Is anyone else watching this on the History Channel? Its great so far, altough it just makes me more baffled at the thought of anyone disbelieving Evolution.

Is anyone else watching this on the History Channel? Its great so far, altough it just makes me more baffled at the thought of anyone disbelieving Evolution.

I did not know that Neanderthal’s were a species, wholly separate from are own, but the theory makes sense.

The terms "species" and "wholly separate" are perhaps a bit misleading. But this discussion of a TV show is perhaps not the best place to digress into a discussion of the philosophy behind what makes a "species" as opposed to a "race" or "breed".

In any case, I haven't seen this show, and I'd like to, but I don't beleive that Neanderthals were a separate species, merely a distinct variety of homo sapiens that partially died out and partially interbred with modern humans in the areas in which they lived (Europe, the Mediterranean basin, the Middle East).

i watched and enjoyed. But a show like this needs to be about 100 times longer...it felt very rushed.

when is it on again?

The idea of neanderthals as a different species was based on DNA analysis. According to the program, the DNA of the neanderthals is drastically different to homo sapiens.

According to the program, homo sapiens and neanderthals did share a common ancestor, but that a group of those ancestors went one direction (to europe, where they become neanderthals) while the other group stayed in Africa (becoming homo sapiens). When they eventually met up thousands of years later, homo sapiens wiped out neanderthals. This left homo sapiens as the only hominid species left on earth.

At least it was 2 hours long. It would've been useless if they tried to squeeze that into one hour. But I think the 2 hour timeframe was sufficient to get the general timeline down.

So they are able to show conclusively through DNA evidence that the Neanderthals were wiped out, and not merely reassimilated? There have been many paleantologists over the years (and admittedly all of my knowledge on this subject is at least 10 years old) who have proposed that, much like other later cultures and peoples, the Neanderthals were conquered by the new people leaving Africa. But the Neanderthals were not wholly "destroyed", but that significant interbreeding took place and that Neanderthal blood lives on in the peoples native to the areas where Neanderthals had been found.

The speculative evidence of this is certain physical features of modern people who are from those areas that are not found in peoples in other places in the world. For example, peoples of central, southern and eastern Europe, the Middle East, and the Mediterranean basin are known to have more body hair than peoples of other parts of the world. They also have larger more protruding noses than other peoples, and these are both physical features known to have existed in Neanderthals.

But DNA testing could conceivably rule out that possibility. I'd need to see the evidence myself to change my ideas.

I don't know that DNA evidence could possibly prove that Neanderthals were not assimilated into homo sapien species (which is an intriguing and quite plausible possibility). Assuming homo sapiens far outnumbered Neanderthals, the Neanderthal DNA would become quite dilluted over time. I'd like to see more theory (and any evidence) supporting this claim.

Not being an expert on DNA analysis, I don't think it would be that hard to demonstrate. Certainly, there were genes that were present in Neanderthals that were not present in early homo sapiens sapiens (those people that came out of Africa 100,000 to 50,000 years ago. If one could be isolated, it could be searched for in modern humans.

Also, I don't know how the show dealt with this question, but there's the issue of when Neanderthal man split from our line in the first place. Did they evolve from the first homo sapiens that left Africa 100,000-200,000 years ago, or were they a parallel evolution from homo erectus, which had populated the tropical world as much as 900,000 years ago? If Neanderthal was an offshoot of homo sapiens, then I think it is more likely that some assimilation occurred later at the end of the Neanderthals. If they were evolved directly from homo erectus, then I think it's much less likely.

Mungo Man

Turning evolution upside down

In 1974, the discovery of Mungo Man turned the conventional theory of human evolution upside-down. Mungo Man was a human-like primate who died 62,000 years ago, and was ritually buried with his hands covering his penis.

Anatomically, Mungo Man's bones were distinct from other human skeletons being unearthed in Australia. Unlike the other bones that had big-brows, and thick-skulls, Mungo Man's skeleton was finer, and more like modern humans.

The ANU's John Curtin School of Medical Research found that Mungo Man's skeleton's contained a small section of mitochondrial DNA. After analysing the DNA, the school found that Mungo Man's DNA bore no similarity to the other ancient skeletons, modern Aborigines and modern Europeans. Furthermore, his mitochondrial DNA has now become instinct.

The results called into question the 'Out of Africa' theory of Human evolution. If Mungo Man was descended from a person who had left Africa in the past 200,000 years, then his mitochondrial DNA should have looked like all of the other samples.

Out of Africa Theory

The 'Out of Africa' theory proposes that 1.4 million years ago Homo erectus left Africa and spread throughout Europe and Asia. In Europe, Homo erectus evolved into the Neanderthals.

In Asia, most Homo erectus stopped evolving - with the exception of a small group in the Indonesian archipelago that branched off to become Homo floresiensis (aka the Hobbit).

Unlike the Homo erectus in Asia, the Homo erectus that stayed in Africa continued to evolve and eventually became Homo sapiens.

About 200,000 years ago, Homo sapiens left Africa. They spread throughout the globe and conquered or out-competed Neanderthals and Homo erectus.

The last Neanderthal died out around 30,000 years ago. The last Homo erectus died out somewhere between 200,000 and 30,000 years ago. The last Hobbit is believed to have have died out in a volcanic eruption around 10,000 years ago.

After conquering Homo erectus in Indonesia, Homo sapiens moved to Australia. If Homo erectus had made it to Australia first, then they too would have been conquered.

In a nutshell, 200,000 years ago an African tribe, either through superior food gathering ability or open war, started the extinction of all humanoid species living throughout Eurasia.

Supporting the Out of Africa theory is work by Allan Wilson who in 1987 proved that all modern humans share a single female ancestor who lived in Africa approximately 200,000 years ago.

Multiple Regions theory

Mungo Man is a huge spanner in the works for the Out of Africa theory for it can't explain how Mungo Man looked liked modern humans, yet was not related to any human that had left Africa in the last 200,000 years.

A 'Multiple Regions' theory is held up as the answer. If Out of Africa is a theory of war, then Multiple Regions is a theory of sex.

The theory proposes that Homo erectus was not conquered. Rather, once Homo erectus left Africa 1.4 million years ago, it kept evolving on migration lines between Asia and Africa (and possibly Australia). Interbreeding among nomadic tribes kept most of the different groups on a relatively constant evolutionary track.

Two groups that were not on these migration routes were the Neanderthals in Eurasia and the Hobbit in Indonesia. The Neanderthals evolved independently because they were an ice age people living in caves. Ice age Eurasia was just too inhospitable for nomadic Homo erectus.

In the Indonesian archipelago, the ancestor of the Hobbit may have been cut off from migration routes due to changes in sea levels or volcanic activity. Consequently, they also become a unique species of humanoid

Aside from the Neanderthals and the Hobbits, all other Homo erectus keep migrating, keep breeding and kept evolving on a constant track. Eventually they evolved into Homo sapiens.

At some stage, either Homo erectus or Homo sapiens made the crossing to Australia. These humanoids were the ancestors of Mungo Man.

200,000 years ago, females from an African tribe started spreading their genes through the entire arc between Australia and Africa.

This spreading of female genes could have occurred as a result of a nomadic Africa tribe emerging from Africa and breeding throughout Asia. It could also have occurred as a result of an Asian tribe going to Africa, and forcibly taking women back to Asia. (*Although evidence proves all humans had a female African ancestor 200,000 years ago, there is no evidence to show a male ancestor.)

60,000 years ago, Homo sapiens with African ancestors started migrating into Australia. The first group to make the migration were known as Robust due to their heavy-boned physique. 20,000 years later, they were followed by the more slender Gracile.

The Gracile and Robust bred together. They may have also bred with Homo sapiens already in Australia. Although Mungo Man's extinct mitochondrial DNA indicates that the women in his tribe became extinct, the men could have survived and bred.

Implications for Australia

If Out of Africa is to be believed, then human occupation of Australia has to be less than 200,000 years. Exactly when humans arrived would have been determined by how long it took Homo sapiens emerging from Africa to cause the extinction of the Homo erectus tribes spread throughout Asia.

If Multiple Regions is to be believed, the length of human occupation of Australia can be greatly extended. Homo erectus was known to be in the Indonesian archipelago 850,000 years ago. If they had made the crossing to Australia, then potentially humanoid occupation of Australia could be anywhere up to 850,000 years.

