Final Notes for Hominin Evolution: Homo sapiens & Controversies
Final Notes for Hominin Evolution: Homo sapiens & Controversies APY 203
Popular in Principles of Physical Anthropology
verified elite notetaker
Popular in anthropology, evolution, sphr
This 5 page Class Notes was uploaded by Demaree Rios on Tuesday April 5, 2016. The Class Notes belongs to APY 203 at University of Miami taught by William Pestle in Spring 2016. Since its upload, it has received 47 views. For similar materials see Principles of Physical Anthropology in anthropology, evolution, sphr at University of Miami.
Reviews for Final Notes for Hominin Evolution: Homo sapiens & Controversies
Report this Material
What is Karma?
Karma is the currency of StudySoup.
You can buy or earn more Karma at anytime and redeem it for class notes, study guides, flashcards, and more!
Date Created: 04/05/16
Homo sapiens Taxonomic issues o Homo sapiens neanderthalensis vs Homo neanderthalensis o Depending on where you put Neanderthals (with modern human or own species line), opens potential for interbreeding o Certain features that may differentiate: Brow ridge [N] Large wide nose, cold adaptation [N] Size of mastoid process etc… Relationship between N and H o Interbreeding, Asian and Europeans DENISOVANS o Denisova Cave, SW Siberia o Very few specimens of Denisovans; toe bone, 2 teeth, fragment of toe bone o 40kya o Discovered 2010 o Melanasian modern pop. Have Den DNA so suggests Den and Homo interbreeding o Compared specific measurements of these specimens to other taxa o …found they plotted closer to Aust. More than modern humans, interesting bc found in Eurasia o Looked at mtDNA, more distantly related to humans than living humans are from Neanderthals o …humans, Neand, and Denisovans shared common ancestor, Homo and Neand split, then 600kya Denis split off from neand Homo sapiens or Homo sapiens sapiens o Widely distributed taxon, fossils found on all continents except Antarctica, also more fossils found bc more recent o Practiced intentional burial= more tendency of complete specimens o Diverse taxon o Belongs to Homo if indistinguishable from morphology of at least one pop. of modern humans o Rounder skull, less robust cranium, cranium vertically taller and anterior-posteriorly shorter, larger brain (smaller than nean) o No brow ridge o Smaller facial skeleton relative to brain case, face shifts beneath (prognathism receding, hardly any), no post orbital constriction o Smaller teeth o Smaller zygomatic arch o Chin, only in humans do we see anterior projection of lower mandible (Simian Shelf) o Long limb bones (relatively) o Relatively longer distal segments of limbs o Less postcranial robusticity o A lot of diversity on early members of our species= hard to draw a line of when first appeared and what species produced modern humans Africa o 200-400kya specimens may show features of modern human char. That appear to be on their way to prod modern human species, early fossil evidence of H sapien o Omo 1 , 200kya, suite of features like modern humans, BUT… o Omo 2 specimen found same site, same level, dated to same time but features look a lot more archaic like H. erectus (pronounced angulation/bunning of occipital (seen in earlier members of genus Homo), much more archaic) variation? o Herto specimen, 200kya, modern human features BUT pronounced brow ridge o Not definitive until 12okya o Acceptance that origins for our species are in Africa o PILTDOWN HOAX “Eoanthropus dawsoni” Specimen suggest modern human “missing link” was in Europe (England specifically) Actually comprised of a recent H. sapiens + jaw of orangutan + manually filed teeth + stained with varnish to look old and uniform Scientific racism…continued o Believed that earliest evidence (Upper Paleolithic) for cultural modernity comes from Europe o Today we know that Homo’s “earliests” in behavioral/cultural/cognitive innovations always come from origins in Africa o Species quickly spreads to rest of globe after millions of years in Africa Teranova expedition o Scott party Sept. 1911-Jan 17 1912 trekking across Antarctica to S. Pole, arrived a month after Dec 1911 when Evanson party arrived o Terrible trek back, CONTROVERSIES IN HOMININ EVOLUTION 1. OUT OF AFRICA VS. MULTIREGIONAL EVOLUTION Debate over how H. sap may have evolved, 2 big competing theories as to why ppl from diff parts of planet look diff from ea. Other a. Multiregional/Polycentric: In diff parts of whole world w. evidence of Homo there are parallel tracks/ continuities of evol. such that can trace ancestry to earlier form of Homo in Eur. and their evol. descent is similar to other tracks around world . differential evol/ adaptation = variation b. Out of Africa: humans evolved to be humans only once, happened in Africa 100-200kya, and subsequent to that members of our species spread out and replaced archaic populations of genus