DNA preserves the integrity of its program

[pshun2404]

Scientific American Ancient Bones Reveal Girl's Tough Life in Early Americas

The Smithsonian magazine... DNA From 12,000-Year-Old Skeleton Helps Answer the Question: Who Were the First Americans? | Science | Smithsonian

I actually can't find anything on this skull on the Smithsonian main site. Perhaps you could link it? They might have a typo, you know. Every other source I find says that Naia is 12,000-13,000 years old.


We can tell the difference between children and adult bones of our species, as well as other members of the same genus. Plus, the brain reaches 99% of its maximum size by the age of 12.


There is immense evidence that there was reduced fertility between the offspring of Neanderthals and our species, such as the fact that the lack of any mitochondrial Neanderthal DNA being present in our species, yet we have some Neanderthal genes in some populations. This means that either female Neanderthals and male Homo sapiens were incompatible for breeding, or that female children of the cross were infertile. I honestly don't know enough about Denisovans to comment, though, I'll do some research on that when I have the time. However, neither of these groups are considered the same species as ourselves (considering Neanderthals such is a wingnut position, and the relatedness of Denisovans to us has yet to be determined).

No doubt Naia was about 12,000 years old (within the known time frame for Americans) the point was that WE WERE NOT talking about some skulls found here in the Americas from a totally different time period we WERE TALKING ABOUT skull fragments dated to 430,000 years ago which IS spoken of in Smithsonian (which was my source).

 

[pshun2404]

"There is immense evidence that there was reduced fertility between the offspring of Neanderthals and our species"

a) both are varieties of the species Homo Sapien (so they ARE NOT a different species but a subspecies...apparently earlier than OMO)
b) as one of these subspecies became more prominent and the other less (due to many natural factors which may probably be mostly environmental) reduction of offspring would be likely. But just that fact that they socially and sexually interacted (these were not ignorant club thumping troglidytes you know) and produced offspring whose genes were being transmitted generation after generation until the earlier subspecies went extinct tels us THEY WERE THE SAME SPECIES.

 

[PsychoSarah]

No doubt Naia was about 12,000 years old (within the known time frame for Americans) the point was that WE WERE NOT talking about some skulls found here in the Americas from a totally different time period we WERE TALKING ABOUT skull fragments dated to 430,000 years ago which IS spoken of in Smithsonian (which was my source).

I figured out later you were referring to the other skull as being 430,000 years old. However, that skull isn't from our species.

I sincerely don't know how you could have mistaken this:

As being the same species as this:

Seriously, the first skull doesn't have the distinctive chin, flat face, or even general skull shape that our species has.