiens anymore.

I promise you I am not overlooking hominids ability to breed with other hominids. I believe that is the story of our origins.

The beautiful thing about our DNA is that there is only so much we can or could have acquire from each and everyone of our ancestor hominids while they existed. I would not be surprised if homo erectus is one of our ancestors or someones ancestor who is alive today. The bottom line is this though, we do not know and whatever and whenever we find out, there will not be, there cannot be, a single hominid that we will be overwhelmingly derived from. Not even the hominids some people classify as homo sapiens sapiens.

Over the last 150,000 ky there is not a population on earth that has acquired/derived more than 10% of their DNA from their ancestors that lived during this time period. Some populations, like the san (sub sarahan africans), have less than 3% derived DNA from their ancestors during this time period.

What is clear is that the origins for our DNA comes from many hominid lines and populations and not a single hominid or hominid line.

Since homo sapiens evolved from previous hominids, it is not surprising that there would be a lot of DNA in common. Even chimps have about 98% DNA in common.

Ok, that was some heavy DNA discussion.

Let's look at it from a different perspective. Leave aside, for a moment, the initial hypothesis of the Chinese as having evolved from a different species of hominids.

In such a case, let's begin to attempt an explanation for the differences in the physical characteristics of Chinese in particular whilst considering they are simply adaptations to environment and intermixing. Perhaps, this could be a more simplified approach that DNA discussions as we do not really have a single conclusive piece of evidence on genetic data of us and our ancestors. So, looking at it logically, and more or less hypothetically -

Consider

Stature - Not heavily built. A possible result of that fact that they adopted the practices of agriculture earlier and did not hunt for food for as long a time as the European counterpart. The terrain being congenial in comparison to the harsh environment of Europe with its mountains and extreme cold.

Anatomy - teeth and shape of the cranium.

facial features - shape of the eyes, sunken eyes, flatter cheek bones. Also, reduced facial hair.

Originally Posted by gonzales56

We have no human bottleneck in africa.

but migration out of africa would have cause a bottleneck merely by small populations migrating and going to live elsewhere, away from the mainstream

Originally Posted by gonzales56

What is clear is that the origins for our DNA comes from many hominid lines and populations and not a single hominid or hominid line.

so much certainty in your assertion, with very little evidence to back it up

Originally Posted by marnixR

Originally Posted by gonzales56

What is clear is that the origins for our DNA comes from many hominid lines and populations and not a single hominid or hominid line.

so much certainty in your assertion, with very little evidence to back it up

I have already posted links that show multiple archaic hominids are the ancestors of multiple different current populations or that some current populations evolved in different regions and are closer related to different ancestral hominids because of it.

If all humans today solely came from a single hominid line that popped up on the scene 120-150 kya then the DNA would show that but, it doesn't.

"A draft sequence and preliminary analysis of the Neandertal genome" (Green, R.E. et al., SCIENCE, 07 May 2010)

"Among 10,535,445 substitutions and 479,863 indels inferred to have occurred on the human lineage, we have information in the Neandertal genome for 3,202,190 and 69,029, i.e., 30% and 14%, respectively. The final catalog thus represents those sequenced positions where we have high confidence in their Neandertal state (SOM Text 11). As expected, the vast majority of those substitutions and indels (87.9% and 87.3%,respectively) occurred before the Neandertal divergence from modern humans.

Furthermore, whereas in the French, Han, and Papuan individuals, 9.8%, 7.8%, and 5.9% of windows, respectively, show between 0% and 2% divergence to the human reference genome, in the San and the Yoruba this is the case for 1.7% and 3.7%, respectively. For the three Neandertals, 2.2 to 2.5% of windows show 0% to 2% divergence to the reference genome."

Keep in mind that 4.6% divergence time equals about 300,000 years ago.. 2.3% divergence time is about 150,000 years.

So Roughly, This is the percentage of derived DNA modern humans have from their ancestors between 0-120 kya.

Europeans/French = 9.8%
Chinese/Han = 7.8%
Papuan = 5.9%
Sub Saharan African/San = 1.7%

Papuan people have more DNA from, or derived from, neanderthal and denisovan or their ancestors than they do from any other hominids that contributed to their DNA over the last 120 kya.

This is just the reality of modern humans though. There is not a single source. There is not a single spring.

