Oldest European Human Jawbone Discovered

DrLudicrous writes "A research group working in Romania has dated an ancient human jawbone to 35+/-1 thousand years old. This is a few thousand years older than other jawbones found in Europe. What is unusual about this specimen is that it has rather large molars, something that the lead scientist thinks may be an indication of human-Neanderthal interbreeding. Modern DNA studies have indicated that there is little to no traces of this inbreeding, so this raises some interesting questions."

Comments

Multiregional vs. Out of Africa

[Henry V .009]

Oldest according to the Out of Africa theory. The Multiregional theory claims that Neanderthals are part of the human race. (Check out the second linked pdf for a good paper on the DNA evidence: "Population Bottlenecks and Pleistocene Human Evolution")

More Info

[poppen_fresh]

The lead scientist is a professer at Washington University in St. Louis. There is more info at the university's web site. It turns out there was more than a jawbone found, but the rest of the bones haven't been analyzed yet.

inbreeding != interbreeding

[bigsteve@dstc]

Re the Slashdot summary text: the terms 'Inbreeding' and 'interbreeding' do not mean the same thing. In fact, they are close to opposites.

You could call me a nit-picker, but you wouldn't be quite correct :-)

Re: Large molars

[Black Parrot]

> I think it's great how they find this jawbone that has large molars and all of a sudden that means that there was inter-species reproduction and all the current crackpot theories have to be thrown out the window for a new crackpot theory...

More charitably, these guys have offered some new evidence and an agument, and over the next few months or years we'll find out whether the relevant experts find the argument convincing.

> Sometimes scientists infer and speculate way too much based on the data they have. It's kind of getting stretched so far it's starting not to resemble science at all.

Cut the experts a little slack, OK? Think of something you're good at, and consider whether a cloobie's opinion about that something is worth a damn.

One suspects that the experts can see a lot more evidence in a tooth than the rest of us can. Undoubtedly my clean and carefully documented programs look like hocus-pocus to those uninitiated into the geek mysteries too, but it's not for the uninitiated to tell me I don't know what I'm doing.

Inter-species breeding

[Starmaven]

In high school, we learned that different species are considered separate when they can no longer interbreed, with a few exceptions, i.e. horse + donkey = mule (though, mules are sterile). Ergo, if Cro-Magnon men could interbreed with Neanderthals, then Neanderthals and Cro-Magnon men are of the same species. Ergo, there would be evidence that the Multiregional theory is correct. That's what all the "missing link" fuss was about.

Re:Inter-species breeding

[the phantom]

Just about right.

In the animal kingdom, two creatures are the same species if they can (and do) interbreed and produce viable offspring (i.e. offspring that can also reproduce. Therefore, horses and donkeys don't violate that rule. Plants are another matter entirly, as such rules don't seem to apply (plants love to hybridize)...

This can raise some interesting questions. For instance, are Bornean and Sumatran Orangutans of the same species? They certainly could produce viable offspring, but they are on seperate islands and cannot travel from one to another to mate. Therefore, it would be possible to conclude that they are distinct populations, incapable of interbreeding, and therefore seperate species.

It is possible that a similar style of argument could be made for Homo sapiens sapiens and Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, however it seems more likely to me* that both were of one species, but different (probably interbreeding) populations.

Also, this does not really make the argument for Multiregional Theory, one way or the other -- there is not enough data. Something that anthropologists tend to do is take a single skull and assume that it is representative of the population. As more samples are taken (more skulls are found), the data becomes more reliable, but a single skull should not be used to descibe a population. It is not statistically sound.



* Yes, I do know what I am talking about. I am an archaeologist, and have studied different theories of human origin. While my opinion may not be of note to the academic community, I am certainly enough aware of modern theories to post here :)