New DNA Analysis Shows Ancient Humans Interbred with Denisovans

reply to post by Stari

Does this answer your questions?

Yes, indeed it does. I understand now that you had not realized preferential mate selection (what Darwin called sexual selection) is an aspect of evolution by natural selection.

If you would like to learn more about sexual selection, the following books are useful: The Red Queen by Matt Ridley, The Mating Mind by Geoffrey Miller, and Darwin's own The Descent of Man. There's plenty of online material too, but if one really wants to understand something there's nothing like curling up with a good book.

reply to post by Astyanax


Oh yes I love reading, currently I am reading The Mars Mystery: The Secret Connection Between Earth and the Red Planet by Graham Hancock, I love his books. I actually have a bookshelf filled with books and a kindle with dozens of books.

Do you read Astyanax?

reply to post by Stari

Do you read Astyanax?

Yes, I do read Astyanax.

I'm a writer in real life and of course I am obliged to read my own work when editing, proofreading, gloating over my latest publication, etc.

But to answer the question you were really asking: yes. Compulsively. Voraciously. Incessantly.

Literary fiction, science fiction, science books (particularly physics and evolutionary biology), philosophy, history, biography, poetry, anything I can lay my hands on about music, travel (preferably of the boldly-going-where-no-man-etc variety; I love the memoirs of mediaeval travellers and Victorian explorers), you name it.

reply to post by Astyanax


Really? How interesting I am talking with a real writer... what do you write about? I really am fascinated... i'm not being sarcastic. Please do tell if you are allowed to. Not sure about if ATS would have a problem with that.

It's been known for a while that homo sapiens interbred with Neanderthals, Denisovans and another 3rd mystery species, thus far. It wouldn't surprise me to find others. Interbreeding is just as big a part of evolution as natural selection is, technically its part of it.

The issue with you saying that it means evolution or "darwinism" (what's that again?) is wrong is this:

How did all those other hominids become different? If you are claiming genetic mutations aren't responsible for change, rather interbreeding is, then you need to explain how 3 very similar hominid lines came to be in the first place. Here's what the scientists know. It was originally one species, that for whatever reason, split off and moved into 3 separate regions, probably at different times. They lived in these regions for hundreds of thousands of years, adapting to the environment. Eventually more homo sapiens left Africa again and interbred with the other similar hominids out there. They are now more commonly referred to as subs species rather than separate species.

Very good article but the conclusions drawn from it are inaccurate.

reply to post by Stari


The basics of Darwin's theory are not at all disproved by this. Also, I hope you are aware that evolution has come a long way since Darwin proposed the theory. For one Darwin did not know about DNA, DNA evidence has helped confirm evolutionary interrelation and make evolution one of the strongest theories in science.

Interbreeding with other very similar hominids does nothing to weaken or disprove evolution and I fail to see how it ever could. It simply means the two species hadn't diverged enough to be infertile (or uninterested) with one another.

reply to post by Barcs


Well that is good to know. I didn't realize this is now common knowledge. I am very greatful about that. Last time I spoke about this subject on ATS I had a person arguing with me that it wasn't possible that Darwin's theory was the truth and no interbreeding was happening.

Now It is common knowledge... YEA!!

And sorry everyone for not being able to find the other posts with the different links on this OP. I would have posted it there if I could have found it.