Homo (ex. Arrived in SE Asia and replaced H. erectus still there etc. wherever H. sap went we displaced/replaced early forms of genus Homo c. Genetic evidence put this debate to rest; large scale independent studies of mtDNA (get only from your mom), Y-chrome DNA (passed only to son), and nuclear DNA to map out phylogenetic tree of 80+ pops and were able to trace back to one female ancestor out of Africa about 190kya (“ the Mitochondrial Eve”) matrilineal lineages can al coalesce to this female. * there is more genetic diversity in Africa than in the rest of the world, suggest our gen. diversity has been evolving in Africa longer than rest of world. d. Out of Africa origin with some onctriubtoin coming out of archaic pop cming out of diff regions 2. NEANDERTHALS & AMH (ANATOMICALLY MODERN H. SAPIENS) Are they a cruder form of homo sap or another speies all together?H. sapiens neanderthalensis and H spaioens sapiens OR other species? Neand. Fossils disappear about 30kya, bc forced out by H. sapiens? Out populated/ breeded? Some argue fossil evidence of hybridization, *Portugal, 120kya. Limb proportion, no chin yet H. sap char. However child skeletons are very diff from post-pubescent individuals… More genetic evidence: mtdna extractions in very short segments from teeth of neand, suggest neand and AMH did not share genetic commonalities but by 2006 annalyzed many many more dna from nuclear genome and based on these studies they found that ppl of Asian and Eur descent shared in common 1-4% genome shared in common w. Nean. Now they’ve sequence 300b base pairs (basically entire neand genome) that support this and suggest successful interbreeding between the 2 species. The contribution from neand to living humans is that sometime afete sipersal of humans out of Africa neand and some humans (later ancestral to all eur and Asian) interbred 50-60kya in the near east… *sequence DNA of Denisovans so now propose that neand who left Africa interbred w. earlier varierty of h sap and they left DNA in ineand offspring, early form dies out and neand signs of multiple migrations out of Africa, neand carried out gen material and gave it back *40kyo mandible suggests hybridization 15-20% genome shared wi neand, suggest multiple interbreeding events *complete genome sequence of Altai Mt. neand; 3. FLORES “HOBBIT” Homo floresiensis, fossils found in cave on island of Flores, 2003: suggest lived 100kya in jungles of Indonesia, 12 individuals, very small in stature (1m 3-4ft) under 70 kg, brain size 400c, found alongside stone stool tech., where does it fit? Propose Flores hominin represent a branch of H. erectus, underwent process of insular dwarfing= when species ends up on an island, smaller size is selected for. Very small, have not seen a brain size that small in hominins since Aust 4mya…even in examples of dwarfing, if decrease body size by half (6’ erectus to 3’ hobbit) brain size only decreases by 15% so the body size would have to go down to size of a house cat to get that brain size what if it was a group of people who shared abnormality? Microcephaly? Morphology of skull bear resemblance of microcephalic dwarfs so suggest it was a group/fam of microcephalic dwarfs others argue that they are a migration of habilis who migrated to Indonesia bc morphologically closer 4. PEOPLING OF THE NEW WORLD Americas last continent to be populated It has been argued that the first ppl to arrive were the Clovis People (New Mex), found clovis pts in direct association with mammoth, bison bones. Coincides w. important climatic shift Clovis First Explanation:Some argue their arrival must have happened by; lower sea levels, bearing strait land bridge, walked from Russia across to E Alaska/W Canada, then ice sheets melted opening a corridor between glaciers so started following migration down 12kya spread all over Americas ….BUT there are sites far from AK that predate opening of ice corridor that have clovis artifacts present, so there may have been humans there before Clovis making them not the first, also no clovis pts found where they supposedly first arrived *monte verde site , deep south S. Amer. predate clovis, has artifacts that don’t look like clovis *13kya found man made pt in mastodon bone in prior to opening in corridor Consensus: instead of wakin across frozen strait, ealy arrivers probably came by boat long age of strait and “coast-hopped” along W. coast of Americas, explains early sites on islands and coasts, genetic data supports this bc All of the living native ppls of amreicas can trace decent to 1 of 5 matrilines (Haplogorups) 5. DENISOVA, where do they fit? 6. NALEDI, no date
Are you sure you want to buy this material for
You're already Subscribed!
Looks like you've already subscribed to StudySoup, you won't need to purchase another subscription to get this material. To access this material simply click 'View Full Document'