Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Did the prehistoric Denisovans cross Wallace’s Line?

arroba Email
File:Map of Sunda and Sahul.png
Wallace’s Line/Maximilian Dörrbecker (Chumwa)

Might explain some things. (But also, note the key terminology switch from “newly discovered human species” to “ancient human relatives.”)

Three years ago the genetic analysis of a little finger bone from Denisova cave in the Altai Mountains in northern Asia led to a complete genome sequence of a new line of the human family tree — the Denisovans. Since then, genetic evidence pointing to their hybridisation with modern human populations has been detected, but only in Indigenous populations in Australia, New Guinea and surrounding areas. In contrast, Denisovan DNA appears to be absent or at very low levels in current populations on mainland Asia, even though this is where the fossil was found.

Published today in a Science opinion article, scientists Professor Alan Cooper of the University of Adelaide in Australia and Professor Chris Stringer of the Natural History Museum in the UK say that this pattern can be explained if the Denisovans had succeeded in crossing the famous Wallace’s Line, one of the world’s biggest biogeographic barriers which is formed by a powerful marine current along the east coast of Borneo. Wallace’s Line marks the division between European and Asian mammals to the west from marsupial-dominated Australasia to the east.

We don’t know very much about the Denisovans, but anthropologists have been wisely reluctant to classify them as a separate species (consider, for example, the Flores man debacle). So the media release quoted above is careful in its choice of words; the Denisovans are a “line of the human family tree” (so is your family, and mine) or “ancient human relatives.”

“The recent discovery of another enigmatic ancient human species Homo floresiensis, the so-called Hobbits, in Flores, Indonesia, confirms that the diversity of archaic human relatives in this area was much higher than we’d thought,” says Professor Stringer, Research Leader in Human Origins, Natural History Museum, in London. “The morphology of the Hobbits shows they are different from the Denisovans, meaning we now have at least two, and potentially more, unexpected groups in the area.”

I like the term “ancient human relatives.” It doesn’t pretend to more than we know, so we are much less likely to veer off course. – O’Leary for News

See also:Mysterious Denisovans were just us. In furs?

Neanderthals and Denisovans differ as much as the most extreme variation among modern humans

Latest findings show: We are all humans now, and the missing link is still missing

