Homo sapiens idaltu

[Askur]

There is something I some difficulties to understand. It is said Homo sapiens idaltu is a direct predecessor of modern humans, yet he is  considered to be so different from us that he is described as a subspecies of the modern homo sapiens.
But, if the data is correct, there is fewer generations which separates idaltu and the last common ancestor of all living humans today than there is generations separating pygmies from groups like caucasians or mongoloids.
How can Idaltu be seen as a subspecies when it is said there doesn't even exist enough difference between the modern humans to separate them into different races, considered what is mentioned above?
What if Idaltu was not extinct? Would he in that case be called homo sapiens sapiens too, and not even be qualified as a race?

What is the answear? Could it be so simple that it is what is considered political correkt or not which decides what can be said about the human diversity?
The differences and similarities are still there, no matter what we choose to call them.

[anthrostudies]

The argument was that idaltu retained archaic anatomical features that arent seen in modern humans.

[Askur]

Yes, but also in the living populations of humans today we see some anatomical features in older races that have been lost in races evolved more recently.

It is just strange how some can say races does not exist and at the same time call Idaltu a sub-species. For me this seems more like politics than science.

Only recently have they found out that the Neanderthal was not one of the modern european ancestors. And the Neanderthals are even considered as an own species.
But some scientists still believes there are at least some Neanderthal-DNA i europeans. If all humans are so genetical alike there is even no point in talking about races, one wold expect it should be easy to find out if some have a little Neanderthal-blood in their veins.
Just like it would be easy to find out if a populations of domesticated dogs had been breeding with wolves.

But this is a little off topic. I'm simply saying that the modern homo sapiens have existed for many thousand generation, and evolution will affect humans as well as other animals. Just like our ancesters evolved in the time it took for Idaltu to evolve into the origin of modern man, so have this origin evolved into different races.
(No, I'm not talking about racial theories and such, with races I mean the natural selection and genetic drift have resulted in human populations which are not as genetic identical many claims they are.)

Back to homo sapiens idaltu; when you look at  reconstructions of him, he does look very modern. But he was not alone, even if he was the only one to give present offspring. What kind of selection pressure turned him into modern man, and in what degree was it still active till we started to cultivate the earth and become homo sapiens domesticus?
 
 

[anthrostudies]

Yes, but also in the living populations of humans today we see some anatomical features in older races that have been lost in races evolved more recently.

Yes, but all modern races are closer together than any moderns are to idaltu.

It is just strange how some can say races does not exist and at the same time call Idaltu a sub-species. For me this seems more like politics than science.

There is a lot of politics in racial studies however in this case theres no inconsistency involved, because idaltu is distinct.

Only recently have they found out that the Neanderthal was not one of the modern european ancestors. And the Neanderthals are even considered as an own species.

Its debatable how much the neanderthaloids contributed to modern European ancestry, and it certainly hasnt been disproven. But its really irrelevant to wether the phenotype of neanderthaloids was sufficiently distinct to justify a species distinction.

But some scientists still believes there are at least some Neanderthal-DNA i europeans. If all humans are so genetical alike there is even no point in talking about races, one wold expect it should be easy to find out if some have a little Neanderthal-blood in their veins. Just like it would be easy to find out if a populations of domesticated dogs had been breeding with wolves.

But this isnt that easy, because parental markers can be lost over time. And the study of autosomal markers in sapiens does suggest there are markers older than the presumed time of the most recent common ancestor.

[lagarvelho]

Anthrostudies:


Yes, but all modern races are closer together than any moderns are to idaltu.

The problem here(and I'm not necessarily defending Askur), is that idaltu is being touted as a "subspecies" of H.sapiens.  I think there *is* a fair amount of "politics" going on here, because often, what constitutes a "species" or a "subspecies" is basically a judgment call on the part of the people who assign the categories. 

There is a lot of politics in racial studies however in this case theres no inconsistency involved, because idaltu is distinct.

