Are Other Hominins (Hominoids) Alive Today?

[spacemonkeymafia]

Thanks Cotter.

I wasn't directly referring to your post in particular, just I've heard that theory mentioned before. I've always leaned more towards the ape side of the fence myself, so I have always wondered if evolution could back up or swing off in another direction for the Neanderthal.

When I was in high school I took an anthropology course. REALLY!

Alot has happened since 1982 in the field so I've fallen behind!

[Guest]

I agree that we are basing a lot of our understanding on a very spotty fossil record. By "spotty" I mean that making a "safe assumption" that when the fossil record ends therefore the species also ended assumes that:

1. We have collected all available fossils of the species <-- which is not true
   
2. The species consistently left behind fossils at a given rate <-- unknown and likely not true
   

Therefore the only safe assumption that can be made when the fossil record "ends" is simply that based on the fossils collected thus far the most recent known time this species existed is "X". We have to be prepared to amend "X" whenever new fossils are collected and dated.

However, in the time line of HSS we seem to have already established that contact was made in terms of mating between HSS, HSN, HSD, and the possible newcomer they've identified only by genetic statistics from Africa. Interbreeding seems to an emerging and common theme among the more modern hominids.

Out of curiosity, does anyone know of another flourishing genus which died off to leave only one species as is the current accepted understanding of anthropology? Seems rather odd that the entire genus disappeared to leave only HSS as the surviving species.

Well, I don't know about a genus but aardvarks are the only remaining species of their order.

[Guest]

The DNA evidence of human/Neanderthals interbreeding actually suggests that it wasn't recurring. The shared DNA is found in pretty much the same amounts across all Eurasian peoples, which suggests that the interbreeding took place shortly after we left Africa and didn't continue. Otherwise, some populations would have more Neanderthal DNA than others (continued breeding = more DNA). As far as human hunting Neanderthals out, no one I'm aware of in anthropology thinks that happened; the current hypothesis (and what the evidence suggests) is that we outcompeted them for resrouces because of superior technology.

Homo sapiens and Homo neandertalensis appear to have overlapped territories in the middle-east from approximately 100,000 years ago. If they were fully capable of interbreeding then there would likely be much more neanderthal DNA in modern humans.

some of the DNA has been determined to be linked to the immune system. This suggests to me that a human female became pregnant with the hybrid (who may have likely been female also) and passed this DNA into their tribe. The immune genes incorporated into this tribe made it possible for these humans to live closer to their neanderthal neighbors without contracting any of the neanderthal diseases. All previous evidence suggests that H sapiens never actually lived side by side with H neanderthalensis. As these neanderthalized humans spread into neanderthal territories, they did not succumb to neanderthal diseases and yet they managed to introduce sapiens diseases into the territories to which neanderthals may have had no resistance. Our intellectual and/or technological superiority would have been instrumental in allowing us to live ever deeper into neanderthal territory farther north. Without this advantage, we might never have won the farther north and neanderthals might still be with us today.

Some races have more Neanderthal DNA that others, wouldn't that indicate it recurred for a period of time? If I recall, Native Americans and East Asians having the highest % compared to their European counterparts - which I find interesting that modern humans exhibiting the highest % of neanderthal DNA live outside the accepted range of Neanderthal - perhaps an indication they fled to the undiscovered americas or to the rugged Asian landscape. Additionally, it is estimated that at 10K years ago, global population of Hss was around 5 million. Is that enough of a population to completely overrun another species across the entire planet? I would think that competition in local areas would be tough, but why the pursuit into other areas that the weaker species went to? I'm having a tough time wrapping my brain around how resources could be so scarce that 5 million Hss's would eradicate another population globally.

.

Once the dna was incorporated into the genome it would spread outward. Some potrions might easily travel around the globe while another collection (perhaps smaller in percentage) remained at home. Modern humans have been quite mobile for thousands of years.

As a population becoces smaller it loses genetic diversity. This is a statistical phenomenon and doesn't always happen the exact sameway every time but, in general, a small population loses more diversity more rapidly. This compromises the population's ability to adapt to new situations. If neanderthals were reduced to a population of 100 then we wouldn't expect them to continue to persist due to lack of adaptability. A single epidemic could wipe out the whole population or even just the majority. The more situations develop the more susceptible they become. Over thirty thousand years they would most likely become extinct with or without sapiens interference. But let's face it: sapiens were around and we would have had a large affect spreadnig disease and coopting resources and also bringing violence to many situations.