Originally Posted by gonzales56

Papuan people have more DNA from, or derived from, neanderthal and denisovan or their ancestors than they do from any other hominids that contributed to their DNA over the last 120 kya.

how about this article then

High quality Denisovan genome sheds light on human evolution

which claims that :

"It appears modern humans and Denisovans separated about 800,000 years ago. But the lineages came back in contact via the ancestors of modern-day Papuans. A full six percent of the Papuan genome appears to be derived from interbreeding with the Denisovans. And, intriguingly, the amount of Denisovan DNA was a bit lower on the X chromosome. One possible explanation for this if is male Denisovans did most of the mating with modern humans."

hence splitting of lineages and occasional interbreeding between lineages are not mutually exclusive mechanisms

also note that in the article it states that "based on the genome, the Denisovans had dark skin, eyes, and hair" - not unlike current inhabitants of Papua New Guinea, but totally unlike the Han chinese

Originally Posted by marnixR

Originally Posted by gonzales56

Papuan people have more DNA from, or derived from, neanderthal and denisovan or their ancestors than they do from any other hominids that contributed to their DNA over the last 120 kya.

how about this article then

High quality Denisovan genome sheds light on human evolution

which claims that :

"It appears modern humans and Denisovans separated about 800,000 years ago. But the lineages came back in contact via the ancestors of modern-day Papuans. A full six percent of the Papuan genome appears to be derived from interbreeding with the Denisovans. And, intriguingly, the amount of Denisovan DNA was a bit lower on the X chromosome. One possible explanation for this if is male Denisovans did most of the mating with modern humans."

hence splitting of lineages and occasional interbreeding between lineages are not mutually exclusive mechanisms

also note that in the article it states that "based on the genome, the Denisovans had dark skin, eyes, and hair" - not unlike current inhabitants of Papua New Guinea, but totally unlike the Han chinese

It would be amazing if modern humans split from another hominid group 800 kya..

Again though, the 6% denisovan dna they do have is higher than the derived DNA they obtained over the last 120 kya, and that is the point here concerning all of our ancestors.. Most modern humans will have less derived genetic material from any homo currently classified as "homo sapiens sapiens" than they have from multiple other hominids from different regions.

Concerning the X chromosome we are starting to finally and honestly learn about those genetics/dna. For the longest time scientist and politics have held the position that everything on the y and x chromosomes came from africa, however, there are a few scientist now who are refusing to play along and we are actually learning something substantial about the x chromosome. For instance, we now know that on average at least 9% of all eurasian x chromosomes are derived or inherited from neandertals and/or archaic neandertals.

Keep in mind that this 9% was said to be, without any doubt, indisputable, unarguably, pure african from one african hominid. As more studies are done and more and more archaic DNA is discovered, I suspect we will learn that even more than 9% of eurasian x chromosomes do not derive from just one hominid and that all of our x chromosomes, in eurasia and africa, are not all derived from one isolated or continuous hominid line / population.

The problem for your side of the argument is that you ignore the fact that there is just not that much dna to be derived or contributed to us over the last 300 ky. The paper I linked above, and quoted, explained one of the major flaws in the thinking of those who believe in one line, one branch decent/evolution, for all modern humans. Over the last 300 ky, on average and roughly, we have only acquired about 12-13% of the genetic changes/mutations/differences we have in total since our common ancestor/s with chimps. Now, if 4% of those changes in some modern humans are derived, inherited or shared exclusively with neandertals, and another 6% is aligned with denisovans, or in the case of sub saharan africans where some of it is aligned with other unknown archaic hominids, how much do you think is left over for a single hominid line that is hypothesized to be the creator/single source of all modern human beings?

Originally Posted by gonzales56

For instance, we now know that on average at least 9% of all eurasian x chromosomes are derived or inherited from neandertals and/or archaic neandertals.

how do you know the 9% is inherited and not shared from a common ancestor - there's still some debate going on whether the shared DNA means interbreeding or not :

Human and Neanderthal interbreeding questioned

Originally Posted by marnixR

Originally Posted by gonzales56

For instance, we now know that on average at least 9% of all eurasian x chromosomes are derived or inherited from neandertals and/or archaic neandertals.

how do you know the 9% is inherited and not shared from a common ancestor - there's still some debate going on whether the shared DNA means interbreeding or not :

Human and Neanderthal interbreeding questioned

All of our DNA is derived. The one thing these difference are though, is not due to a common ancestor/hominid. Coalescent times or time to most recent common ancestor for these differences in our DNA flat out give us different and differing results depending on who is tested.

When the DNA of an archaic hominid coalesces with africans 35 kya but coalesces with eurasians 900 kya, it means that the africans and that archaic hominid had a common ancestor 35 kya and the eurasians and that hominid had a common ancestor 900,000 years ago. Again... All of our DNA is derived, and the denisovan, neandertal and other archaic hominid dna that is unique to different human populations today is not due to a single source/ single ancestor or single ancestor population. It is due to different hominids.

Now is it absolute that DNA credited as being uniquely one hominid or another hominids 100% accurate? Of course not but, that does not mean that we inherited it from a common ancestor. Coalescent times tells us that's just not true.

The question has to not just account for neandertals, it also has to account for denisovans and other archaic hominids as well.

Admixture, very old and relatively new, as well as very deep divergences of the ancestors of current human populations is more than likely, IMO, the story of our origins.

Originally Posted by gonzales56

The one thing these difference are though, is not due to a common ancestor/hominid. Coalescent times or time to most recent common ancestor for these differences in our DNA flat out give us different and differing results depending on who is tested.

the differences may be due to divergence since a separation of populations, but in cladistic terms are the commonalities plesiomorphic or synapomorphic ? how do you tell ?

Originally Posted by marnixR

Originally Posted by gonzales56

The one thing these difference are though, is not due to a common ancestor/hominid. Coalescent times or time to most recent common ancestor for these differences in our DNA flat out give us different and differing results depending on who is tested.

the differences may be due to divergence since a separation of populations, but in cladistic terms are the commonalities plesiomorphic or synapomorphic ? how do you tell ?

The only way it could be completely due to divergence since a separation of populations is if it is the neanderetals, both more recent forms and older archaic forms, that were at the center, the very core of this population. It is the neandertals, and only the neandertals so far, that are closer related to us, denisovans and the other archaic hominid DNA from africa than any of us are related to each other...

Again, the paper I posted actually explains the difference between ancestral dna and derived dna, as well as how they determined the differences, and they did a good/decent job (IMO) doing so.

Basically what they did was look at the dna of modern humans, neandertals and chimps. When and where all three lined up, they knew it was ancestral. When modern humans and chimps lined up, they knew it was ancestral. When neandertals and chimps line up, they knew it was ancestral. When neandertals and modern humans lined up, they knew it was ancestral. When humans and chimps lined up and neandertals did not, they knew it was specific to neandertals... Etc., etc..

Originally Posted by gonzales56

Originally Posted by kojax

But then you're overlooking their ability to interbreed. Once every last Erectus has married into Sapiens, there would be many partial Erectus left, but no pure blood Erectus. And also there may come to be no pure blood Sapiens.

Apes won't assimilate like that because they can't breed with Sapiens anymore.

I promise you I am not overlooking hominids ability to breed with other hominids. I believe that is the story of our origins.

The beautiful thing about our DNA is that there is only so much we can or could have acquire from each and everyone of our ancestor hominids while they existed. I would not be surprised if homo erectus is one of our ancestors or someones ancestor who is alive today. The bottom line is this though, we do not know and whatever and whenever we find out, there will not be, there cannot be, a single hominid that we will be overwhelmingly derived from. Not even the hominids some people classify as homo sapiens sapiens.

Over the last 150,000 ky there is not a population on earth that has acquired/derived more than 10% of their DNA from their ancestors that lived during this time period. Some populations, like the san (sub sarahan africans), have less than 3% derived DNA from their ancestors during this time period.

What is clear is that the origins for our DNA comes from many hominid lines and populations and not a single hominid or hominid line.

You're leaving out the question of selection. Interbreeding would give a greater variety of DNA. We could think of that as an accelerated mutation rate. Fine, but what causes the bad genes not to be equally prevalent as good genes?

Why didn't this process give us Neanderthal teeth, Hiedelbergensis IQ, and Hominid stature? Why should it result in a special new species that is able to dominate over the others?

The possibility the rest of us are trying to present to you is that new a species or subspecies emerged somewhere. Maybe Africa. Maybe somewhere else. This new species had a trait no other previous species ever had. Higher IQ. Including artistic ability. It couldn't have inherited that trait from the others because none of the others had it to pass on.

