backtop


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
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 maugrimtr on 7/16/2013 11:23:43 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
It's been suggested that modern humans carry small amounts of Neanderthal DNA.


It's not a suggestion, it's regarded as fact. DNA analysis is pretty plain that Europeans got 4% of their DNA from Neanderthals, i.e. the mixed breeding gave us significant benefits and spread across the entire population. It's almost certain the benefit was a better immune system for ex-African diseases. Asians got similar benefits from Denosovan DNA.

Worth noting that Neanderthals and Denosovans also interbred indepedently of modern humans so unless you hid away in the Americas separate by an ocean, you are at least 2-6% Neanderthal (majority of that 6% being Denosovan if from Asia).

quote:
Unless human/Neanderthal offspring were able to breed together the species distinction would be maintained, however.


They obviously could but, geography would have made it impractical unless there was a shared Sapien/Neanderthal population centre. It's a moot point - all that matters to us that those with Neanderthal DNA were better survivors and the DNA spread. The half breeds won a gamble at the Evolution table and many of us are descended from them.


RE: A rose by any other name is still a rose.
By drycrust3 on 7/16/2013 5:11:51 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Worth noting that Neanderthals and Denosovans also interbred indepedently of modern humans so unless you hid away in the Americas separate by an ocean, you are at least 2-6% Neanderthal (majority of that 6% being Denosovan if from Asia).

So if you can test the genome of a body buried thousands of years ago to the point you can tell how many genes are still present in the human population today, why is it so difficult to test to see if they share our descent from "Mitochondrial Eve"? Since I don't know anything about the technology or process, my guess is it isn't any more difficult.
Which leads us back to the second question: If all of those other "human species" have the same common ancestor as us, aren't they also the same species as us? The answer, of course, is they are the same species as us.


By charleski on 7/21/2013 3:11:05 AM , Rating: 2
They're the same genus. Species diverge from a common ancestor, and once they've diverged enough they're separate and can't mingle back with each other.


By charleski on 7/16/2013 8:43:39 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
It's not a suggestion, it's regarded as fact.

There's some very interesting evidence, but the correspondences could still be the result of a degree of common ancestry rather than interbreeding. It seems likely that humans and Neanderthals interbred, but it's still very far from being a fact.

quote:
quote:
Unless human/Neanderthal offspring were able to breed together the species distinction would be maintained, however.

They obviously could

Nope, not obvious at all. The most likely scenario would involve female human/Neanderthal hybrids backcrossing into the human gene line and passing on a few segments of Neanderthal DNA to those offspring that survived. Models of DNA transmission that would account for the Green et al. results come up with extremely low levels of interbreeding. See http://www.pnas.org/content/108/37/15129.short and http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.137...


"Young lady, in this house we obey the laws of thermodynamics!" -- Homer Simpson














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki