Dear humans, We thought it was time we looked through YOUR source code. We found a mystery ancestor. Signed, the computers The human genome is hiding secrets that point to a mystery ancestor alongside our hominid cousins the Neanderthals and Denisovans, according to AI software. Homo sapiens, the only surviving species in the homo genus, once bred with its extinct relatives Homo neanderthalensis and Homo denisova hundreds of thousands of years ago …
They should spend time looking at crowds in major cities.
Perhaps you're onto something...
...though the "immortal man" movie has already been done with "The Man from Earth".
Which was excellent. Too bad they decided to follow it up with a rather mediocre sequel and the promise of a third to complete the set. :/
And then someone will have the idea of making a set of prequel, The Child from Earth, Attack of the Neanderthals, and Revenge of the Romans, and then JJ Abrams will get involved, and we'll all be doomed.
Please do point to the evidence of 'peacefulness'. If you haven't noticed the commonly repeated pattern of peoples distant in time or place being endowed with idealised characteristics by the credulous, here's your notice. For instance, 'druids' were of course thoroughly peaceful. Or 'all' American Indians.
But it is true that "population replacement" keeps occurring in Europe and presumably elsewhere. I read an article quite recently proposing that the ~90% replacement 5-6000 years ago was due to, in this order, pastoralists wandered into Northern Europe and brought a smattering of new diseases, vast plagues of one sort or another devastate the resident population, then a new crew replaces them from the east and southeast. Happenstance.
No violence planned or unplanned required. Simply new conditions, increased contact. And this is the third mass replacement they've found so far in Northern Europe. No one here has been here forever. Everything changes.
Based on genetic research into this it seems that all that humans got from Neanderthals was wast amount of problems and flaws. Those issues might suggests a wider problem (not yet discovered?) and might be the reason for their extinction. The human race got few good genetics from this mixing. I am not sure if it is something that would have happened on its own with time and evolution.
Science article, https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/01/140129134956.htm (2014)
News article, https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/new-studies-show-neanderthals-gave-us-some-good-genes-and-nasty-diseases-180960870/ (2016)
Science doesn't care about your feelings. The data strongly suggest that we got more flaws than benefits with inter-species mixing with the Neanderthals. The human race already has plenty of leftovers from the evolution process on its own. I don't know about Denisovans ancestry because that isn't mentioned or hasn't been studied yet. I didn't find any data on it. Best I was able to find was this map (this website might be paywalled for you).
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/03/160328133514.htm
Alan Brown, "...overwhelmed..."
With each generation, about one-quarter of your genetic code is lost forever. It's caused by the Maternal (or Paternal) Lineage Extinction Ratio MLER or PLER being about 25% per generation. This is the same 'force' that causes speciation (making species).
End result, if your bring two populations together, they'll merge and one will be overwhelmed by the other.
Same thing explains the Out of Africa observation of population 'necking'. No need for near-extinction events, the observed DNA 'necking' will be a moving attribute.
Actually, no. You inherit half your genes from each parent. So do your siblings, but becauseof genetic mixing, their halves are different from yours. Eg, you version of gene X came from your Dad and your brother's version came from your Mum. Same for the 1/8th of genes derived from your grandparents. So, no, there is no such thing as patrenal/maternal extinction. You have a different genetic mix from all other descendants of your great-great-grandparents, is all. The differenc depends also on whether or not your ancestors were cousins. In smaller settlements, most marriages were between 2nd and 3rd cousins. Even in larger settlements, social barriers reduced genetic mixing. Still does. And then there's spontaneous mutations. Since you're alive, those mutations weren't lethal, but it means some fo your genes do not derive from your more remote ancestors. And...
"It's all rather coinfusing, really."
Isn't this supposed to mean that after four generations, there's no genetic code from the fourth grandparent left?
No.
If you lose 25% of parental DNA over 1 generation, that leaves 75%. You have 2 parents, so halve that to 37.5%
Over 5 generations (4th grandparent)
37.5% x 37.5% x 37.5% x 37.5% x 37.5% = 0.75%
That might seem like a low number, but consider that you have 32 4th-grandparents.