That species may not have been homo-sapiens as we know it today. It may have gone on to mix bloodlines with the others in a way that resulted in there no longer existing a pure version of its original self.

Originally Posted by gonzales56

Basically what they did was look at the dna of modern humans, neandertals and chimps. When and where all three lined up, they knew it was ancestral. When modern humans and chimps lined up, they knew it was ancestral. When neandertals and chimps line up, they knew it was ancestral. When neandertals and modern humans lined up, they knew it was ancestral. When humans and chimps lined up and neandertals did not, they knew it was specific to neandertals... Etc., etc..

so far so good, but i've always felt uneasy about the fact that the only outgroup that makes sense are the chimps, since this leaves more than 5 million years of ancestry unresolved - and when modern humans and neanderthals share DNA you can't tell whether it's through interbreeding or shared ancestry (unless it's also present in chimps)

Originally Posted by marnixR

Originally Posted by gonzales56

Basically what they did was look at the dna of modern humans, neandertals and chimps. When and where all three lined up, they knew it was ancestral. When modern humans and chimps lined up, they knew it was ancestral. When neandertals and chimps line up, they knew it was ancestral. When neandertals and modern humans lined up, they knew it was ancestral. When humans and chimps lined up and neandertals did not, they knew it was specific to neandertals... Etc., etc..

so far so good, but i've always felt uneasy about the fact that the only outgroup that makes sense are the chimps, since this leaves more than 5 million years of ancestry unresolved - and when modern humans and neanderthals share DNA you can't tell whether it's through interbreeding or shared ancestry (unless it's also present in chimps)

What they did though was exclude all the DNA where all humans and neandertals matched simply because they did not know if it was ancestral or due to interbreeding. The only DNA they counted in the 4% figure was when eurasians and neandertals match but, africans did not or when africans and neandertals matched, and eurasians did not.

Thy should redo the study/technique and throw in denisovan and cro magnon DNA IMO.

A) toss into the discussion, the "out of africa" theory,
and the shared neanderthal dna can only come from cross breeding
or
B) throw out the "out of africa" theory and find a new paradigm?

I think B

Originally Posted by sculptor

A) toss into the discussion, the "out of africa" theory,
and the shared neanderthal dna can only come from cross breeding
or
B) throw out the "out of africa" theory and find a new paradigm?

I think B

"Out of Africa" in a nutshell:

1) There is a generally held basic description of skeletal features and genetic marker that are associated with "modern humans". This is not a rigid definition, but it is limiting enough.

2) Fossils bearing basic skeletal features identified with "modern humans" have been dug up in Africa where the oldest ones are found by a long margin.

So, how can that NOT suggest that "modern humans" evolved in Africa and then migrated? Note, none of this dismisses interbreeding with other subspecies during the last 200k years, either in Africa or elsewhere.

Originally Posted by sculptor

A) toss into the discussion, the "out of africa" theory,
and the shared neanderthal dna can only come from cross breeding
or
B) throw out the "out of africa" theory and find a new paradigm?

I think B

B is most likely if you look at all the evidence, however, option A combined with the discoveries of other archaic hominid dna in modern humans actually leave very little DNA left that modern humans could have derived from such a hypothesized sole creator of all modern humans.

Originally Posted by KALSTER

Originally Posted by sculptor

A) toss into the discussion, the "out of africa" theory,
and the shared neanderthal dna can only come from cross breeding
or
B) throw out the "out of africa" theory and find a new paradigm?

I think B

"Out of Africa" in a nutshell:

1) There is a generally held basic description of skeletal features and genetic marker that are associated with "modern humans". This is not a rigid definition, but it is limiting enough.

2) Fossils bearing basic skeletal features identified with "modern humans" have been dug up in Africa where the oldest ones are found by a long margin.

So, how can that NOT suggest that "modern humans" evolved in Africa and then migrated? Note, none of this dismisses interbreeding with other subspecies during the last 200k years, either in Africa or elsewhere.

Actually, skulls with modern features are found in eurasia as well but, they are rejected because they were not found in africa. .. This built in bias will not last and cannot last forever though.

One of the richest, continuous and biggest fossil records of humans/hominids is actually in Spain.

What site in spain?

Again, please provide a reference.

Originally Posted by Paleoichneum

What site in spain?

Atapuerca Spain

Of course there are other sites in spain as well.

This is interesting

Unsurprisingly, neither links are of modern humans.