Distinct in what way?  Idaltu looks like a "modern" human, but perhaps with *some* "archaic" characteristics.  But I rather doubt that idaltu would attract much notice if resurrected and dressed in modern clothes.  Certainly they would be less likely to be "noticed" than a Neandertal would.  And IMO, even Neandertals would simply not be all that "noticeable", though there are undeniable, and easily detectable, differences(in some respects), from "modern" humans.

Its debatable how much the neanderthaloids contributed to modern European ancestry, and it certainly hasnt been disproven. But its really irrelevant to wether the phenotype of neanderthaloids was sufficiently distinct to justify a species distinction.

I don't know exactly how "irrelevant" this is, considering the amount of time and paper that's been used up debating it.  Both sides of the issue seem to feel very strongly about it.  But that's probably neither here nor there.  I'm perfectly willing to allow as how idaltu or some population very much like idaltu, was ancestral to "modern" humans, but I'm just not sure how meaningful this is, over the long haul.
Anne G

[Askur]

Of course modern races are closer related to our last common ancester than an a human older than our common ancestor.
Nobody thinks anything else.

"There is a lot of politics in racial studies however in this case theres no inconsistency involved, because idaltu is distinct."

Which makes you think what they would have called idaltu if he was still alive, or what de would have called groups like the aboriginals if thery were extinct.

"Its debatable how much the neanderthaloids contributed to modern European ancestry, and it certainly hasnt been disproven. But its really irrelevant to wether the phenotype of neanderthaloids was sufficiently distinct to justify a species distinction."

It is not the phenotype alone which tells us if they were a species, don't forget the genotype. And it is not irrelevant if there are still some neandertal characteristics among the europeans today because this would be another hint that the races today don't have such an indentical gene pool which is claimed. I am reacting to this because it feels wrong if it is the politics who shall have such an impact on science that the concept or race, subespecies and species are being juggled around till they lose all their meanings.



"And the study of autosomal markers in sapiens does suggest there are markers older than the presumed time of the most recent common ancestor."

If that's the case it is not surprising.



lagarvelho:

"I'm perfectly willing to allow as how idaltu or some population very much like idaltu, was ancestral to "modern" humans, but I'm just not sure how meaningful this is, over the long haul."

My point; actual facts and the scientific conclusions about  homo sapiens should have much more influence on the subject than what is consider as political correct.
In this case there is not that much difference between creationists and political correct people. Both are trying to adjust the subject to fit into their own personal convictions. And from a scientific point of view this is wrong. It is not healthy for a society to be directed by dogmas just because it "seems right" at the present day.

[lagarvelho]

Askur:

I don't think the problem here is one of "political correctness", at least not in its usual sense.  I *do* think that there can and should be argument about the scientific data involved, and how it tends to be interpreted.  But I don't think idaltu is a "victim", if you want to put it that way, of "political correctness".  Idaltu is just one of a number of specimens of early "modern" human.  This one just happens to be from a part of Africa thought to be on a route some "moderns" took as they moved outside of Africa.
Anne G



AslkMy point; actual facts and the scientific conclusions about  homo sapiens should have much more influence on the subject than what is consider as political correct.
In this case there is not that much difference between creationists and political correct people. Both are trying to adjust the subject to fit into their own personal convictions. And from a scientific point of view this is wrong. It is not healthy for a society to be directed by dogmas just because it "seems right" at the present day.

[Askur]

That's not exactly what I meant. Maybe idaltu qualifies as a subspecies, maybe not. He would most likely not be called idaltu at all if he was still alive. But I don't consider him as a victim in any way.
What I am talking about is the denial of human races. Maybe race is not a good word, at least it is not a popular word.
And yet to claim the only thing evolution of man have resulted in after literally thousands of generations is different skin color seems a little strange. When you look at how much our ancestors could evolve in the same number of generations it is even stranger.
If you go back to our latest common ancestor, and then go back equally many generations from idualu to his own ancestors, would they really be almost genetical identical?
If you call it race or something else doesn't matter. Pluto doesn't care if we call it a planet or an asteroid. It is still hanging up there in our solar system.
How can two native icelandic neighbors be more genetical different than an asian and an african? Indivudual differences can't be put on a par with ethnical constants.

What is idaltu telling us? He tells us our history are treated like the history of any other animal until the point where our last common ancestor arrives. Frem then on other terms steps in. The problem is, as mentioned earlier, there is probably fewer generations separating idaltu and olca than olca and the races today.
Just as creationists dominated the discussion of our origin before, so do political correctness the same thing today. And I don't see the reason for doing so. Nobody that is serious claims that one race is better than another. We are all human beings, but the humankind is probably more diverse than most are willing to admit for the moment. Why deny something if it really exists? The differences just makes us an even richer species.

[anthrostudies]

The problem here(and I'm not necessarily defending Askur), is that idaltu is being touted as a "subspecies" of H.sapiens.  I think there *is* a fair amount of "politics" going on here, because often, what constitutes a "species" or a "subspecies" is basically a judgment call on the part of the people who assign the categories.

Well of couse it is and its best to avoid the race-subspecies-species question if its possible, even though we need terms to identify such types. If I use a word like sapiens or neanderthalensis then I actually try to avoid placing it in context ie Homo neanderthalensis or Homo sapiens neanderthalensis. By avoiding this I try to avoid the red herring aguments about wether a degree of distinctiveness is enough to justify a particular taxonomic grade, which are of course irrelevant to actual population affinities, even if a lot of paleoanthropologists dwell upon such an issue.

[anthrostudies]

Of course modern races are closer related to our last common ancester than an a human older than our common ancestor.
Nobody thinks anything else.

Its because idaltu diverged before the most recent common ancestor of moderns that theres no internal inconsistency with treating all moderns as one subspecies and idaltu as another. The population described as idaltu are therefore more distinct from us than are aboriginals, Askur, so comparing Australoids and idaltu isnt really an accurate comparison.

It is not the phenotype alone which tells us if they were a species, don't forget the genotype.

As a rule genotype is less relevant to paleanthropology because of the problems involved with Paleolithic DNA.

And it is not irrelevant if there are still some neandertal characteristics among the europeans today because this would be another hint that the races today don't have such an indentical gene pool which is claimed. I am reacting to this because it feels wrong if it is the politics who shall have such an impact on science that the concept or race, subespecies and species are being juggled around till they lose all their meanings.

I certainly agree that Caucasoids do show neanderthaloid features among moderns, especially in certain regions that mignt be special centres of admixture.

[anthrostudies]

That's not exactly what I meant. Maybe idaltu qualifies as a subspecies, maybe not. He would most likely not be called idaltu at all if he was still alive. But I don't consider him as a victim in any way.
What I am talking about is the denial of human races. Maybe race is not a good word, at least it is not a popular word.
And yet to claim the only thing evolution of man have resulted in after literally thousands of generations is different skin color seems a little strange. When you look at how much our ancestors could evolve in the same number of generations it is even stranger.
If you go back to our latest common ancestor, and then go back equally many generations from idualu to his own ancestors, would they really be almost genetical identical?
If you call it race or something else doesn't matter. Pluto doesn't care if we call it a planet or an asteroid. It is still hanging up there in our solar system.
How can two native icelandic neighbors be more genetical different than an asian and an african? Indivudual differences can't be put on a par with ethnical constants.

What is idaltu telling us? He tells us our history are treated like the history of any other animal until the point where our last common ancestor arrives. Frem then on other terms steps in. The problem is, as mentioned earlier, there is probably fewer generations separating idaltu and olca than olca and the races today.
Just as creationists dominated the discussion of our origin before, so do political correctness the same thing today. And I don't see the reason for doing so. Nobody that is serious claims that one race is better than another. We are all human beings, but the humankind is probably more diverse than most are willing to admit for the moment. Why deny something if it really exists? The differences just makes us an even richer species.

I think youre oversimplifying the issue about the existence of race. Though of course populations do form genetic clusters that generally conform to traditional races, the genetic argument against the existence of race is also made against the existence of distinct subspecies in some other mammals like the wolf. I dont agree with this conclusion in any way and its practicality has been questioned, but its not purely political correctness any more than acceptance of biological race is about racism.