Any hominid surviving into the modern era would have to be significantly different from us to escape our notice. That's why I suspect that the bigfoot/yeti species/genus is more distantly related to us than anything in the Homo genus. All known members of the genus Homo used tools and worked/lived in groups. Bigfoot/yeti do not. Thirty thousand years is not enough time to evolve neanderthal shorty, stout neanderthals into tall, lanky bigfoots and there is no compelling reason for a tool-using ape to evolve into a toolless one.

[BobZenor]

There has "always" been more than one species of Homo, even at the very beginning of Homo by the way. You can't know which of them was technological. Was it rudolfensis or habilis or both. Just because Leaky says it was habilis or that they found habilis bones nearby the tools doesn't make them the makers of the "tools". They found boisei first and said the tools were made by boisei. I remember them talking about that when I was a kid. Maybe that is why I am especially skeptical of what they say actually being true. Richard also strikes me as politician with an agenda and not a good scientist. They found habilis with a slightly larger brain a few years later after boisei so now it is supposed to be a fact that habilis used tools. Rudolfensis also existed and had an even larger brain. Erectus cohabited with habilis and some now think it likely that erectus had a different ancestor like sediba so you might even have three or more lineages or species at the beginning of Homo. All three instantly elevated to the profound difference of being considered human tool users really doesn't add up. It was partially based on the opinion of someone who has a history of pushing his fossils to be human ancestors and trying to falsely attribute stone tools to his pet fossils which by the way were little more than broken rocks early on. His father even found them Calico California that were supposed to be several hundred thousand years old.

http://en.wikipedia....nthropus_boisei

Paranthropus boisei (as the species was eventually categorized) proved to be a treasure especially when the anthropologists' son Richard Leakey considered it to be the first hominin species to use stone tools.

That quote is to illustrate the politics that are involved and Leaky was deeply invested in Kenyan politics. They are pushing agendas and inventing narratives for fossils that don't match the evidence. The plot is flawed since it makes no biological sense that all three are going to simultaneously start using tools and occupy the same niche. The problem of not being able to identify the tool user doesn't get any better later on since there has always been multiple species of hominids at least until fairly recently. You could probably be fairly certain that neanderthals and modern humans were tool users. You could also reasonably extend that to heidelbergensis and some branch of erectus back to about 1.5 million years. That is about the time when stone hand axes started showing up. There is a problem that you can't reliably say which group of "erectus" were tool users based on fossils before a million years ago. We don't really have any idea how closely related to us some of the Asian hominids called erectus actually are. They are assumed to be erectus because of Leaky assigning erectus the narrative of being the first out of Africa and a host of other traits that are dubious at best.

It is also extremely suspect that there are multiple species that are all supposedly equally technological at the beginning. That implies that they extremely rapidly radiated into new niches but the niches were all the same which was basically a technological hominid evolving into modern humans. That seems to be the assumption that many are fine with.

The assumption is flawed that a technological hominid couldn't lose tools but it is only relevant if you can actually reliably assign tool use to them. You can't reliably do that when there are multiple species and it is a dangerous assumption to ever assume any hominid is the only one in the area. It is circular logic to assume that all hominids had tools because of that. Politics of the paleontologist cause that to happen because they want further funding and tools associated with fossils make them more valuable to museums and make it more likely they will be allowed to continue to investigate them. Even if you could reliably assign tools to them chimps also used tools so which hominids exactly are excluded from using tools. Obviously none of them are by the paleontologists except poor boisei. Mike Morwood in his book A New Human pointed out how much it damaged boisei when it was "downgraded" to just a cousin. He did everything he could to make sure that H. floresiensis was called Homo. He even has tools attributed to them that are beyond normal erectus tools even though they show signs of diverging before erectus. Some even claimed that modern humans that use the same sort of tools learned it from floresiensis. It is like they are desperate to see tool use in their pet fossils.

_____

From what I understand there is evidence in Israel that modern humans lived there and were replaced by neanderthals about 100,000 years ago. Then moderns apparently replaced them about 30,000 years later. That doesn't necessarily imply any attempt to interbreed. The thirty thousand years later would be about the right time for interbreeding that likely gave all non-Africans neanderthal DNA. Someone recently published a study that suggested neanderthal nuclear DNA in modern humans has been mixed up enough that it probably was introduced about that time to our species. I don't know the method they used to do that so I don't know how reliable that study is. It certainly fits the narrative of them breeding with modern humans about 60,000 to 70,000 years ago when the likely ancestors of all non-Africans left Africa. If it were a small population that first left Africa maybe 60,000 years ago then all it would take is a few successful hybrids or possibly only one to add their DNA to our species. Some of the neanderthal DNA likely would be beneficial and increase in frequency.

