Discovery of oldest human DNA in Spanish cave sheds light on evolution

[tripsis]

Discovery of oldest human DNA in Spanish cave sheds light on evolution

Scientists say DNA strands in thigh bone of 400,000-year-old early human can help build clearer picture of human family tree

An artist's impression of the Sima de los Huesos early humans that are estimated to have lived 400,000 years ago. Photograph: Kennis & Kennis/AP

Researchers have read strands of ancient DNA teased from the thigh bone of an early human who died 400,000 years ago in what is now northern Spain.

The genetic material was pieced together from a clutch of cells found in bone fragments – the oldest human remains ever to yield their genetic code.

The work deepens understanding of the genetics of human evolution by about 200,000 years, raising hopes that researchers can build a clearer picture of the earliest branches of the human family tree by studying the genetic make-up of fossilised remains dug up elsewhere.

"This is proof of principle that it can be done," said Matthias Meyer at the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology in Leipzig. "We are now very eager to explore other sites of a similar age."

The thigh bone was among the remains of at least 28 early human ancestors found at the bottom of a vertical shaft in a cave complex in the Atapuerca mountains in northern Spain. The Sima de los Huesos, or "pit of bones", lies 30 metres underground and half a kilometre from the cave system's nearest current entrance.

Scientists managed to analyse DNA found in the thigh bone of this skeleton found in Spain. Photograph: Javier Trueba/AP

The individuals at Sima de los Huesos looked a little like Neanderthals, and many anthropologists classified them as Homo heidelbergensis, a potential forerunner of modern humans. The corpses were probably washed into the pit rather than buried intentionally.

Meyer's team sequenced DNA found in tiny sausage-shaped structures called mitochondria, which sit inside cells and provide them with power. Mitochondria are passed down the maternal line only, unlike DNA found in the cell nucleus, which carries genetic information from both parents and their ancestors.

The age of the bone fragments meant the cells and their DNA were badly degraded. "This is the hardest sample I have ever worked on that yielded a result," said Meyer.

Meyer's team dated the bone fragments to 400,000 years old, but further analysis left them baffled. The mitochondrial DNA did not match that of Neanderthals, but was closer to a sister group called the Denisovans that lived in Siberia. Details of the study appear in the journal Nature.

Meyer says there are a number of explanations, but admits more work is needed. One possibility is that an older lineage of human ancestors, perhaps Homo erectus, bred with the ancestors of the Sima de la Huesos individuals, and passed on their mitochondria. But several other explanations are being explored by anthropologists."Either way, this new finding can help us start to disentangle the relationships of the various human groups known from the last 600,000 years," said Chris Stringer, head of human origins at the Natural History Museum in London. "If more mitochondrial DNA can be recovered from the Sima population of fossils, it may demonstrate how these individuals were related to each other, and how varied their population was."

Meyer said the Leipzig group now hopes to extract so-called nuclear DNA from the Sima fossils, which contains more information but will be much harder to extract because there is far less material.

"We have taken a first glimpse now and what we find is unexpected and confusing," he said. "But I'm confident we'll get more data, and then it's very likely we'll be able to nail down some hard facts, about whether these Sima de la Heusos guys are the ancestors of Neanderthals, the ancestors of both Neanderthals and Denisovans, or even something completely different."

Source.

[Sallubrious]

I reckon I know that guy in the back of the first picture.

[Zen Peddler]

they aren't cromagnon which means they aren't homo sapiens sapiens - meaning they aren't actually us.

[gwalchgwyn]

when do we become us, anyway? some genome studies show both Neanderthal & Denisovan elements in modern humans.

very fascinating anyway to imagine how & where apes romped around a mere 400,000 years ago. thanks tripsis

[tripsis]

they aren't cromagnon which means they aren't homo sapiens sapiens - meaning they aren't actually us.

How do you define "species"? If you use the BSC, then the very fact that we have both Neanderthal's and Denisovan's DNA in our genome means that they were not truly distinct species.

[Zen Peddler]

All very true I guess my question was more a wind up than anything else

[Dreamwalker.]

