Denisova Cave

Ancient Humans Bred with Completely Unknown Species

shareThis

A new study presented to the Royal Society meeting on ancient DNA in London last week has revealed a dramatic finding – the genome of one of our ancient ancestors, the Denisovans, contains a segment of DNA that seems to have come from another species that is currently unknown to science. The discovery suggests that there was rampant interbreeding between ancient human species in Europe and Asia more than 30,000 years ago. But, far more significant was the finding that they also mated with a mystery species from Asia – one that is neither human nor Neanderthal. 

Scientists launched into a flurry of discussion and debate upon hearing the study results and immediately began speculating about what this unknown species could be.  Some have suggested that a group may have branched off to Asia from the Homo heidelbernensis, who resided in Africa about half a million years ago. They are believed to be the ancestors of Europe's Neanderthals. 

However others, such as Chris Stringer, a paleoanthropologist at the London Natural History Museum, admitted that they “don’t have the faintest idea” what the mystery species could be.

Traces of the unknown new genome were detected in two teeth and a finger bone of a Denisovan, which was discovered in a Siberian cave. There is not much data available about the appearance of Denisovans due to lack of their fossils' availability, but the geneticists and researchers succeeded in arranging their entire genome very precisely.

"What it begins to suggest is that we're looking at a 'Lord of the Rings'-type world - that there were many hominid populations," Mark Thomas, an evolutionary geneticist at University College London.

The question is now: who were these mystery people that the Denisovans were breeding with?

By April Holloway

Comments

It was the a certain species of the greys that mixes their dna with the neanderthals to creat the caucasians and a certain types of grey mixing dna again with the neanderthals to creat the asians. I know the names of each species but am forgetting at the moment. Point is, I know the truth.

you should "creat" a sensical statement before making bold claims that you have the answer.

try "sensible" instead of "sensical".

"Sensical" is in fact correct, since it's antonym "NONsensical" describes the content of the previous comment quite accurately. Whilst your comment in itself wasn't nonsensical, it simply wasn't very sensible, given the inaccuracy of it's usage.

Who cares about people's grammar? Are we trying to show our superiority by correcting other people's diction? Try to get the content of what is being stated. I find it amazing that on a website that is supposed to welcome "alternative" views on ancient history/human origins, that so many people are ridiculed or mocked for proposing an alien-visitation/intervention theory, or any advanced "prehistoric" civilization (aka Atlantis). There IS a mother-load of evidence to indicate that such theories are sound; for one, read Graham Hancock's "Fingerprints of the Gods" (in its entirety and with an open mind). Spare the snark/sarcasm, it doesn't make anyone appear more intelligent.

Grammar and syntax are important in that they are indications of credibility or the lack of it.  If one is sloppy or wildly inaccurate about his/her grammar, spelling, punctuation or syntax, the reader is left wondering whether he is just as sloppy or inaccurate about the facts he is offering in his comment.  By the way, Malta, the term is "mother lode", not "mother load".    

Toss a piano down a coal mine and you get A flat minor.

Grammar and syntax are important indications of credibility. If one is inaccurate with grammar, spelling, punctuation or syntax, are they just as sloppy or inaccurate about the facts offered in their comments. Here, here. I would make allowances for those with English as a second language. But sometimes inaccurate grammar is just too hard to figure out and too open to misinterpretation.

Clementhyme's picture

Too often spelling and grammar are confused with intellect. Keep in mind there are those with challenges, such as dyslexia, etc. While I appreciate your point, I simply feel it is painting with too broad a brush :)

“Cherish those who seek the truth but beware of those who find it.” ~ Voltaire

"Let's eat Grandma" or "Let's eat, Grandma". Grammar is important, Grandma's life is depending on it.

Do you want to get technical "Last Past"? You can't toss a piano "down" a coal mine, the angle is not that steep - so you're probably referring to a pit. If you do toss a piano down a pit, you end-up with shattered pieces - I doubt you will hear a musical note. Thanks for the folk-wisdom though!

Absolute rubbish. Been a carpenter since I was about ten. That my grammer is bad has no effect on my knowledge of carpentry. I never attended school past 14.

only mean something if you are in an educational setting. Such as writing a research paper or studying language or is it linguistics?

Oh for Peres sake, stop with the B***shit grammar. I have a very high. IQ and still can't spell worth a darn. Petty misconceptions about intellence simply show case the petty intelligence of the writer.

I agree that proper grammar usage is desirable because it can be an indicator of the writer's general intelligence level in my opinion. I am no genius by any means but some command of the English language makes a good impression on the readers!

Grammar and syntax do not indicate whether the person is telling the truth or not. Witnessing/experiencing something and putting it down on paper are two different things. If a child saw a plane and you asked that child to write down "I saw a plane in the sky above me today" it might get quite alot of that wrong. Does that mean the child didnt see a plane. Nope.