I think neanderthals are way too close to be the most likely ancestors of bigfoot. They certainly might have contributed genetically but there were other known populations of more primitive hominids living until at least fairly recently. I wouldn't assume we have fossil evidence of all of them. It was likely one of those more primitive groups that interbred with other hominids along the way. It seems most likely to me that they have lived in that niche for a long time. They have some features that seem distinctly different from modern humans so it would be surprising to me if it were some evolved neanderthal. We don't really know enough about neanderthals to totally discount that and evolution can certainly happen rapidly if some creature changes niche like losing technology. Some sort of punctuated equilibrium or very rapid evolution is a possibility if they are from a population that adopted a more cryptic lifestyle. That could even be accelerated by hybrids which could rapidly produce new populations. I think it is more likely that some ancient population of hominids got some more "derived" hominid's DNA possibly including us and neanderthals but didn't change form much since they didn't significantly change their niche. There is no way to really know that except possibly with DNA evidence. It would probably be very difficult to know even with DNA.

[Cotter]

Wow Bob. Well said.

[Guest]

There has "always" been more than one species of Homo, even at the very beginning of Homo by the way. You can't know which of them was technological. Was it rudolfensis or habilis or both. Just because Leaky says it was habilis or that they found habilis bones nearby the tools doesn't make them the makers of the "tools". They found boisei first and said the tools were made by boisei. I remember them talking about that when I was a kid. Maybe that is why I am especially skeptical of what they say actually being true. Richard also strikes me as politician with an agenda and not a good scientist. They found habilis with a slightly larger brain a few years later after boisei so now it is supposed to be a fact that habilis used tools. Rudolfensis also existed and had an even larger brain. Erectus cohabited with habilis and some now think it likely that erectus had a different ancestor like sediba so you might even have three or more lineages or species at the beginning of Homo. All three instantly elevated to the profound difference of being considered human tool users really doesn't add up. It was partially based on the opinion of someone who has a history of pushing his fossils to be human ancestors and trying to falsely attribute stone tools to his pet fossils which by the way were little more than broken rocks early on. His father even found them Calico California that were supposed to be several hundred thousand years old.

http://en.wikipedia....nthropus_boisei

http://www.handprint.com/LS/ANC/evol.html#chart

A nice site to look at that talks about some of this.

While I originally thought you sounded a bit paranoid, I have found some confirming results in other sites. Still, I think the basic gist of modern ideas about our evolution stand quite well.

Australopithecines and paranthropines almost certainly used tools. I doubt they did much to fashion them but all the same they did just what other apes did: they threw stones and branches to ward of predators and they probably used twigs to extract termites and ants or worms.

Homo habilis may not have made tools like Homo erectus but they may have started the whole tool-making guild by inventing the "broken rock" that certainly was the beginning of the whole thing. This does not require all Homo habilines to be tool makers, just the population that gave rise to the rest of humanity.

[BobZenor]

That graph agrees with me more than most do. There are some changes I would add like extending the indefinite beginnings of Homo for the different groups but at least they listed them with question marks. That seems very quick for new species to radiate into the same area. There is also evidence for floresiensis to have diverged before erectus. That probably implies that some Asian erectus were significantly more distantly related than others. As of about 800,000 years ago most Asian "erectus" were probably replaced by the same population that gave rise to heidelbergensis. That isn't implied by the graph.

That graph is still pushing the beginnings of each lineage or species of early Homo into the early Oldowan. I think it is reasonable to assume that only the lineage that led to modern humans did anything significant with stone tools and the other species of early Homo didn't. That would exclude habilis and rudolfensis unless they happened to also be more closely related to the early erectus which is pretty much up in the air in that graph. It looks dubious that they could radiate that quickly and it is dubious from a biological perspective that three radiating species are going to all take up the same niche which in this case would be increased technology that led to the far more significant Acheulean tools. I don't consider tools earlier than that to be significant because they aren't really anything more, at least in early Oldowan, than broken rocks that a chimp could make. There is no reason to assume that all three lineages were technological and no way you could prove it. I don't accept that rapid of speciation as likely so it is entirely possible that actual split of the three early Homos extends before Oldowan and certainly any significant stone tool usage. A stone tool probably is several thousand times more likely survive intact than the bones of one the hominids that made it. There would always be tools around that were far more common than the bones of the hominids. There is really no way that anyone could attribute any stone tool to any species of hominid. They guess at which one seems to be mostly closely related to us or make the dubious assumption that their hominid was the only one in the area. Some of our common preconceptions like all habilis are tool makers don't really have sufficient evidence to support that conclusion in my opinion. I think the consideration for why they radiated so quickly makes them all going down the same evolutionary path highly unlikely.

