Print 30 comment(s) - last by charleski.. on Jul 21 at 3:25 AM

  (Source: 20th Century Fox)
But can they sing? And was Dr. Zaius involved?

Chorus: "He can speak, he can speak, he can speak!"
Troy McClure as Taylor: "I can singggg!"
"Planet of the Apes: The Musical" from The Simpsons epsiode "A Fish Called Selma"

A research team at the Max-Plank-Gesellschaft Institute's (MPI) Psycholinguistics department has analyzed recent discoveries on humans' close relatives -- the Neanderthals (Homo neanderthalensis) and Denisovans (Denisova hominin) -- and offered a controversial hypothesis.  They propose that Neanderthals, and likely Denisovans had languages and that these human relatives likely spoke with humans during their interactions.

Recent DNA discoveries have cast new light on the interactions of humans and their relatives.

Once viewed as dumb and brooding hunter-gatherers, Neanderthals inhabited much of western Eurasia from 350,000 to 600,000 years ago, and later migrated back to Africa.  But new evidence shows that Neanderthals actually had larger adult brains than humans, a very similar genetic makeup, and advanced tool use.  What's more there is strong evidence they exchange culture -- trading with early humans -- and even more shockingly had sex with them, producing offspring.  Much of the interbreeding appeared to occur when humans and Neanderthals migrated back to Africa some 50,000 to 80,000 years ago.

Neanderthals interbred and traded with humans in Africa and Europe. [Image Source: AP]

The simplistic world-view was further shaken by the discovery of the Denisovans -- another ancient relative that remained unknown until archaeological finds and gene research in the latter half of the last decade.  Like Neanderthals, Denisovans appear to have enjoyed a prosperous interaction with the locals some 30,000-300,000 years ago.

The evidence of rich ongoing interbreeding with each group suggested that these genetic exchanges weren't examples of raping and pillaging.  There's strong evidence some humans on their own free will bedded these relatives intermixing their lines for long stretches of time.

Family tree
The human family tree is much more complex than previously thought. [Image Source: MPI]

MPI Professors Dan Dediu and Stephen C. Levinson say that this indicates that early man must have been able to communicate with his early relatives; they must have been capable of speech.  They argue this hypothesis is further supported by the lack of discovery of a single or handful of "magic" genes that alone "create" the capacity for speech.

Rather they argue that speech evolved between the emergence of the Homo genus 1.8 million years ago and the emergence of Neanderthals, Denisovans, and Humans common answer -- Homo heidelbergensis some 600,000 to 1.3 million years ago.

In a press release MPI writes, "This reassessment of the evidence goes against a saltationist scenario where a single catastrophic mutation in a single individual would suddenly give rise to language, and suggests that a gradual accumulation of biological and cultural innovations is much more plausible."

speech bubble
Humans might not have a monopoly on speech. [Image Source: Career Realism]

The researchers suggest that differences between European and Asian languages may be attributable to traces of lost Denisovan and Neanderthal languages that crept into the speech of the humans who interacted and interbred with them.  They suggest further work be done to model language spread with computer simulations and to compare the structural properties of the African (where humans interbred with Neanderthals) and non-African languages (where humans may have bred with Denisovans).

The pair have published [abstract] their paper in the journal Frontiers in Language Sciences.

Sources: Max-Plank-Gesellschaft Institute, Frontiers in Language Sciences

Comments     Threshold

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

RE: A rose by any other name is still a rose.
By charleski on 7/15/2013 10:13:17 PM , Rating: 2
You need only go to a dog show to see how one species can exhibit huge phenotypic variation. Modern interspecific plant hybrids are produced using highly artificial techniques to induce chromosomal rearrangements - that's not really a good counter-example. A better one would be the Canis hybrids, which can occur without genetic intervention and are often fertile - for example a dog can mate with a coyote, and there are accounts of wild populations of dog/wolf/coyote hybrids:

These are edge-cases, though. The definition of a species is still problematic at times, but Mayr's concept of reproductive isolation (which I outlined above) remains the most widely accepted.

RE: A rose by any other name is still a rose.
By Keeir on 7/17/2013 9:43:29 PM , Rating: 2
I doubt that many "species" are conclusively tested for true reproductive isolation.

I think its also a stretch to assume that any/all Homo Sapiens/Neatherthal pairings would fit the "natural" category. In the time period of potential "crossings": culture, language, and force multipliers all existed.

I also think its interesting that in one sense you embrace extremely artificaly means to exagerate phenotypic variation. But even with the clear visual difference, the bone structure and sensory organs of dogs are extremely similiar and function in extremely similiar fashions.

RE: A rose by any other name is still a rose.
By charleski on 7/21/2013 3:07:36 AM , Rating: 2
We don't need to test them. If they were capable of interbreeding and were in proximity to each other, they would, and we'd find that the species had hybridised.

Compared to twiddling genes in a culture dish everything else is 'natural'. Culture and language are pretty poor at restraining the sex drive, even today.

Your last paragraph makes no sense at all. We have eyes. Fish have eyes. Does that make us the same species?

By charleski on 7/21/2013 3:25:20 AM , Rating: 2
Oh, and just so it's clear, when I say 'the species would have hybridised' I mean you'd see a mixture that's far more substantial than one gene crossing every 70 generations, which is what the results suggest happened between humans and Neanderthals.

"Let's face it, we're not changing the world. We're building a product that helps people buy more crap - and watch porn." -- Seagate CEO Bill Watkins

Most Popular ArticlesSmartphone Screen Protectors – What To Look For
September 21, 2016, 9:33 AM
UN Meeting to Tackle Antimicrobial Resistance
September 21, 2016, 9:52 AM
Walmart may get "Robot Shopping Carts?"
September 17, 2016, 6:01 AM
5 Cases for iPhone 7 and 7 iPhone Plus
September 18, 2016, 10:08 AM
Update: Problem-Free Galaxy Note7s CPSC Approved
September 22, 2016, 5:30 AM

Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki