tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post127779700507993200..comments2024-01-04T04:11:55.717+02:00Comments on Dienekes’ Anthropology Blog: Archaic admixture in Eurasians with hominins that diverged 0.9 and 3.5 million years ago? Dienekeshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02082684850093948970noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-87962151099737324022014-05-06T14:28:56.611+03:002014-05-06T14:28:56.611+03:00"The first admixture seems like a dead ringer..."The first admixture seems like a dead ringer for Homo heidelbergensis, particularly now that <b>we know from ancient DNA that this Homo species is not ancestral to H. Sapiens and Neanderthals. </b>"<br /><br /><br />Andrew,<br /><br />It certainly is - just not as far as mtDNA is concerned.eurologisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03440019181278830033noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-73191146333112540022014-05-06T06:06:35.806+03:002014-05-06T06:06:35.806+03:00"The first admixture seems like a dead ringer..."The first admixture seems like a dead ringer for Homo heidelbergensis" <br /><br />At three and a half million years ago? Or even two and a half million years ago with 33% reduction. Even Homo erectus was yet to appear at that time. The 859,000 year date does fit H. heidelbergensis introgression of course. terrythttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17327062321100035888noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-3293370147989211122014-05-05T23:02:14.463+03:002014-05-05T23:02:14.463+03:00The first admixture seems like a dead ringer for H...The first admixture seems like a dead ringer for Homo heidelbergensis, particularly now that we know from ancient DNA that this Homo species is not ancestral to H. Sapiens and Neanderthals.<br /><br />If both of the dating estimates are 33% too large due to some systemic error common to both estimates, this would still fit the Homo heidelbergensis archaeology and the later date, within the margin of error, could be H. Erectus, which was the first Homo species to leave Africa. Eurasian specific introgression from an Australopithecus species into both Neanderthals and Eurasians despite the lack of Australopithecus archaeology evidence in Eurasia and the presence of both H. Erectus and Homo heidelbergensis in Eurasia at times that would be right if there was systemic overestimation of 33% (most of which could arise from something as simple as a modest error in average generation length due to a difference in generation length between archaic and modern humans) the balance could be due to differences well within the margin of error in the time estimate itself.andrewhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08172964121659914379noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-32821691992759921702014-05-05T04:50:54.717+03:002014-05-05T04:50:54.717+03:00Yes. Yes. terrythttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17327062321100035888noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-71331397239195054442014-05-04T05:20:49.837+03:002014-05-04T05:20:49.837+03:00Once again, agreed. I think this applies well to t...Once again, agreed. I think this applies well to the discussion following the "Chris Stringer on Recent Out-of-Africa" post.CleverPrimatehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07348182461045006012noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-5425631006008329412014-05-03T09:27:09.572+03:002014-05-03T09:27:09.572+03:00"Furthermore, we detected more introgressions..."Furthermore, we detected more introgressions from two unknown archaic hominins whom diverged with modern humans approximately 859 and 3,464 thousand years ago". <br /><br />At three and a half million years ago we are obviously dealing with introgression from some other Australopithecus species. That would indicate mixing and mingling has been going on for a considerable time, just as I have consistently maintained. In fact I am sure mixing of subspecies is one of the main drivers of evolution in most species. terrythttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17327062321100035888noreply@blogger.com