Thread: So when Homo Erectus has disappeared?

Guys, there were some arguements about time when Homo Erectus really dissapeared. The first version as you know was that thay have died out about 300000 years ago as soon as Homo Neanderthalensis has come. The other is that they could stay alive for a long time somewhere in Indonesia and then died out when Homo Sapiens appeared. As I'm not scientist but a student I would like to listen to opinions of people who are versed in this question. It's desirable to leave references of books or sites which can help me to increase my knowledge of antropology. Thank you!

Originally Posted by George Farukh

Guys, there were some arguements about time when Homo Erectus really dissapeared. The first version as you know was that thay have died out about 300000 years ago as soon as Homo Neanderthalensis has come. The other is that they could stay alive for a long time somewhere in Indonesia and then died out when Homo Sapiens appeared.

When you say that Homo erectus either died out about 300kya as soon as Homo Neanderthalensis emerged, it gets me thinking: Has it somehow been ruled out, if Homo erectus perhaps just evolved into Neanderthals in Eurasia? So that He didn't die out untill Neanderthals got genetically assimilated into Homo sapiens 30kya.
And, perhaps the first suggestion is not incompatible with the second, 'cause you mention Homo erectus perhaps being in Indonesia at a very late stage. Why wouldn't one strand of Eurasian He have evolved in the West into Neanderthals untill their demise as a unique strand, and another strand of Eurasian He having evolved in the East in Indonesia? It could lend Homo floresiensis as being perhaps a very late last strand of Homo erectus 13kya (basically fleeing from them brutal Hs or something).


But, I have no idea if these ideas have been scrutinized by anthropology at large, and how well it would be supported by the known fossil archive.

Is "genetic assimilation" a thing? Perhaps they were just reproductively "absorbed" into the Neanderthal gene pool or something. If that makes sense?

In tracing the human DNA strands we note points of difference. Some seem to be climate related some not..
~ You can be sure of this. Our ability to travel and inter bread has changed the depth of the DNA pool.. fare..
That the next change has arrived and none of us saw it..

Originally Posted by Daecon

Is "genetic assimilation" a thing? Perhaps they were just reproductively "absorbed" into the Neanderthal gene pool or something. If that makes sense?

That was what I meant, anyways. That people interbred.

Originally Posted by CEngelbrecht

Originally Posted by Daecon

Is "genetic assimilation" a thing? Perhaps they were just reproductively "absorbed" into the Neanderthal gene pool or something. If that makes sense?

That was what I meant, anyways. That people interbred.

It's an interesting distinction.

If we think of pure blooded erectus as one species, and mixed blood erectus as another, then the pure blood erectus did die off. Once the last pure blooded erectus mated with a mixed blood erectus or a neanderthal or some other competing subspecies, the pure bloodline ceased to reproduce and therefore died out.

On the other hand, if we think of mixed blood erectus as being the same species as pure blood erectus, then mixed blood erectus may still be considered to be alive today.

But pretty much all evolution moves by half breeds, if you think about it, because the first time a new genetic trait emerges, it usually emerges only in one organism. That organism then breeds with a non-mutated member of its origin species, passing on its new trait randomly to some of its offspring and not to some others of its offspring. This gets thinned out even further over the next few generations, as that offspring mates with still more non-mutated partners.

However, if it is a really useful trait, then natural selection will reconcentrate it over time, once it is spread out far enough into the gene pool so that pairs of partners who both possess the trait can start mating again.

Originally Posted by kojax

pretty much all evolution moves by half breeds, if you think about it, because the first time a new genetic trait emerges, it usually emerges only in one organism.

Good point, well said.

Originally Posted by kojax

Originally Posted by CEngelbrecht

Originally Posted by Daecon

Is "genetic assimilation" a thing? Perhaps they were just reproductively "absorbed" into the Neanderthal gene pool or something. If that makes sense?

That was what I meant, anyways. That people interbred.

On the other hand, if we think of mixed blood erectus as being the same species as pure blood erectus, then mixed blood erectus may still be considered to be alive today.

But pretty much all evolution moves by half breeds, if you think about it, because the first time a new genetic trait emerges, it usually emerges only in one organism.

Correctamundo AFIAK. Also, while sex evolution works wonders on the biological field, in the psychological realm only humans excel at sex with ideas (idea sharing):

Matt Ridley: When ideas have sex | Talk Video | TED.com

The problem is IIRC that we have no homo erectus dna at this time, and technically might never. (Surely some exists under the continental shelf layers which used to be coastline, under peat or oxygen hating ooze, like under the Black Sea. The trick being finding and extracting.)

WE are getting closer, though:

Oldest Hominin DNA Ever Sequenced Challenges Tale of Human Origins : Science : Nature World News

As this last URL mentions, speculation has it that Neanderthal Man was some homo erectus, which makes sense. Also note that all humans outside Africa (before 1500 AD or so) have at least 1% DNA to a maximum of 4% or so from Neanderthals.

Strikes a chord for me personally; one granny from the Scandinavian "refuge" has massive hands, among other hallmark traits, reaching almost to her knees. An unforgiving appraisal of my family says "high % neanderthal". Would rather have rhyme and reason for my own traits than feel I'm simply abnormal.

depends.

I'd say the evidence as hand states around 20,000 years ago. These are fossils from China or Java, and not the "hobbits" as these are deemed a separate species.

Originally Posted by forbez

depends.

I'd say the evidence as hand states around 20,000 years ago. These are fossils from China or Java, and not the "hobbits" as these are deemed a separate species.

Could you post (this thread) or sent (PM) a URL link to describe the above?