Continental rift - the movement of man

It is generally accepted that early man began colonising the planet from Africa, but how were those first settlers replaced: by evolution or invasion?

Continental rift - evolution or invasion

Hi Hanslune,

Assuming we are talking about Archaic Homo Sapiens versis Neanderthals, there doesn't appear to have been much time for evolution to have been the reason. Neanderthals and Modern Man are nearly contemporary, as far as I understand.

Invasion may have been partially the reason, but a few things that I believe should be included to the choices are: Competition and Adaptability to Climate.

I don't believe that there was any one thing that did in the Neanderthals. There were probably multiple reasons it happened.

cormac

Yep, I think Neanderthals were done in by multiple failures which could be:

1. Climate change - which they may have had difficulty adapting to in regards to changing food sources.

2. Development of larger heads in children that caused too many deaths in childbirth.

3. A plague(s) that arose naturally or were brough in by modern humans (think the Americas and their contact with Europeans)

4. Fighting between Neanderthals and Moderns

5. Other!

I hadn't thought about the childbirth scenario but it makes sense.

The disease issue of course would work both ways. Maybe we were more resistant/tolerant to disease than the Neanderthals.

A side question. Do you know if any Homo Erectus DNA has been discovered and if so has it been compared to Modern Human DNA? My understand is that we, obviously, match Cro-Magnon. We however differ, significantly, from Neanderthals.

cormac

Originally posted by cormac mac airt
I hadn't thought about the childbirth scenario but it makes sense.

The disease issue of course would work both ways. Maybe we were more resistant/tolerant to disease than the Neanderthals.

A side question. Do you know if any Homo Erectus DNA has been discovered and if so has it been compared to Modern Human DNA? My understand is that we, obviously, match Cro-Magnon. We however differ, significantly, from Neanderthals.

cormac

Child birth for modern women is pretty tough as it is, if the head gets any larger (or the birth canal thinner), the child or the women is in danger. Some French guy proposed that idea in the 70s???

Erectus DNA? Not to my knowledge. I'll ask

Erectus DNA? Not to my knowledge. I'll ask

Thanks. I appreciate it. I have wondered for a long time how much genetic difference there is between us and Homo Erectus.

My understanding is that science believes HE to be our forebears, with Heidelbergensis and Neanderthals being failed sister lines.

cormac

Here is what I can tell you (not my area of expertise so I asked). Information from Rich at the Hall of Ma'at

However, here is a link to a caveman in Alaka from 10,000 years ago:

Alaska dna

Here is some Australian Human DNA, claiming to be the oldest (56000+)

Australian dna

Here is a 100,000 year old tooth from Belgium:

Belgian dna

The Hobbit DNA test failed

Dinosaur DNA has been discovered recently, so there's hope this stuff can go back pretty far.

Hi Hanslune,

Thanks for the links.

The Alaska and Belgium DNA links agree well with what I've read about anthrogenealogy. The Australian DNA was a little confusing.

Those studying genetics and human migration have shown a pattern of migration from Africa to Australia sometime between 74,000 BC and 65,000 BC. The article claims the specimen used dates from between 56,000 and 68,000 years ago but claims no links to Africa or anywhere else. I find this hard to believe considering the specimen is supposed to come from, presumably, a Homo Sapien individual. It doesn't make sense.

I await the day HE DNA is found as it might answer many questions.

cormac

Who knows what we might find.....I had hopes in the sixties that a HE group would be found in Papua or the Amazon but sadly no luck.

Well besides the French of course