How do you define "species"? If you use the BSC, then the very fact that we have both Neanderthal's and Denisovan's DNA in our genome means that they were not truly distinct species.

Neanderthal's and Denisovan's were a pre sapien wave migration from Africa..........so true Africans don't have Neanderthal's and Denisovan's DNA.....................and apparently there is more genetic diversity between 2 related African bushman (SA almost extinct).....than between Europeans and Asians..........bottleneck effect...............and this guy looks like a neighbour of mine.............

his bones were re-fleshed...........so its probably a good rep of how he looked before death............

Edited March 17, 2014 by Dreamwalker

[AnthromorphicGerbil]

^^ looks a tad constipated

[gwalchgwyn]

he's pink!

not sure how long it takes for the human skin to lose its sun block in far nothern (and far southern) climes. Neanderthals, with their long history in the northerly Eurasia, became pale.

the first homo sapiens in Europe were black.

[botanika]

the first homo sapiens in Europe were black.

when do we become us, anyway?

More likely brown. Early AMH's didn't just instantly walk out of equatorial Africa, looking like black negroes, into ice age europe. Many interesting elements of human evolution happened in north east africa and the middle east, where pigmentation is not as strong as the equator. The ice ages pushed existing european hominin (neanderthal) southwards into the middle east and many waves of subsequent hybrids or purer AMH moved north again when climates were suitable. There's the importance of genetic flow as well as actual geographical migration and the fact that north african and the middle east habitats were more like europe during ice age peaks.

Cro-magnons or old europeans (pre LGM) appear to have much higher neanderthal admixture and this is perhaps even supported by Otzi the icemans high neanderthal % as well as some Sardinian and Tuscan people showing higher neanderthal DNA admixture (they were more isolated from later waves of immigrants). Most europeans are not descended purely from cro-magnon either but more recent waves from the middle east. Older populations dillute into newer populations.

When we became 'us' is really a scientific or political line in the sand. If this article is discussing a 400,000 year old specimen as 'human' then we became 'human' 2 million years ago as erectus and as erectus spread out across eurasia. AMH is basically classified based on anatomical features, as seen in the Omo skulls of north east africa, however many neanderthal specimens move towards more gracile structures confusing the issue and what defines 'modern human' is a murky definition that seems to gather up the last 40,000 years including many traits again observed in neanderthal such as burying dead, technology etc. There has been considerable confusion on many Levant fossils whether they are actually AMH or neanderthal or hybrids. Need more DNA.

Eitherway Im not so sure the influence of neanderthal or denisova on modern homo sapiens is as benign as some people make it out to be.

Edited December 11, 2013 by botanika

[Dreamwalker.]

homo erectus looks like us too.............though I'm guessing they didn't cut their hair..................

looks civilised to me......................

Edited March 17, 2014 by Dreamwalker

[ThunderIdeal]

i love the fact that earth was once teeming with assorted hominids. i love that word, hominid.

i think it would have been a vivid and very scary experience when two unfamiliar types of hominids crossed paths. the closest thing we have today is different tribes/cultures/ethnicities with unknown motives and customs, and it's scary enough imagining an encounter between men of unfamiliar tribes.

your caveman existence is a fucking trip to begin with but observing a very different (but very similar) creature go about its business would definitely capture your attention; wondering is he stronger than you? faster? better senses? technology? is he a loner or does he co-operate with his fellows? is he aggressive or flighty? is he going to compete for your food?

[AnthromorphicGerbil]

^^ until they shared a particular strain of fungus with each other then they were suddenly shroom hunting buddies

[gwalchgwyn]

your right botanika re: skin color; I was using the modern social use of the word 'black,' but should have been more scientific. Of note though, is the very dark skin color of lateral movers along the coast of India and Indian Ocean islands. the 'paling' of the northerly gradual movers was likely a correlation to less need for skin protection from the sun. the spirit of my post is that all modern hominids are related, and - relatively - not long ago.

my "when do we become us?" is a challenge to some orthodoxy in modern science's quest to identify species along sexual compatibility lines. we are oft informed that, unlike the definition of species for plants, an animal species is defined by its ability to produce viable offspring; if it is true that Homo sapiens have successfully created viable offspring with Homo neanderthalensis, wouldn't it follow that they (or should I say we) are one species?

