SCI Where did they all go? How Homo sapiens became the last human species left

Melodi

Disaster Cat
A fascinating article, and as I predicted here on the forum a decade or so ago, here on the platform; now that science knows that many modern humans are part Neanderthal (and Denisovian), sooner or later, some scientists will start to consider us all one species with various sub-groups and regional differences.

Where did they all go? How Homo sapiens became the last human species left
At least nine hominin species once roamed the Earth, so what became of our vanished ancestors?

Sarah Wild
Sat 18 Nov 2023 15.00 CET
165
Just 300,000 years ago – a blink in evolutionary time – at least nine species of humans wandered the planet. Today, only our own, Homo sapiens, remains. And this raises one of the biggest questions in the story of human evolution: where did everyone else go?

“It’s not a coincidence that several of them disappeared around the time that Homo sapiens started to spread out of Africa and around the rest of the world,” says Prof Chris Stringer, head of human origins at the Natural History Museum in London. “What we don’t know is if that was a direct connection.”

There are many theories around the disappearance of our human cousins, and limited evidence to decipher exactly what happened. But recent studies are providing tantalising clues.

What we do know is that from about 40,000 years ago, H sapiens was the last human standing out of a large and diverse group of bipedal hominins. Hypotheses range from benign, such as H sapiens having better infant survival rates than other hominins, or climate changes pushing other species to the brink. Others suggest a more active role, such as H sapiens hunting other humans or interbreeding with them and assimilating their genetics.

About 300,000 years ago, the first H sapiens populations were springing up in Africa. They didn’t look like modern humans, but they are more similar to us than other Homo species. They had tall, rounded skulls with an almost vertical forehead. They didn’t have the glowering brows of Neanderthals (Homo neanderthalensis) or the protruding jaw of archaic-looking species such as Homo naledi. They also had chins; something that no other Homo species has had (although we don’t know why only H sapiens has the protuberance).


A study published in Nature this year exploded the idea that H sapiens originated from a single place in Africa in one great evolutionary leap. By analysing the genomes of 290 people, the researchers showed that H sapiens descended from at least two populations that lived in Africa for 1m years, before merging in several interactions.

Palaeoanthropologists continue to argue (quite vociferously) over who the last ancestor of H Sapiens was, but so far there is no conclusive evidence. Also, there is no single origin for H sapiens. There are ancient remains of early H sapiens in Jebel Irhoud in Morocco, Omo Kibish in Ethiopia and Florisbad in South Africa, suggesting that our species arose from multiple sites.

When H sapiens moved out of Africa is also the subject of debate. Genetic evidence suggests there was a big foray out of the continent between 80,000 and 60,000 years ago. But it was not the first expedition. A perplexing H sapiens skull in Apidima in Greece has been dated to being at least 210,000 years old.

We know of several other Homo groups that existed alongside H sapiens between 300,000 and 100,000 years ago. Some were quite similar to H sapiens. Stocky Neanderthals endured Europe’s chilly weather and the mysterious Denisovans eked out an existence in the rarefied air of what is now Siberia and Tibet, and possibly further afield.

Hominin species were dying out all the time. It’s probably unusual that we are still around
Eleanor Scerri, palaeoanthropologist
Homo erectus, the long-legged “cosmopolitan” species – so called because of the impressive geographical range it spanned – still wandered through parts of Indonesia; Homo longi (also known as the “Dragon man”) lived in China. Homo rhodesiensis (also known as Homo bodoensis or Homo heidelbergensis – scientists continue to debate its name and membership) was alive in central and southern Africa.

Other species were rather distinct from us: H naledi, with its ape-size brain, rambled through the woody grasslands of South Africa, and the diminutive Homo floresiensis and Homo luzonensis lived, breathed and died on the islands of Flores and Luzon in Indonesia and the Philippines respectively.

“Hominin species were likely dying out all the time,” says Prof Eleanor Scerri, head of the human palaeosystems group at the Max Planck Institute of Geoanthropology in Jena, Germany. “It’s probably unusual that we are still around.”

Social resilience
For most ancient human species, the fossil record is sparse. H naledi individuals, for example, are only found at a single site in South Africa. Some of the other species are known only by a handful of individuals. In Africa, where H sapiens first emerged, there are surprisingly few Homo fossils. “We don’t have a very good understanding of what other hominins were on the landscape in Africa with H sapiens yet,” says Scerri.

