 |
| Charles Darwin |
You may remember, if you have been following this blog for
that long, that in an unidentified (because I can’t find it) post I alluded to
that great Darwinian event when our ancestors split the sheets with our
non-homo sapiens forbearers and climbed out of the arboreal-sphere (I love to
make up new words) and began the arduous journey to the top of the food
chain. If you do, great. If you don’t, good luck trying to find it
because I can’t. But I digress.
For a long time, but to no avail, I have been expounding the
theory that man (you know, us) did not generate from a single common
ancestor. I offer proof: Have you been to
the zoo? Did you visit the primate
exhibits? Did it dawn on you (as it did
me) that aside from age related differences in size and hair color that all the
members of a single species looked pretty much the same? Oh sure, there are some distinguishing
features if you care to spend the time and effort to discover them. But not to the extent that we humans seem to
offer. Think about it. When was the last time you attended a social
function populated mostly by persons unknown to you? The second thing you did was start a mental
catalogue of those around you based on differences in physical
attractiveness. The very first thing you
did was head to the bar to start the process of peeling back the social
inhibitions. Am I right?
Oh you may challenge my hypothesis by returning, “Dale, all species
engage it a mating selection criteria process.”
And they do: Chiefly, if the female is in season, the alpha male will
render her the lucky girl of the day. But I digress.
To the observant, people have wide and varied physical characteristics,
so varied that it seems we are not of one species, but several. After years of being viewed askance when I
offer my theory, sometimes shunned, I now have some support for my intellectual
meanderings. On March 18, 2016 (hot off
the presses, boys), William Dunham of Reuters News Service writes:
Our species, Homo sapiens, has a more adventurous sexual
history than previously realized, and all that bed hopping long ago has left an
indelible mark on the human genome.
Scientists said on Friday an analysis of genetic information
on 1,500 people from locations around the world indicated at least four
interbreeding episodes tens of thousands of years ago, three with our closes
cousins the Neanderthals and one with the mysterious extinct human species
known as Denisovans.
 |
| Neanderthal |
I will not go into the depth of the article, but the crux is
that about 100,000 years ago, our supposed ancestors were playing fast and
loose with the old DNA swap with at least three other species that now are part of
our genetic makeup; Neanderthal, Denisovans and one yet unidentified. What I find interesting is that neither
Neanderthals or Denisovans genetic identifiers occur in African peoples. That’s because neither species ever made a
presence there. So then, where did they
come from? Well, Denisovans discovered
in just the past decade are known from only a pinky finger bone and two teeth from
a northern Siberian cave. You think
about the implications for Afro-centrism.
It seems to me there are some big holes in the
anthropological record… and I’m just the armchair explorer to guess what they
might reveal until some bona fide scientist proves me wrong. Next week, the future of sex, I hope. More about that later.
So what you are saying is, that our ancestor Homo sapien probably found some fermented fruit that peeled away his inhibitions and he set a pretty low bar for his nightly companion?
ReplyDeleteBartender, another round here… on my buddy Dale!