You can write a paragraph about something that is completely false and get every word right with perfect grammar.

Grammar and syntax do not indicate whether the person is telling the truth or not. Witnessing/experiencing something and putting it down on paper are two different things. If a child saw a plane and you asked that child to write down "I saw a plane in the sky above me today" it might get quite alot of that wrong. Does that mean the child didnt see a plane. Nope.

You can write a paragraph about something that is completely false and get every word right with perfect grammar.

Diction is how well you say your words nothing to do with grammar...

*Its not it's, it's is short for it is, not the possessive. A common mistake.

Wasn't the writer of that comment being playful? I certainly hope so. The older I get the more I see that no one really KNOWS anything with absolute assurance ... except, perhaps in an equation or mathematical function--odd because those things are abstractions. Reality on the other hand is constantly in flux and perceptions often unique to the observer.

It sounds more like you forget the truth.

sad how people who DO actually know things people shun them down as if even YOU yourself know the truth... we could all be wrong... even those who so DEARLY stick to evolution. Science not only proves itself wrong, but its main acceptance and main point is to prove itself wrong so its right in the first place... lmao life is much deeper then we may put it at times and shun others down at it being "normal"

Bob, do you even speak English? I'm sorry, but whatever it is you are trying to say is lost in the complete gibberish that is your post.

Science admits when it is wrong and is self correcting, faith has to be force to understand what they think has no basis in science

Science admits it is wrong only when forced to. Seems to me science has become a religion itself. Oh and science is an offshoot of religion. Child of, so to speak. Do all children treat their parents badly? In this age it seems so.

Clementhyme's picture

Is this what you meant to say?  “Our wretched species is so made that those who walk on the well-trodden path always throw stones at those who are showing a new road.” ~Voltaire

“Cherish those who seek the truth but beware of those who find it.” ~ Voltaire

Well they were obviously genetically close enough to the other species to breed successfully. That is if I'm reading this correctly. Viable offspring?

Check out the Sumerian tablets of life, check out www.david icke.com check out spirit science - the hidden history of mankind on you tube. The alien theory is more than just a theory!

It's not even a hypothesis.

That could be a good possibility

Yes, I would agree. From what I understand, the Sumerians recorded how the "gods" created a new race through an intermingling of their essence/DNA with primitive humans during this period - inspiring the story of Adam ("first man") and Eve - the first "modern" humans.. Before this theory is just dismissed, remember that the Sumerians also had the story of a Great Flood (prior to Noah and his Ark) - and so what they record may be referring to real-world events rather than "myths".

No mystery here. "Gods" were actually heroes in those day. Besides people were breeding with any others that came along, that is human nature.

The great flood has been shown by geologists to have been a world event around 6600 BC when an ice bank in Canada gave way and the water raised the level of the oceans world wide. Of course it would be recorded in many different cultures or passed down orally for generations.

If we are going to refer to gods and heroes in Sumerian Literature, Gilgamesh is demigod. He is the offspring of a human and a god. He is mortal, but more than man. Enkidu is his partner, and is probably created to make a foil for Gilgamesh. He is a hero, and the companion of Gilgamesh. Now this suggests to me that there is a mixing of species.

We have only the word of the Out of Africa brigade to 'prove' that humans originated in Africa only. It just seems to me barely credible that ape like bipeds could develop only in such an inhospitable place. It makes more sense that prehominids and hominids developed in other places on the Earth, even if the original skulls of the Peking Man specimens have gone missing. Maybe the 'hobbit' Flora was just a founder line that went extinct because there weren't enough of them to populate the locality viably. As an Archaeologist, I have to say that there is far more that we don't know than that we know. Raising hypotheses is not a bad thing. It can sow seeds of ideas that professionals and students may run with and seek evidence in those areas.

I'm not keen on Alien origins as there are too many possibilities already which need examination. But I can be obective and be interested in seeing evidence. Erich von Daniken's evidence is a tiny bit too ambiguous to be conclusive, but neither is it disproved.

Chinese Palaeontologists have already come up with some fascinating evidence of fossil birds. Let's see what their Archaeologists come up with in the next few years to contribute to the Human Origins debate.

Very possibly the (melting of the ice cover) end of the last Ice Age brought on the Great Flood stories. Most civilizations (many being much older than the bible) have a story about a Great Flood.

Tsurugi's picture

Interesting. How old are the old testament texts of the bible then? I thought, like much ancient mythology, if you try pin down an origin date for it by tracing it back through history, you lose the trail in the depths of prehistory.

If the biblical texts preserve within them ancient stories about the flooding and cataclysm at the end of the Last Glacial Maximum, that would seem to indicate that the origins of those parts of the texts must be no younger than that same period in time, right? Which would make them very old indeed.

IMO a lot of those very ancient mythological tales stem from a common source. They are too similar to be anything else.