Aside. THe wallace line is not a biology line as evolution teaches. its just showing a rise in water levels that cut off the original migration pattern of creatures soon after the flood. The marsupials are the same creatures as elsewhere but simply adapted for a need to reproduce quicker. A wrong interpretation was made by Wallace. Robert Byers
Moreover, ENCODE 2012, has severely undermined the Darwinian presupposition that the vast majority of DNA that doesn't code for proteins is junk:
The Demise of Junk DNA and Why It Matters - Jonathan M. - September 2012 Excerpt: “the prized 98% sequence-identify figure between humans and chimpanzees relates to the 2% of DNA that codes for the production of proteins. The non-protein-coding (Junk) regions of DNA are far more species-specific.,,, these (Junk) stretches of non-coding DNA really are functional, then what becomes of this (98%) sequence-identity figure and its significance with respect to shared ancestry?” http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/09/the_demise_of_j_1064061.html
And the regulatory 'junk' DNA (which help tell genes when, and what, to do) is turning out to be far more uncooperative for Darwinists than the genes turned out to be for them:
Evolution by Splicing - Comparing gene transcripts from different species reveals surprising splicing diversity. - Ruth Williams - December 20, 2012 Excerpt: A major question in vertebrate evolutionary biology is “how do physical and behavioral differences arise if we have a very similar set of genes to that of the mouse, chicken, or frog?”,,, A commonly discussed mechanism was variable levels of gene expression, but both Blencowe and Chris Burge,,, found that gene expression is relatively conserved among species. On the other hand, the papers show that most alternative splicing events differ widely between even closely related species. “The alternative splicing patterns are very different even between humans and chimpanzees,” said Blencowe.,,, http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view%2FarticleNo%2F33782%2Ftitle%2FEvolution-by-Splicing%2F
Of somewhat related note, the anatomy of humans and chimps is not as close as one would presuppose from a Darwinian perspective;
Physorg had an article up showing that the pig-chimp hybrid theory for human origins is much harder to shoot down than Darwinists had first supposed it would be because the anatomy of pigs is closer to humans than the chimp's is: Human hybrids: a closer look at the theory and evidence - July 25, 2013 Excerpt: There was considerable fallout, both positive and negative, from our first story covering the radical pig-chimp hybrid theory put forth by Dr. Eugene McCarthy,,,By and large, those coming out against the theory had surprisingly little science to offer in their sometimes personal attacks against McCarthy. ,,,Under the alternative hypothesis (humans are not pig-chimp hybrids), the assumption is that humans and chimpanzees are equally distant from pigs. You would therefore expect chimp traits not seen in humans to be present in pigs at about the same rate as are human traits not found in chimps. However, when he searched the literature for traits that distinguish humans and chimps, and compiled a lengthy list of such traits, he found that it was always humans who were similar to pigs with respect to these traits. This finding is inconsistent with the possibility that humans are not pig-chimp hybrids, that is, it rejects that hypothesis.,,, http://phys.org/news/2013-07-human-hybrids-closer-theory-evidence.html
As this Neanderthals and Denisovans genetic evidence indicates, I believe the genetic evidence is finally, and firmly, stating to break for those dreaded, and much maligned, 'creationists', who dare believe that God uniquely created humans all at one time instead of creating us gradually as Theistic Evolutionists would believe. Although the fossil record has been notoriously difficult for Darwinists to build a gradualist picture of human evolution with:
The Truth About Human Origins: Excerpt: "It is practically impossible to determine which "family tree" (for human evolution) one should accept. Richard Leakey (of the famed fossil hunting family from Africa) has proposed one. His late mother, Mary Leakey, proposed another. Donald Johanson, former president of the Institute of Human Origins in Berkeley, California, has proposed yet another. And as late as 2001, Meave Leakey (Richard's wife) has proposed still another.,," http://books.google.com/books?id=J9pON9yB8HkC&pg=PT28&lpg=PT28
In the following video, from 15:05 minute mark to 19:15 minute mark, Phillip Johnson directly addresses the extreme prejudice that is inherent in interpreting the fossil evidence for supposed human evolution:
Phillip Johnson - "Yet that is odd if the problem (of punctuation and stasis) is the greatest where the fossil record is most complete and if the confirming examples are found where fossils are rarest, that doesn't sound like it could be the explanation." - Phillip Johnson - April 2012 - audio/video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FJDlBvbPSMA&feature=player_detailpage#t=903s
Yet, despite the notoriously difficult, and uncooperative, fossil record for 'supposed' human evolution, (the evolution must be 'supposed' since Darwinists have no actual laboratory evidence for 'upward' evolution), the genetic evidence was said to show 98-99% similarity of humans with chimps, and was thus supposedly the final nail in the coffin for those dreaded creationists who dared to believe they were made in God's image. It is this 98-99% similar genetic evidence that has recently turned against Darwinists big time. First and foremost, it is found that the genetic similarity one derives from the evidence is highly subjective to ‘various methodological factors’ that one imposes beforehand:
Guy Walks Into a Bar and Thinks He’s a Chimpanzee: The Unbearable Lightness of Chimp-Human Genome Similarity – 2009 Excerpt: One can seriously call into question the statement that human and chimp genomes are 99% identical. For one thing, it has been noted in the literature that the exact degree of identity between the two genomes is as yet unknown (Cohen, J., 2007. Relative differences: The myth of 1% Science 316: 1836.). ,,, In short, the figure of identity that one wants to use is dependent on various methodological factors. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2009/05/guy_walks_into_a_bar_and_think.html
Even ignoring the subjective bias of ‘various methodological factors’ that Darwinists introduced into these similarity studies, the first inkling, at least for me, that something was terribly amiss with the oft quoted 99% similarity figure was this,,,
Humans and chimps have 95 percent DNA compatibility, not 98.5 percent, research shows – 2002 Excerpt: Genetic studies for decades have estimated that humans and chimpanzees possess genomes that are about 98.5 percent similar. In other words, of the three billion base pairs along the DNA helix, nearly 99 of every 100 would be exactly identical. However, new work by one of the co-developers of the method used to analyze genetic similarities between species says the figure should be revised downward to 95 percent. http://www.caltech.edu/content/humans-and-chimps-have-95-percent-dna-compatibility-not-985-percent-research-shows
and then this also raised my eyebrow,,,
Chimps are not like humans – May 2004 Excerpt: the International Chimpanzee Chromosome 22 Consortium reports that 83% of chimpanzee chromosome 22 proteins are different from their human counterparts,,, The results reported this week showed that “83% of the genes have changed between the human and the chimpanzee—only 17% are identical—so that means that the impression that comes from the 1.2% [sequence] difference is [misleading]. In the case of protein structures, it has a big effect,” Sakaki said. http://cmbi.bjmu.edu.cn/news/0405/119.htm
this also had caught my eye in 2008,,,
Chimpanzee? 10-10-2008 – Dr Richard Buggs – research geneticist at the University of Florida …Therefore the total similarity of the genomes could be below 70%. http://www.idnet.com.au/files/pdf/Chimpanzee.pdf
Then earlier this year, 2013, with better resolution of data, and using an extremely conservative approach, Tomkins reached the figure of 70% genetic similarity between chimps and humans:
Comprehensive Analysis of Chimpanzee and Human Chromosomes Reveals Average DNA Similarity of 70% – by Jeffrey P. Tomkins – February 20, 2013 Excerpt: For the chimp autosomes, the amount of optimally aligned DNA sequence provided similarities between 66 and 76%, depending on the chromosome. In general, the smaller and more gene-dense the chromosomes, the higher the DNA similarity—although there were several notable exceptions defying this trend. Only 69% of the chimpanzee X chromosome was similar to human and only 43% of the Y chromosome. Genome-wide, only 70% of the chimpanzee DNA was similar to human under the most optimal sequence-slice conditions. While, chimpanzees and humans share many localized protein-coding regions of high similarity, the overall extreme discontinuity between the two genomes defies evolutionary timescales and dogmatic presuppositions about a common ancestor. http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/arj/v6/n1/human-chimp-chromosome
As well, due to the extremely conservative approach Tomkins used in his study, I do not believe that he included the large percentage of ORFan genes that are now being found:
From Jerry Coyne, More Table-Pounding, Hand-Waving - May 2012 Excerpt: "More than 6 percent of genes found in humans simply aren't found in any form in chimpanzees. There are over fourteen hundred novel genes expressed in humans but not in chimps." Jerry Coyne - ardent and 'angry' neo-Darwinist - professor at the University of Chicago in the department of ecology and evolution for twenty years. He specializes in evolutionary genetics. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/05/from_jerry_coyn060271.html Mechanisms and dynamics of orphan gene emergence in insect genomes - January 2013 Excerpt: Orphans are an enigmatic portion of the genome since their origin and function are mostly unknown and they typically make up 10 to 30% of all genes in a genome. http://gbe.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2013/01/24/gbe.evt009.full.pdf+html

Leave a Reply