Longer time scale for human evolution

Hawks, John

doi:10.1073/pnas.1212718109

Cited by 16 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 21 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Thus the finding that de novo estimates were a factor of two lower than this prompted considerable debate [34]. For some events, such as the speciation of humans and chimpanzees, a higher rate had been increasingly difficult to reconcile with fossil and archaeological data, and a lower value (implying older date estimates) mostly improved concordance [35,36]. However for more ancient events a longer timescale was problematic, and to a large extent remains so still.…”

Section: Mutation Rates In Great Ape Evolutionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The mutation rate in human evolution and demographic inference

Scally

2016

Current Opinion in Genetics & Development

105

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The germline mutation rate has long been a major source of uncertainty in human evolutionary and demographic analyses based on genetic data, but estimates have improved substantially in recent years. I discuss our current knowledge of the mutation rate in humans and the underlying biological factors affecting it, which include generation time, parental age and other developmental and reproductive timescales. There is good evidence for a slowdown in mean mutation rate during great ape evolution, but not for a more recent change within the timescale of human genetic diversity. Hence, pending evidence to the contrary, it is reasonable to use a present-day rate of approximately 0.5×10bpyear in all human or hominin demographic analyses.

show abstract

Section: Mutation Rates In Great Ape Evolutionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The mutation rate in human evolution and demographic inference

Scally

2016

Current Opinion in Genetics & Development

105

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Estimates have been on the order of 170–700 kya for the Denisovan-modern human population split (Meyer et al, 2012) and 270–440 kya for the Neandertal-modern human split (Green et al, 2010), but recent reassessments of mutation rates suggest, e.g., 420 to 780 k for the latter (Hawks, 2012). …”

Section: The Similarities and Differences Between Neandertals And Modmentioning

confidence: 99%

On the antiquity of language: the reinterpretation of Neandertal linguistic capacities and its consequences

Dediu¹,

Levinson²

2013

Front. Psychol.

257

182

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

It is usually assumed that modern language is a recent phenomenon, coinciding with the emergence of modern humans themselves. Many assume as well that this is the result of a single, sudden mutation giving rise to the full “modern package.” However, we argue here that recognizably modern language is likely an ancient feature of our genus pre-dating at least the common ancestor of modern humans and Neandertals about half a million years ago. To this end, we adduce a broad range of evidence from linguistics, genetics, paleontology, and archaeology clearly suggesting that Neandertals shared with us something like modern speech and language. This reassessment of the antiquity of modern language, from the usually quoted 50,000–100,000 years to half a million years, has profound consequences for our understanding of our own evolution in general and especially for the sciences of speech and language. As such, it argues against a saltationist scenario for the evolution of language, and toward a gradual process of culture-gene co-evolution extending to the present day. Another consequence is that the present-day linguistic diversity might better reflect the properties of the design space for language and not just the vagaries of history, and could also contain traces of the languages spoken by other human forms such as the Neandertals.

show abstract

“…Taken at face value, a lower mutation rate has profound implications for timing key events in human history, as more time will be required for the observed number of mutations to occur [2,11]. For example, the degree of genetic divergence or allele sharing that exists between currently living humans of African versus non-African ancestry can be used to infer when humans dispersed out of Africa [12,13].…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%