Unless DNA can be magically sourced from somewhere else, that must mean that you have 3.125% of each 4-th-grandparent's DNA. (I'm ingoring mutations, but those are just statistical noise at this level.)
I'm not buying that you lose 25% of parental DNA each generation. It doesn't make sense. Seems like someone misinterpreted something that then got quoted and no one's asking for sources.
If you want more words of explanation, look up: 'The Inevitable Eve'.
On average, couples have about two kids. Each kid has one-half of the DNA from each parent. Two kids, each with 50% of each parents' DNA, independently selected of course, = 75%. Thus about 25% of *your* (keyword: your) DNA will not make it to the next generation. YMMV, it's based on typically two kids.
It's not "extinction", it's an extinction *RATIO* of about 25%. (Leave out words and yes you'll be confused.) MLER relates to mtDNA topic.
It's really trivially obvious that if each of your kids has only 50%, then two would get you to 75%, etc. You'll never get 100%, but you might get close with a dozen.
Taking into account gender, there's obviously a maternal and paternal lineage extinction ratio; no room for argument. Witness the antics of Henry VIII trying to overcome PLER and bad luck. The concept is trivially simple, but it and its implications have not yet been widely hoisted aboard.
And yes, there are secondary and tertiary effects. This is merely the primary effect.
You could be on to something...
Romans Left Rome (Italy) and came here. Angles, Jutes & Saxons - left Germany (ish) and came here. Danes - left Denmark and came here. Normans - Left Denmark, went to Normandy, then left Normandy (France) and came here.
Leaving is in our DNA!
It's the one with the map & compass...
Almighty IntelAIgent Messaging .... with Heavenly Instruction for AIdDirections in Diabolical Ethereal Art Works.
Not only in Quantum Communications is that Kith and Kin to the Virtualised Singularity where This is That and a COSMIC Gift to Grant Access to ..... Heavenly Assets.
Immunised for Infection with Diabolical Works to Perform and Transform.
Now as a Base is that but one Source Store while as an AINode, an Almighty Virtual Presence Presents Your Futures for Realisation/Birth and New Lives in Live Operational Virtual Environments.
:-) Trump that and you earn it and learn it fair and square.
You have Alien Quantum Communication, Mr President, from Universal Virtual Force Assets.
It Offers Outstanding Stealth Purchase a Practically Sole Command and Control Option to Clients.
Carpe Diem.
If there were lizard people living amongst us, we'd have noticed by now as they'd leave clues.
They'd live to a ripe old age, at least 97 years old.
And they'd appear to be bulletproof, for example walking unscathed after a car accident, say rolling a Freelander..
Hold on.....
Mine's the one with David Icke's books in the pocket.
From the BBC:
"Prince Philip, 97, was unhurt in the crash on the A149, in which his Land Rover Freelander landed on its side after a collision with a Kia."
Of course, itzman posting to spread inaccurate information is just what I'd expect of a servant of the lizard overlords.
I heard a variant, in a European country, revolving around a divorce. In court:
- Why do you want to divorce your wife?
- Your honour, I'm not satisfied with my wife, you know, sexually.
A murmur of voices from the public gallery:
- Not satisfied, not satisfied... Everybody's satisfied and he's not satisfied...
I heard third ancestor, and thought a Ménage à trois
but now find it isn't that interesting, wish I'd asked nana some proper questions when I had the chance now :o)
mind you I HAVE been to Texas, and the size of some of them guys is proof positive that some were humping buffalo's :oP
All my life AI has stood for artificial insemination. To save keeping a bull the man from the Ministry (Ag. and Fish) would come round with his black bag of vials of bovine semen and do the deed. So the modern use of the letters AI has confused the computers and the missing link is obviously a man from some ministry of a long forgotten pastoral people.