However, there is a plethora of data about Neanderthals, including full genomes extracted from bones. These close relatives roamed Eurasia until about 40,000 years ago, living in small groups. Scientists know significantly less about the Denisovans, but what they do know has reshuffled our understanding of human origins. In 2008, in the Denisova cave in Siberia, Russian archaeologists found several hominin bone fragments, including a finger bone and part of a toe. The cold weather had preserved some of the DNA in the finger bone, which yielded the full genome of this previously unknown species.


From Neanderthal and Denisovan genomes, researchers have inferred that they lived in small groups and frequently interbred. Some population estimates, based on mitochondrial DNA (inherited maternally), suggest that at their most abundant there were about 52,000 Neanderthals in Eurasia before they began to decline. Others suspect that there could have been between 20,000 and 50,000 individuals.

An important advantage that our direct ancestors appear to have had was population size. “Because of those small population sizes [among Neanderthals and Denisovans], there was a lot more interbreeding and the genetics reflects that,” says Scerri. The lack of genetic diversity would have rendered these populations more susceptible to diseases and thus less likely to survive.

H sapiens, by comparison, had larger groups and greater genetic diversity. The consequences of this extend beyond fitness against disease. “In H sapiens, we see larger social networks extending across the wider landscape,” says Stringer. “Having wide networks gives you an insurance policy because if you’re related to people a bit further away, if there is an environmental crisis – you’re running out of food or water – you can move into their environments and they’re not enemies, they’re your kin.” Such networks also allow for the exchange of ideas and innovation, Stringer adds.

This social resilience could have helped H sapiens survive climatic changes that would have killed off less adaptable individuals and species. A 2022 study in Nature modelled the ancient climates and ecosystems in which H erectus, H heidelbergensis and Neanderthals lived and found that they lost significant portions of their environmental niches before disappearing.

A larger 2023 simulation, which included six Homo species and the climate and vegetation over the past 3m years, found that later Homo species were able to live in a wider range of habitats, particularly H sapiens.

We know now that Neanderthals were very capable, but maybe Homo sapiens was just slightly more capable
Prof Chris Stringer, Natural History Museum
Prof Axel Timmermann, a co-author of this study and director of the IBS Centre for Climate Physics in Busan, South Korea, believes that H sapiens outcompeted Neanderthals, ultimately leading to the latter’s demise.

He built a numerical model, outlined in a 2020 paper, that simulated H sapiens’s spread out of Africa and combined it with available food sources. Using this, he tested three hypotheses for the extinction of Neanderthals: that they were assimilated into H sapiens; that there was a huge climate catastrophe; or that H sapiens outcompeted them. “It’s only the last one [competitive exclusion] that is able to contribute to a realistic extinction of Neanderthals,” Timmermann says.

The model didn’t investigate what the specific competitive advantage may have been, although it could have included better tools, better offspring survival rates, or maybe even social hunting, he says.

Interbreeding human species
Stringer believes a number of small advantages allowed H sapiens to outcompete its cousins. “We know now that Neanderthals were very capable, but maybe H sapiens was just slightly more capable,” he says. Seemingly small innovations, such as weaving or sewing needles (both were known in the H sapiens fossil record from 35,000 and 30,000 years ago respectively), could have tipped the scales in H sapiens’s favour, he says.

“Once you weave, you can make baskets or snare nets… A sewing needle gives you a better seal [on materials], so you have better-insulated tents and you can keep your babies warm, which is of course critical for infant survival.” Larger social networks would also have allowed H sapiens to share such innovations, he adds.

Another possibility is that H sapiens assimilated its cousins into the gene pool – and there is genetic evidence that this did happen, although whether it is responsible for the disappearance of the other species is still contentious. Some people currently living in Eurasia have up to 2% Neanderthal DNA. In fact, some geneticists claim they can assemble about 40% of the Neanderthal genome from the sequences of living people. [my ex-boyfriend's, before Nightwolf, who had many of the same features that I do, is 4 percent by several different test - Melodi]

Meanwhile, populations in Oceania, which comprises Australasia, Melanesia, Micronesia and Polynesia, have between 2% and 4% Denisovan DNA. Some groups have an even higher percentage. There’s also the tantalising mystery of an unknown human ancestor, who contributed between 2% and 19% of their genetic ancestry to people living in west Africa today.

