E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSS
Erik Trinkaus/WUSTL
Human skull fossils (inset) found at the Xujiayao site in China (background) show signs of a genetic disorder that hints at inbreeding.
By Tanya Lewis, LiveScience
Inbreeding may have been a common practice among early human ancestors, fossils show.
The evidence comes from fragments of an approximately 100,000-year-old human skull unearthed at a site called Xujiayao, located in the Nihewan Basin of northern China. The skull's owner appears to have had a now-rare congenital deformity that probably arose through inbreeding, researchers report March 18 in the journal PLOS ONE.
The fossil, now dubbed Xujiayao 11, is just one of many examples of ancient human remains that display rare or unknown congenital abnormalities, according to the researchers. "These populations were probably relatively isolated, very small and, as a consequence, fairly inbred," study leader Erik Trinkhaus, an anthropologist at Washington University in St. Louis, told LiveScience.
The human skull fossil has a hole at its top, a disorder known as an "enlarged parietal foramen," which matches a modern human condition of the same name caused by a rare genetic mutation. The genetic abnormalities obstruct bone formation by preventing small holes in the prenatal braincase from closing, a process that normally occurs within the first five months of the fetus' development. Today, these mutations are rare, occurring in only about one of every 25,000 human births. [The 9 Most Bizarre Medical Conditions]
The skull appears to be from an individual who lived into middle age, indicating the abnormality was not lethal. The skull deformity can sometimes lead to cognitive deficits, but the age of the individual suggests any deficits probably would have been minor, Trinkhaus said.
The skulls of humans from the Pleistocene epoch (roughly 2.6 million to 12,000 years ago) show an unusually high occurrence of genetic abnormalities like this skull-hole deformity, the researchers found. Scientists have seen these abnormalities in fossils from the time of early Homo erectus to the end of the early Stone Age.
Such a high frequency of genetic abnormalities in the fossil record "reinforces the idea that during much of this period of human evolution, human populations were very small" and, consequently, likely inbred, Trinkhaus said.
Still, "it remains unclear, and probably un-testable, to what extent these populations were inbred," the researchers noted in their study.
Yet if such small, inbred populations did exist, it would invalidate many of the genetic inferences about when humans split off from the tree of life, Trinkhaus said, because these inferences assume large, stable populations.
Follow Tanya Lewis @tanyalewis314. Follow us @livescience, Facebook or Google+. Original article on LiveScience.com
- Image Gallery: Our Closest Human Ancestor
- In Photos: 'Alien' Skulls Reveal Odd, Ancient Tradition
- Top 10 Mysteries of the First Humans
Copyright 2013 LiveScience, a TechMediaNetwork company. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
Leave a Comment:
I guess this proves that if you want to mess around with your cousin, you've got a hole in your head...
Don't the first members of a species HAVE TO be inbred?
That's a good question. Populations that become new species are usually relatively small, but as long as it has a few hundred individuals and expands rapidly then no significant inbreeding occurs.
I would have to figure that, in anything remotely as complex as humans, by the time the species has really speciated, there's been plenty of time and opportunity for the genes that cause the mutation to have been passed around to quite a few individuals, all of whom won't necessarily be closely related.
Jock/Doug, similar to the "Founder Effect" -a VERY small number of immigrants into a new (and Isolated area) giving rise to larger populations later on. Think Iceland as an example -they have to keep lists to avoid inbreeding. -joe
joe, right. And these skulls were supposedly from an isolated area. Plus I suppose we've all had a cousin or two that we thought was doable - so it's easy to relate!
In Northern Indiana Amish population there seems to be a more then normal number of young children that have suddle to major health issues. Many trips to major hospitals, and hospital beds in Amish homes. Some Amish are even allowed electricity in the home to operate the equipment needed to keep these children alive. And yes amoung the Amish everybody seems to be related to everybody. Add to that the large number of families and you can't help but get more health issues popping up. They have to have records of some sort like Iceland i would hope to at least keep some deformaties from showing there ugly head.
Anytime you see the words "PLOS-ONE" you need to put on your sceptical cap. PLOS-ONE is a pseudo-scientific pseudo-journal where the "scientist" pays a large fee to join PLOS and then pays around $1350 to have his "groundbreaking" paper published. The publication comes with free pseudo peer-review. This "journal" essentially publishes junk science that does not meet the editorial standards of a reputable journal. It uses a "no-fault" peer review system that guarantees that no article will be rejected, no matter how bizarre it is. PLOS-ONE publishes about 70% of all submissions compared to around 15% for a reputable journal.
