The Oldest Dna Evidence Yet Of Humans With An Interesting Twist

[norseman]

That's fine and all, but, since none of us has ever seen a living breathing Neanderthal, all any of us can do is speculate. I may be right, and I may be wrong, and likewise, you may be right, and you may be wrong. The way I see it, a Bluejay and a Robin are both a species of bird, but I know the difference between the two when I see one or the other. Even if dressed in identical tuxedo's...... but I could be wrong, and lord knows it wouldn't be the first time.

 

I think part of the problem is the variations within Homo Sapiens and Homo Neanderthals.

 

If I saw this guy running through the forest with a bear skin and a spear? My first thought would be Neanderthal.

 

[the parkie]

If I saw him running through the forest with a spear, my first thought would be to run in the opposite direction.

[Guest ChasingRabbits]

So...back on topic.

 

The article was interesting. Could someone explain the Bigfoot connection? As far as I can tell we're talking about extinct populations:

 

It is possible, for example, that there are many extinct human populations that scientists have yet to discover.

 

How does that get to undocumented giant ape-men in North America?

 

If you watch Henry Louis Gates' PBS show  Finding Your Roots,  he does DNA analysis on his subjects. They usually show a shot of the pie chart. Sometimes, there is a fraction of a percent labelled "Other".

 

Granted "Other" is probably Neanderthal DNA but could it be some other human population? Interesting thought.

[Cotter]

WOW! This is huge.

 

I find it odd though that some scientists are trying to describe this find as deformed homo sapiens, and others are leaving the homo erectus hypothesis for something even more primitive.

 

It would certainly explain the size.

 

Wow!  That is crazy! 

 

I thought we had already discovered all of the previously known upright walking hominids?  ;-)

 

I find it hard to believe a species like this went extinct in the last 17,000 years. 

[Guest Stan Norton]

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v514/n7523/full/nature13810.html

Now we have an even older date, plus a greater proportion of Neanderthal genes.

[Guest]

This is normal as far as I can see from my readings. No one hypothesis fits to an exact degree which is why there is so much disagreement. I have thought floresiensis was an australopithecine for some time now. Convergence is not an unknown or impractical explanation for the facial features of floresiensis. Floresiensis as an australopithecine would not necessarily look like the classic version of Lucy. There were likely many varying populations of Australopithecus. I've often thought that an Eurasian offshoot of Australopithecus could have evolved into a larger form much like reports of yeti, bigfoot, almas etcetera.

Neandertals were usually pretty short. This guy is supposed to be pretty huge and tall right? Not neandertalish I think. Titanthrops perhaps though  although they're supposed to be hairy heheheh

Edited October 23, 2014 by antfoot

[norseman]

I was referring to the shape and size of the skull. Your right, he is way to tall for a Neanderthal.

 

[Guest]

His face is too flat for neandertal too though. Neandertal faces protruded a lot more muzzle like.

[Guest Divergent1]

He looks like Patty without the hair to me.

 

I think they should go back and re-evaluate all of the known fossils once methods improve for analyzing ancient DNA, I'm sure we have the family tree all wrong.

Edited October 24, 2014 by Divergent1

[frap10]

Divergent1 - I totally agree there!

[norseman]

His face is too flat for neandertal too though. Neandertal faces protruded a lot more muzzle like.

 

I think what your seeing is the lack of a pronounced chin. From the brow to the upper lip is fairly flat.

 

 

Compared to say a Australopithecus.

 

[Guest Stan Norton]

^Yep. Neanderthals had no chins, not prognathous faces.

[norseman]

This article is interesting, it suggests human faces evolved over time because of fighting.

http://www.theguardian.com/science/2014/jun/09/human-face-developed-over-5m-years-of-fighting-scientists-claim

[Incorrigible1]

This article is interesting, it suggests human faces evolved over time because of fighting.

http://www.theguardian.com/science/2014/jun/09/human-face-developed-over-5m-years-of-fighting-scientists-claim

DID NOT!!

[Guest Stan Norton]

What did you say about my mum??!