In 2020, two researchers from the University of California, Los Angeles obtained the genomes of more than 400 people living in Nigeria, Sierra Leone and the Gambia. They estimated that the ancient humans interbred with H sapiens in the region at some point in the last 124,000 years. “This raises an important philosophical argument,” says Scerri. “Did they really die out, or are they still with us in some way?”

Prof Rebecca Ackermann, co-director of the Human Evolution Research Institute at the University of Cape Town in South Africa, says that it depends on how you define species. This is the source of much debate among palaeoanthropologists: some recognise many species, while others acknowledge only a handful. “My take is that they probably weren’t distinct species,” she says, with the exception of obvious outliers such as small-brained H naledi. “We should really be talking about them as regional variants.”

But some groups – whether a different species or not – definitely fared better than others, with our own direct forebears surviving. This is in large part because of luck and their behaviour, agree the experts I spoke to – and is something people living today need to recognise to overcome the challenges on the horizon.

“Networking is important, the ability to adapt to change is important, and that’s certainly something we’re all going to face with climate change,” says Stringer. “Humanity will be faced with either cooperating in the face of those crises or competing. And what we see from Neanderthals and H sapiens is that the groups that cooperated better were the ones that got through.”
 

BadMedicine

Would *I* Lie???
Ive written this out at length on basically all neanderthal/ early human threads..

Chimpanzees are like 98% HUMAN DNA,,, because we are mammals, and great apes, and share a LOT of DNA.... all mammals chare like 90% DNA.... so ALL OF THESE EARLY UPRIGHT HOMININS that evolved in the last couple million years are like 99.5% HUMAN DNA (Actually, we are HOMININ DNA... very little of us, like UNDER A PERCENT is "DISTINCTLY HOMO SAPIAN"

The family tree looks like the tributaries of a wide flat braided river where small branches split off and then come back and intermingle with the main chain, often after mixing in the side channels themselves...

When they say "Africans have X% of "unknown hominin" its just another early branch.... SPECIES CANNOT MATE WITH BRANCHES THAT WERE NOT PREVIOUSLY ONE... if they DIVULGE TOO MUCH THEY CANNOT RE-CROSS..such as Human and chimps... but early HOMININS are all FROM THE SAME STOCK..

We will NEVER get the DNA/ immigration and evolution of ALL of the early hominins mapped, but we KNOW they were all from common ancestor before branching off, sometiems for possibly nearly a MILLION YEARS and hten re-mingling...

We are all homo erectus, naledi, hobbit, lucy,... and many of us are some part denisovan and neandertal....

Homo sapians took over for about 4 main reasons and several lesser ones. We were the first and only to SEW OUR CLOTHING. Neanders had swaddling hides, but no well-fitting clothing allowing us to out compete in warm areas.

We had DIVISION OF LABOR. Neanderthal women participated in the hunt as much as men (due to healed bone evidence) therefore died often, leaving infants to perish, and only allowing them one toddler at a time, that had to be carried, Spacing the chidbirths 3-5 years apart, as opposed to humans who could have a baby ever 9-12 months, and stay back at "camp" rearing them, fixing nets and weapons, etc.

Despite living along river deltas and the most fertile watering areas (for hunting) neanders and other primitives often overlooked shellfish and fish. a MAJOR source of brain-building omegas and easy replenishable SURPLUSS-able, LESS DANGEROUS food stocks.

Because of the rapid reproduction we likely lived in much larger groups, even 3 generation groups, that could hunt down and exterminate smaller clans pretty easily. Humans are pretty universal in being xenophobic and territorial and have no problems killing 'others' just for competition reasons,,,, The prettiest 'other cave monkeys' werre sometimes probably kept as play things and offspring inevitably resulted...
 

Melodi

Disaster Cat
I should point out that a few weeks ago, the shocking story of the year (on this topic) was that Homo Naledi has the oldest example of a significant burial ground. Even more astounding was that not only was it at the bottom of a very difficult-to-navigate cave system, but there were marks and scratches on the walls that were symbolic art. Oh, there is evidence they used torches (FIRE) to light their way and use them down there. Even today, the only way to see in that area is with some artificial light. Otherwise, it is black for most of the path down and inside the burial chamber. It wasn't the tomb of just one individual, but where a reasonably large number were placed over a more extended period of time.

The site was found several years ago, but it is only in the last couple of years that some of the most shocking finds were made public. They may have looked more like apes than, say, Homo Erectus, but they were already doing things that were not supposed to happen yet for thousands of years. The area is still being excavated. They haven't found anything outside of South Africa, but my hunch is they had a much larger spread but finds that old do not tend to preserve well outside of caves and other special situations.
 

