The Oldest Dna Evidence Yet Of Humans With An Interesting Twist

[norseman]

<insert spaghetti western music here>

[Cotter]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UcJBvFb2adc

[Guest]

Well, he has a chin and quite a pronounce one at that. His nose is small and pert not what one expects on such a large man. Neandertals allegedly had large noses and no chin making them prognathous. Prognathous basically refers to a face that appears pulled forward. Neandertals had sloping foreheads and receding chinis which fits the definition. Granted australopithecines have them beat at that. The boxer definitely has a chin and his face does not seem pulled forward. Looks like it was enlarged relative to his skull though. He does not look like he has a forehead. I know I've seen a pic of him without a cap and he does appear to have a very short forehead.

[norseman]

I was referring to Neanderthals as having no chin but not exhibiting a prognathous face.

The brow ridge of a Neanderthal lines up with the upper lip, similar to ours. A australopethicus brow ridge lines up with the back of the mouth.

[Guest]

Any two points will fall on a line or plane. The only difference may be the angle of the line or plane relative to a particular orientation. Prognathous faces have the same thing as flat ones. Only the angle might differ. A prognathous face is defined by more than two points. Combine the large noses neandertals were supposed to have and you have a more protruding face not a flat one. Besides a prognathous face is not defined by the placement of the brow ridges but the slope of the forehead. The boxer's forehead does slope excessively for a modern sapiens but the rest of his face is very normal for sapiens albeit quite large.

[Guest Divergent1]

I have no idea if this blogger knows what they are talking about.  I thought it was an interesting explanation for why Nikolai looks the way he does. His grandmother says they are descended fom giant warriors called the Tartars.

 

http://frontiers-of-anthropology.blogspot.com/2012/05/giant-warrior-strain-continues-to.html

Edited October 25, 2014 by Divergent1

[bipedalist]

Human teeth found predated out of Africa and earliest known evidence by 20,000 years found in a cave in south China!

 

In keeping with the thread title there is no known DNA obtained from these teeth and radiocarbon dating not possible beyond 50,000 years so.......   more to come. 

 

http://www.nature.com/news/teeth-from-china-reveal-early-human-trek-out-of-africa-1.18566

Edited October 21, 2015 by bipedalist

[bipedalist]

bump

[SWWASAS]

A couple of months ago I participated in the National Geographic Society human genome project. Did some cheek swabs, sent them in and got the results yesterday. Nothing earth shaking but a lot of interesting stuff. My maternal line goes back 67,000 years to East Africa. It is fairly common in that 1.7% percent of the over 3/4 million participants had similar genetic makers. Each hybridization that results in a branch of the family tree has a DNA marker that can be dated. That line left Africa about 60,000 years ago into the Balkans and then into South Russia about 55,000 years ago. Was in Europe by 41,000 ago, and in Western Europe 28,000 years ago. I have 1.4 percent Neanderthal.

My Paternal line is very old and complicated with origins back to over 100,000 years ago in East Africa. Only .4 percent of the participants had a similar genetic history. There is a branch 80,000 years ago in East Africa. Another centered on the great African Rift valley 70,000 years ago. Then at 60,000 years ago movement into West Asia. They apparently were very nomadic because at 55,000 years go in another SW Asia branch. At 50,000 years ago went into SE Asia. at 45000 moved back into central Asia. From there moving NW towards Europe 25,00 to 35,000 years ago then into Western Europe 17,000 to 20,000 years ago becoming common with Europeans 5500 to 15,000 years ago. A Irish marker then appears that continues for over 10,000 years into the present along with French, Spanish and Portugal to a lesser extent. Anyway very interesting but there is a conflict with my own genealogy. I have what the family thought was native American ancestry. My great grandfather was half and actually worked for the army as an Indian Scout. His Native American ancestry is traced back into the NE States. Then I remembered that early colonial settlers reported tribes of Native Americans which red hair and fair skin. These stories are attributed to pre-Columbian explorations and settlement by the Irish and Vikings. My genealogy has us arriving in the colonies from Europe in the mid 1500s on my fathers side. Could it be that some ancestor married a native American that was actually from a pre-Columbian Irish settler? It certainly is a mystery why there are no Native American markers found but lots of Irish.

Anyway it is fun to read through all the markers on both sides and get some idea of the time lines involved. There are several such projects if anyone wants to get DNA samples and participate.

[Incorrigible1]

Cool!

[SWWASAS]

There is an alternative explanation for the Native American discrepancy that I just thought of. One of genetic markers had people that migrated into SE asia, down into Micronesia and Polynesia. There is recent studies that show that Polynesians may have left Hawaii and migrated to California. There is a tribe in California that has had both Polynesian style pottery and boat construction. The Kennewick man found is Washington had Asian origins. Native Americans are thought to have migrated from Asia over the land bridge. Perhaps my genetic history is a reuniting of ancient DNA markers in as the result of my great grandfather reconnecting ancient Asian bloodlines with more modern Irish descendants with the same ancient blood lines.