It is generally believed that Homo erectus was not intelligent enough to make the boats that would have been required to cross to Australia. Arguably though, making a raft or a canoe is much much easier than making stone tools that can kill animals.

If Homo erectus had made it to Australia, the difficult environment of Australia would have have continued to stimulate its intellectual evolution.

Just as humans were known to have migrated from Asia into Australia, humans must have migrated from Australia into Asia. 150,000 years ago, New Guinea was joined to the Australian mainland and Java. During this period, it would have been very easy for Homo sapiens to leave Australia. Furthermore, considering how difficult it was to live in Australia, it would have been very desirable for them to leave.

Because humans must have left Australia, some people have speculated that if Eve came from Africa, then perhaps Adam came from Australia. Unfortunately, as mitochondrial DNA is only passed on by women, it is impossible to test for a male Australian ancestor in all humans today.

All that is known for certain is that Mungo Man did not have an African ancestor in the last 200,000 years and the women in his tribe were not promiscuous, as the odd positions of his hands in his burial might suggest.

Implications for human evolution

Survival of the Fittest proposes that the strongest and most intelligent will eventually emerge triumphant. Out of Africa supports the theory as it proposes a smart and strong African tribe was able to cause the extinction of all other humanoid species spread across the globe. It caused the extinction due to its superior food gathering ability and/or superior battlefield might.

A Multiple Regions theory indicates that Survival of the Fittest is only half true. Physical weakness can aid promiscuity and therefore the proliferation of genes.

The men in Eve's African tribe may have been unable prevent a stronger tribe carrying away its women and turning them into sex slaves. Although the tribe's men would have died out, the women would have survived to become the ancestors of all humans today.

Alternatively, the African tribe may have traded its women to other tribes. The women could have resisted if they had been stronger. However the cost of being stronger would have been their genes being confined only to Africa.

Implications for the demise of the Neanderthals

The demise of the Neanderthals has always been problematic for proponents of Survival of the Fittest. The Neanderthals were far bigger and stronger than Homo Sapiens. In a one on one battle, no Homo sapien would have stood a chance against a Neanderthal.

In terms of intelligence, the Neanderthal's brain cavities were on average 10 -20 per cent larger than Homo sapiens.*

(*Even though they had large brains, because Neanderthals weren't as sociable with other tribes, they might not have developed the sophisticated culture that triggers neuronal complexity. )

If, as Out of Africa proposes, one tribe emerged to conquer all other humanoid species, why wasn't this tribe from the Neanderthals which were the strongest humanoids that have ever lived?

Perhaps the answer is sex. In their period of isolation from each other, Neanderthals and Homo Erectus had evolved such different appearances that the two humanoids would have been sexually repulsive to the other. Even if they were able to overcome their disgust, they would have been unable to have offspring or their offspring would have been sterile.

When Homo sapiens started moving into Neanderthal territory, the ugly appearance of the women may have acted as a disincentive to war. In all probability, if a Neanderthal tribe had a Homo sapien tribe on one side of the valley, and another Neanderthal tribe on the other side, it's desire for fresh women would have motivated it to attack the other Neanderthals.

Consequently, the Neanderthals never attacked Homo Sapien regions because the women were too ugly and/or would not bear them children. The only area that Neanderthals pushed into were areas occupied by other Neanderthals.

Regions that were weakened by Neanderthal war were subsequently over-taken by nomadic Homo sapiens. As territory was lost, the Neanderthal's range kept getting smaller and smaller until they became extinct.

Although Homo sapiens would have also wared with each other, because they were nomadic, they would have been able to move into war decimated areas at a much faster rate. If two Homo sapien tribes killed each other, another tribe would have quickly take its place.

Even taking sex out of the equation, the history of human warfare suggests that wars most likely are between similar groups, than different groups.

As the Neanderthals were predominatly hunters (80 percent meat in diet) while Homo Sapiens were predominantly gatherers (30 per cent meat in diet) potentially the two groups could have co-existed quite harmoniously. Conflict for resources would have been greatest between like-minded tribes that existed on the same food, not between the species that ate different food.