Edited September 14, 2012 by BobZenor

[Guest]

http://anthropology.net/2009/06/26/neanderthals-dried-fresh-meat-wore-tailored-clothing-energy-study/

Here's a neat little site I just found. Give it a read.

[Guest]

Interesting article, but large amounts of speculation:

"Lithic remains from the Eem include awl-like points suited for making holes in skin material [...] as well as knife-like blades suited for cutting strips of animal skin, that could be inserted and weaved through the holes, in order to convert plain furs into fitting clothes."

(I sympathise somewhat, as I wrote a thesis dealing with the 14th Century and evidence for that 'recent' period is still incredibly scanty.)

[BobZenor]

It does seem that most likely Neanderthals did use well fitted skins. That only makes sense because it would be one of those things that would obviously help considerably with the extreme cold they had to deal with. It isn't that difficult a thing to do but we don't really know how elaborate they were. You could get pretty good just with correctly sized furs that were tied on from the outside. Putting holes in them and tying them together isn't a great intellectual ability. Many have a culture of probably hundreds of thousands of years of living in cold environments. They were obviously smart enough to make fairly sophisticated tools and should have been able to manage that. It is still an assumption how much credit you want to give them. Much of the adaptation could have been biological rather than cultural or technological.

[Guest BFSleuth]

Thank you antfoot for providing those links to the Neanderthal studies. After reading through them it seems that the idea that they used close fitting clothing is based on two things:

1. Evidence - sharpened bones at Neanderthal sites that would have been used for sewing awls.
   
2. The assumption that Neanderthal would be highly similar to HSS in regard to requirements for protection from the cold.
   

While I think that it is likely HSN had technology for making clothing, I wonder whether the assumption that they had to wear tight fitting clothing for survival is accurate? It may be that they had a much more robust resistance to cold than we can imagine.

Another interesting aspect of the study was the observation that they must have killed one large game animal every month or so, then dried the meat to carry to a more permanent camp. Some Native American or First Nations people have stories that talk about BF also having food storage, which would require a level of planning for containment and protection. If this is the case, then it would make some sense in regards to sustaining a viable population (rather than having to rely on foraging during winter months in northern climates).

[Guest]

Out of curiosity, is there good evidence that Neanderthals inhabited areas of extreme cold? I have always assumed that uncultured/uncivilized (call them what you will) hominins might exhibit nomadic tendencies, especially if food sources were becoming scarce. But that view is not based on anything substantive, it's just my conjecture.

I'll try and wise up a bit around Neanderthals and stop asking dorky questions.

Really, I'm just trying to stress test the hypothesis that BF could be some kind of modern Neanderthal.

[bipedalist]

If neanderthal dna was thought to be more like southeast Asians and native American's than Denisovans (if I recall the article correctly) then that implies they may have existed side by side with Denisova in the colder climes of Asia..... forget the link to that article I recently read and the citation though (the link was posted up on the forum though). I'm not clear on neanderthals being prologue to BF by any means though. Seems like a stretch to me.

Edited September 18, 2012 by bipedalist

[BobZenor]

They lived in Europe during ice ages. Even when it isn't, it gets cold in the winters. We are in an exceptionally warm period and it still gets very cold in some of those places. They do have evidence mostly in the tools which are predominantly locally made that they didn't move around a lot. I suppose that wouldn't necessarily prevent a migration to warmer places. That is a good point bipedalist. Denisova cave was 40 below (either scale) when some researchers were there. It is probably implied they interbred by them saying that Denisova is closer to a neanderthal genetically when its mtDNA clearly isn't.

Neanderthal sites:

http://www.zafarraya....com/sites.html

Edited September 18, 2012 by BobZenor

[Cotter]

If neanderthal dna was thought to be more like southeast Asians and native American's than Denisovans (if I recall the article correctly)

Post #163 pasted below.

"Present-day east Asians and Native Americans appear to have more in common genetically with the Neanderthals than present-day Europeans, even though Europe was thought to be the main hangout for Neanderthals hundreds of thousands of years ago."

http://cosmiclog.nbc...man-genome?lite