[Askur]

"Its because idaltu diverged before the most recent common ancestor of moderns that theres no internal inconsistency with treating all moderns as one subspecies and idaltu as another. The population described as idaltu are therefore more distinct from us than are aboriginals, Askur, so comparing Australoids and idaltu isnt really an accurate comparison."

I am complelely awere of the fact that idaltu diverged before our last common ancestor. And I know we  are closer to aboriginals than idaltu. And I'm not comparing them either.

Yet there is an obvious difference between extinct groups and living groups. If there is 1000 generations between an extinct population and a living populations of descedants, thats it. But it the same extinct group gave rise to two different populations still alive today, there is 2000 generations separating them (providing they have mostly evolved in isolation from each others. If they at the same time have produced offspring with more ancient human races the differences will be even bigger). This is of course ABC for all biologists.


"As a rule genotype is less relevant to paleanthropology because of the problems involved with Paleolithic DNA."

I was talking about biology in general.



"I certainly agree that Caucasoids do show neanderthaloid features among moderns, especially in certain regions that mignt be special centres of admixture."

I once heard a scientist claiming there were some places in Europe, like in Italy, where the populations had some signs of neanderthal anatomy, but he didn't concretise them.
You say you can see neanderthaloid features among modern Caucasoids in general? Like what?
 

"I think youre oversimplifying the issue about the existence of race. Though of course populations do form genetic clusters that generally conform to traditional races, the genetic argument against the existence of race is also made against the existence of distinct subspecies in some other mammals like the wolf. I dont agree with this conclusion in any way and its practicality has been questioned, but its not purely political correctness any more than acceptance of biological race is about racism."

That's your opinion. Like I said, it doesn't matter if you call the different populations races or something else, I'm talking about the differences that actually exists. Even if someone are saying there is no differences other than some small cosmetic ones.
And there is no doubt there is a very big distinction between wolves and dogs even if they belongs to the same species.
Wildcats that became separated only 20 000 (and even less) years ago are now considered as different and endagered subspecies. Cats have of course much shorter generation cycle than humans and don't get insulted whatever people are calling them, but it is worth mention anyway.

[anthrostudies]

I was talking about biology in general.

In paleobiology in general, genotype is is mostly irrelevant.

You say you can see neanderthaloid features among modern Caucasoids in general? Like what?

A relatively prominent nose is a good example of a strongly Caucasoid feature which is shared with the Neanderthals in the biogeographical range of Caucasoids. Its certainly interesting that Caucasoids have large, projecting noses compared to other modern populations.

In profile its possible to recognise this neanderthal as resembling Caucasoids, and in certain ways as closer to some Cacasoids more than others. The reason these similarities arent usually specified is because theyre obvious - if you saw this neanderthal in the street you would find him to appear unusual, but still think he was from Europe or West Asia. In many ways, its the more robust northern Europeans who resemble neanderthals the most but in facial projection its West Asians.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/matternes1.gif

Of course the profile of the neanderthal skull is generally more archaic than any modern populatoin, ie in the low forhead, but differences are irrelevant to the possibility that certain anatomical features are continuous.

[Askur]

O.K. But the nose itself don't has to mean anything. Since cuacasians and neanderhals lived in the same climate, even if different time prespectives, there woudl probably have been some paralell evolution.

Another interesting parallel:
As we know the asians have a little more slender anatomy than europeans. Also the archaic human races in Asia were more slender than the archaic human races in Europe.

[anthrostudies]

O.K. But the nose itself don't has to mean anything. Since cuacasians and neanderhals lived in the same climate, even if different time prespectives, there woudl probably have been some paralell evolution.

Well other populations including certain mongoloids and the Tasmanians also have a similar environment to Caucasoids though without neanderthal-like midfacial projection and rejection of alveolar prominence (ie orthognathy).

And though West Asians were my example to show midfacial projection its not likely to be a result of their local environment, this is firstly because classic neanderthals didnt inhabit such a climate and secondly midfacial projection is not neccessarily West Asian among Caucasoids because its known at pre-Neolithic European sites.