# Population Genetics > Paleogenetics > Paleolithic & Mesolithic >  New Denisovan DNA results

## Grubbe

See: http://johnhawks.net/weblog

I haven't read the paper myself, as it is behind a pay wall.

----------


## nordicwarrior

Nice find Grubbe.

It comes from Svante Paabo (and Montgomery Slatkin from Berkeley) so you know it has to be on point. Paabo is about as thorough as a human can get in his methods and research.

So if 17% of Denisovan comes from Neanderthal admixture and another 4% or so comes from "yet another, more ancient human- 'something unknown'" (quoting linked source)-- I think we can officially do away with Darwin's tree of evolution. It seems more like we've emerged from a thicket of genetic material rather than some structure that has defined branches.

This find touches on another of my favorite topics which is hybrid theory (producing vigor in the offspring).

----------


## Grubbe

> So if 17% of Denisovan comes from Neanderthal admixture and another 4% or so comes from "yet another, more ancient human- 'something unknown'" (quoting linked source)-- I think we can officially do away with Darwin's tree of evolution. It seems more like we've emerged from a thicket of genetic material rather than some structure that has defined branches.
> 
> This find touches on another of my favorite topics which is hybrid theory (producing vigor in the offspring).


I think Darwin's evolution still stands, if not quite as we first thought: Both Neanderthals (with and without Denisovan admixture) and Homo sapiens must necessarily still belong to the same tree a long time back, just as we are related to our "cousins" the Primates. But the finds in recent years show that we are not that "pure" Homo sapiens that we (the scientists) thought a few years back. By the way: When I went to primary school, we still learned that the Neanderthals were our ancestors, so "the truth" changes fast...

----------


## Yetos

> Nice find Grubbe.
> 
> It comes from Svante Paabo (and Montgomery Slatkin from Berkeley) so you know it has to be on point. Paabo is about as thorough as a human can get in his methods and research.
> 
> So if 17% of Denisovan comes from Neanderthal admixture and another 4% or so comes from "yet another, more ancient human- 'something unknown'" (quoting linked source)-- I think we can officially do away with Darwin's tree of evolution. It seems more like we've emerged from a thicket of genetic material rather than some structure that has defined branches.
> 
> This find touches on another of my favorite topics which is hybrid theory (producing vigor in the offspring).



i read it, 
Fantastic, 
can you believe that have the DNA of a missing link of human evolution history, without having the archaiological evidence of his existance, 

I think it is too far,
it is like the theories of big bang or black holes, 
we can prove something with maths, but we have not seen it if existed, 
so we have DNA of a human that we have never found him and maybe never existed? !!!!!!
something how old????? and from where???

----------


## Grubbe

> i read it, 
> Fantastic, 
> can you believe that have the DNA of a missing link of human evolution history, without having the archaiological evidence of his existance, 
> 
> I think it is too far,
> it is like the theories of big bang or black holes, 
> we can prove something with maths, but we have not seen it if existed, 
> so we have DNA of a human that we have never found him and maybe never existed? !!!!!!
> something how old????? and from where???


There is physical evidence, although not much. At least the first Denisovan DNA was extracted from a tiny finger bone or something. There has been very good protection in the Denisovan cave. Probably much of ancient DNA has diasappeared due to unfavourable circumstances where the bodies have been.

----------

