Skip to comments.A golden age of ancient DNA science begins
Posted on 03/25/2016 5:05:54 PM PDT by SunkenCiv
...following some remarkable technical developments in that time, including next generation sequencing, ancient DNA research is beginning to come of age...
Here are three big issues which I think geneticists are making headway on, following decades of stalled progress by fossil specialists.
1. There's been a shift from merely documenting the occurrence of interbreeding between modern humans and archaic groups, like the Neanderthals and Denisovans, to a focus on the circumstances surrounding it and its consequences for living people... Around 2 per cent of the genome of non-African people was inherited from Neanderthals, with slightly more DNA in Indigenous Oceanic Southeast Asians, New Guineans and Australians coming from the mysterious Denisovans (on top of their Neanderthal inheritance). Even among some living African populations, there is evidence for DNA inherited from an archaic species living on that continent perhaps as late as 30 thousand years ago. I suspect there will be more evidence found in the future, from other, perhaps as yet unknown, archaic species... There were seemingly three separate interbreeding events with the Neanderthals: one with the ancestors of New Guineans and Australians, one with early East Asians and one with the ancestors of South Asians and Europeans...
2. Ancient DNA is finally placing a framework around the vexed question, 'how can we pick a new species from among the fossils'? ...
3. Fossil DNA is now sorting out evolutionary relationships among human species.
(Excerpt) Read more at phys.org ...
A reconstruction of a male our evolutionary cousin the Neanderthals (Modified from an image by Cicero Moraes). Credit: Wikimedia Commons, CC BY-SA
Is Jurassic Park just around the bend????
The Neandertal Enigma"Frayer's own reading of the record reveals a number of overlooked traits that clearly and specifically link the Neandertals to the Cro-Magnons. One such trait is the shape of the opening of the nerve canal in the lower jaw, a spot where dentists often give a pain-blocking injection. In many Neandertal, the upper portion of the opening is covered by a broad bony ridge, a curious feature also carried by a significant number of Cro-Magnons. But none of the alleged 'ancestors of us all' fossils from Africa have it, and it is extremely rare in modern people outside Europe." [pp 126-127]
by James Shreeve
in local libraries
Ron is that you? Ron Perlman?
Man it looks a lot like him to me.
The notion of a Jurassic Park has always been *around the bend*, if you take my meaning. :') Without a time machine, we won't be seeing live dinos. My guess is, the Jurassic period probably had a comprehensive lizard funk that was hard to take.
I!’m waiting to find out how much human dna Cankles has vs how much gargoyle.
|Send FReepmail if you want on/off GGP list
Marty = Paternal Haplogroup O(2?)(M175)
Maternal Haplogroup H
Int'l Society of Genetic Genealogy
Nat'l Geographic Genographic Project
|The List of Ping Lists|
I suspect that we will find out modern man is very similar to ancient man and a lot of scientific suppositions about ancient history is hogwash...
Wow...You must study this subject quite a bit...I know little about that time period...
I was just attempting to be funny...
Thanks for all the links....
Also, I see from you nickname, you are interested in this subject...
Sunken Civilizations, I assume???
The real reason mammals of the day lived in burrows.
No "suspect" about it, we know for certain that moderns humans and, for example, Neanderthals shared 99% identical DNA.
We also can see where they did occasionally interbreed, making us, by definition, the same species.
Other pre-human creatures were also doubtless closely related to us, though certainly not as close as Neanderthals.
Indeed, despite 8 million years of evolution separating humans from ancestors of chimpanzees, we still share something like 96% similar DNA with modern chimps.
Finally, words like "hogwash" are inappropriate here.
"Mistaken" is entirely adequate, if it indeed applies.
-——Finally, words like “hogwash” are inappropriate here.-——
“Mistaken” is entirely adequate, if it indeed applies.-——
Just for clarification.... Is global warming “ science “ hogwash or mistaken...?
Global warming science is science, some of it doubtless true other parts likely mistaken.
For examples, some data shows a little warming, but does not prove the warming is either unnatural or man-made.
However, your word “Hogwash” certainly does describe efforts by leftist politicians to hijack science in the service of their global socialist agenda.
Do you disagree?