One of my earliest childhood memories growing up on a farm is of the AI man visiting with his very long syringe which he inserted into the cows. At that time I assumed women became pregnant in a similar manner. I guess I was half right... he bore a striking resemblance to one of the kids on a neighbouring farm.
Quite true. Here's a WW2 era poem for proof.
"The lament of the artificially inseminated cow"
I've just given birth to a calf, Sir
And with motherly pride I am full
But please do not laugh and pray do not chaff
When I tell you I've not had a bull
The farmyard's the dreariest place, Sir
The meadow no longer so gay
Since the one spot of fun in the year's dismal run
Has by science been taken away
No bull has embraced me with passion
I've not had the ghost of a binge
I've never been loved but ruthlessly shoved
With a dirty great brass bound syringe
You may say that's all very well, Sir
There are some things a cow cannot say
But those Land Army tarts who have done with our parts
Still get it the old fashioned way
I saw it written on a sheet of paper about 60 years ago. By Michael Barsley, I think.
The Ancients that returned from Atlantis after they found out the hard way that the system they spend 10,000 years to get to was already
inhabited by a hostile force and unprepared for military aciton they were both outnumbered and outgunned.
They fought for millenia but were beaten.
Faced with extinction they decided to return to their ancestral home and used the last of their Zed Pee Ems to land, putting aside their advanced
knowledge until the time was right and reverting to a more primitive existence.
Missing from this report is the "third extinct ancestor" found earlier last year in native African DNA, together with hints that there might be several more around the world. So many seem to have been coming and going that modern theorists are tearing up the old evolutionary tree model and drawing spiderwebby graphs with all kinds of divergences and re-mergers elsewhere and stuff.
Truth is, the multi-species conventional wisdom is looking more and more pants. None has gone wholly extinct, every one of them lives on in us - that's how we fucking found them, Sherlock! We are/were all assorted subspecies/races/breeds/varieties of the one Homo Sapiens (last epithet to be taken as found).
But currently we're one race (i.e. we can completely interbreed and there are no reliable genetic clusters that really point to long term population isolation.)
That's why it annoys the hell out of me when Americans refer to people like Meghan Markle as "mixed race". We're either pretty much all mixed race or none of us are.
Hmmmm; While true, it also means that Neanderthal, Denisovians & H-Sapiens are the same "race" because they are able to interbreed. But we don't consider Dogs & Wolves to be the same "race" but they can interbreed too... No?
I agree talking about humans in terms of race is stupid. We are all just walking bags of mostly water :)
"But we don't consider Dogs & Wolves to be the same "race""
Yes, we do ... canus lupus and canus lupus familiaris are considered by most people to be the same species, just as all humans are considered the same species. The concept of "race" is an artificial construct designed to separate groups of humans into "us" and "them", usually for the purpose of conflict and/or exploitation. The sooner we drop the concept, the better.
Are you claiming there's no distinctive differences between people evolved in different regions/climates of this planet? That's the races for you. You can of course ignore reality but don't be obset when reality ignores you in return.
p.s. And true definition of racism does not include "power" either.
"Are you claiming there's no distinctive differences between people evolved in different regions/climates of this planet?"
Uh, yes. Have a look at a skeleton from Africa, Europe or America. Now look at at their blood. If you can spot any difference not due to diet please let me know.
"Depends on what you want it for,
So it is with humans."
That's a very dangerous way to look at it. There was a time when people acted on those beliefs, it fuelled the slave trade and the buying and selling of people for their "attributes". The simple fact is that regardless of "race" everyone is pretty much equally good at what they do. Look at any sport, and you'll find a good mix at any level, and in any sport. Same goes for any profession, intelligence does not know the colour of your skin. We don't breed humans for specific roles, and while skin tone can be attributed to where someone is from geographically, it doesn't stop them from being able to live anywhere on this planet. It's that belief that fuels racism, and it is inherently evil as it allows one to believe they are somehow superior when superiority does not exist and treat fellow humans as if they are animals. We are all human.
"But we don't consider Dogs & Wolves to be the same "race" but they can interbreed too... No?"
