Science a GoGo's Home Page Forums General Discussion General Science Discussion Forum Recent human evolution

Some of you may find this interesting:

http://www.gnxp.com/blog/2007/09/new-races-of-man.php

The study re-evaluates some old, now discredited, ideas about human races. The writer points out that although Carlton Coon's ideas of how races developed is now known to be not correct his research still contains information valuable today. I don't seem able to copy any portions of it over unfortunately so anyone interested will have to look at the site themselves.

terry- Have you read the conclusion about the origin if the Flores 'hobbits'. It seems to be that they are considered to be a different and inique hominid still in existence 12,000 years ago. Their discovery seems to support the theory in the study you posted, ie that development occurred in many different places and then responded to migration of other human species by presumably interbreeding and sharing of resources. There do seem to have been distinct differences discovered in different regional humans- the cause for this difference is the question--is it due to outside influences, interbreeding or independent evolution?

Ellis asked:

"is it due to outside influences, interbreeding or independent evolution?"

My guess would be all three. The differences would be caused through founder effect, local inbreeding and selection as well as hybridizing with incoming groups. The same way that all species evolve.

You also mention the Flores 'Hobbits'. Many species on islands become smaller than their mainland relations. Their presence is therefore hardly astonishing. Of course the big argument amoung anthropologists is whether any of these ancient human types have genes surviving in modern humans. I'd be very surprised if future research doesn't show this to be the case.

I firmly believe the concept we are all descended from just a small group, or even a single male and a single female derives from widely held cultural beliefs. Trying to fit the evidence to these beliefs has resulted in many contradictions and inconsistencies. This in turn has allowed fundamentalism to flourish.

The argument about the 'hobbits' was based on the shape of the wrist bones. Like other early hominids, and some great apes, the wrist bones were the type that alows for knuckle walking on all fours as well as grasping. This shape is not present in modern humans and so the conclusion reached was that these little skeletons represented a new sub-species of hominid. The fact that there were also small elephants and large Komodo dragons on Flores at the time does seem to bear out the theory of different rates of evolution on islands, however these are not small modern humans.

I too feel that it would be surprising if none of these ancient characteristics were to show up in modern humans. These 'hobbits' were alive only 12,000 years ago, and folk tales of the area tell of small people living in the forest. These stories are often repeated in other areas of the world where it seems that ancient humanoids must have flourished alongside modern humans. It seems unbelievable that the sort of hybridisation and migration mentioned in the article would not have occurred.

What does this theory do for the out of Africa theory?

Ellis asked:

"What does this theory do for the out of Africa theory?"

The theory greatly simplifies the real situation. However it is readily accepted because it fits widely held cultural beliefs about how species evolve. The idea that any species can begin through the expansion of just a small group defies all we know about animal and plant breeding.