Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 14 of 14

Thread: Genomic Analysis of Andamanese Provides Insights into Ancient Human Migration into Asia and Adaptation

  1. #11
    Senior Member
    Catterick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Last Online
    Thursday, September 7th, 2017 @ 12:29 AM
    Ethnicity
    Mixed Germanic and Celtic
    Ancestry
    British Isles & Scandinavia
    Subrace
    Borreby x Nordic
    Country
    Other Other
    Location
    Aqua
    Gender
    Family
    Single adult
    Occupation
    Gondolier
    Posts
    2,196
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    24
    Thanked in
    24 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Shadow View Post
    OK, let's look at these things one at a time. Atapuerca may represent people before the absolute split between the Denisovans and Neanderthals, more toward the erectus-heidelbergensis separation (however that will be defined). We know these people had mtDNA which looked more Denisovans but nuclear DNA which looked more Neanderthal so there is a relationship here.
    By now I think its definite the Atapuercans were a population of stem neanderthals. We're talking about mainlines here so hybridisation is still possible, but I can't see them as a common ancestor with AMH. Too specialised already. Don't forget this line of fossil men has a specialised pelvic region. Discounting the neanderthaloid types, sacral orientation is a straightforward progress from apes to modern people.

    http://www.scirp.org/journal/PaperIn...?PaperID=35287

    Moderns sharing erectus and hobbit characters. East Asians share dental anomalies with Sinanthropus, a well established fact. This is great evidence for some genetic continuity. Surely you would not rule out a later, probably encephalized erectus in the East Asian mix? I don't know of any good evidence for the hobbit line in moderns but it is certainly possible.
    I wasn't referring to the well known "Sinanthropus" dental traits in the Mongoloids. The more advanced Indonesian fossils show similarity with all AMH (not just Asians) though it could be explained by convergence. From memory its to do with the lower premolars(?) of modern humans, Liang Bua and the later Javan erectines.

    Kabwe is not the only one. It is just the most famous and complete one. Coon calls these skulls The Cape Flats Line. There were these large, bony headed people in Africa which probably where absorbed and changed by that skull bending mutation Bushmen and sapiens is known for. Bushman-type stone industry and artifacts were found in association with Kabwe so there was some ancient relationship between these people and sapiens.
    The stratigraphy of the Broken Hill site is now impossible to test, I would hesitate to give a precise date. All I know is a web search gives an upper estimate coeval with the Pygmy/Bantu split.

    Pygmies partially descended from dwarfed heidelbergensis might yield a date of divergence of 300,000 years. It might depend on whether the date is a result of one gene difference, backdated, or many, yielding an average.
    How many genes are involved in changing an archaic hominin skull into a modern sapiens one?

    Recently it was found surprisingly few genes regulate our skull shape, so introgression from AMH might easily pull a population into the modern human species. As far as I'm aware AMH is diagnosed entirely by craniofacial states, unlike (say) the neanderthal's weird ribcage. But it would still be nice to know if there's anything weird about Pygmy skeletons that isn't down to paedomorphosis, and, for that matter, I'd love to see a pygmy skull.

    This paper doesn't have photographs but it might be interesting: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/art...l.pone.0013620

    Another thing: the infamous Capoid ancestors in southern Africa - like Boskop - lacked the fully modern chin and supraorbital region though their neurocranium was fully modern. (See Schwartz and Tatersall.) Reticulated evolution in action.

    I remembered this claims ergaster > sapiens continuity: http://www.scirp.org/journal/PaperIn...?PaperID=58691

  2. #12
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Last Online
    Friday, October 7th, 2016 @ 02:13 AM
    Ethnicity
    Anglo-American
    Country
    Other Other
    State
    Cape Province Cape Province
    Gender
    Family
    Youth
    Religion
    none
    Posts
    974
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    3
    Thanked in
    3 Posts
    This sacral angle you are talking about as being less in Neanderthals really has to do with the curvature of the spine. Neanderthals had less curvature which is something we already knew.
    ----------------------------------------------
    The PI of Homo heidelbergensis and H. neanderthalensis (Neandertal lineage hominins) is the lowest among hominins. We also found a strong correlation between lumbar lordosis and PI in nonhuman hominoids and hominins, indicating that PI angle is a good predictor of the lumbar lordosis when only the pelvis is preserved. We conclude that sacral orientation changed during the course of human evolution. When Neandertal lineage hominins are ignored, the results indicate a fairly simple path of evolution from nonhuman hominoid-like to human-like sacral orientation with two stages of the development. Neandertal lineage hominins show a reversal of this trend.
    _________________________________

    The Rhodesian pelvis was described as different from AMH but I have really not heard why. Also, as you discussed, the pelvis may not even belong to the skull, it is just an assumption.

    What may be is the number of genes involved in bending the cranium into modern proportions may be few or one. In that case we would get an immediate "sapienization" in one generation. This evidently happened with a slightly larger than normal brained ergaster. Remember, African sapiens are not big brained.

    I have to take a look at your two last links.

