Mysterious ‘super-archaic’ populations had multiple trysts with human ancestors
1–10 of 100 posts
Re: Mysterious ‘super-archaic’ populations had multiple trysts with human ancestors
#2Man, I've always actually kinda wondered about this.
I know it's macabre, but I think about human migratory routines and when different groups clashed back when life was so primitive and brutish, they're must've been those tendencies to rape and sexually conquer the opposition.
Surely that is reflected in the genetic ledger of time. What a crazy insight. Genetics is such an interesting field. It's bonkers there's just strings of data that we can read the past through.
Re: Mysterious ‘super-archaic’ populations had multiple trysts with human ancestors
#3Interesting in the limelight of pandemics in regards to the closing paragraph:
> Today, H. sapiens doesn’t have the possibility of quickly grabbing a load of diversity by mating with another group: For perhaps the first time in our history, we’re the only humans on the planet. It’s another reason to miss our extinct cousins, says population geneticist Carina Schlebusch of Uppsala University. “To have such a large densely spread species with … so little genetic diversity … is a dangerous situation,” she says.
Re: Mysterious ‘super-archaic’ populations had multiple trysts with human ancestors
#4It's a running joke in Dr who, where as humanity spreads into the starts there eventually ceases to be any pure humans (and many other alien species) because humans will mate with anything.
I think it's most interesting to think of how fluid what we mean by species really is. We've always known it was fluid, but I think many people never really consider that when thinking about ourselves.
Re: Mysterious ‘super-archaic’ populations had multiple trysts with human ancestors
#5Interesting in the limelight of pandemics in regards to the closing paragraph: > Today, H. sapiens doesn’t have the possibility of quickly grabbing a load of diversity by mating with another group: For perhaps the first time in our history, we’re the only humans on the planet. It’s another reason to miss our extinct cousins, says population geneticist Carina Schlebusch of Uppsala University. “To have such a large den…
This sentence doesn't make any sense: "H. sapiens doesn’t have the possibility of quickly grabbing a load of diversity by mating with another group".
It would make sense if she specifically referred to Homo sapiens sapiens, but for Homo sapiens that "other group" would be of a different species and we thus we shouldn't be able to produce fertile offspring with them.
Also Homo sapiens sapiens have plenty of genetic diversity. Even just the number of easily observable environmental adaptions present in populations are countless (Sherpa, Bajau people, etc.)
As for COVID-19, most people are more-or-less unaffected by it. Our genetic diversity is working as intended.
Re: Mysterious ‘super-archaic’ populations had multiple trysts with human ancestors
#6Man, I've always actually kinda wondered about this. I know it's macabre, but I think about human migratory routines and when different groups clashed back when life was so primitive and brutish, they're must've been those tendencies to rape and sexually conquer the opposition. Surely that is reflected in the genetic ledger of time. What a crazy insight. Genetics is such an interesting field. It's bonkers there's jus…
You don’t even have to go back that far; the, uh, productivity of Ghengis Khan and the mongols generally is widely discussed.
Re: Mysterious ‘super-archaic’ populations had multiple trysts with human ancestors
#7Man, I've always actually kinda wondered about this. I know it's macabre, but I think about human migratory routines and when different groups clashed back when life was so primitive and brutish, they're must've been those tendencies to rape and sexually conquer the opposition. Surely that is reflected in the genetic ledger of time. What a crazy insight. Genetics is such an interesting field. It's bonkers there's jus…
You don’t even have to go back that far; the, uh, productivity of Ghengis Khan and the mongols generally is widely discussed.
Oh well I mean sure, there's a similar case with colonists and slaves too, right?
I think at some point in the far past though there might have been a wider gap, genetically, between the two forces meeting. I haven't had time to read the whole article in detail, just skimmed it.
Anyhow, thanks. You're right, there's definitely been plenty of mandatory diversification before.
Re: Mysterious ‘super-archaic’ populations had multiple trysts with human ancestors
#8Interesting in the limelight of pandemics in regards to the closing paragraph: > Today, H. sapiens doesn’t have the possibility of quickly grabbing a load of diversity by mating with another group: For perhaps the first time in our history, we’re the only humans on the planet. It’s another reason to miss our extinct cousins, says population geneticist Carina Schlebusch of Uppsala University. “To have such a large den…
This sentence doesn't make any sense: "H. sapiens doesn’t have the possibility of quickly grabbing a load of diversity by mating with another group". It would make sense if she specifically referred to Homo sapiens sapiens, but for Homo sapiens that "other group" would be of a different species and we thus we shouldn't be able to produce fertile offspring with them. Also Homo sapiens sapiens have plenty of genetic di…
Species is a much more fluid term than I think you realize.
Also, we don't know that most people are more or less unaffected by covid-19. We're only beginning to understand long term affects of even mild cases. Please don't spread misinformation.
Re: Mysterious ‘super-archaic’ populations had multiple trysts with human ancestors
#9Interesting in the limelight of pandemics in regards to the closing paragraph: > Today, H. sapiens doesn’t have the possibility of quickly grabbing a load of diversity by mating with another group: For perhaps the first time in our history, we’re the only humans on the planet. It’s another reason to miss our extinct cousins, says population geneticist Carina Schlebusch of Uppsala University. “To have such a large den…
This sentence doesn't make any sense: "H. sapiens doesn’t have the possibility of quickly grabbing a load of diversity by mating with another group". It would make sense if she specifically referred to Homo sapiens sapiens, but for Homo sapiens that "other group" would be of a different species and we thus we shouldn't be able to produce fertile offspring with them. Also Homo sapiens sapiens have plenty of genetic di…
> but for Homo sapiens that "other group" would be of a different species and we thus we shouldn't be able to produce fertile offspring with them.
That's one definition of "species" (specifically, it's "the biological species concept"), but like all the other definitions, it doesn't work and does not correspond to most usage of the term. You can read modern genetic work discussing how homo sapiens interbred with hominids of other species. You can also observe how easily different species interbreed today, like wolves (canis lupus, obligatory pack animals) and coyotes (canis latrans, solitary).
Re: Mysterious ‘super-archaic’ populations had multiple trysts with human ancestors
#10It's a running joke in Dr who, where as humanity spreads into the starts there eventually ceases to be any pure humans (and many other alien species) because humans will mate with anything. I think it's most interesting to think of how fluid what we mean by species really is. We've always known it was fluid, but I think many people never really consider that when thinking about ourselves.
I thought that would be dogs which seem to want to hump on anything...