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?
Grammar
Permalink
In reply to Who cares about people's by malta1565 (not verified)
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".
indications of credibility.
Permalink
In reply to Grammar by Last Past
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.
Too often spelling and
Permalink
In reply to indications of credibility. by elizabeth1848 (not verified)
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 :)
Grammar
Permalink
In reply to Too often spelling and by Clementhyme
"Let's eat Grandma" or "Let's eat, Grandma". Grammar is important, Grandma's life is depending on it.
Grammar
Permalink
In reply to Too often spelling and by Clementhyme
Let's do away with the negativity and stay on point, eh? Where's the love?