& I agree with your last statement, though much is to be discovered on the influence of these older forms of hominids & their influence on moderns. I saw recently a 'documentary' that suggested that vocal symbology may have derived from Neanderthals. Though, as many such shows do, the program featured professional scientists, such claims are way to nascent, aren't they?, to be proven, the idea is appealing to consider...

Edited December 11, 2013 by gwalchgwyn

[tripsis]

See another article on the topic here.

I saw recently a 'documentary' that suggested that vocal symbology may have derived from Neanderthals. Though, as many such shows do, the program featured professional scientists, such claims are way to nascent, aren't they?, to be proven, the idea is appealing to consider...

That claim is not without its evidence. Firstly, the forkhead box protein P2 (FOXP2) gene is implicated in language. This was discovered when in the 1990s, a family in London with an inherited language disability (slurring) was found to have a defect of the FOXP2 gene. The human variant of the FOXP2 gene was recently found in the Neanderthal genome. Additionally, morphological evidence supports the idea. Neanderthals have larger hypoglossal canals, tongue bones similar to that of humans' and an inner ear tuned to human speech wavelengths (2-4 kHz). Though this does not definitely tell us whether Neanderthals were able to speak or not, it does suggest that the genetic change for speech came about before our split from them.

[botanika]

homo erectus looks like us too.............though I'm guessing they didn't cut their hair..................

Absolutely, the MSM media loves to depict ancient men with no or little hair yet even modern humans from various parts of the world tended to have long beards until relatively recently (especially europe and the middle east). In asia there is still the debate about incisor teeth that certain asians (and some american indians possess) that are a specific trait of asian homo erectus. If they can get some DNA from erectus specimens it might blur the line between species even more.

i love the fact that earth was once teeming with assorted hominids. i love that word, hominid.

i think it would have been a vivid and very scary experience when two unfamiliar types of hominids crossed paths. the closest thing we have today is different tribes/cultures/ethnicities with unknown motives and customs, and it's scary enough imagining an encounter between men of unfamiliar tribes.

They would not have even known they were a seperate 'species'. Like you say they more likely would have thought of them as another 'tribe' of people. It would be cool to go back 50 odd thousand years with a camera and document the variety that was present then! Although maybe we wouldn't notice much difference either - people from various parts of the world in archaic times and modern times are different based on genetics and environmental factors. We would probably go back in time only to see neanderthals looking very much like europeans, archaic asian cousins looking like east asians and flores 'hobbits' looking like south east asian pygmy negritos.

your right botanika re: skin color; I was using the modern social use of the word 'black,' but should have been more scientific. Of note though, is the very dark skin color of lateral movers along the coast of India and Indian Ocean islands. the 'paling' of the northerly gradual movers was likely a correlation to less need for skin protection from the sun. the spirit of my post is that all modern hominids are related, and - relatively - not long ago.

my "when do we become us?" is a challenge to some orthodoxy in modern science's quest to identify species along sexual compatibility lines. we are oft informed that, unlike the definition of species for plants, an animal species is defined by its ability to produce viable offspring; if it is true that Homo sapiens have successfully created viable offspring with Homo neanderthalensis, wouldn't it follow that they (or should I say we) are one species?

& I agree with your last statement, though much is to be discovered on the influence of these older forms of hominids & their influence on moderns. I saw recently a 'documentary' that suggested that vocal symbology may have derived from Neanderthals. Though, as many such shows do, the program featured professional scientists, such claims are way to nascent, aren't they?, to be proven, the idea is appealing to consider...

