While I don’t wish to downplay the amount of research David put into his answer, is it possible he completely misunderstood the question?
It seems to me the questioner may have heard of “mitochondrial Eve”, and wanted more information.
I’ve read recently that male dna may in fact be passed on as well, and the dating may be off as a result, but anyway, determining the time when a single one of our ancestors came to dominate the gene pool doesn’t seem like such a ridiculous idea.
David, some information on “mitochondrial Eve”? Please?
Of course, it’s pretty much certain that all humans are descended from one primate ancestor. Even if humans are the result of several different groups evolving into a new species (extremely unlikely, BTW), each of those groups would almost certainly have, in turn, have descended from a single primate ancestor. But just how would two groups evolve to the same species separately, anyway? That would mean that they both moved far enough away from their ancestors genetically to be considered a different species, but just happened to move in exactly the same direction as the other group. Evolution doesn’t tend to work that way.
A point of clarification: the Eve hypothesis does not state that every human being is solely descended from one woman. It says that everyone’s matrilineal descent can be traced back to a single woman. Our non-matrilineal descent may very well go through another woman. So despite the name, it is very different from the Adam and Eve story, which claims that all types of lineages pass through Eve. I saw a good explanation for why the whole Eve hypothesis is nearly a rational certainly (that is, even without empirical data, it is nearly certain). I can’t remember the argument exactly, but it convinced me.
The answer does not mention it, but as long ago as 10 years ago there were still academics that were arguing against the out of Africa theory, arguing on a more racial, global basis. Inspite of the fact that no other critter ever evolved that way, separated towards a common goal.
From the last paragraph of the column in question:
Although from some philosophical/metaphysical points of view, it could be argued that h. sapienslost lost the race. I mean what if there truly is an ultimate goal for existence, which coincides with the ultimate destination for all life forms (to wit: extinction)?
Just a thought, and before I hit the “submit” button, I’m going to check out the responses and ascertain whether somebody else has already had it.
Keep in mind that conventional definition
of species (the biological species concept)
is not very useful for palentology.
You can’t really tell if x could
breed with y just by bones. Thus those
studying fossils have no choice to
use more of a typological definition.
There is actually disagreement on whether
the neandertals should be Homo sapiens neanderthalensis
or be recognized as a species in its
own right as Homo neanderthalensis.
This debate will probably go on for
some time to come though calling
the neadertals a seperate species
has gain popularity in the last few
years.
Recently DNA from a neandertal was
extracted. It was published in Cell and a second segment was
published in PNAS. Both
were have a short segment of DNA
from mitochondria. Both segments
were outside of the variation
found in the current human populations
and the authors concluded that we
are not descended from neandertals.
The results are accepted, but the
conclusion is highly disputed.
I don’t want WWIII here, but I’ve been having a running arugment with Trouts1 (on the SDMB) about the two samples of Neanderthal mtDNA - from reading about the Paabo tests in “Cell” the tests were done “back to back” the second as a double check on the first at a different lab.
What is it that makes you think the PNAS artilcle was a second segment? The titles, the numbers, the authors, methodology – I can’t see it.
Are you driving with your eyes open or are you using The Force? - A. Foley
It’s stupid to think modern man would kill off Neanderthals and not bother to interbreed along the way.
Consider:
It’s natural to give it a go. Sheep dogs will hump sheep. People hump dogs, sheep AND apes.
Moderns and Neanderthals are closer than cattle and buffaloes, and we all know they cross to make beefaloes
Mitochondria only count if the sample is right. What if the Neanderthals were absorbed by the Celts or Picts or Lapplanders? They’d still be around, but not in anyone’s sample unless they went to the fringe of the continent to collect.
Didn’t mean to alarm you. I was refering to the class ('70, I think) of great apes, not anyone in particular. This includes chimps, orangutans (means forest man in Maylay), gibbon, siamang, and bonobo (perhaps our closest relative, according to articles in Scientific American).
Also, you’ve heard the joke “Where does the 500 pound gorilla sleep? Anywhere he wants to.”? It could also apply to getting Jane away from George of the Jungle.
Mushrooms always grow in damp places … and so that is why they look like bumbershoots.
Ok, there may be some wierdos who have sex with apes. SO when did you see the last man/ape crossbreed baby? Never. The DNA is too different to combine, the ape cant get pregnant (nor could the human). If the neandrathals were a seperate species, we could have slept with as many as we wanted and no interbreeding would have gone on. This is even assuming that it is physically possible to penetrate an ape correctly (one of the protection methods against interbreeding of frog species in nature is that they just dont match up correctly to get in).
Another possibility is that a neandsapien would be sort of like crossing a donkey and a horse- you get 1 generation, but those children are infertile. So I would rather doubt any human today has any neandrathal genes in him.