Anatomically Modern Humans Interbred With More Archaic Hominin Forms While in Africa

9 posts

Niccolo and Donkey
Anatomically Modern Humans Interbred With More Archaic Hominin Forms While in Africa

Science Daily

September 6, 2011

ScienceDaily (Sep. 6, 2011) — It is now widely accepted that the species Homo sapiens originated in Africa and eventually spread throughout the world. But did those early humans interbreed with more ancestral forms of the genus Homo, for example Homo erectus, the "upright walking man," Homo habilis, -- the "tool-using man" or Homo neanderthalensis, the first artists of cave-painting fame?

Direct studies of ancient DNA from Neanderthal bones suggest interbreeding did occur after anatomically modern humans had migrated from their evolutionary cradle in Africa to the cooler climates of Eurasia, but what had happened in Africa remained a mystery -- until now.

In a paper published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS), a team led by Michael Hammer, an associate professor and research scientist with the the University of Arizona's Arizona Research Labs, provides evidence that anatomically modern humans were not so unique that they remained separate.

"We found evidence for hybridization between modern humans and archaic forms in Africa. It looks like our lineage has always exchanged genes with their more morphologically diverged neighbors," said Hammer, who also holds appointments in the UA's department ofecology and evolutionary biology, the school of anthropology, the BIO5 Institute and the Arizona Cancer Center.

Hammer added that recent advances in molecular biology have made it possible to extract DNA from fossils tens of thousands of years old and compare it to that of modern counterparts.

However, "We don't have fossil DNA from Africa to compare with ours," he said. "Neanderthals lived in colder climates, but the climate in more tropical areas make it very tough for DNA to survive that long, so recovering usable samples from fossil specimens is extremely difficult if not impossible."

"Our work is different from the research that led to the breakthroughs in Neanderthal genetics," he explained. "We couldn't look directly for ancient DNA that is 40,000 years old and make a direct comparison."

To get past this hindrance, Hammer's team followed a computational and statistical approach.
"Instead, we looked at DNA from modern humans belonging to African populations and searched for unusual regions in the genome."

Because nobody knows the DNA sequences of those now extinct archaic forms, Hammer's team first had to figure out what features of modern DNA might represent fragments that were brought in from archaic forms.

"What we do know is that the sequences of those forms, even the Neanderthals, are not that different from modern humans," he said. "They have certain characteristics that make them different from modern DNA."

The researchers used simulations to predict what ancient DNA sequences would look like had they survived within the DNA of our own cells.

"You could say we simulated interbreeding and exchange of genetic material in silico," Hammer said. "We can simulate a model of hybridization between anatomically modern humans and some archaic form. In that sense, we simulate history so that we can see what we would expect the pattern to look like if it did occur."

According to Hammer, the first signs of anatomically modern features appeared about 200,000 years ago.

First, the team sequenced vast regions of human genomes from samples taken from six different populations living in Africa today and tried to match up their sequences with what they expected those sequences to look like in archaic forms. The researchers focused on non-coding regions of the genome, stretches of DNA that do not contain genes, which serve as the blueprints for proteins.

"Then we asked ourselves what does the general pattern of variation look like in the DNA that we sequenced in those African populations, and we started to look at regions that looked unusual," Hammer said. "We discovered three different genetic regions fit the criteria for being archaic DNA still present in the genomes of sub-Saharan Africans. Interestingly, this signature was strongest in populations from central Africa."

The scientists applied several criteria to tag a DNA sequence as archaic. For example, if a DNA sequence differed radically from the ones found in a modern population, it was likely to be ancient in origin. Another telltale sign is how far it extends along a chromosome. If an unusual piece is found to stretch a long portion of a chromosome, it is an indication of being brought into the population relatively recently.

"We are talking about something that happened between 20,000 and 60,000 years ago -- not that long ago in the scheme of things," Hammer said. "If interbreeding occurs, it's going to bring in a whole chromosome, and over time, recombination events will chop the chromosome down to smaller pieces. And those pieces will now be found as short, unusual fragments. By looking at how long they are we can get an estimate of how far back the interbreeding event happened."

Hammer said that even though the archaic DNA sequences account for only two or three percent of what is found in modern humans, that doesn't mean the interbreeding wasn't more extensive.
"It could be that this represents what's left of a more extensive archaic genetic content today. Many of the sequences we looked for would be expected to be lost over time. Unless they provide a distinct evolutionary advantage, there is nothing keeping them in the population and they drift out."

In a next step, Hammer's team wants to look for ancient DNA regions that conferred some selective advantage to the anatomically modern humans once they acquired them.

"We think there were probably thousands of interbreeding events," Hammer said. "It happened relatively extensively and regularly."

"Anatomically modern humans were not so unique that they remained separate," he added. "They have always exchanged genes with their more morphologically diverged neighbors. This is quite common in nature, and it turns out we're not so unusual after all."

