The Horny Human’s Siberian Adventure: An Evolutionary Tale of Anthropological Proportions

Let me set the mood for you: you’re an anatomically modern human living in mountains of Siberia. The year is circa 80,000 BC. Siberia is cold this time of year (okay, let’s get real, it’s always cold in Siberia). You’re in the midst of the last great ice age and you’ve taken up residence in a small cave. You’re happy and healthy, you just finished your dinner of Saber-toothed cat stew and you have the fur of that wooly mammoth you skinned to keep you warm. Just as you’re about to go to sleep, a particularly strong gust of wind blows by and a stranger takes shelter in your cave. But this is no ordinary stranger, this is a brown-eyed, brown-haired, dark-skinned Denisovan, an ancient hominid species distinct from humans. You think of killing the Denisovan at first, but you reconsider. After all, you’re lonely and you have needs. So you get freaky.

Okay, you caught me, that story is fictional. But how fictional is it? As it turns out, not very. In fact, we now know that humans have mated with other hominid species multiple times in their history. For example, in 2010, scientists working in the Pääbo lab at the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology in Germany sequenced DNA extracted from Neanderthal fossils and compared the sequences to those of modern day humans. What they discovered was startling: at some point in time, humans and Neanderthals interbred. By comparing the genomes of Neanderthals to various modern day human groups, scientists were able to determine that Neanderthals were more similar genetically to non-Africans than to Africans, suggesting that early humans in Europe and Asia mated with Neanderthals, while Africans did not. So what does this mean for you, the 21st century hominid? It all boils down to this: you’re not as human as you thought you were. In fact, if you have any European or Asian ancestry in you (that is, if you’re not 100% African), you are likely 1-4% less human than you thought you were. But wait, there’s more. You may be even less human than that.

Mere months after the Pääbo lab published their findings on Neanderthal DNA, they stumbled upon another find in the form of a fossilized distal manual phalanx and two molars in Denisova Cave in the Altai Mountains of Siberia. Through genetic analysis of nuclear DNA found in the fossils, Pääbo’s team was able to determine that they belonged to a previously undiscovered species of hominid. This species has come to be known as Denisova hominid, or Denisovans. Upon discovering this new species, Pääbo’s team set out to sequence the Denisovan genome from DNA extracted from the distal manual phalanx (fingertip) fossil. If this sounds ridiculous (isolating ancient DNA from a fossilized finger), it’s because it is. It is absolute craziness to me that this technology exists, but it does. I know, I know, it’s friggin’ awesome…but I digress.  Back to fossil DNA.

Through the development of radical new methods that are capable of sequencing 99% of the nucleotides in the genome over 10 times each, Pääbo and his team were able to unmask the Denisovan genome to an incredibly high degree of precision. So what did they find? They found that humans and Denisovans got it on (or to put it more scientifically, went through an admixture event). But unlike Neanderthals, they didn’t get it on quite as frequently, which means that unless you are Chinese or a Papua New Guinean, you probably aren’t very Denisovan. Denisovan DNA was found in trace amounts in the Han and Dai cultures on mainland China and in 3% of the genome of Papua New Guineans. The Denisovan DNA also gave scientists insight into what the species may have looked like. Denisovans likely had brown hair, dark skin, and brown eyes and probably existed in small population numbers with low genetic diversity. Denisovans were likely driven to extinction by modern humans some tens of thousands of years ago, but thanks to some horny Papua New Guineans, their genes live on.

 

Article Sources:

A. Gibbons, A crystal-clear view of an extinct girl’s genome. Science 337, 1028 (2012).

M. Meyer et al., A high-coverage genome sequence from an archaic Denisovan individual. Sciencexpress (30 August 2012).

R. E. Green et al., A draft sequence of the Neanderthal genome. Science 328, 710 (2010).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pleistocene

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denisova_Cave

Leave a comment

Your journey starts here! Let’s talk!

ThemeRex © 2026. All rights reserved.
  Timothy Durham was convicted of rape when a test showed his DNA genotype matched the DNA recovered from the crime scene. Eye witnesses testified that Durham was in a different state at the time of the incident, but he wasn’t exonerated from his 3000 year sentence until follow up DNA analysis showed that the preliminary forensic analysis used in the trial was misinterpreted (Thomas et al.). DNA testing serves an invaluable part in our criminal justice system, but it comes with complications and bias that can lead to wrongful convictions and misinformed juries.  

