Genetics pushes back the origin of Homo sapiens

March 2015 shall go down as “the month in which it turned out everything was slightly older than we thought.” Two of the most important moments in human evolution were redated – the origin of our genus and (maybe) the original migration out of Africa.


Browse By

March 2015 shall go down as “the month in which it turned out everything was slightly older than we thought.” Two of the most important moments in human evolution were redated – the origin of our genus and (maybe) the original migration out of Africa. The last day of the month doesn’t disappoint either, bringing us the discovery that the most important event in human evolution – the evolution of Homo sapiens – may have occurred earlier than we thought.

Yes, our evolution was the most important part. Because at the end of the day palaeoanthropology is just an excuse to sit around, look at people and talk about how great they are.

Archaic moderns!

“Archaic modern” may seem like a counter-intuitive phrase, but it refers to a fairly key period of our evolution. Modern humans do have several unique characteristics – most notably our prominent chins and foreheads – but there is a lot of grey area associated with them. How prominent does a chin have to be to be human?

Yeah, bet you didn’t expect the chin to be what makes us special. How much of our success can be attributed to the chin? How much did Neanderthals’ lack of a chin contribute to their extinction? Probably a lot, I don’t know. What am I, some sort of scientist?

Bits of the skull that separate humans (right) from Neanderthals (left).

Bits of the skull that separate humans (left) from Neanderthals (right).

One practical upshot of all this chinwagging is that there a bunch of fossils that look kind of human, but maybe not quite fully human. Yet they don’t look unhuman either. As such, they get dropped into the “archaic Homo sapiens” bucked until we figure out what to do with them.

The transition from this into proper Homo sapiens is believed to have occurred some time between 160,000 – 195,000 years ago in Africa; based on the fossil evidence. Many of the “archaic” branches continued to survive for many more years after proper humans emerged though.

Redating the emergence of the moderns

The family tree of African lineages generated by this study. It all looks awfully complex doesn't it?

The family tree of African lineages generated by this study. It all looks awfully complex doesn’t it?

New research – published just in time to be included in “the month in which it turned out everything was slightly older than we thought” (or TMIWITOEWSOTWT) – presents some genetic data that may push back the origin of modern humans. As you would expect for our ancestral homeland, Africa has a deep and rich genetic history. There lives the San hunter-gatherers, the first “branch” of our species to emerge a whopping ~150,000 years ago.

This new study examined almost 80 new mitochondrial genomes in an effort to shed light on this rich genetic history. They discovered something interesting about almost every branch they studied, but the one relevant to us is what they found about that first branch (or L0d, as it’s excitingly called). These new genomes revealed that L0d split off sometime 150,000 – 199,000 years ago (or 178,000 years ago, if you want to use more reasonable confidence intervals)!

In otherwords, this definitely human branch may have emerged 4,000 years before the earliest clear evidence we have of humans (195,000 years ago) and certainly well within the weird overlap period (160 – 195,000 years ago) with archaic humans.

Does all that mean anything?

In human evolution a minor date shift can have some pretty significant implications. Looking back earlier in TMIWITOEWSOTWT, there was a discovery that shifted the origin of Homo by a mere 400,000 years that could really change how we view human evolution. Is this (potential) shift of just 4,000 years in the origin of Homo sapiens also significant?

Well not really.

However, this study still has some pretty significant implications. For starters, the fact that it pushed the definite origin of our species into the modern/archaic grey area implies that either (a) there are some more definite modern fossils from this period we’re going to find or (b) the line between archaics and moderns is a lot more fluid than we thought. Either of which would drastically reframe how we view our species’ origin.

Further, it could help us find any of those potential extra fossils. The mtDNA used in this study came from regions of Central and South Africa that haven’t been investigated as thoroughly as other locales (Idaltu, for example, came from East Africa). Could this guide the investigations that ultimately lead to the discovery of the first Homo sapien?

In short, this research may lead to our origins being pushed back slightly; but that isn’t important. What is important is how this could help reveal how all the messy evolution in Africa is connected. And I hope it does because trying to learn it all is a pain.

Reference

Chan EKF, Hardie R-A, Petersen DC, Beeson K, Bornman RMS, et al. (2015) Revised Timeline and Distribution of the Earliest Diverged Human Maternal Lineages in Southern Africa. PLoS ONE 10(3): e0121223. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0121223

Related Articles

8 thoughts on “Genetics pushes back the origin of Homo sapiens”

    1. Adam Benton says:

      If there’s such a thing as a blog post with multiple personality disorder; that was it

      1. Ashley Haworth-roberts says:

        I don’t fully understand your reply. On the face of it you seem to be disagreeing with Jimpithecus. But I assume you are referring to the Answers in Genesis piece that he was critiquing.

  1. Marcel Williams says:

    Anyone who takes any molecular clock date seriously is fooling themselves:-)

  2. Andre says:

    I am rather hesitant in writing the following. in posing this question, as at present, it is rather theoretical, but from personal experience it seems relevant as I live in southern Africa.

    The reconstructed facial features of the idaltu fossil above, is not an uncommon facial
    feature where I live. If this scull “format” already existed approx 200,000 years ago, how long before that would/could the development of these features have been distinctive (in
    fossils we have not found yet) ? This, taking into consideration that these features have
    altered very little in the last 200,000 years. If I am correct, what are the universal implications ?

    Secondly, I read somewhere ( think it was in a course by Dr John Hawks ) I did via the net,
    that the latest fossil finds of Homo Erectus in East Africa were dated at 500,000 ago. It impressed me as I had come to understand that Erectus had “disappeared” in Europe
    between 800,000 and 1,2 million years ago as the Neanderthals developed and moved in.
    If the latest dated Ererctus is 500,000 years ago, one could presume that Erectus survived even later? The latest dated find obviously does not mean that that was the last
    Erectus living. Simultaneously, the earliest evidence of Homo Sapiens does not mean it was the first of them to live.

    Actual question then is, could these two have crossed paths ? Could they possibly have
    inter bred like the Neanderthals and Sapiens ? That then, if I remember correctly that
    I had heard or read that the latest discovery of Erectus was at 500,000 years ago.

  3. Pingback: Discovery of Homo naledi demonstrates need to revise the Homo genus | The Human Evolution Blog
  4. Trackback: Discovery of Homo naledi demonstrates need to revise the Homo genus | The Human Evolution Blog
  5. Pingback: New Human Ancestor Highlights Problems with Homo
  6. Trackback: New Human Ancestor Highlights Problems with Homo
  7. Pingback: What did Neanderthals sound like? - Human evolution weekly update (3/4/15) - EvoAnth
  8. Trackback: What did Neanderthals sound like? - Human evolution weekly update (3/4/15) - EvoAnth

Leave your filthy monkey comments here.

More in Evolution of our body
Does Jesus save Neanderthals? And more – Human evolution weekly update (27/03/15)

Been rigerously reading all the latest research on human evolution? No? Don't worry, here's the human evolution weekly update to...

Close