The genetic variation of dogs and wolves is much greater than for humans.
Also, you missed my point. I did specifically refer to population isolation. Neanderthals and Denisovans were genetically distinct populations even though they could interbreed. We can call them races if you like. But we're only about 2% Neanderthal, so that doesn't even start to apply. The current human race is much less genetically varied than the total of Sap. + Neanderthals + Denisovans.
Which is why these things are so difficult to identify.
One of the interesting things about racism is the way it focusses on skin colour but not hair colour.
Actually we DO consider dogs and wolves to be the same *species*.
But they are many different *breeds*.
Race is a somewhat slippery concept. Somewhat akin to breeds. And anyone who says breeds aren't distinct subsets that share common characteristics is barking mad.
WUFF!
Not quite true, the definition of a species isn't just that it can interbreed, but interbreed successfully. The relatively sparse DNA from none HS species would suggest that while some DNA fragments are benign, others would render their offspring infertile if mixed with another species.
Case in point, many big cat species are close enough that their offspring are viable and can interbreed. While clearly not of the same species, it could be said that they are sub-species of a wider cat family. Denisovans, Neanderthal, and Homo Sapiens are close enough to breed, but evidence would suggest that they are also distinct enough that most of the offspring would either be infertile or suffer from such horrific complications that their lives would be very short indeed. In which case it could be said that they are not close enough to be a sub-species of a wider Homo family and are therefore distinct species in their own right.
It may also be that other hominin species may yet be found within HS DNA, such as Floresiensis amongst the Pacific islands (although all evidence so far would suggest not). Add to this that many localised peoples DNA has not been researched, for example I would be interested to see where the aborigines of Australia and the Maori of New Zealand fit into the genetic jigsaw of time, given their abundant history within their locales. My understanding of South Pacific genetics though would suggest that their ancestry would be Polynesian, with a mix of Neanderthal and Denisovan thrown in.
"Species" is one of those words that attempts to draw lines in continuous spectrums.
Sharp lines in spectrums are inherently troublesome. Even the slightest zoom into the transitional or boundary cases leads to endless issues in the definition *of the boundaries*.
We need to acknowledge this most general of points to minimize pointless arguments.
A solution is: NEVER BIFURCATE A SPECTRUM.
Always provide at least a third middle option.
This is a highly-useful clarification of thinking. It should be taught in Elementary school. Yet hardly anyone is aware of it.
My father referred to Americans as being "Heinz 57".... basically a mix of everything in everyone. Yes, I'm one also as was he. He did a genealogy of the so called family tree and it looked more like a massive fur ball instead of the nice straight lines one sees elsewhere. I suspect that most of us are like that with links going all over the world.
True. I was always told that my dad's family emigrated from Scotland to Kentucky. Which they did. But my DNA test came out 40% Norwegian. Seems the Vikings got around as well. And there's a smidge of Middle Eastern, as Mum's Italian ancestors were traders from Smyrna, and apparently there were some locals mixed in.
We are all immigrants, it's just how far back you need to look. And I'd argue that the blending of cultures makes us (USAians, but others as well) a richer nation.
"But currently we're one race (i.e. we can completely interbreed and there are no reliable genetic clusters that really point to long term population isolation.)"
You've completely mixed up races and species.
Or rather not mixed up but deliberately used sociological definition of race which has absolutely nothing to do with ability to interbreed.
"You've completely mixed up races and species."
You appear incapable of understanding the word "and".
Both "species" and "race" look increasingly dubious as genetic understanding improves, but the usual understanding of "race" outside the US is a more or less isolated or homogeneous population within a species which has resulted in distinct genetic differences. Hence, Sapiens and Neanderthals, Polar bears and brown bears.
Human beings have been mixing populations for a very long time. These days, so are bears.
Still, at least I have another item for my "spot the racist" list.
'Both "species" and "race" look increasingly dubious as genetic understanding improves'
And to suit the particular agenda at hand. 'Species' in the animal kingdom has been pressed into service to distinguish between different populations of animals living in various habitats. Not that they might actually differ much genetically. But if a unique name can be found for a small population of mole rats living in one valley, endangered species and environmental regulations can be called into play. Even though that mole rat might have reached the level of an infestation in the next county.