The paper, "Genetic Evidence for Archaic Admixture in Africa," was co-authored by August Woerner from the UA's ARL Division of Biotechnology, Fernando Mendez from the UA's department of ecology and evolutionary biology, Joseph Watkins from the UA's Mathematics Department and Jeffrey Wall from the Institute for Human Genetics at the University of California San Francisco.

Regional skull and dental features remain consistent in the transition from pre-human to human, in the fossil record. That alone should be enough to conclude that humans bred with non-humans, giving rise to the races. They spent years trying to deny Neanderthals hybridized with Homo Sapiens, despite a very obvious chronological humanization of the neanderthal skull.

I wonder why the kikes aren't yanking the funding on these studies. They don't have a complete death grip on that field? Oversight on their part if they don't, it really does undermine egalitarianism.

President Camacho

I had strongly suspected this to be the truth for years, although the official position of the "scientific community" just seems to be coming in now.

Rather counter-intuitively this 'archaic race mixing' scenario is bad for egalitarians because, as Ango implied, it leads to the obvious conclusion that there is not one breed of mankind but many, each with unique physical, physiological, and mental properties that shape modes of perceiving and negotiating the world.

The Neanderthals actually had larger brain cases than modern humans-- the theory was that they went extinct because their metabolic requirements were higher than sapiens and so they could not sustain themselves past the Ice Age. Now it seems obvious that Europeans absorbed far more Neanderthal DNA than any other human population. In fact the Neanderthal remains from Central Asia and the Middle East-- their farthest eastern settlements-- are more gracialized than European specimens, which may suggests a more dilute breed existing there in smaller numbers.

The figure for Europeans is probably much higher than 4%...

Of course negroes and Australoids and such never received any Neanderthal genes, so they remained sub-human homo sapiens.
Neanderthals had larger brains, but their frontal lobes were small and their foreheads short and sloping. Their brains were more elongated, like chimps, than ball-shaped.

They didn't go extinct at all. They were a small population under constant fuck-invasion by new waves of humans, and so generation by generation the inhabitants of Europe became less Neanderthal as a result of melting with foreign migrations. Modern Europeans retain many of their traits however, such as red-hair, white skin & freckles, many of the features and proportions of the Neanderthal face and body.

The same happened with other parts of the world, like East Asia. There was obviously a breed of pre-sapiens in the Beringian region, that upon contact with younger influxes of human, endowed them with the traits we recognize East Asians by today.

What this research (in the article) suggests is that Africans are a result of the same.

Australoids and other populations with primitive features (prognathism, pronounced brow ridge, low forehead, etc) have these features because they were more isolated from newer populations carrying newer adaptations. The geographical pattern of indigenous people in Asia and Australia indicates that there was a pre-human race spanning from Arabia, to India, to Indochina, to Tasmania. Then when Negroes left Africa (venturing all the way to New Guinea where we find their descendants today) they diluted these populations, leaving only relatively pure pockets in South India and Australia.

The standard has long been that we are all descended from a common human ancestor in Africa, whose progeny went on to displace those extra-sapiens and our racial differences are a result of later adaptations to regional differences in climate and diet.
In fact, we are all descended from a common human ancestor in Africa, whose progeny went on to hybridize with various kinds of extra-humans who were already adapted to regional differences in climate and diet, and by passing these adaptations onto us gave rise to human races.
President Camacho

I agree with most of your post, except,

This is true for the so-called Upper Paleolithic types (Brunns, Borrebys, and also likely the non-Nordish "Alpine" and "Dinaric" racial types-- all of which are big boned and have large cranial vaults) but the genuine "Nordic" type is likely as pure of a homo sapien specimen as you will find. As is the "Mediterranean" type.

Genuine Nordics are highly dolichocephalic (long-headed), with relatively gracile skeletons compared with, say Borrebys; their light features are most likely the result of convergent adaptations to the European climate, not significant Neanderthal admixture.
President Camacho
Let me break this shit down for saloforum

The most obvious example of a nation that still widely retains the unadulterated "Upper Paleolithic"/Neanderthal look are the Irish, the only nation where the Brünn type is still predominant.

See here for a good summary on the Brünn type...

Outside of Ireland however there are still pockets of surviving Brünn phenotypes throughout Northern Europe. Here are a few Scandanavians:


Note the sloping forehead, recessed chin, pronounced brow ridge, "heavy" features, and robustness of the Brünn, all prominent Neanderthal traits.

The Nordic, on the other hand, has more angular and defined features, a straight or even a convex nose (in contrast to the Brünn nose, which tends towards concavity), more gracile build, and more dolichocephalic head. Therefore at least phenotypically Neanderthal features are entirely absent.

