I find archaic human paleoanthropology fascinating. The impact of better radioactive dating methods and now, DNA analysis has had a remarkable effect on the state of our knowledge. Previously poorly-dated specimens were used to justify very late dates for when Homo sapiens, his predecessor H. heidelbergensis and the even earlier H. errectus left Africa. More accurate information leaves it an open question whether sapiens evolved in Africa or Eurasia. And the presence of H. neanderthalensis and H. denisoviensis and possibly other sister species of H. sapiens scattered around in Eurasia makes the point even more acute that our species radiated and developed and then remixed inside of Eurasia. And the fact that all traces of Neanderthal and Denisovan DNA are lacking completely in Africa only highlights the fact that Africa became a sort of isolated group of populations separate from the evolution that was taking place to the north.
What strikes me as very interesting is just how quickly humans change in reaction to their environment. Just look around at the appearance of modern humans the world round. Various types of Africans, Northern Europeans, Southern Europeans, Middle Easterners, South Asians, East Asians, the Australian aborigines and the New Guineans, the Native Americans, the South Sea Islanders and many other groups have differentiated from each other over the course of not millions of years but thousands. Our hair, eyes, skin, the shapes of our faces and many other traits have changed in order to adapt to our environments. Even something as fundamental as blood types are affected. We are an adaptable species. And I think that because of human squeamishness we have been less than logical with our designation of what is a species, subspecies or race when it comes to man.
After all, we’ve managed to crowd all of the “races” of man into one species without the thought of sub-specifying ourselves. But the Neanderthals and Denisovans (whom we know bred with humans) we kick into separate species altogether. That seems a bit much. I remember in old books we sometimes saw Homo sapiens neanderthalensis as a subspecies of ours. Surely our “kissing cousins” deserve at least that small a consideration for providing us with a few percentages of our genetic material (not to mention red hair!).
In general, I’m not willing to toss any of our closest relatives under the bus. H. heidelbergensis and H. errectus were present in Eurasia for a very long time along with these later editions and what seems reasonable is that the same kind of interbreeding and intergradations occurred at earlier times spawning other “species” of Homo that we either can’t distinguish or haven’t found yet. And whether these archaic humans met in the Mediterranean or the more northern regions the same kind of mixing and changing was going on.
So, man is ever-changing and since our brain is our defining facet it makes sense that changes in our brains is where we’ll see evolution hard at work. The only question is whether this evolution will be untrammeled or will it be directed. Artificial intelligence is the prize that technologists and industrialists tout as the future. Will our brains be replaced with silicon? Will we be turned into zoo animals that eventually will be euthanized when we’ve been rendered powerless?
I tend to think not. I’m betting on the hominins. For all our bad habits and shortcomings (and there are many) I think there is a greatness in our line. I think we can still find our purpose on this planet. And I don’t want to disown any of our kin here on Earth. We fight each other and hate each other for our differences and just because we want each other’s stuff. But that is part of being human. We still have time to figure out a way to get along regardless of all our differences. And as our brains get stronger so we will. We have some important fate ahead of us. And I doubt that it involves becoming Eloi to Silicon-Morlocks.
In a world in which it is forbidden as racist to assert that any human on earth is anything other than 100% interchangeable with any other, sub-specifying ourselves is definitely out.
My belief is that the two terms “subspecies” and “race” are both so imprecise as to have no meaningful distinction between them. These are all geographic variations in the same species. And with respect to Neanderthals and Denisovans this is only a difference of degree rather than kind. Humans form a pretty fair continuum. Variability is the rule not the exception, even within nuclear families. We must learn how to deal with this variability fairly; punishing neither the more nor the less gifted.
In order to “deal with variability fairly”, step #1 would be to admit that the variability exists.
“step #1 would be to admit that the variability exists.” And only societies that get around to admitting this will flourish. Let’s hope we do.
Nature seems far more experimental at some level than we are used to. Consider for example Felis Catus (nee Felis Domesticus). They have only been hanging out with humans for ~10K years when they apparently self domesticated from Felis Libyca/Felis Sylvestris (it’s all about the mousies). There are SOME early traditional breeds of Asian cat e.g. Siamese cats (first mentioned 14th Century) and Japanese Bobtail (6th century prints) that have been around long times. Specific breeding other than perhaps for mousing ability, really only starts with cat shows the first in England being 1871. So 150 years of specific cat… Read more »
With respect to Denisovans, they were the direct source of a gene for a version of the Rh blood factor that is restricted to Australian aborigines and Papuans. But even this gene seems to have originated from the Neanderthals and was transferred to Denisovans by intermixing. It was found in the Denisova cave bone fragment and which was from an individual that was a mixture of sapiens, neanderthalensis and denisovan heredity.