Also in addition to latitude and pigmentation mutations is the effect of natural selection and genetic re-surfacing of genes. I don't know a lot about dormant genes revealing themselves again later but it could be possible that certain genetic features of europeans are in fact dormant neanderthal genes (such as hair color, eye color, hairiness) rather than 'brand new' mutations. Of course all it takes is one successful mutation to spread quickly as is the case with blue eyes, that allegedly stem from one individual around the black sea 10,000 years ago. Asia simply never had that mutation. But what if it was a dormant gene (gene switched off) from neanderthals that had blue eyes? Neanderthals and cousins were in europe for hundreds of thousands of years yet in just a relatively short time sapien europeans quickly adapted to cold climates with striking features such as fair hair color. Im not yet convinced it was simply coincidence that archaic europeans (cro-magnons) sprang to life painting caves and carving stone just as neanderthals 'dissapeared'.

There are a number of ways species are defined. The problem with humans is it's very controversial. We have a number of gorilla, chimpanzee and orangutan species but only one human species. From a scientific classification perspective we could easily group humans into a number of different sub-species but that's not very politically correct. Some groups have indeed classified neanderthal along with us as a sub-species and denisova doesnt even yet have a true classification because not enough fossil evidence has been found. Its just called denisova. We could speculate on scenarios of how difficult it actually is to produce viable offspring with neanderthal. The genome studies dont indicate mtDNA being passed onto humans, suggesting mating was viable only between neanderthal males and human females but neanderthal mtDNA may simply have been dilluted out of or not present in the specimens studied. The genome sequences were made up from a selection of incomplete individuals, mostly from the Vindija caves and may not represent an accurate picture of what was actually happening across neanderthal populations and in addition some researchers are dubious to whether those specimens are true classic neanderthal or hybrids. Further it has been noted that neanderthals themselves were moving closer to humans anyway - into more gracile forms.

There is still a conservative attitude regarding neanderthals capabilities for intellect, speech, art, technology but at the end of the day they had huge brains, survived in ice age europe for hundreds of thousands of years, buried their dead and were physically robust. Given their small population size, they were never really wiped out IMO but dilluted into the modern human groups over successive waves and their influence was ultimately fairly beneficial. It may not be such a suprise most of the great civilizations arose out of the mediteranean levant, right where neanderthals and sapiens are supposed to have interbred. The cold climate northern hemisphere has allowed significant adaptions in modern day eurasian people and those same environmental pressures would have also surely influenced our archaic cousins. I think they would have been quite sophisticated and formidable.

[Dreamwalker.]

I think increasingly "species" is becoming a grey area...................most of the discussion (which I totally agree with) is generally assuming Darwinism.................a progressive almost lateral transition...................and although I generally accept such a view.......the truth is at the end of the day.....as we all know.......its just theory............... quite nice and tidy....but I think in all things it pays to be open minded to all possibilities .........................we are fixated on the primate as "us".............primate 1st.... mammal 2nd.....................years ago one researcher suggested we became naked (hairless) from an intermediary period of living in wetlands during a period of glacial melt where much of our habitat become wetlands..................homo-aqua...............

animals that live in water lose their body hair.......................and a long head of hair is idea for infants to grasp as we swim about feasting on shell fish and the like ...all those high octane fish oils for an evolving brain.............most prescribed to the its all about being able to run and endure/persist till your prey falls from exhaustion................a hunting method still being used in Africa............ ..............the latest theory backed up by genetics is below...........................I can imagine some finding this either absurd or even offensive................I had it posted in the spiritual section...................but its probably home here........................

A chimp-pig hybrid origin for humans?

http://phys.org/news/2013-07-chimp-pig-hybrid-humans.html

Edited March 17, 2014 by Dreamwalker

[botanika]

The Aquatic Ape Hypothesis (since it doesn't really deserve to be called a theory, as it has not been backed up by any evidence) has been comprehensibly refuted. This is a good place to start

Never heard of humans being pig chimp hybrids, although it could explain a few things haha

[gwalchgwyn]

