More proof of hominid interbreeding

At one time it was assumed that human were descended from the various human-like fossils that were found around the world. Then anthropologists convinced everyone of the Out Of Africa theory, where all human are descended from those who left Africa about 65k years ago, and all other hominids went extinct.

Now no one wants to admit that Out-Of-Africa is dead wrong, but it is now clear that the Africans interbred with the other hominids, rather than displacing them. In other words, the older theory is more accurate than the Out-Of-Africa theory.

This is even more so, now with a new analysis, as SciAm reports:

The discovery of yet another period of interbreeding between early humans and Neanderthals is adding to the growing sense that sexual encounters among different ancient human species were commonplace throughout their history. ...

“There is this joke in the population genetics community—there’s always one more interbreeding event," Castellano says. So before researchers discover the next one, here’s a rundown of the interbreeding episodes that they have already deduced from studies of ancient DNA.

Early modern humans and Neanderthals

Humans and Neanderthals

Humans and Denisovans

Neanderthals and Denisovans

Denisovans and a 'ghost' population of hominins

The article should say interbreeding between early Africans and Neanderthals, since they were all human ancestors and all the same species.

Here is more detail:

Here is a summary of our current knowledge in easy-to-digest bullet points. Cut them out and pin them to your bedside table. There will be a test in class next week.

Modern humans and Neanderthals diverged 550,000-765,000 years ago.

Neanderthals and Denisovans diverged 381,000-473,000 years ago.

Modern humans mated with Neanderthals in Asia around 100,000 years ago, during our first failed wave of migration, leaving our genes in their DNA.

Modern humans mated with Neanderthals in the middle East around 50,000 years ago, during the second successful wave of migration. We got some of their DNA, which has been linked with a number of characters.

Modern humans mated with Denisovans in Central and Eastern Asia, and got some cool genes from them, including one that enables Tibetans to live at high altitude.

Denisovans mated with an unknown form (NB we don’t know what the Denisovans looked like, beyond the fact that they had whopping teeth), perhaps a relict Homo erectus, the product of the very first wave of Homo migration from Africa

Denisovans mated with an unknown form (NB we don’t know what the Denisovans looked like, beyond the fact that they had whopping teeth), perhaps a relict Homo erectus, the product of the very first wave of Homo migration from Africa

It is very strange that these papers use the term "modern humans" for Africans that lived 500k years ago. There is no reason to believe that they were any more modern or human than Neanderthals or Denisovans.

This is a little like saying "modern humans mated with Aztecs", instead of "Spaniards mated with Aztecs".

It is also strange to say "leaving our genes in their DNA". Is this written by Africans for an African audience? Since Europeans have Neanderthal ancestors, you could also say "leaving their genes in our DNA".

Many people also consider Barack Obama African, even tho he is half African and half white American. That is mainly because he chooses to identify as black, but also because others view his African characteristics as being more obvious.

Is that what is going on here? I don't know. I think that anthropologists spent so much time trying to convince us that we are all African, that they do not want to admit that they were wrong.

Or maybe it is some kind of weird racial preference. Everyone is happy making fun of the European Neanderthals as being backward and brutish, but no one wants to say that the Africans were anything less then fully modern humans.

The latter summary is from Professor Jerry Coyne's blog, who adds this to a cute video:

Note that this animation is misleading in that it presents our species as the culmination of evolution, which of course is not true. In that sense its progressivism is wrong. They could easily have put a squirrel or a cactus as the final step!

There is the leftist academic mind at work. He refuses to accept that humans are more advanced than a squirrel or cactus.