New Human species found

[rov1200]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/...-environment-12059564

Why is it assumed ( from the diagram) that we all originated from one common ancestor when the latest find shows its DNA to be completely different from ours? Could they not have originated in parallel?

[wolf63]

I agree that could have been many parallel evolutions, my scientific knowledge (or lack of) prevents me from fully understanding the evolutionary process.

However - does it really matter? Is any information gleaned from such research going to improve our species now and make us more able to cope in the future? Are we going to become a species that is able to settle our differences without resorting to wars?

In the distant future will some scientist be looking back at our bones to try and shed some light upon our era and trying to work out why we were so primitive and violent?

[jake-the-peg]

Where do you get that it's DNA is *totally* different from ours?

You are aware that you share 50% of your DNA with a banana aren't you?

[rowanwitch]

even more with a daffodil ....we are only about 2% different from most of the other primates so the difference between human types can't be that much or they couldn't interbreed and the melanesian DNa proves that this occurred

[wolf63]

I minimised this page onto my dock. When I held my curser over it the tag said "New species found in the Answerbank". I wonder where all of us fit into the evolutionary process?

[WaldoMcFroog]

Here's a link to a much better story that indicates that the Denisovans are cousins to neanderthals, though frustratingly, none that I can find give figures for the % difference between the two genomes.

http://www.physorg.co...ne-yields-genome.html

The reason why relationships are made between any two living things and why we're so sure there is a common ancestor is down to nested hierarchies; related organisms share similar characteristics and the number of shared traits increases with relatedness.

The nested heirarchy was developed by Linnaeus, who was actually a creationist (creationists hate this being mentioned. Linneaus was also the person who classified man along with the apes, hence the designation 'primate' for apes, as he - wrongly - thought man was the apex of God's creation (humans are no more evolved or privilleged than say a bacterium), and was based on morphological features; i.e. all creatures with wings are more closely related than those without. It was (broadly) successful as a means of classification, but with the advent of genetics, we find the same genetic patterns be observed in more closely related species.

This even relates to things such as Endogenous Retroviruses, which is genetic code inserted by viruses, but which has become part of our genome. It can conclusively be shown that ERVs can be detected in the same part of the genome of closely related species.

The best thing is that ERVs are randomly inserted into the genome by the virus. The chances of a virus just happening to insert itself in an indentical position in two different species are spectacularly low, and we have many more than one of these randomly inserted bits of code in our genome, yet all of them confirm the same nested heirarchy. This is one

[WaldoMcFroog]

I'm sorry - I'll finish that off...

this is one... of the best pieces of evidence in favour of decent with modification, aka evolution by means of natural selection.

[rov1200]

Thanks for the relevent info Waldo

//Neanderthals died out about 30,000 years ago. Today, an international research team is extracting DNA from Neanderthals who were, literally, cavemen. (Their bones were found in Croatian caves.)//

Does it seem strange that around their demise we have a new strain of DNA originating out of Africa and which our present chemical structure is based. Maybe we are the MKII or MKlll variety.

[beso]

All life, animals, plants and microorganisms have a single common ancestor. Simply a matter of how far back you look.

[jake-the-peg]

That sounds like a statement of faith Beso

Any evidence that viruses did not have a seperate origin later, after the origin of the cell?

[gen2]

Rov, the DNA is NOT 'completely different' as you state. The article says that they were able to interbreed so they must have been extremely closely related with very similar DNA. They therefore had a common ancestor.

[David90]

Beso is right. All living things are linked by a common ancestor. This is very well described in "The Ancestors Tale" by Richard Dawkins. We are all cousins, even if many times removed.

[beso]

Viruses are technically not considered to be a life form but packages of genes.

However these genes very closely related to ours. Indeed many of the genes in all forms of life are based on sequences acquired through infection by retroviruses. As much as ten percent of our own DNA has already been traced to viral origins. Not just trivial stuff either. The mammalian placenta started out from viral DNA.

Scientists are now realising that retroviruses are a major component in gene changes and evolution.

[starone]

I have always subscribed to the idea that the whole of human type life is a great big melting pot and that somewhere you will find a bit of all the past DNA.

[rov1200]

My point about the MKII or MKIII, etc still stands. If you use the analogy of a car the modern versions still retain the wheels and other parts but the structure has changed to make it more efficient. Likewise some of the genes have been retained but added to and made more efficient.

[jno]

evolution doesn't make us more efficient, does it? It's random. Some changes work better than the original, some don't.

[DTCwordfan]

thast what they are postulating and that african man had his wicked way with asian man........

[beso]

No jno. Only the changes to the genes due to mutations are random. Evolution favours the fittest through natural selection.