It's very exciting to me - makes me feel so connected! Also I'm gladdened by the knowledge that the knowledge on hominid interconnectedness will only broaden in the future. Unlike the sky-god unitarianism of recent millennia that mandates an equality based on obeisance to its assumptions, values, manners, mantras, etc (sometimes on pain of death = discouragement to life), studies in paleoanthropology seems to me much more valid in identifying who we are in our myriad forms. feel more... human... because of it

[ThunderIdeal]

im not going to read the pig-chimp bit because at face value... i don't think so.

someone tell me if i'm missing out.

botanika you obviously follow this stuff pretty closely. on the one hand i like hearing scenarios that differ from those commonly held to be true, especially with topics like this. on the other hand i remember your previous, much more direct posts and i don't know you from a bar of soap but its like you have a barrow to push. so do i, i guess. i'm naturally curious, but cautious about reasoning that justifies the re-emergence of repugnant race-based inequality.

onto less controversial matters, my little scenario with the hominid encounters, in my imagination is more along the lines of pre-homo variants which at any given time, might have varied as much from one another as, say, the current diversity between apes.

[botanika]

im not going to read the pig-chimp bit because at face value... i don't think so.

someone tell me if i'm missing out.

botanika you obviously follow this stuff pretty closely. on the one hand i like hearing scenarios that differ from those commonly held to be true, especially with topics like this. on the other hand i remember your previous, much more direct posts and i don't know you from a bar of soap but its like you have a barrow to push. so do i, i guess. i'm naturally curious, but cautious about reasoning that justifies the re-emergence of repugnant race-based inequality.

onto less controversial matters, my little scenario with the hominid encounters, in my imagination is more along the lines of pre-homo variants which at any given time, might have varied as much from one another as, say, the current diversity between apes.

I have an interest in anthropology and it's always changing as the science and my understanding of it does. I'm also more interested in archaic hominids but at some point I also like to follow down how genetics and environments affect people today. It's easy for it to become controversial but I personally don't hide away from who we all are in our broad diversity. It's not because Im prejudice but because I actually like all people and cultures from around the world (except one teacher I once had at school). In cultural and environmental context we are all unique and interesting. Recognising differences in various groups of people does not equal racism IMO. If we are to appreciate diversity then we need to understand what diversity actually is and protect or enhance it.

Edited December 16, 2013 by botanika

[Dreamwalker.]

http://phys.org/news/2013-12-neanderthals-dead.html

Neanderthals, forerunners to modern humans,

Explore further: Archaeologists rediscover the lost home of the last Neanderthals

More information: Evidence supporting an intentional Neandertal burial at La Chapelle-aux-Saints, www.pnas.org/cgi/doi/10.1073/pnas.1316780110

Journal reference: Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences

Edited March 17, 2014 by Dreamwalker

[gwalchgwyn]

I have an interest in anthropology and it's always changing as the science and my understanding of it does. I'm also more interested in archaic hominids but at some point I also like to follow down how genetics and environments affect people today. It's easy for it to become controversial but I personally don't hide away from who we all are in our broad diversity. It's not because Im prejudice but because I actually like all people and cultures from around the world (except one teacher I once had at school). In cultural and environmental context we are all unique and interesting. Recognising differences in various groups of people does not equal racism IMO. If we are to appreciate diversity then we need to understand what diversity actually is and protect or enhance it.

I'm with you botanika.

It is in the appreciation of exactly who we are in all our diversity that should be an indication of equality. When this appreciation of our connectedness with our kindred is perceived as controversial it is usually from an imperialist, and therefore unitarian, cultural perspective that requires compliance to its basic assumptions of what human society is. This culture/appearance blindness is manifest in our modern world as ethnocide, or cultural genocide: every one is expected to assimilate. As usual for a tribe whose express purpose is to subdue other tribes, it perceives, in its forked-tongue grammar, that each of its social conquests are not racist! Entire languages and ways of thinking become destroyed & then absorbed in the uber tribe that seeks equality through required participation. It is even considered a major offense if any one or any people even attempt to formulate an expression or an identity that distinguishes themselves outside of the approved global agenda.

The continuing enlightenments of paleoanthropology, and for that matter, appreciation of current human social diversity, makes me feel much more connected to all my human kindred and to all life.

