What I'm wondering is if there were humans from 10,000 years ago or 100,000 years ago, could we still mate with them, or would the genetic differences be too much? I know that no one will really know the answer, but I want to hear why you think. Lots of people in the US think that Evolution thinks speices just kind of popped into existance, like a female fish had an amphibian baby or a monkey had a human, but it's really very gradual.
2006-10-07 14:06:50 · 11 answers · asked by Anonymous in Science & Mathematics ➔ Biology
You're right, we don't know for sure, but humans (Homo sapiens) could probably mate successfully with our earliest ancestors. In fact, there's a reasonable possibility that we could also mate with our presumably ancestral species (Homo erectus). The concept of "species" doesn't have a definite boundary: one species doesn't suddenly give birth to another. The changes accumulate over time, so there is no clear dividing line between ancestral and descendant species; it can only be defined (arbitrarily) after it's happened.
The latest evidence is that we couldn't have mated with Neanderthals, but I don't believe it's been firmly resolved one way or the other.
And why are people who answer in ALL CAPITAL LETTERS totally brain dead?
2006-10-07 14:28:49 · answer #1 · answered by stevewbcanada 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Wow, that is a great question, one of the most interesting I've seen here in a while.
Um, it depends on what stage of the evolutionary track we are at at that particular time.
For instance, I'm sure I could go back in time and mate with someone 3000, even 10,000 years ago and the kid might have anomolies of various kinds, but still turn out "normal" I suppose, probably a lot shorter, but normal.
But if we go back tens of thousands, now, I don't know. there might be weird genetic defects that end up in many miscarriages and if one was born, it may have some strange deformities, or then again, it could be completely normal but as it gets older strange things start popping up.
This might have something to do with our immune system that we have now.
It is very complex, we have lived in an industrialized world now for a long time,
so we have no clue what the kind of immunity this child would have or brain function for that matter,
Also, the personality may be very very off.
I don't know exactly how of course,
but we know that our genes go deeper than what we look like,
even our personalities are manifestations of generations of maturing gene pools.
It may also make a difference what part of the evolutionary stage the human was at depending on the region of earth they are in at that time, what kind of product would come of mating.
Very interesting thought.
2006-10-07 21:09:13 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
Well this has many different ways of being answered
If you believe in something greater than evolution then the answer is yes.
Evolutionary based I would also say yes. The reason for this is that the scientific definition for a species is a population that is capable of reproduction. My science teacher this semester (college biology 2) said it best, They can reproduce but aren't able to because of enviroment. I think if we went back that many years they could or else they would be diferent species.
2006-10-07 21:58:40 · answer #3 · answered by i_luv_vball21 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
As far as I have read: 100, 000 is not too far. "Modern" humans have been around for at least 150, 000 years - maybe a good bit longer.
Some very interesting discussion - a good thought provoking question. Indeed,how different are we? How much have we changed? Have we changed? How?
Inquiring minds want to know!
;-)
2006-10-08 01:17:13 · answer #4 · answered by WikiJo 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
There's no real way to know, but consider this: the Australian Aborigines were isolated in Australia and neighboring islands for 40-50,000 years. They are as physically different from other humans as you can find, but they can have babies with people from other races with absolutely no problems. (Aside from social problems--see the movie Rabbit-Proof Fence)
2006-10-07 21:19:11 · answer #5 · answered by Pseudo Obscure 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Perhaps as far as one hundred thousand years ago. Rather hard to raise above the level of conjecture, though. I suspect there has been comparisons made, genetically, but I know nothing of it.
2006-10-07 21:14:19 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
We have been homo sapiens sapiens for about 40,000 years, so 10,000 is no problem. At 100,000 you may start to have problems. I wonder if maybe we could have sterile offspring like some close species can have (lion/tiger, horse/donkey).
2006-10-07 21:13:04 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
Everybody from cro-magnon on is the same species. There is some evidence that cro-magnon mated with Neanderthal also.
2006-10-07 21:10:06 · answer #8 · answered by The First Dragon 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
yes
2006-10-07 21:13:16 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
FOR ONE HONEY THE EARTH IS ONLY ABOUT 8 THOUSAND YEARS OLD AND IF THEY ARE HUMANS THEN IT WOULD BE POSSIBLE THERE ARE MANY NEW DISCOVERIES THAT PROVE THIS AND THERE ARE MANY THINGS THEY DO NOT TEACH IN SCHOOL FOR EXAMPLE ITALIAN SCIENTIST FRANSICO REDI(1626-1698) PROVED THAT ONLY LIVING THINGS CAN PRODUCE LIVING THINGS CHECK IT OUT THEN 200 YEARS LATER FRENCH SCIENTIST LOUISPASTUER PROVED THAT SPONTANEOUS GENERATION DOES NOT OCCUR LOOK UP DR. INGALLS, ALBERT
2006-10-07 21:24:04 · answer #10 · answered by jk poet 4 · 0⤊ 7⤋