In other words, don't count on accuracy, scientific rigor, real peer-review or anything to take to the bank when the citation reads PLOS-ONE. In fact, citing PLOS-ONE is a good way to get a paper rejected by a high school teacher, a professor, or a thesis committee. Such a citation casts a pall of doubt over an entire paper and it's not worth the risk.
Personally, I have no problem at all with the competence of this study (and resulting analysis). While PLOS-ONE is by no means the last word on anything (personally I would never think of quoting it alone), PLOS-ONE is still a very good entry point for higher scientific peer review, and should NEVER be summarily dismissed or discarded, certainly not by the public at large. - RC
Specifically, if you were to cite PLOS-ONE academically, then (for the most part) it would only be for the purpose of assigning proper credit for any ensuing R&D. - RC
Chris-you blow my mind about every day, I truly enjoy your posts. Thanks. Anyway if they want to study in-breeding they should head to a Hutterite Brethren colony. In their phone book they only have to list first names.
Inbreeding, circa 2013 A.D.
Inbreeding is what right-wingers still do-- in abundance. Most opinions say they are a proudly backwards species.
The 3 states for most incest are: 1-Utah, 2-Alaska, 3-West Virginia. All red states.
Kissin' cousins, y'all?
Cretins can rule and reproduce, e.g. the Bush family.
It seems to run rampet on the streets of Chicago and Detriot too. Way to many little future check receivers if you ask me. And with all the Liberal abortions, i guess will never know how high the incest rate is in urban America will we, CDJ? Give us those facts, as you seem to know just how to turn the wheel of hate!! Very nice post. Keep it up!! We know you can not be trusted on anything you comment on from now on!!
Oh sweater209,
Docha know Liberals will screw across racial and economic lines in a heartbeat, whilest the Cons
tend to be arse-smellers (to make shure that their empregnee is jest rite) , eh? LMAO sucker. -joe
Liberals are the ones that inbreed, they have no hangups about any combinations of sexual partners. For instance one well known liberal has screwed millions without their knowledge, his name is Barak Hussein Obama and he has many aliases,Barry Soeto being one of them. He has used multiple Social Security numbers. And he has become quite wealthy through several liberal foundations. You may not even know you have been screwed by him, most liberals don't have a clue. The offspring from this sexual act will be very loyal to the father figure especially in poverty which has risen so fast it is immeasurable. Proceed with caution as they will attack any threat to their lifestyle en mass. Chicago was the biggest benefactor of his philosophy, and now Washington and complete states like californication and penisavanila and don't forget Ohelliho . Most opinions that count say backwardness would be an improvement.
Political spin in a science article. Nice work troll. Flagged no value.
" ....are the ones that inbreed, they have no hangups about any combinations of sexual partners."
Whelp Rilly, 'spect that you didn't "read" what it twas you typed, cause the two concepts in the sentence are at the opposite ends of their spectrum, Eh Bubba?
2nd the Troll Work, -disagree w/Greg though. It's PISS-POOR quality! -jeb
So early humans lived mainly in what is now rural NC and Appalachia? Want to piss off a redneck? Ask him/her "If you get a divorce , is she still your sister/brother?"
If you think this is interesting, just wait until future archeologists look at the fossilized skulls from present day West Virgina or Alabama...
------------------------------------
AD 210650: A science team studying the fossilized remains from an ancient culture have identified a new and primitive form of human. Despite the huge mandible, the proto-humans apparently possessed only 1 huge incisor, a single malformed canine tooth and 2 molars as well as a cranial structure which appears to have atrophied through disuse.
Artifacts recovered at the site indicate that primitive ballistic weapons were worshiped and researchers had difficulty prying the fossilized bones of the hand from the metallic tubes.
Also found at the site were the remains of their habitations, which consisted almost exclusively of regularly spaced arrays of rectagular wood-framed aluminum boxes surrounded by mounds of scrap metals. Cultural archeologists theorize that the size of the scrap metal heap was a reflection of wealth as those with the largest collections also contained the highest concentrations of fossilized canine remains.
Inbreeding is common in most species that don't disperse widely. Humans are animals, as are all mammals, though most people are offended by the idea that we are not a form of some higher godlike being. The concept of sex causing babies was not accepted or even conceived of until very recently in human history. The stealing & selling of females was widely practiced by humans world wide & in many cultures, particularly in the mid east & Africa, still is. This helped reduce the instances of inbreeding & encouraged improvements created by causing genetic diversity.
