> Melanesians were found to have a mysterious third archaic Homo species along with their Denisovan (3–4%) and Neanderthal (2%) ancestors in a genetic admixture with their otherwise modern Homo sapiens sapiens genomes.
Are you saying the divergence couldn't have been that great if there was some level of interbreeding, or are you saying something else? "Derive" seems like a strong word in this case, considering the low single-digit percentage of denisovan DNA in any modern humans.
It's amazing and exciting that we know so little about a human lineage that contributed a measurable amount of DNA back to us hundreds of thousands of years after our lineages diverged.
There is a really fascinating (IMHO) podcast about the use of modern DNA analysis and the insights into ancient populations on the After-On podcast with David Reich
https://after-on.com/episodes-31-60/034
Up until podcast, I didnt even know there was a branch called Denisovans. Although not generally a big interest of mine, I found it interesting enough to read Reich's book which was a fascinating detective story and a very new view onto ancient history.
> Please don't insinuate that someone hasn't read an article. "Did you even read the article? It mentions that" can be shortened to "The article mentions that."
Gentle reminder of this HN Guideline, which I find helpful for civil discourse. It's easy to miss something in the middle of an article.
Re: the OP's question, while the article does confirm it was found by DNA analysis, I also find it surprising that DNA can be extracted at 500k+ years. I'm curious if there are any experts on it that could chime in here on what modern limits are for that type of stuff.
> when they had the question in mind before they even read the thing.
I don't think you can assume that. I think a fair number of people could read the article and then afterward realize they don't know how it was confirmed.