Melodi

Disaster Cat
An academic friend sent me this link. It will not print out and it is 13 pages long so I'm not going to try to bring it over. But the PDF is available at the link below. I think, with only skimming the first couple of pages, that this is the paper the mainstream article I posted was taken from. For anyone seriously interested you can view it here, from the Journal Nature.

 

ainitfunny

Saved, to glorify God.
Are you SURE all the two legged "people" are all
"homo sapiens" ???
From the videos of their actions I'd say a great
Many of the "people" are from a savage species
with a low IQ, violent nature, a total lack of common sense, and an absence of a conscience.
(This was first posted on the wrong thread.)
 

earthbud

Contributing Member
Any chance we were nothing but a genetic experiment? Chromosome #2 is kinda compelling.
Gregg Braden talks about chromosome #2 on his Gaia series Missing Links.

He also says there is a code/message within our DNA which reads, "God eternal within the body." It's as if someone signed their work. Hmmm.

Here's a snippet from Missing Links of Gregg Braden discussing chromosome #2 and the message in our DNA. RT=10:58

 

Micro

Veteran Member
If they can cross breed, they aren't really different species.

Of course if you think DNA bases and proteins can self assemble in any meaningful way, you are already behind the 8 ball scientifically...
 

Melodi

Disaster Cat
If they can cross breed, they aren't really different species.

Of course if you think DNA bases and proteins can self assemble in any meaningful way, you are already behind the 8 ball scientifically...
The whole idea of species is being looked at, not just because of the ancient human problem. But also because Lions and Tigers can mate and produce fertile offspring. Recently, a fox-dog, a natural cross-breed between foxes and dogs, was confirmed in Brazil. It had different chromosomes than a fox or a dog - no information on whether it was fertile, but until now, it was thought impossible. Because the big cat mates with the Big Cat, and the "Small" Cat mates with any other small cat not so small that it is lunch (aka Pumas eat housecats, but they could technically breed with them), and things like coy-wolves (coyote-Wolf crosses); the whole idea that a species are animals that interbreed is being relooked at. But as far as I know, no other exact standard has been agreed upon to replace it, at least not yet.
 

ainitfunny

Saved, to glorify God.
Gregg Braden talks about chromosome #2 on his Gaia series Missing Links.

He also says there is a code/message within our DNA which reads, "God eternal within the body." It's as if someone signed their work. Hmmm.

Here's a snippet from Missing Links of Gregg Braden discussing chromosome #2 and the message in our DNA. RT=10:58

He says:
There is a message written within our DNA IS:
"GOD ETERNAL WITHIN THE BODY"
Written on every cell of our body in the DNA!
But he doesn't say in what LANGUAGE it is written.
THAT is a problem.
 

Kayak

Adrenaline Junkie
...and things like coy-wolves (coyote-Wolf crosses); the whole idea that a species are animals that interbreed is being relooked at. But as far as I know, no other exact standard has been agreed upon to replace it, at least not yet.

Something I learned recently while researching for a book -- the scientists have decided that red wolves are coyote-wolf crosses, and not a different type of wolf. The grey wolves are the only "pure" wolves, according to the new thinking.

Here in Tennessee, we have a whole new critter in the wild that appears to be some kind of German Shepherd/Coyote mix. Not wolves, though they look a whole lot like one. Also, they are banding together in groups/packs.

We got rid of the wolves, and nature is filling in that top apex predator spot with something else. What was it they said in Jurassic Park? Life will find a way.
 

marsh

On TB every waking moment
One of my DNA genealogy sites tells you how much "Neanderthal" you have in you. Mine is greater than the average with 3%. So part of those missing species are still active in the gene pool. I attribute sinus allergies to that, but I also have a robust constitution, which I attribute to that.
 

Sebastian

Sebastian
Any thoughts about the future? Are we speciating? One of my incarnations was as an evolutionary paleontologist - species was defined as an interbreeding group capable of producing offspring that could make more offspring. It occurs that there is a human subgroup that at least has difficulty making this measure. That being those with RH- blood groups females of which cannot tolerate a fetus from an RH+ male. They may have one baby but the rest - without tech intervention will be rejected. Also if Musk gets his Mars Colony those folk will eventually become their own species without importing genetic material. Same with any other isolated group.
 
Top