The idea is that modern features developed out of older ones obviously, with those in the first link not belonging to modern humans, but to an earlier hominid with close to modern teeth, but not yet cranial capacity.

How loose do you want to have the definition of "modern human", so you can make a claim like you did in post #42? Can you explain why this assertion of yours is not dishonest and/or disingenuous?

Is a definition of modern human features evidence of a bias in your eyes? Why would these scientists have a bias towards African origins?

Originally Posted by gonzales56

Originally Posted by Paleoichneum

What site in spain?

Atapuerca Spain

Of course there are other sites in spain as well.

This is interesting

What papers support the assertion you made that Atapuerca is one of the " richest, continuous and biggest fossil records of humans/hominids".

We're getting too hung up on what a "homo sapien" is. The higher intelligence which we associate with "homo-sapiens" couldn't very likely be the result of interbreeding between less intelligent species because interbreeding doesn't really create new traits. It just draws on old ones from a larger pallet, and so you get more options to select from. There's no plausible reason to think that if a dumb homo-erectus mates to a dumb neanderthal, they're going to give birth to a smart homo-sapien. That just doesn't follow any kind of reasonable logic.

What's more likely to happen is that some isolated pocket of erectus or denosivan or ... whatever.... finds itself subject to a different environmental selection and gradually evolves the higher IQ trait. Then whatever that species is, it spreads out and either breeds with existing hominids to impart the trait to them, or just continues to expand its own population and push them out, or both.

But, the smart hominid doesn't have to be a homo-sapiens. Homo-sapiens could have come later. Homo-sapiens could be the product of that smart hominid breeding with other hominids.

If we liken this to polar bears (since that's a more obvious situation), there's no saying the first bear to have a white coat of fur was necessarily a polar bear as we identify them today. It could have been another bear, and maybe that other bear went on to mate with grizzly bears, and the product was a polar bear. But the white coat of fur is clearly not the result of grizzly bears mating with brown bears. That would be just plain silly.

Originally Posted by kojax

We're getting too hung up on what a "homo sapien" is.

on the contrary, i think it's very important to define the topic under discussion as tightly as possible
in this respect, does anyone have a copy of The morphological distinctiveness of Homo sapiens and its recognition in the fossil record: Clarifying the problem by Ian Tattersall and Jeffrey H. Schwartz ? it looks like a read that might be relevant to this discussion

Here is another one by Tattersall that is not behind a paywall: Human origins: Out of Africa

Heidelbergensis had a rather large brain case,
the age old question: does size matter?
(s)he was around for the better part of a million years in europe.

let us assume small pocket populations of hominids
pocket A developes mutation a (which, on it's own seems to do nothing)
pocket B developes mutation b (which, on it's own seems to do nothing)
pocket C developes mutation C (which, on it's own seems to do nothing)
etc. etc. through ZZ
then the ice retreats and the pockets reunite and breed
and the combined mutations-----a-c, b-c, a-b, a-d, ad-z, etc have a dramatic effect

if each combination produces different aspects of modern humans,
eg: neanderthals gave us red hair and blue eyes
Then
Can we ever truely know from whence came the spark of the dawn of our species? sub species? etc...?

Originally Posted by kojax

We're getting too hung up on what a "homo sapien" is. The higher intelligence which we associate with "homo-sapiens" couldn't very likely be the result of interbreeding between less intelligent species because interbreeding doesn't really create new traits. It just draws on old ones from a larger pallet, and so you get more options to select from. There's no plausible reason to think that if a dumb homo-erectus mates to a dumb neanderthal, they're going to give birth to a smart homo-sapien. That just doesn't follow any kind of reasonable logic.

What's more likely to happen is that some isolated pocket of erectus or denosivan or ... whatever.... finds itself subject to a different environmental selection and gradually evolves the higher IQ trait. Then whatever that species is, it spreads out and either breeds with existing hominids to impart the trait to them, or just continues to expand its own population and push them out, or both.

But, the smart hominid doesn't have to be a homo-sapiens. Homo-sapiens could have come later. Homo-sapiens could be the product of that smart hominid breeding with other hominids.

If we liken this to polar bears (since that's a more obvious situation), there's no saying the first bear to have a white coat of fur was necessarily a polar bear as we identify them today. It could have been another bear, and maybe that other bear went on to mate with grizzly bears, and the product was a polar bear. But the white coat of fur is clearly not the result of grizzly bears mating with brown bears. That would be just plain silly.