The notion that it was a function of imperialism to bring civilization to a backward people, and later assist them in acquiring the habit and exercise of self-rule. That was and will always be a fraudulent claim.

~ George Lamming: The West Indian People

[Dreamwalker.]

http://phys.org/news/2013-12-neanderthal-genome-early-human-interbreeding.html

Neanderthal genome shows early human interbreeding, inbreeding

worth a read........................apparently theres a 4th hominid....possibly erectus in the mix and different races have different proportions oz Aboriginals having the highest....5%..................there's evidence that their race may have populated S. America before the Asians arrived...........................

[botanika]

In addition to neanderthal and denisova it seems likely that H.s.s. ancestors also interbred with erectus.

The first original inhabitants into Australia have more modern morphology than later arrivals. This could be explained by the fact that the first humans that passed through S. E. Asia on their way to Australia were less hybridized with resident erectus populations because they spent less time living among them. Populations that settled Australia later (leaving the Kow Swamp-type skulls) had been living in S. E. Asia for as much as 20,000 years and were far more hybridized in consequence. A similar trend can be seen elsewhere in Asia where even modern populations indicate certain unique erectus traits. There is a lot of missconception about whether species are distinguished by their potential to mate and produce viable offspring yet a quick look at the interbreeding between all canis species indicates that all homo species could potentially interbreed going back several million years. Primitive morphological traits are manifest in the Asian fossil record and in living people.

Remarkably, ancient Australian mtDNA and haplo groups don't have as much correlation with African groups as has been suggested in the MSM. The Out of Africa theory is always pushed in the media - that everyone descended from Africans, and from a single mother 'Eve' that 'probably' came from Africa. However ancient Australian genetic diversity and DNA reveals they are more closely tied to ancient eurasian mtDNA. The mtDNA 'Eve' is based on many assumptions, yet other evidence suggests eurasian mtDNA, LM3, as the oldest H.s.s. source in addition to there being plural lineages of mtDNA. DNA as well as ancient cultural innovation points to a radiation of low diversity H.s.s. from eurasia interbreeding with more primitive hominids in areas where their populations were higher and genetically more diverse (Asia and Africa) and the genetic evidence of ancient australians supports this. In fact there is no conclusive evidence that the genetic 'Eve' was even H.s.s. Further, African populations and the people of Australia/Papua New Guinea are the most un-related populations on earth. So how could Africans migrate out of Africa and head straight for Australia yet be so distant? Similarly how could central Africans suddenly migrate into europe and NE asia and yet be so genetically and physiological distant in such a short period of time? A more logical explanation is that H.s.s. radiated out of eurasia into North Africa, SE Asia (eventually into Australia/PNG) and later into Europe and East Asia. Remember archaic homo remains have been found in cold northern eurasian latitudes up to 1.8 million years ago. Colder northern latitudes place tremendous selective pressures on populations. Toba eruption circa 75,000 years ago and ice ages could create the genetic bottlenecks resulting in eurasian H.s.s. stemming from a lower diversity smaller population.

An explanation of the differences between African populations and Australian populations could be that the archaic erectus populations in Africa and Asia had been seperated for more than 1 million years and that deep division is only partially unified by both interbreeding with Eurasians. That is also why there are some affinities between Europeans and Africans, in spite of their vast phenotypic differences, and deep genetic separation. Most of the current diversity could be the result of interbreeding with pre-human populations. In this regard we would expect to see the most hybridized elements of the modern indigenes in those areas where pre-human population density was highest, such as Africa and S. E. Asia. Also, we would expect those populations to have the greatest diversity today, because they would preserve more of the pre-human genome, which would have had much more genetic variety than was represented in the tiny, original population of H.s.s. This is exactly what we find with African and SE Asian/Australian populations. By contrast Europeans and East Asians have relatively low diversity and naturally are more closely related.

As mentioned before I really hope someone can extract some viable erectus DNA - I think it will open up a lot more questions.

Edited January 9, 2014 by botanika