Radical Anthropology

A key study of genetic variation in human populations in #Oceania, filling a major gap in representation in #genomics research.

Genes that ancient humans acquired after mating with extinct hominins continue to shape the biology, health, and survival of our species today.

(Err, we should also call Neanderthals and Denisovans human?)

https://news.yale.edu/2026/06/11/genomes-oceania-offer-new-clues-human-evolution

Genomes from Oceania offer new clues to human evolution

A Yale-led study of genomes from Near Oceania reveals a complex population history and evidence that DNA inherited from extinct hominins continues to influence human biology today.

Yale News
Jun 13 at 6:49pmWeb
Show threadRadical AnthropologyJun 13
Paper here
https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.adr6749
Show threadArchaeoIainJun 13
@RadicalAnthro I am going to look at this with a critical eye on the identification of nodes of "a different species" versus "a variable population". I am sure that part of the issue is about the fact that physical anthropologists used to have only a very small number of specimens widely scattered around the world (well, mostly from Europe) and defined species when they were really sampling ranges of variation.
Show threadRadical AnthropologyJun 14

@ArchaeoIain well 'morphology' vs 'genomes' are two different perspectives, this is genes.

I think they use 'archaic hominin' here to remove ambiguity. But it would be massively more appropriate to acknowledge human there.

Show threadArchaeoIainJun 14
@RadicalAnthro I (we) have been resistant to using "human" all the way back (a la Wolpoff) because "human" is not just about genes or genomes or morphology but principally about behaviour. And if we use it in the wrong context we risk having no questions to ask.