Jump to content

ashes of Neanderthal knocks on our hearts


Dilara

Recommended Posts

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?

Homo_Stammbaum_Version_Stringer_en_svg.p

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

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

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 by overtone
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.