Nordics are found in unadulterated form in significant proportions on the North European plain, Scandanavia, and eastern Britain.

Hallstatt Nordics :

Swedish actor max von Sydow, Jesus Christ in the Heliand /Germanic conception, Max von Sydow as Jesus:

[​IMG] [​IMG]

Of course there are also hybridized Nordic-UP phenotypes.

The Anglo-Saxon --a Brünn/Nordic hybrid-- is probably the most famous "intermediate" type. Michael Caine, Alec Guinness, and IMO Jack Layton are Anglo-Saxon types:

[​IMG] [​IMG] [​IMG]

Note the smaller and less fleshy nose, higher rate of blondism, and thinner and more refined face of the Anglo-Saxon type compared to the Brünn.

The other surviving Nordish UP type (again, the UP types are basically the most Neanderthalid) is the Borreby, which is found especially on the North German plain. Like Brünns, Borrebys have wider faces (they are seemingly Alpines adapted to cloudier climates), thicker features & heavier builds, and less blondism than "true" Nordics. Typically light-eyed, Brown-haired, like the Brünn.


Intermediate between Borreby and Nordic is the Fälish or Dalo-Falid type, which is found in sizeable proportions among all the Germanic peoples. The Fälish type seems to exhibit more sexual dimorphism than the Brünn, with Fälish females retaining more femininity (Reese Witherspoon and Courtney Thorne-Smith are good Fälish examples) than Brünns, while males tend to exhibit the robust jaw and skeleton and muscularity of the Neanderthal combined with the more chiseled features of the Nordic.

The Fälish male is probably the quintessential "mesomorph" in body type, as perhaps evidenced by the fact that all the best examples I can think of are action movie stars.

Schwarzenegger, Val Kilmer, Brad Pitt, Rutger Hauer, Dolph Lundgren:

[​IMG] [​IMG] [​IMG] [​IMG] [​IMG]

I don't believe in that old classification system, Brunns, Nordics, Halstatt, etc. The only thing I see close to this is a difference in the frequency of certain traits between various European ethnicities (taller and paler in the Baltic, shorter and swarthier around the Mediterranean and Caucasus, more Beringian around the Urals and Arctic).

The humans who came in and bred with the Neanderthals were gracile, short torso-long limbed, round-headed, flat-faced, with chins, and more melanin. Sprinkle on the pale gingerism, robustness, long torso-short limbed, long-headed, bow-faced, chinless Neanderthal and the result is Caucasoid. Some Europeans/Mideasterners carry more or less Neanderthal on their genome, and show more or less in their phenotype, but they're all a result of this crossing.

You seem to think Whites evolved and then some of them mixed with the other humanoids. But Whites are the making of non-Whites unadapted to Europe and pre-Humans who were completely adapted to Europe.

President Camacho
Byssus Roland Bronze Age Pervert
The now-accepted fact that homo sapiens interbred with divergent groups of hominids does not discredit the notion that homo sapiens were also simultaneously splitting into divergent groups themselves.

Both Nords and Meds have, at first glance, the highest degree of conformity with those traits that differentiate homo sapiens from Neanderthals-- gracile skeletons, leptorrhine noses, less pronounced ridges, etc.

Your own people from the Horn of Africa share many of these traits as well. All three of the aforementioned groups may be relatively "pure" homo sapiens who simply adapted differently to their climes. The only conclusive evidence we have so far of other hominids interbreeding with sapiens is among Europeans (with Neanderthalensis) and Melanesians (with the "Denisovans"). I agree that there will probably be more discovered-- the regressive prognathism and deep eye sockets of Congoids, for example, would seem to indicate interbreeding with a more primitive hominid group, as well as Dravidians, maybe Chinese, etc. But again, this still doesn't rule out the possibility of divergent evolution among homo sapiens as well.

Neanderthals were absorbed by European homo sapiens and even in regions where the mixing was most equal Neanderthals still form only a minority of the composite European DNA. I tend to doubt that a 75% "black" human/25% Neanderthal offspring would come out looking like Max von Sydow, even if the black breed was dolichocephalic like Somalis are.

There must certainly be "non-white" races with significant Neanderthal admixture, I just don't think they existed in statistically significant numbers in Europe (again, unless you count Basques and other Meds as "non-white"). Maybe some Turks, Arabs, Central Asian breeds, etc-- but the Neanderthals who inhabited those areas were probably just as dark-skinned as the homo sapiens they mixed with.


What you're pressing is that pre-humans evolved into different races (white, black, brown, etc), then humans evolved into separate races, then they mixed (white pre-humans with white humans, black pre-humans with black humans). Which is silly, if that's what you're saying.

You're correct to say gracile Negroes mixing with ginger Neanderthals would not produce Max von Sydow, but the natural selective pressures of post-glacial Europe on such a hybrid would.