Background:

Forensic genetics aims to identify the origin of a biological sample. It can be traced back to Karl Landsteiner who discovered human ABO blood groups. With blood groups, suspects could be eliminated based on their blood type. For example, if a suspect had type A blood and there was type B blood left at the scene by the perpetrator, the investigators could rule out the suspect. Unfortunately, the reverse didn’t work. If the suspect and perpetrator both had the same blood type, it can’t be concluded that the suspect was guilty. Blood identifiers evolved into 8 distinct categories which improved the ability to eliminate suspects, but could only conclude that (if the system matched) it might be the perpetrator or this person might be related to the perpetrator (Jobling and Gill). The field evolved in the 1980s with the discovery of Minisatellites, lines of repetitive DNA that don’t encode proteins. Minisatellite patterns in DNA create what we know today as the DNA fingerprint, and it has a much higher accuracy rate than previous methods (Augustyn et al.). Around the same time, a breakthrough for victims of sexual assault was discovered. In the case of assault, bodily fluids of both the victim and the assaulter can get mixed. A process called differential lysis was created which could selectively increase the concentration of sperm in a fluid sample thereby allowing for accurate DNA testing (Jobling and Gill). Forensics evolved to use single-locus probe testing after several years because of its ease of interpretation. It looked at specific minisatellites that had high variability between subjects. This was the first DNA-based method to be used in a criminal investigation. Two murder homicides from several years apart were connected using DNA evidence. The evidence was then used to exonerate an innocent man, and the guilty party was found when he tried to evade mandatory DNA testing for all men in the small town. His guilt was then reinforced when the DNA profiles matched, and he gave a confession (Jobling and Gill). Finding DNA at a crime scene doesn’t guarantee that you’ll find a murderer. There are issues with non-pure samples and limited samples that make DNA work difficult, and accreditation of facilities and new techniques and take time (Jobling and Gill).  

Subjectivity of DNA Interpretation:

In a 2009 publication, the National Academy of Science discusses the possibility for subjective influence in lab based forensics. The interpretation bias happens in complex cases where, for example, there could be a mixture of DNA. A study published in 2011 looked specifically at this issue. A gang rape happened in Georgia, and the mixture in DNA from the case was used to prosecute one suspect after another suspect took a plea bargain to testify against him. With DNA mixtures, there are three possible conclusions: suspect excluded, suspect cannot be excluded, and inconclusive. If the suspect is excluded, it means that there’s little to no possibility that his DNA is part of the sample. If the suspect cannot be excluded, it means that there’s a possibility that his DNA is part of the sample. In the trial, the DNA examiners who knew the context of the case concluded that the suspect being prosecuted could not be excluded. The 2011 study gave the DNA evidence from this case and the DNA profiles of the suspects to 17 forensic examiners. These examiners had no context of the case, and they all worked independently. Of the 17, only 1 came to the same conclusion (suspect cannot be excluded) as the examiners who knew the context of the case. Twelve of the 17 concluded that the suspect who was prosecuted and convicted had no relation to the DNA found in the sample. Not only does this show that subjectivity occurs due to the context of the case, but the 17 examiners came up with different findings based on their past experiences meaning that not all DNA analysis is objective. Some organizations like the Scientific Working Group on DNA Analysis Methods say that quantitative statistical evidence should be presented with every categorical conclusion, but the US doesn’t require this (Dror and Hampikian).

False Positives:

There are two categories that cause wrongful identification in a DNA report: coincidental matches and false positives. Coincidental matches are DNA matches between two unrelated people. The probability of these matches is about 1 to 500,000 for white individuals and about 1 to 350,000 for black individuals. This small probability of coincidental matches makes people feel confident in DNA evidence. False positives, on the other hand, are matches between DNA and test DNA that result from issues in the forensics lab. There have been multiple cases of forensics labs accidentally switching victim and suspected rapist DNA which lead to convictions that were later overturned when the lab realized the error. There are also cases of misreading or misunderstanding a sample. In a case from 1993, a man was convicted of rape because someone interpreted a mixed sample of victim and perpetrator DNA as an individual sample. The conviction was again overturned. To prevent false convictions, retesting DNA is allowed, but it’s not an efficient solution. Many people are pushing for statistical information on the probability of false positives, so that the jurors can make accurate judgements based on DNA evidence (Thomas et al.).  

Conclusion:

DNA analysis is a useful tool for the criminal justice system, but subjectivity can be an issue in forensic testing. To combat wrongful convictions, there are organizations like The Innocence Project who use DNA testing to free the innocent, but reformed forensic testing standards should be put in place to prevent subjectivity and to ensure juries are correctly informed during trials. https://www.innocenceproject.org/    

Citation:

Augustyn , Adam, et al. “DNA Finerprinting.” Encyclopedia Britannica , 26 Apr. 2018, www.britannica.com/science/DNA-fingerprinting#ref153186. Dror, Itiel E., and Greg Hampikian. “Subjectivity and Bias in Forensic DNA Mixture Interpretation.” Science & Justice, vol. 51, no. 4, 2011, pp. 204–208., doi:10.1016/j.scijus.2011.08.004. Jobling, Mark A., and Peter Gill. “Encoded Evidence: DNA in Forensic Analysis.” Nature Reviews: Genetics, vol. 5, no. 10, Oct. 2004, pp. 739–751., doi:10.1038/nrg1455. Thompson, William C, et al. “How the Probability of a False Positive Affects the Value of DNA Evidence.” Journal of Forensic Sciences, vol. 48, no. 1, Jan. 2003, pp. 1–8., doi:10.1520/jfs2001171.