I always thought it must be someone earlier in evolution who figured out about sex causing babies. Neanderthals are supposed to have had good tool use. But we'll never know, I doubt we'll ever clone any kind of cave-man. And even if we did, they would get their education from us, not from fellow cave-men.
Wallace, in lab mice, given a choice between inbred and outbred (wild type) females in estrus, males prefer the outbred females. Was found to be H2 Haplotype related, I believe. -joe
That depends on what you mean by "recently". We've known where babies come from for quite a while.
Most Native American Indian tribes have strict taboos against in breeding Wallace you forgot them.
Behavior modernity in humans probably didn't develop until about 50,000 years ago, and that's about the time language probably developed as well. It's doubtful that, 100,000 years ago, humans had much of any concept of "family" or "related" other than the most rudimentary understanding. You wouldn't have necessarily had to have very small populations to see inbreeding occurring.
Okay so when did the Banjo thing start?
This article is junk science at its best, just like all the rest. Real empirical science denies every tenant of evolution. No evidence exists for evolution, only fairy tale stories made up to display the ignorance of evolutionists, many of whom have given up and admitted it to be a sham. Evolution is dead and never happened in spite of all the money paid out for supposed research and covered up hard evidence to the contrary. The proponents of evolution have given up except in search of more money for 'research'. They have lied to school children and the press and it continues to crank out lies and distortions. No hard evidence, fake pictures and 'family' trees and denial of everything that proves them wrong. Time to get a life and realize they are all liars or at least willingly misled by others. It is hard to admit you are wrong if you are an evolutionist or journalist who depends on lies for a living. Follow the money, not the evidence, is the mantra of an evolutionist. (Check out evolution-facts.org) I am reading their condensed paperback and it makes way more sense than all the stupid fiction of so-called scientists that call themselves 'evolutionists'. The truth hurts, but it is a good hurt. Nothing explains the development of the human brain or the fact that ancient man was more intelligent than modern man, except the Bible history and recorded human history. Evolution is only conjecture without any basis in actual fact. Check it out and you may discern the truth, but many will not, for they have been trained to believe otherwise by the educational system to keep the money flowing. A former science teacher, retired, and smarter than ever. Fragments of bone and conjecture do not make science true. Hard evidence says other wise.
What a lair. No I won't even call you ignorant. Evolution theory is fact. It is observable and repeatable. It is over 150 years and not one time has it been refuted.
Mitteemo you need to close yourself back into you cult building (church) and stay there.
Mitto, you're saying that you don't self identify as a Great Ape ?
Humm, must be in the talking Equus asinus grouping! -joe
Maine is the most inbred State in the US, look it up... And the Bush family is originally from which State???
Greg, I am a lot kinder to you than you are to me. I have looked at both sides and come down on the side of creation against evolution.
I am not attacking you, only the false belief in evolution.
As a Christian I cannot accept evolution which only brings out the worst in mankind. God has a better plan and He is Jesus.
150 years after Darwin, there is no proof of species change.
No scientists can recreate any form of life, only dead chemicals in a test tube that cannot reproduce.
The fossils are a jumbled mess, just what you expect of a catastrophic flood. Currently living species are found buried below species which evolution say should have been developed first.
Radiometric dating is a unreliable and if it varying reading
Remember Adolf Hitler and others who wanted to produce a 'master race' and failed using Darwin as an excuse? Not a good thing.
<evolution-facts.org> You may keep the same opinion, but at least you will have more to go on. Have a good day and I do wish you well.
The only part you go right was we haven't created life yet. We has synthesized it created it like your thinking no. The rest is complete false but it doesn't matter because anyone with a 5th grade education will see it for what it is.
I'm sorry reality hurts but you need to grow up now.
Mittoruminy,
are you old -and worried about snuffing it soon, or just a deacon with a vested interest in the fleecing of the sheeples?
"God has a better plan and He is Jesus."
And your proof -is a book that is the ABSOLUTE TRVTH, because IT says that it IS ??? WTF!
Snakes and jackasses speak, Bats are birds, gawd is genocidal MoFo -who can't make up his own minds because he is a plurality of gawds, and he shaggs the female gawdesses, -the list goes on and on.
Try some critical READING of your wholey babble, -it makes as much sense as the Greek Fables the Norse Mythology, the Hindu Veddas.
All any of them REQUIRE is
FAITH(GULLIBILTY).But then it wont make ANY difference to you, simply because YOU don't GIVE a RAT'S ASS if what you believe is TRUE or NOT . -joe