You are assuming that hominids that were not modern human were dumb. This, IMO, is a mistake. It is actually more likely that a positive trait would or will arise from a larger breeding pool (including multiple populations) rather than in an isolated and relatively stable smaller pool.

The evolutionary clock tends to move a lot slower within populations that do not undergo environmental and/or social changes/pressures. Even today we find that nothing advances modern humans like nature disasters or competition between populations. We also know that modern human populations that have been or remain isolated are, as defined by you and your own assumptions concerning other humans/hominids, "stupid".

Nothing culls the herd/s like mother nature and social changes can, will and do. Single and isolated populations just do not produce the changes needed to create, sustain or push our species to the point at which it is today.

Concerning the "color of ones coat", there are millions and millions of people a live today, and even perhaps all of us, that owe our color to crosses between different human populations at one point or another. You see, we do not have to make assumptions, we do not have to guess, we know the processes at work concerning a lot of modern human advancements, behaviors and appearances because we have actually witnessed and recorded them. Concerning humans, and outside of a few major natural disasters, it is humans themselves that tend to apply their own pressure and push for change and changes at a rate and to a degree that is amazingly unprecedented among all other life forms on earth., and we do not do it by being isolated.

Originally Posted by Paleoichneum

Originally Posted by gonzales56

Originally Posted by Paleoichneum

What site in spain?

Atapuerca Spain

Of course there are other sites in spain as well.

This is interesting

What papers support the assertion you made that Atapuerca is one of the " richest, continuous and biggest fossil records of humans/hominids".

There might be a single paper that discusses all the human/hominid fossil finds in spain but, what is the point of trying to find one? It is well understood and known that spain has produced, from its soil, more hominid fossils than anywhere else..

Pit of bones
"Since the 1980s, archaeologists have recovered the remains of 32 individuals from a chamber at the bottom of a 14 metre (45 foot) shaft known as La Sima de los Huesos ('The Pit of Bones'). The bones, which date to around 300,000 years ago, comprise 75% of hominid fossils known between 100,000 and 1.5 million years ago."

POB
"A recently discovered mandible known as ATE9-1 from the nearby site of Sima del Elephante dates to approximately 1.2 Ma." "In fact, the Sima de los Huesos sample is so large that it currently constitutes nearly 80% of the entire global Middle Pleistocene hominin fossil record."

I believe the oldest hominid find in spain is 11.9 million years old. Spain also has homo antecessor, a hominid believed by many to possibly be the ancestor of both neandertals and modern humans. Spain is just a treasure trove of human/hominid fossils and there is no place on earth, that is known, that even comes close.

Originally Posted by gonzales56

You are assuming that hominids that were not modern human were dumb. This, IMO, is a mistake. It is actually more likely that a positive trait would or will arise from a larger breeding pool (including multiple populations) rather than in an isolated and relatively stable smaller pool.

Relatively stable smaller pool? Smaller pools are not relatively stable. Larger pools are. It's a simple law of statistics. The bigger the group, the more statistically stable it is.

If a single exceptional person is born in a small town and lives there their whole life, their genes are going to get spread less thin in that population than they would if they were born in a huge city. Now if the town is too small, then there will be inbreeding issues. But just outside that threshold you've got a population with the ability to rapidly adopt any new emerging mutation.

A huge group has more total mutations in it, but each mutation is only allowed a small magnitude of effect.

The evolutionary clock tends to move a lot slower within populations that do not undergo environmental and/or social changes/pressures. Even today we find that nothing advances modern humans like nature disasters or competition between populations. We also know that modern human populations that have been or remain isolated are, as defined by you and your own assumptions concerning other humans/hominids, "stupid".

I don't know why you believe this? Most of the existing "pure breed" dogs were created by pushing the boundaries of inbreeding to their limit. Sure that can lead to a bad result just as easily as a good result.

Fortunately, the environment is very good at selecting against the bad results.

Concerning humans, and outside of a few major natural disasters, it is humans themselves that tend to apply their own pressure and push for change and changes at a rate and to a degree that is amazingly unprecedented among all other life forms on earth., and we do not do it by being isolated.