Originally, "species" indicated a breeding group: by definition, two species could not interbreed. Within a given species there may be sub-species, genetically identifiable subgroups which can nevertheless interbreed with each other. Botanists tend to call them varieties, zoologists breeds, anthropologists races. Finer than that are genetically identical clones, which microbiologists call strains and horticulturalists cultivars.
The remapping revolution caused by gene analysis has thrown a lot of traditional classifications out the window, but scientists still try to cling to them for the sake of familiarity and shoehorn incompatible discoveries in alongside. These days, if you ask six biologists whether two distinct species can ever interbreed, you will get at least seven different answers.
You missed a bit. The "old" definition of species was used to describe the situation where two individuals could breed together and produce offspring which are themselves fertile. Hence why horses and donkeys are not considered conspecific. It all falls down of course when you learn that a very few female mules can be fertile, when mated to a purebred horse or donkey.
The situation in the avian world is much more complex and controversial.
"It all falls down of course when you learn that a very few female mules can be fertile, when mated to a purebred horse or donkey."
Indeed. Does the same apply to genets (the male/female parental crossover of mules)? Now, a viable mule/genet cross, that would be something! Pretty much a return to a common ancestor currently believed to be extinct. Maybe one could cross a mule/donkey hybrid with a mule/horse hybrid?
"The situation in the avian world is much more complex and controversial."
There is a wonderful example in a certain population of seagulls. In Europe they appear as two separate species incapable of crossbreeding, and were long thought to be so. But as you go round the world one way, one of the species slowly mutates, and as you go round the other way, so does the other. When you get back to where you started, you find that there is one global population that interbreeds with its neighbours but, by the time it has spread round the world and met its other end, it can no longer interbreed. One species or more?
Speciation is not a binary on/off process. Classification into species was already in trouble before DNA analysis came along.
"by definition, two species could not interbreed.
Except that's not true either. Mules. Horse zebra crosses. Lion tiger crosses. All sorts of hybrids out there, and that's before you get to *insert least favourite politician/celeb*."
Get with the discussion. He said: BY DEFINITION. And that is what we are talking about in this discussion.... that old DEFINITION of species that we all learned in college biology not 14 years ago
appears to be no longer correct if we accept that Neanderthals, Denisovians and Sapiens are all different species... as was previously posited by scientists. EITHER we are not separate species OR the definition of species is incorrect.
" that old DEFINITION of species that we all learned in college biology not 14 years ago"
Some of us did college Biology a damn sight longer than 14 years ago, try 25 years ago.
The problem with the world is nobody ever seems to update their info, so they go around parroting ancient information they learnt at school, even though it has been long since proven to be completely false.
Knowledge, it's one thing to get some, but keeping it accurate and updated is nigh on impossible!!
Oddly, while you and I generally don't get along all that well elsewhere, but I'm forced to agree with you here.
I am actively working on getting admitted to the masters program at the local university to contribute towards automating medical general practitioners out of a job if I can. There are many issues associated with illnesses, but stage of detection is generally the number one factor deciding whether an illness is treatable or not.
I make a comment often that the only dust you'll ever see in a doctor's office is the dust on the top of his/her books.
it's a matter of exponential growth more than exponential decay though.
As you get older and in theory gain knowledge and wisdom, the time required to maintain the health of that information grows. And if you constantly update your knowledge, your overall understanding of the field of interest will increase along side it.
Primary and secondary school provide an excellent opportunity to provide most people a glimpse of what's out there. In fact, I've been teaching adults for years different topics of engineering, science and math. What I've learned is that with rare exceptions, most every person I communicate with probably completed the education they'll draw from in life at the end of the 4th or 5th grade. This doesn't mean that they are stupid, it simply means that they've had no practical use for anything more advanced in their given careers. This is because most people simply don't need it.
