| Title |
Denisovans, Melanesians, Europeans, and Neandertals: The Confusion of DNA Assumptions and the Biological Species Concept
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of Molecular Evolution, August 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s00239-016-9755-7 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Niccolo Caldararo |
| Abstract |
A number of recent articles have appeared on the Denisova fossil remains and attempts to produce DNA sequences from them. One of these recently appeared in Science by Vernot et al. (Science 352:235-239, 2016). We would like to advance an alternative interpretation of the data presented. One concerns the problem of contamination/degradation of the determined DNA sequenced. Just as the publication of the first Neandertal sequence included an interpretation that argued that Neandertals had not contributed any genes to modern humans, the Denisovan interpretation has considerable influence on ideas regarding human evolution. The new papers, however, confuse established ideas concerning the nature of species, as well as the use of terms like premodern, Archaic Homo, and Homo heidelbergensis. Examination of these problems presents a solution by means of reinterpreting the results. Given the claims for gene transfer among a number of Mid Pleistocene hominids, it may be time to reexamine the idea of anagenesis in hominid evolution. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Japan | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Scientists | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 32 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 32 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 8 | 25% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 3 | 9% |
| Researcher | 3 | 9% |
| Other | 3 | 9% |
| Student > Master | 3 | 9% |
| Other | 6 | 19% |
| Unknown | 6 | 19% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 7 | 22% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 6 | 19% |
| Arts and Humanities | 4 | 13% |
| Environmental Science | 4 | 13% |
| Social Sciences | 4 | 13% |
| Other | 2 | 6% |
| Unknown | 5 | 16% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 16 August 2016.
All research outputs
#20,337,210
of 22,882,389 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Molecular Evolution
#1,377
of 1,441 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#311,454
of 355,875 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Molecular Evolution
#6
of 6 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,882,389 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,441 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.2. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 355,875 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 6 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.