That's because we use the exchange of ideas instead of DNA.

a rather addition to this discussion : Genetic study finds complexity in cradle of humanity

i find the following statement especially important :

Originally Posted by New Scientist

"When we start digging into this data, the most striking result is the deep population structure that we find," says Jakobsson. This structure suggests that modern humans emerged from a geographically diverse group, in contrast to the "bottleneck" theory in which all humans alive today are descended from a single, relatively homogenous group of people.

Originally Posted by marnixR

a rather addition to this discussion : Genetic study finds complexity in cradle of humanity

i find the following statement especially important :

Originally Posted by New Scientist

"When we start digging into this data, the most striking result is the deep population structure that we find," says Jakobsson. This structure suggests that modern humans emerged from a geographically diverse group, in contrast to the "bottleneck" theory in which all humans alive today are descended from a single, relatively homogenous group of people.

The problem for the idea of a single line of human/hominid as the creator of all modern humans is that there has never been a shred of evidence to support it but, there is a lot of evidence that suggests that we are the product of mixes between hominid populations.

I would not be surprised if mixing between populations is something hominids have done and been doing for millions of years.

Who here has been arguing that only ​one line of humans is still the only accepted hypothesis???

Originally Posted by gonzales56

Originally Posted by marnixR

a rather addition to this discussion : Genetic study finds complexity in cradle of humanity

i find the following statement especially important :

Originally Posted by New Scientist

"When we start digging into this data, the most striking result is the deep population structure that we find," says Jakobsson. This structure suggests that modern humans emerged from a geographically diverse group, in contrast to the "bottleneck" theory in which all humans alive today are descended from a single, relatively homogenous group of people.

The problem for the idea of a single line of human/hominid as the creator of all modern humans is that there has never been a shred of evidence to support it but, there is a lot of evidence that suggests that we are the product of mixes between hominid populations.

I would not be surprised if mixing between populations is something hominids have done and been doing for millions of years.

Who contributed the intelligence? As near as I can tell, intelligence is the one and only reason homo-sapiens survived and the others didn't. Do you know of any other plausible reason why the others are all dead?

If all hominids were equally smart, then we would need some other reason for it. (In fairness, neanderthal might have died due to its dietary requirements being too high. But where did the others go?) Is your theory just that they randomly happened to die for no reason? Or did they all breed together into oblivion (wherein most of their features somehow vanished rather than being carried on)?

Originally Posted by kojax

As near as I can tell, intelligence is the one and only reason homo-sapiens survived and the others didn't. Do you know of any other plausible reason why the others are all dead?

granted that intelligence allows you to use the natural resources to greater effect, but at times extinction can just be a matter of bad luck, like being in the wrong place at the wrong time, with no migration routes out of a sticky situation - intelligence could helpful in that situation, but only up to a point

Originally Posted by kojax

Originally Posted by gonzales56

Originally Posted by marnixR

a rather addition to this discussion : Genetic study finds complexity in cradle of humanity

i find the following statement especially important :

Originally Posted by New Scientist

"When we start digging into this data, the most striking result is the deep population structure that we find," says Jakobsson. This structure suggests that modern humans emerged from a geographically diverse group, in contrast to the "bottleneck" theory in which all humans alive today are descended from a single, relatively homogenous group of people.

The problem for the idea of a single line of human/hominid as the creator of all modern humans is that there has never been a shred of evidence to support it but, there is a lot of evidence that suggests that we are the product of mixes between hominid populations.

I would not be surprised if mixing between populations is something hominids have done and been doing for millions of years.

Who contributed the intelligence? As near as I can tell, intelligence is the one and only reason homo-sapiens survived and the others didn't. Do you know of any other plausible reason why the others are all dead?

If all hominids were equally smart, then we would need some other reason for it. (In fairness, neanderthal might have died due to its dietary requirements being too high. But where did the others go?) Is your theory just that they randomly happened to die for no reason? Or did they all breed together into oblivion (wherein most of their features somehow vanished rather than being carried on)?

I have never claimed or stated that all hominids are smart, dumb, intelligent or not intelligent. I stated that I think it is a mistake to assume that all hominids that existed before modern humans were stupid.

It is far more likely, IMO, that interbreeding between hominids radiated positive and desired genes and changes through multiple hominid populations, and it is this process that led to the creation of modern humans. The word extinction, IMO, is a bit harsh concerning these hominids. Perhaps an alteration, evolution and extinction of some features and some DNA is more fitting.