High school allows people to see all the amazing jobs that are out there and available to them. I learned a great deal in high school before dropping out and starting at the university instead.
What's important and we see it all the time in modern society is that people smarter at a young age and it hurts them as they get older since the teachers don't teach the cost of information.
The XX and XY chromosome thing is a real problem. It wasn't long ago that we were told school kids that the mitochondria was the power source of the cell. When I was a kid, it was common knowledge that we had never successfully managed to "crack the shell" of the mitochondria and looked inside. Now science books are being updated to teach us that our genetic code resides within the mitochondrion DNA as well.
Cellular microbiology is a topic which all children learn at some level or another, but most people can't name a single part of the cell other than the nucleus and they constantly make announcements like "You're going bald because of your mother's father not me" as if balding were a single gene. By their education, they would make it so that boys receive 0% of their genetics from daddy.
We generally teach kids more than enough to make them dangerous. We don't place expiration dates on the information.
P.S. - nice use of nigh, it's one of those words I'm envious of when I see it but never seem to use when the opportunity presents itself.
"Never been to Norfolk and seen the Norfolkers then?"
Having heard this so many times I was interested in Leslie et al, 2015, the Nature paper on fine structure of Britain They produced a map in which lowland England came out as homogeneous. The distinct populations were in upland Britain. Norfolk was just part of the amorphous blob. Not distinct from the rest at all.
"Truth is, the multi-species conventional wisdom is looking more and more pants."
Did anyone catch the 2018 Royal Institutional Christmas Lectures (only 3 - there used to be 5, everything goes downhill)? This year it was a two hander, the anatomist Alice Roberts and a geneticist guest lecturer, Aoife McLysaght. Roberts was presenting the usual Neanderthalis vs Sapiens when McLysaght interjected "it's all one species". It's the old splitters versus lumpers all over again.
"Various studies have shown that there is more genetic diversity in Africa than the rest of the world combined but it is better stirred in the rest of the world."
Yeah I remember seeing a program with Prof Alice Roberts a while back where she talked about the genetic family tree of humans. Within Africa is was a full tree but everyone leaving Africa came from a single branch. I think it was based on some of the first genetic analysis done on people all round the world, so they could see that looking at people outside of Africa they have a certain common ancestry, but when doing the same comparison for people across Africa the common ancestry was much further back in time. Of course this was quite a few years ago, so with more recent discoveries it may no longer be accurate.
"Of course this was quite a few years ago"
The Incredible Human Journey? I don't think it was that long ago and it's being repeated on BBC 4. There was a more recent series called "Origins of us". All worth watching, up to the standards of Horizon of long ago instead of the usual Beeb science programme of 15 minutes padded out to 50mins or an hour.
We know that skin colour is controlled by genetics but we never ask ourselves why it's distributed in all its variations in the way that it is - it's a minor point really, we're all pink on the inside and happily copulate to generate new variations/generations ... 80,000 years is a lot of generations and our known historical record only goes back about 15,000.
I think it's more likely that there aren't any mystery ancestors - the variations we see today are just the result of isolation - take a population and isolate it in chunks for a couple of hundred thousand years a time, and then rinse and repeat ... Do that for two or three million years and you've got modern genetics.
The missing ancestor is an ugly pangalactic shapeshifter.
See this Star Trek episode
It was the exaterrestrials. We'll call 'em Lemurians, unless that's copyrighted by the Theosophical Society or the OTO. If that's the case we'll call them the Star Fairy Tribe.
I'll write a detailed description of why with tons of pseudoscience and occult crap for the low, low price of 39.95, paid monthly.
Obviously it came from Outer Space. Chariots of the Gods, anyone?
Might explain how / why the human brain has doubled in size in the last couple of hundred thousand years (which is why human childbirth is *soooo* difficult). And that's with skull bones overlapping, no myelin sheaths around neurons at birth (to make the volume smaller - all done in first year of life), and the gigantic difference between human intelligence and that of the Great Apes despite nearly all of our DNA being common.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2025