Eve was alive well before Adam so she was not mating with homo sapiens

Clementhyme's picture

Not to mention the theory that the Great Pyramids are far older than originally thought. They have several deluge marks which many argue are not from floods, but rain, even though they leave considerably different marks. Ive never understood the scientific communities rejection of the idea of a far richer and more varied human existence.

“Cherish those who seek the truth but beware of those who find it.” ~ Voltaire

Icke is a fruit bat and he has no proof, just ideas like anybody else...just stupider

... you had me right up until you mentioned Icke.

1 human beings are not descendant of neanderthal.
2 Negro came before Caucasoid
3Alien DNA (i mean one species away not lightyears) can not mix, a dog cannot bare the young of a cat, nor a human the young of a Chimp, just not possible.

so to conclude.
neanderthal did not evolve into human beings, so no amount of genetic altering can change that, what you get is a genetically altered Neanderthal, not a human. and even if you could, the first human beings where african and finally to know a truth is to observe fact not proclamation.
but what ever, point is, you know.

No...Neanderthal did not evolve into Human beings, they were human beings already, they just weren't Cro-Magnons, and just recently, there was a show on PBS, about how modern day "Humans" (to use your terminology, so you can understand it) actually can have up to 4% of their DNA be Neanderthal, depending on what race you are, or, where your race originated (that means "came from"), I'm not saying that EVERY Neanderthal would be viable as a parent going either way (as in, a Mother, or Father), just as not all modern-day "Humans" successfully mate, but, somewhere along the line, it actually worked...mutation is such a wonderful thing...it's why the egg comes before the chicken...

Yes, you are correct that a dog can not breed with a cat in the conventional sense, but that does not discount this. We, right now, are adding our DNA to other animals we can not breed with. We, right now, are adding pig DNA to veggies. We are doing the exact same thing as the ancient astronauts did. We are playing "God" and manipulating DNA to see just how far we can go with it. Don't believe me?? Look up the mouse with a human ear growing out of it. There is your proof for the possibility.

I want to correct the comment about the mouse with the ear on it. I actually shot video footage of this mouse for a British science program. The ear was grown in a mold with cow cells, then stitched onto the mouse to grow blood vessels in it. This was an experiment to test if the technology to accomplish growing cells in a controlled way was feasible for later applications.

Yes, you are correct that a dog can not breed with a cat in the conventional sense, but that does not discount this. We, right now, are adding our DNA to other animals we can not breed with. We, right now, are adding pig DNA to veggies. We are doing the exact same thing as the ancient astronauts did. We are playing "God" and manipulating DNA to see just how far we can go with it. Don't believe me?? Look up the mouse with a human ear growing out of it. There is your proof for the possibility.

that doesn't preclude the dog and cat from trying as is evident when the cat goes into heat. After much butt sniffing by the dog, the dog will try to and more often than not will have intercourse with the cat in heat. Both are meeting the needs of each other if both cat and dog are by themselves, meaning, single cat and single dog.

Clementhyme's picture

What about the fact that Europeans carry 2-5% Neanthal genome, whereas Africans do not?

“Cherish those who seek the truth but beware of those who find it.” ~ Voltaire

Race is a social construct with limited, if any biological basis. the article is about species of humans.

Just parroting anti-white marxist propaganda is not an argument. It takes an extremely stupid person to ignore the obvious and buy into this disgusting communistic world view. Race is real, and genetics prove it.

aprilholloway's picture

Hello Ron, saying we are anti-white is quite absurd, especially considering we are white ourselves. And nobody said there is no race. What it appears, however, is that different races were formed by interbreeding between different types of ancient humans. There are multiple studies to indicate that now.  

Hmmmm....I'm skeptible.

I can't believe that. The modern humans from Africa mixed slightly with the Neanderthal to create the Europeans and Asians according to recent DNA tests.

Pages

Register to become part of our active community, get updates, receive a monthly newsletter, and enjoy the benefits and rewards of our member point system OR just post your comment below as a Guest.

Our Mission

Ancient Origins seeks to uncover, what we believe, is one of the most important pieces of knowledge we can acquire as human beings – our beginnings.

While many believe that we already hold such knowledge, our view is that there still exists a multitude of anomalies and mysteries in humanity's past that deserve further examination.

We therefore wish to foster an open community that is dedicated to investigating, understanding and explaining the origins of our species on planet earth. To this end, we aim to organize, support and even finance efforts in this direction.

Our aim is to move beyond theories and to present a thorough examination of current research and evidence and to offer alternative viewpoints and explanations to those currently held by mainstream science and archaeology.

Come with us on a journey to explore lost civilisations, sacred writings, ancient places, unexplained artefacts and scientific mysteries while we seek to reconstruct and retell the story of our beginnings.

Ancient Image Galleries

Vessel in the form of a man on a reed raft
Administrative tablet showing the early development of cuneiform writing
The Great Pyramids