Dilara Posted November 16, 2015 Share Posted November 16, 2015 Quite recently Svante Pääbo director of the Department of Evolutionary Genetics at the Max Planck Institute said “It is still unclear exactly how much of the complete Neanderthal genome exists today in people, but it seems to approach something like 40 percent.”But 10-15 years ago the hypothesis of neanderthals being involved in making modern people was considered by most of the scholars as ridiculous. They believed that time all modern humans to descend from one person "chromosomal adam" - a pure sapiens.I've just found this - where is that beautiful man on this tree I wonder? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CharonY Posted November 16, 2015 Share Posted November 16, 2015 It seems that you may misunderstand the concept of Y-chromosomal Adam. It taps into the concept of most recent common ancestor of today's population and not that of modern humans. If you move back the timeline in human ancestry, the Y-chromsomal Adam will be shifted back, too. That being said, while the concept of interbreeding was controversial, I do not think that most scholars would have thought it to be ridiculous. For the longest time, there was simply no evidence. However, at least since 2002 there have been fossil findings that have been used to support the notion of interbreeding (see e.g. Trinkaus et al PNAS 2003 100:20). So the idea has been kicking around for a while before that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dilara Posted November 17, 2015 Author Share Posted November 17, 2015 It taps into the concept of most recent common ancestor of today's population and not that of modern humans. If you move back the timeline in human ancestry, the Y-chromsomal Adam will be shifted back, too. I comprehend "Adam" t as our common grand-grand-grand-Father - the unique and particular person on the time scale. Am I wrong? But this "common father" exists only if we take divergence as the only principle possible to describe the origin of the humans. Now I see that geneticists accepted the opposite concept: humankind is product of complicated hybridization. So "Adam" stopped to exist. Similar trends go in the linguistics. The linguists declined the former concept of Finno-Ugric identity because of terrible mess in calculating its common linguistic ancestor Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
overtone Posted November 17, 2015 Share Posted November 17, 2015 (edited) But this "common father" exists only if we take divergence as the only principle possible to describe the origin of the humans. Now I see that geneticists accepted the opposite concept: humankind is product of complicated hybridization. Hybridization with Neandertal people just means the common male ancestor was common to whatever y-chromosome lineage of Neandertals contributed Y-chormosome genetic material to the extant sapiens gene pool. If any. Similar trends go in the linguistics. The linguists declined the former concept of Finno-Ugric identity because of terrible mess in calculating its common linguistic ancestor Linguistic evolution is not necessarily Darwinian, and language does not speciate. Edited November 17, 2015 by overtone Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now