  3. #13
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Last Online
    Friday, October 7th, 2016 @ 02:13 AM
    Ethnicity
    Anglo-American
    Country
    Other Other
    State
    Cape Province Cape Province
    Gender
    Family
    Youth
    Religion
    none
    Posts
    974
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    3
    Thanked in
    3 Posts
    Here is the abstract on your first link:

    Abstract

    Although dissimilarities in cranial and post-cranial morphology among African pygmies groups have been recognized, comparative studies on skull morphology usually pull all pygmies together assuming that morphological characters are similar among them and different with respect to other populations. The main aim of this study is to compare cranial morphology between African pygmies and non-pygmies populations from Equatorial Africa derived from both the Eastern and the Western regions in order to test if the greatest morphological difference is obtained in the comparison between pygmies and non-pygmies. Thirty three-dimensional (3D) landmarks registered with Microscribe in four cranial samples (Western and Eastern pygmies and non-pygmies) were obtained. Multivariate analysis (generalized Procrustes analysis, Mahalanobis distances, multivariate regression) and complementary dimensions of size were evaluated with ANOVA and post hoc LSD. Results suggest that important cranial shape differentiation does occur between pygmies and non-pygmies but also between Eastern and Western populations and that size changes and allometries do not affect similarly Eastern and Western pygmies. Therefore, our findings raise serious doubt about the fact to consider African pygmies as a homogenous group in studies on skull morphology. Differences in cranial morphology among pygmies would suggest differentiation after divergence. Although not directly related to skull differentiation, the diversity among pygmies would probably suggest that the process responsible for reduced stature occurred after the split of the ancestors of modern Eastern and Western pygmies

    -----------------------------------------

    Allometric relationships between skull size and body size are not constant for Africans vs. Europeans. Everyone has noted that Africans have be large in terms of body size but small in terms of head size. The relationship in Europeans is closer. In Europe when a man, for instance, is large and tall in his body size, his head is also absolutely large.

    So the correlation was always weak in Africa. The fact that Western and Eastern pigmies do not match up within this correlation may not be an earthshaking development.

  4. #14
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Last Online
    Friday, October 7th, 2016 @ 02:13 AM
    Ethnicity
    Anglo-American
    Country
    Other Other
    State
    Cape Province Cape Province
    Gender
    Family
    Youth
    Religion
    none
    Posts
    974
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    3
    Thanked in
    3 Posts
    Copy of Abstract from your second link:

    ABSTRACT

    The problem of species recognition in paleoanthropology has been the subject of numerous studies. In the current study, we have used the complex topography of the mandibular fossa to assess its potential as a species-specific indicator. Six landmarks were registered using a microscribe 3Dx digitizer on four extant species: Pan paniscus, Pan troglodytes, Gorilla gorilla, and two ethnical groups of modern humans. Using principal component analysis (PC), the results statistically separated between the species and within the two Homo groups. The same method was applied to a sample of 13 casts of Pleistocene hominids from Asia, Europe and Africa. The first PC separated Asian Homo erectus from African Homo erectus and Homo heidelbergensis. The second PC separated African Homo erectus from Homo heidelbergensis. Interestingly Homo floresiensis groups with Homo heidelbergensis. Adding recent human sample to the analysis showed them to fall within the African Homo erectus group. Cluster analysis on the superimposed fossil data had turned the same results. These results favor the view that Homo erectus is actually made from at least two distinct species. Homo floresiensis is not a form of pathologic sapiens, and Homo sapiens has descendent solely from early African-like species.

    Many of these are coming out now, which is great and have implications for us. These all rest upon a diagnostic character or group placement of sub-characters in one bone or structure which distinguish paleo species of humans from one another. They seem to be everywhere and are coming fast and furiously as if anthropologists were asleep for decades.

    The interesting thing is this is typology. This is species directed typology which has always been in vogue and done and certified OK by anthropology. What seems odd is they totally reject this method for distinctions within a species, especially human races and especially when human characters are correlated and grouped into a race. So, for instance, what percentage of the time does blue eyes correlate with blond hair? How about adding a third and fourth character like skin color and head shape? Now, we are doing rather intelligent typology and using a mathematical basis and we can plug in further mathematical analysis. We can also do the exact same thing with haplotypes and haplogroups. As a matter of fact we can use any genes within a whole genome and delineate race precisely if we only choose to do so.

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Similar Threads

  1. Genomic Insights into the Peopling of the Southwest Pacific
    By Catterick in forum Anthropogeny & Ethnogenesis
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: Tuesday, October 4th, 2016, 08:44 PM
  2. Replies: 1
    Last Post: Friday, August 10th, 2007, 04:49 PM
  3. Replies: 4
    Last Post: Monday, December 20th, 2004, 12:39 AM
  4. Replies: 0
    Last Post: Monday, May 31st, 2004, 02:45 PM
  5. Y-Chromosomal Insights into Central Asia
    By Euclides in forum Y-Chromosome (Y-DNA) Haplogroups
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: Sunday, April 18th, 2004, 08:58 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •