The Last of the Neanderthal
Neandro
between Europe and Africa across the zones of Gibraltar and Rif on the
one hand, and Calabria and Sicily on the other, at least since the end
of the Paleozoic, contradicting plate-tectonic claims of significant
displacement between Europe and Africa during this period.
By 6 million years ago, Spain and Africa collided, raising a mountain
barrier and sealing off the western end of the Mediterranean. River
inflow is not enough to maintain the level of the Mediterranean, which
dries out.
It is widely believed that H. erectus originally migrated from Africa
during the Early Pleistocene, around 2.0 million years ago, and
dispersed throughout most of the Old World, reaching as far as
Southeast Asia.
But there were already another race of H. erectus habitating Europe.
In fact they were lost ancestors, that got separated when both
continents ripped apart.
The Gibraltar Strait was now open and they couldn't migrate South to
Africa like they undoubtedly used to do when both continents wre
connected.
They were Neanderthals, and they had evolved adapting to the rough
environment. And so, they started to grow hair to fend off the cold,
and adapted to bush or jungle conditions, hence his shorter average
height.
Cro-Magnon evolved on open plains, hence his tallness, his long-
sightness, and right-handness.
No need for hair either, when living in warm climates.
A vey large portion of the Neanderthal population perished in
Poseidonis, an island about the size of Ireland, situated in the
Atlantic Ocean opposite the strait of Gibraltar, that sank in a major
cataclysm in 9565 BC.
Geologist Christian O'Brien believes that Poseidonis was a large mid-
Atlantic ridge island centred on the Azores, that had originally
measured 720 km across from east to west, and 480 km from north to
south, with high mountain ranges rising over 3660 metres above sea
level. Before or during its submergence, it tilted by about 0.4° with
the result that the south coast sank about 3355 metres but the north
coast only some 1830 metres. Only the mountain peaks remained above
the waters, and now form the ten islands of the Azores. O'Brien thinks
the island could have sunk within a period of a few years or even
months, and points out that six areas of hot spring fields (associated
with volcanic disturbances) are known in the mid-Atlantic ridge area,
and four of them lie in the Kane-Atlantis area close to the Azores.
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/dp5/sunken.htm
The rest of the European Neanderthals were wiped out in a relatively
short period of time. They vanished at exactly the same time that Cro-
Magnon started to colonize Europe, bringing along lethal sexual
transmitted diseases.
But the last ones that could interbred with the new-comers did pass on
their genes and produced hybrids that are today's Iberians.
And British...
People of Celtic ancestry were thought to have descended from tribes
of central Europe. Professor Sykes, who is soon to publish the first
DNA map of the British Isles, said: "About 6,000 years ago Iberians
developed ocean-going boats that enabled them to push up the Channel.
Before they arrived, there were some human inhabitants of Britain but
only a few thousand in number. These people were later subsumed into a
larger Celtic tribe... The majority of people in the British Isles are
actually descended from the Spanish."
If you look at History, you'll see that both countries, Spain and
Britain, have conquered about every corner of the world. Many would
argue that this is a symbol of lack of humanity, but the truth is that
500 years ago any country would have tried to expand their borders and
only the ones with available military force could do it. It happens
even in today's civilized world.
Although the main objective clearly was looting, both countries also
made an effort to export their beliefs to the conquered territories,
Spain in the form of religion, and Britain as cultural assets.
If two small nations like Spain and Britain had agreed to join their
forces, they would now control Planet Earth.
Instead they chose to fight each other.
Typically Neandertalish.
http://lasparanoias.blogspot.com/2006/10/last-of-neanderthal.html
spiznet
Yes this is exactly what I have been telling MV!?! That the dolphins
mated with the saucer-people and they all were living on Atlantis
after the submerging, this is where all the "clearly semi-aquatic"
traits come from. This Atlantean race may have been HE or it could
have been HN or even Cro-Magnon. Because the saucer-people were
cloning from the hominid/cetacean hybrids and they were adding in
there own genetic materials as well.
And if Spain and England had merged at the time of Elizabeth R, then
the reformation would never have happened and the world would be 100%
catholic today. What a missed oppurtonity!?!
Clearly the English are really Spanish, I am sure this is borne out by
the dna. Please give this guy a round of applause.
rmacfarl
>
> - Show quoted text -
This guy has got to be your sock puppet Spiz! C'mon, 'fess up - this
is just your way of pulling our chain... Surely?
RM :-)
Marc Verhaegen
>> It is widely believed that H. erectus originally migrated from Africa
>> during the Early Pleistocene, around 2.0 million years ago,
This "wide belief" (??) is based on nothing: the earliest Homo fossils come
from Mojokerto & Dmanisi. Both in Asia, c 1.8 Ma, the former in a marine
delta & the other also next to rich aquatic resources. The earliest
erectus-like fossils in Africa are less than 1.6 Ma.
>> and dispersed throughout most of the Old World, reaching as far as
>> Southeast Asia.
Yes. :-)
Marc Verhaegen
>>> It is widely believed that H. erectus originally migrated from Africa
>>> during the Early Pleistocene, around 2.0 million years ago, and
>>> dispersed throughout most of the Old World, reaching as far as
>>> Southeast Asia.
It's well possible that they came from SE.Asia & from there dispersed to the
rest of the Old World: as everybody knows, the earliest erectus-like people
are found in Java & Georgia 1.8 Ma. African erectus-like people (ergaster)
are about 200 ky younger.
Marc Verhaegen
Needless to say, these dispersals happened along the coasts & inland along
rivers & lakes: this explains why humans are 10 times fatter than chimps,
have the head & spine & legs on 1 line, have strongly reduced olfaction &
biting musculature etc.
http://allserv.rug.ac.be/~mvaneech/outthere.htm
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/AAT
Ali Bobo
I wonder whether there is any sientific evidence suporting the claim
that the majority of people in the British Isles are actually
descended from the Spanish?
http://lasparanoias.blogspot.com/2006/08/neanderthal-vs-cro-magnon.html
For whatever the reasons, the Neanderthals' last redoubt thus seems to
have been in Iberia, South and West of the Ebro. It is relevant here
that while in certain other regions, Neanderthals of the 36-33 kyr
period appear to have acquired some of the Cro-Magnons' behavioral
attributes by acculturation, there is no evidence for this happening
beyond the "Ebro line", where abrupt cultural replacement appears to
have been the rule.
The last of the Neanderthal that survived and interbred with the Cro-
Magnon did pass on their genes and produced hybrids that are today's
Iberians. And British ...
Up to recent times, people of Celtic ancestry were thought to have
descended from tribes of central Europe. Nothing further from the
truth.Professor Sykes, who is soon to publish the first DNA map of the
British Isles, said:
"About 6,000 years ago Iberians developed ocean-going boats that
enabled them to push up the Channel.
Before they arrived, there were some human inhabitants of Britain but
only a few thousand in number. These people were later subsumed into a
larger Celtic tribe...
The majority of people in the British Isles are actually descended
from the Spanish."
We're talking about DNA samples taken from 10,000 volunteers in
Britain and Ireland.
DNA don't lie, right?
Just asking ...
Dr. Cavortian
Last fall, James Watson, the father of DNA, spoke the unspeakable,
saying that blacks are intellectually inferior. In a conversation
with
The Root Editor-in-Chief Henry Louis Gates Jr., Watson clarified his
views about race and genetics. Read what he says now — and why Gates
regards him as "a racialist."
TheRoot.com
Updated: 2:07 PM ET May 30, 2008
June 2, 2008 -- James Watson has long assumed a certain special
status
among American scientists. The molecular biologist was awarded the
Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine in 1962, along with Francis
Crick and Maurice Wilkins, for, as the Swedish Academy put it in its
announcement for the prize, "their discoveries concerning the
molecular structure of nucleic acids and its significance for
information transfer in living material." Watson and his British
colleague Crick are remembered popularly for identifying the elegant
and unexpected "double helix" three-dimensional structure of
deoxyribonucleic acid, commonly known as DNA. Watson's important
contribution to this uncanny discovery was to define how the four
nucleotide bases that make up DNA—guanine (G), cytosine (C), adenine
(A) and thymine (T)—combine in pairs to form its structure. These
base
pairs turn out to be the key to both the structure of DNA and its
various functions. In other words, Watson identified the language and
the code by which we understand and talk about our genetic makeup.
I have been among those who have long held Watson in high regard for
several reasons. First of all, the discovery of DNA's three-
dimensional structure was counterintuitive; it was an ingenious act
of
deduction, using models made of cardboard and paste with an exacto
knife and a straight edge. How Watson and Crick, working at the
Cavendish Laboratory at the University of Cambridge, became the first
scientists to identify this elusive structure is the stuff of drama,
especially when we recall that Watson was just 25 years old when he
and Crick published their findings in the journal Nature on April 25,
1953.
Though Watson would tell me during our recent interview that he had a
rather low IQ, as proof that IQ tests aren't really that important,
he
enrolled at the University of Chicago when he was merely 15 and
earned
his B.S. in zoology there in 1947 at the age of 19 and a Ph.D. in
zoology from Indiana University at age 22. He was 34 when he won the
Nobel Prize. Not too shabby for a guy with a "low" IQ.
Watson's youth and a certain absent-minded professorial quirkiness
made him an American hero, the symbol of American enterprise and
intelligence. What's more, unlike Crick, or Einstein, say, Watson was
an American born and bred: His discovery, coming at the height of the
Cold War, would be hailed as attesting to American genius and the
unrivaled potential of the free market system versus communism. The
intrigue over allegations that Watson and Crick made unauthorized use
of the seminal work on X-ray diffraction by Rosalind Franklin, a
brilliant scientist who died before the Nobel Prize committee made
its
decision, only made Watson's story all the more titillating.
And Watson—never camera shy or publicity averse—contributed to the
power of his own myth first by writing "Molecular Biology of the
Gene," a 1965 textbook that, updated, remains enormously popular
today, and, three years later, "The Double Helix," an account of the
dramatic story of his discovery that also contained startling and
scandalous revelations of petty tensions, jealousies and rivalries
among scientists whom we all had assumed were motivated primarily by
the pursuit of truth. Watson's book did nothing less than deconstruct
the myth of the scientist as secular saint, laboring away in a
laboratory for knowledge's sake at the service of mankind. (One
scientist summed up Watson's view of the scientific profession as
"with malice toward most and charity toward none.") But Watson's
account also made his quest to determine the structure of DNA
gripping
and exciting, one of science's greatest and most compelling triumphs.
Though he was a professor at Harvard University at the time—he taught
there from 1956 to 1976—the Harvard University Press refused to
publish the book because of its tell-all nature. A commercial press
published it instead, it became a best-seller and Watson's celebrity
only grew.
In 1989, such was the power and force of Watson's reputation and his
place in the history of science that he was named the head of the
Human Genome Project at the National Institutes of Health, a position
he held until 1992, when he resigned because of what he said was his
opposition to NIH's intention to patent gene sequences; others
suggested his ownership of stock in biotechnology companies posed a
possible conflict of interest. In 1994, Watson became president of
the
Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory (he had been its director since 1968),
a
lavishly funded and idyllic center on Long Island for the advanced
study of genomics and cancer that in 1998 created the Watson School
of
Biological Sciences. In 2004, he became Cold Spring's chancellor.
On Oct. 14, 2007, one of Watson's former assistants, Charlotte Hunt-
Grubbe, wrote an article about him in London's Sunday Times that
quoted him making racist comments about black people by suggesting
there are inherent, unalterable biological differences in
intelligence
between black people and everyone else. The response was swift and
impressively devastating. The father of DNA had spoken the
unspeakable. Echoing racist remarks that have been used to justify
the
enslavement and colonization of black people since the Enlightenment
(think Hume, Kant, Jefferson, Hegel), Watson's comments implied that
he believed that nature had created a primal distinction in
intelligence and innate mental capacity between blacks and whites,
which no amount of social intervention could ever change.
He had uttered the unutterable, the most ardent fantasy of white
racists (David Duke would wax poetic on his Web site that the truth
had at last been revealed, and by no less than the discoverer of the
structure of DNA). His words caused a ripple effect of shock, dismay
and disgust among those of us who embrace the range of biological
diversity and potential within the human community. It was as if one
of the smartest white men in the world had confirmed what so many
racists believe already: that the gap between blacks and whites in,
say, IQ test scores and SAT results has a biological basis and that
environmental factors such as centuries of slavery, colonization, Jim
Crow segregation and race-based discrimination—all contributing to
uneven economic development—don't amount to a hill of beans. Nature
has given us an extra basketball gene, as it were, in lieu of native
intelligence.
Watson is no stranger to controversy. Since the heated critical
reception to the publication of "The Double Helix" 40 years ago, he
has seemed to delight in making, with some regularity, outrageously
provocative comments, comments designed at best to disturb the status
quo, to shock if not awe both his fellow scientists and the general
public. His autobiography, "Avoid Boring People," published in
September 2007, lambastes his fellow scientists as "dinosaurs,"
"deadbeats" and "has-beens." By the time the London Sunday Times
article appeared, Watson had been engaged in several controversies
over genetic screening, genetic engineering, homosexuality, obesity
and the purported relation between skin color and libido.
But none of those controversies could begin to prepare him for the
intensity of the firestorm ignited by the Sunday Times article, which
quoted him as saying that "he was inherently gloomy about the
prospect
of Africa," since "all of our social policies are based on the fact
that their intelligence is the same as ours—whereas all the testing
says not really"; that "people who have to deal with black employees
find that [the belief that everyone is equal] is not true"; and that
"there is no firm reason to anticipate that the intellectual
capacities of peoples geographically separated in their evolution
should prove to have evolved identically. Our wanting to reserve
equal
powers of reason as some universal heritage of humanity will not be
enough to make it so." Five days after the article was published, he
profusely apologized in a statement to the press; on Oct. 25, he
abruptly retired from his position at Cold Spring Harbor, after 40
years of service there.
When I read about Watson's remarks, I was astonished, not to mention
angered and saddened. I was also determined to ask him about these
comments directly. Though The Root was still in its nascent form and
we wouldn't launch until January 2008, I sent him a letter, offering
him a platform in the black world through which he could explain,
defend and perhaps clarify the remarks attributed to him. He accepted
my invitation to give The Root his first major interview since the
Hunt-Grubbe article appeared.
I had read, with the admiring avidity of a high school senior
hellbent
on medical school, his best-selling book, "The Double Helix," back in
1968. It never occurred to me that I would one day be making
documentaries for public television about the uses of DNA for
ancestry
tracing among African Americans. But it was not until December 2006
that I met the scientist I had so admired. I was in New York,
delivering a lecture for alumni of Clare College at the University of
Cambridge. I had earned my M.A. and Ph.D. in English language and
literature from Clare in February 1979, and Watson was living there
and working at the Cavendish Laboratory when he and Crick identified
the structure of DNA. As I rose to deliver my lecture at the podium,
the Master of Clare College whispered to me that James Watson was in
the audience. I was astonished; I had no idea that he was still
alive.
Following the lecture, I was seated next to Dr. Watson at dinner. He
was indeed still alive; he was a sprightly and mentally acute 78 at
the time. I found him friendly, but a bit awkward in conversation;
generous and thoughtful, funny, but quirky-funny. A week later,
unsolicited, a signed copy of "The Double Helix" arrived at my home.
I thought of that slightly awkward dinner conversation and his
gracious gift as I arrived at his offices at Cold Spring Harbor on
March 17 for our interview. We talked for well over an hour, with no
holds barred.
"Well?" one of my friends asked later. "Is he a racist?"
I don't think James Watson is a racist. But I do think that he is a
racialist—that is, he believes that certain observable traits or
forms
of behavior among groups of human beings might, indeed, have a
biological basis in the code that scientists, eventually, may be able
to ascertain, that the "gene" is some mythically neutral space and
what it purportedly "measures" or "determines" is independent of
environmental factors, variables and influences. The difference, the
distinction, between being a racist and a racialist is crucial. James
Watson is not the garden-variety racist as he has been caricatured by
the press and bloggers, the sort epitomized by David Duke and his
ilk,
and he seemed genuinely chagrined, embarrassed and remorseful that
Duke and other racists had claimed him as their champion, as one of
their own, because of his remarks as quoted in the London Sunday
Times. And, as we might expect, he apologized profusely for those
remarks, contending that he had been misquoted, at worst, and his
remarks taken out of context, at best. (I have not been able to
determine if the writer who reported the remarks taped them or
reconstructed them from notes or memory.)
But I did leave Cold Spring Harbor convinced that Dr. Watson
believes
that many forms of behavior—such as "Jewish intelligence" (his
phrase)
and the basketball prowess of black men in the NBA (his example)—
could, possibly, be traced to genetic differences among human beings,
although no such connection has been made, and will probably never be
made on any firm scientific basis, it seems to me. And I have to say
that it was ultimately chilling to me when he remarked, with what
seemed to me to be monumental naivete, that "if they find genes for
all kinds of Jewish intelligence, I don't think it's going to affect
me in the slightest," especially when we couple that sort of remark
with his passionate belief that "everyone should be judged as
individuals. No one should be judged by a term like 'black.'"
Yet precisely because of the misuses of science and pseudoscience
since the 18th century, which put into place fixed categories of
four
or five "races" to justify an economic order dependent upon the
exploitation of blacks (and other people of color) as cheap sources
of
labor, starting with slavery and continuing through Jim Crow and
beyond, it has never been possible for a person of African descent to
function in American society simply and purely as an "individual."
And
if the presidential candidacy of Barack Obama has taught him, and us,
anything at all, it is that this perhaps ideal state of affairs—to
function as an individual and to be judged on your individual merits—
still remains a most elusive and somewhat naïve dream.
Watson's error is that he associates individual genetic differences
(which, of course, do in fact exist) with ethnic variation (which is
sociocultural and highly malleable). Character traits—abilities and
behaviors, such as intelligence or basketball skills, that are
popularly attributed to groups and are defined as "genetic"—will, in
fact, continue to delimit the freedom of choice and expression of
individuals who fall into those "racial" categories, regardless of
our
individual attainments and achievements. In the end, visions that are
racialist may end up doing the same work of those that are racist.
This is a lesson Watson has lived, and it is one from which we all
might learn.
Having spent the past three decades studying racist discourse in the
West (starting with my Ph.D. dissertation on the Enlightenment), I
know that such conclusions—say, about an entity called "Jewish
intelligence"—would deleteriously affect me as a black person because
it would reinforce stereotypes about Jewish people being genetically
superior to us, and that such a conclusion would reinforce
stereotypes
about black people being inherently less intelligent than other
members of the human community. If such differences in intelligence
were purported to have a genetic basis, as David Duke proclaimed on
his Web site with such naked glee, all of the social intervention in
the world could have only so much effect. (Head Start? Why bother,
when nature is to blame.) Sooner or later, in a time of increasing
economic scarcity, members of these supposedly "different" or
"lesser"
ethnic groups or genetic populations could very well find their life
possibilities limited and perhaps even regulated. Who among us can
doubt that this would be true?
Likewise, I worry even more that Dr. Watson confessed to me that "we
shouldn't expect that different persons have equal intelligence,
because we don't know that. And people say that these should be the
same [that is, that all human beings, that all members of different
"racial" groups, should have the same basic range and potential for
development of intelligence genetically]. I think the answer is we
don't know." And later, he remarked in passing that "we're not all
the
same," by which he meant genetically. Rest assured that in the very
near future, some scientist somewhere will claim to have proven this
through our genes, and that claim will be deeply problematic for the
future development of black people in American society.
As I drove away from Cold Spring Harbor, I realized that my
conversation with Dr. Watson only confirmed something I already, with
great trepidation, have come to believe: That the last great battle
over racism will be fought not over access to a lunch counter, or a
hotel room, or to the right to vote, or even the right to occupy the
White House; it will be fought in a laboratory, in a test tube, under
a microscope, in our genome, on the battleground of our DNA. It is
here where we, as a society, will rank and interpret our genetic
difference.
(Henry Louis Gates Jr. is editor-in-chief of The Root and is the
Alphonse Fletcher University Professor at Harvard University.)
http://www.theroot.com/id/46680/page/1
Lee Olsen
Wrong, you idiot.
Lee Olsen
>
> Needless to say, these dispersals happened
Dennell 2003
"The earliest Eurasians preferentially occupied
grasslands and open scrub- and wood-lands, as in
East Africa. Homo ergaster/erectus in East Africa after 1.7 Ma is
associated with hot and dry conditions, and open
grasslands; its post-cranial anatomy, with its long
limbs was geared to long-distance walking across
open ground, and to heat dispersal through upright
posture."
>this explains why humans are 10 times fatter than chimps,
Wrong again, you brainless wetape.
Marc Verhaegen
Don't you realise that PAs feel wetness & are underhand mentining waterside
views?
You still live in the middle ages, poor boy.
>> Needless to say, these dispersals happened
The only "answer" the SF had was snipping... :-DDD
> Dennell 2003
> "The earliest Eurasians preferentially occupied
> grasslands and open scrub- and wood-lands, as in
> East Africa.
Yes, we all know the outdated nonsense.
Why not use recent papers, Olson boy?
> Homo ergaster/erectus in East Africa after 1.7 Ma is
> associated with hot and dry conditions, and open
> grasslands;
Idem.
Don't snip the evidence, my boy.
> its post-cranial anatomy, with its long
> limbs was geared to long-distance walking across
> open ground, and to heat dispersal through upright
> posture."
:-D
Yes, that's why storks (rel.longest legs) run over savannas & why all lions
& zebras run on vertical on 2 feet.
>> this explains why humans are 10 times fatter than chimps,
Yes, my boy.
Marc Verhaegen
>>>> It is widely believed that H. erectus originally migrated from Africa
>>>> during the Early Pleistocene, around 2.0 million years ago,
>>
>> This "wide belief" (??) is based on nothing: the earliest Homo fossils come
>> from Mojokerto & Dmanisi. Both in Asia, c 1.8 Ma, the former in a marine
>> delta & the other also next to rich aquatic resources. The earliest
>> erectus-like fossils in Africa are less than 1.6 Ma.
>>
>>>> and dispersed throughout most of the Old World, reaching as far as
>>>> Southeast Asia.
>>
>> Yes.
>
> Wrong, you idiot.
:-D
The only "answer" the savanna fool has...
jerry warner
spiznet wrote:
no. they were totally distinct. The englit were descendants
of Pon Far, the Spanyards from Ki Si Mu. The first from underground
generations near Iceland and the second from
Cloud City near Katmandoo.
I hear the applause now. Yeeeeeeeeeeehaw!
Lee Olsen
Lee Olsen
> You still live in the middle ages, poor boy.
You silly wetloon.
Hill A, Ward S, Deino A, Curtis G, Drake R.
NATURE 1992 Feb 20;355(6362):719-22
The origin of our own genus, Homo, has been tentatively correlated
with worldwide climatic cooling documented at about 2.4 Myr (million
years). It has also been conjectured that members of Homo made the
first stone tools, currently dated at 2.6-2.4 Myr. But fossil
specimens clearly attributable to Homo before about 1.9 Myr have been
lacking. In 1967 a fossil hominoid temporal bone (KNM-BC1) from the
Chemeron Formation of Kenya was described as family Hominidae gen. et
sp. indet. Although a surface find, its provenance within site JM85
(BPRP site K002) was established and a stratigraphic section provided
indicating the specimen's position. This evidence has been affirmed
but the exact age of the fossil was never determined, and the absence
of suitable comparative hominid material has precluded a more
definitive taxonomic assignment. Here we present 40Ar/39Ar age
determinations on material from the hominid site indicating an age of
2.4 Myr. In addition, comparative studies allow us to assign KNM-BC1
to the genus Homo, making it the earliest securely known fossil of our
own genus found so far.
Paul Crowley
news:b7f7d605-2358-4b6e...@r66g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
>On Jul 12, 11:41 pm, Marc Verhaegen <m_verhae...@skynet.be> wrote:
>
>> You still live in the middle ages, poor boy.
>
> You silly wetloon.
I put Olsen (along with Verhaegen)
in my kill-file about 2 years ago
when his Yah-Boo exchange with
Verhaegen had become tedious.
I took him out a couple of hours ago,
assuming that was long over.
What a mistake! . . . right back in.
Paul,
Paul Crowley
I put Olsen (along with Verhaegen)
Lee Olsen
<slkwuoiutiuytciu...@slkjlskjoioue.com> wrote:
http://tinyurl.com/3cnmum
Paul Crowley: "Chimps do NOT have the capacity to dig."
>
> I put Olsen (along with Verhaegen)
> in my kill-file about 2 years ago
What a privilege that is.
Okaso
> On Jul 13, 5:33 am, "Paul Crowley"
>
> <slkwuoiutiuytciu...@slkjlskjoioue.com> wrote:
>
> http://tinyurl.com/3cnmum
> Paul Crowley: "Chimps do NOT have the capacity to dig."
>
> http://tinyurl.com/433x24
But they can play Pac-Man:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4436237546829251001&q=chimps+video+game&ei=RwN6SLfLEITgjAL0g-yEBw&hl=en
and they outperform humans at memory tests.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7117906035562779810
Marc Verhaegen
>> You still live in the middle ages, poor boy.
> You silly wetloon.
> Hill A, Ward S, Deino A, Curtis G, Drake R.
> NATURE 1992 Feb 20;355(6362):719-22
my litle boy, 1992 = middle ages
stop snipping the new evidence
Ali Bobo
> " The Science of Racism"
>
> Last fall, James Watson, the father of DNA,
The father of DNA is Mankind, you moron.
If you're referring to the discoverers of DNA, then it should be
attributed to Spanish-born American biochemist Severo Ochoa co-
discoverer of the mechanisms of DNA and RNA.
Ali Bobo
... whose interest in biology was stimulated by the publications of
the father of modern anatomy and neurobiology, Spanish neurologist and
Nobel awardee Santiago Ramón y Cajal.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santiago_Ram%C3%B3n_y_Cajal
In 1897, he published a book in Spanish giving some pretty bold advice
to young scientists: "Advice for a Young Investigator"
From chapters titled "Beginner's Traps" to "Diseases of the Will",
Ramón y Cajal addresses - in a startlingly relevant and humanistic way
- the questions, problems, self-doubts and fears that scientists must
face, the qualities that a good scientist requires, and the pitfalls
and failings of bad scientists.
"Defect for defect, arrogance is preferable to diffidence, boldness
measures its strengths and conquers or is conquered, and undue modesty
flees from battle, condemned to shameful activity."
The book reads like a Poor Richard's Almanack of witty aphorisms,
amusing instructions, and moral proclamations.
"It is fair to say that, in general, no problems have been exhausted;
instead, men have been exhausted by the problems. Soil that appears
impoverished to one researcher reveals its fertility to another."
"Most people who lack self-confidence are unaware of the marvelous
power of prolonged concentration. This type of cerebral polarization
(which involves a special ordering of perceptions) refines judgment,
enriches analytical powers, spurs constructive imagination, and - by
focusing all light of reason on the darkness of a problem - allows
unforseen and subtle relationships to be discovered."
"If a solution fails to appear after all of this, and yet we feel
success is just around the corner, try resting for a while. Several
weeks of relaxation and quiet in the countryside brings calmness and
clarity to the mind."
Day Brown
New Guinea highlander into the forest, and listening to the man draw on
an encyclopedic scale database in his head to expound for hours on all
the flora and fauna encountered.
When Diamond cannot remember all this, they think he is retarded. Yet
these same dudes cant handle simple algebra and would have a hard time
with a pencil scoring ovre 80 on an IQ test.
Who- gets to define what "intelligence" is? In any case, the kind that
Blacks have does not interest the transnationals. They have books and
computers to track minutiae. They want people who can handle linear
logic. The IQ test was designed to identify those who can perform well
in that environment, and most Blacks cannot.
That dont make them stupid, but to claim they have the same kind of
minds as white people is stupid.
spiznet
Yes clearly you are right our dolphin ancestors knew every nook and
cranny in every ocean on earth yet people are still calling them
stupid since they can't score even a zero on the IQ test. (they don't
have hands).
It is clear that the dolphins are intelligent, as a the little green
men from Phobos, as were the Atlantean host, that weird group of
submergians that made us so aquatic that we live inside a womb filled
with fluid for 9 months and then get out, al we wants to do is swim
all around.
Yowie!!
Day Brown
> Yes clearly you are right our dolphin ancestors knew every nook and
> cranny in every ocean on earth yet people are still calling them
> stupid since they can't score even a zero on the IQ test. (they don't
> have hands).
>
> It is clear that the dolphins are intelligent, as a the little green
> men from Phobos, as were the Atlantean host, that weird group of
> submergians that made us so aquatic that we live inside a womb filled
> with fluid for 9 months and then get out, al we wants to do is swim
> all around.
part of my body into that still fits for a swim as often as I am given
the opportunity.
spiznet
Yes, perhaps all these aquatophiles are just remembering early
prenatal lifestyles and transposing them on their achaeological/
anthropological modelling.
This would certainly explain their "religious" adherance to the
utterings of MV, et. al.
Remember the fishes. we were all aquatic once ( a long long time
ago...).
Day Brown
about the need to dip your dick in "the waters of life', a juicy cunt.
They thot it balanced yin/yang, and mite have something in the
transdermal transfer thru the delicate tissues of hormones from the
other sex.
I'm sure the different hominid species was trying out other cunts; they
try fucking goats for crysake, no hominid bitch would be too ugly. And
nobody was around with a Bible telling them it was evil.
Which raises questions about the results of millions of matings.
Neandro
And howevver babies CAN swim:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v0mUPr68x2U
RichTravsky
>
> >> It is widely believed that H. erectus originally migrated from Africa
> >> during the Early Pleistocene, around 2.0 million years ago,
>
> This "wide belief" (??) is based on nothing: the earliest Homo fossils come
> from Mojokerto & Dmanisi. Both in Asia, c 1.8 Ma, the former in a marine
> delta & the other also next to rich aquatic resources. The earliest
> erectus-like fossils in Africa are less than 1.6 Ma.
KNM-ER 3733, dated to 1.7 or 1.75 mya. 1470 a little older, around 1.9 mya
RichTravsky
First occurrence of early Homo in the Nachukui Formation (West Turkana,
Kenya) at 2.3-2.4 Myr
Received 3 March 2004; accepted 25 March 2005. Available online 20 June 2005.
Abstract
...
In 2002 a new palaeoanthropological site (LA1greek small letter alpha), 100
meters south of the LA1 archaeological site, produced a first right lower
molar of a juvenile hominid (KNM-WT 42718). The relative small size of the
crown, its marked MD elongation and BL reduction, the relative position of
the cusps, the lack of a C6 and the mild expression of a protostylid,
reinforced by metrical analyses, demonstrate the distinctiveness of this tooth
compared with Australopithecus afarensis, A. anamensis, A. africanus and
Paranthropus boisei, and its similarity to early Homo. The LA1greek small
letter alpha site lies 2.2 m above the Ekalalei Tuff which is slightly younger
than Tuff F dated to 2.34 ą 0.04 Myr. This juvenile specimen represents the
oldest occurrence of the genus Homo in West Turkana.
...
RichTravsky
Marc Verhaegen
Op 28-07-2008 06:36, in artikel 488D4CE3...@hotmMOVEail.com,
RichTravsky <traR...@hotmMOVEail.com> schreef:
Marc Verhaegen
Some savanna believer:
>>>> It is widely believed that H. erectus originally migrated from Africa
>>>> during the Early Pleistocene, around 2.0 million years ago,
Somebody with a little insight:
>> This "wide belief" (??) is based on nothing: the earliest Homo fossils come
>> from Mojokerto & Dmanisi. Both in Asia, c 1.8 Ma, the former in a marine
>> delta & the other also next to rich aquatic resources. The earliest
>> erectus-like fossils in Africa are less than 1.6 Ma.
Savanna fool:
> KNM-ER 3733, dated to 1.7 or 1.75 mya. 1470 a little older, around 1.9 mya
Thanks for the confirmation, my little boy:
- Dmanisi is c 1.8 Ma
- ER-1470 is A.boisei: google "Bromage 1470" or so.
Lee Olsen
> SF now admits that 1.7 Ma is more recent than 1.8 Ma:
You can't tell time, not surprising for a person who thinks mountain
beavers are semiaquatic.
Somebody with a little insight:
http://www.jqjacobs.net/anthro/paleo/fossils.html
From time to time the earliest fossil in any particular category
changes with new findings. In 1994 a find in the Hadar Badlands of
Ethiopia established a new date for the earliest Homo fossil
associated with stone tools, 2.33 mya. Dr. William H. Kimbel of the
Institute of Human Origins (IHO) and an international team of
scientists reported their discovery in the Journal of Human Evolution
(Kimbel, et.al., 1996). The fossil jaw they reported is about 400,000
years older than the previous oldest, securely dated fossil jaws
belonging to the Homo lineage. The previous finds, from Olduvai Gorge
and Koobi Fora, were found in the 1960's and 1970's. They are
classified as Homo habilis and H. rudolfensis and date to no more than
1.9 mya. The upper jaw of the early Homo discovered with primitive
stone tools at Hadar, Ethiopia, also represents the oldest firmly
dated association of stone tools with a possible human ancestor.
Previously the oldest association between a hominid fossil and stone
tools was about 1.85 mya.
>
>
> Thanks for the confirmation, my little boy:
Anytime, pervert.
> - Dmanisi is c 1.8 Ma
> - ER-1470 is A.boisei: google "Bromage 1470" or so.
Boisei didn't make the stone tools, wetloon.
Marc Verhaegen
Op 28-07-2008 14:26, in artikel
db89a01a-e62c-478b...@o40g2000prn.googlegroups.com, Lee Olsen
<pale...@hotmail.com> schreef:
Lee Olsen
http://www.jqjacobs.net/anthro/paleo/fossils.html
From time to time the earliest fossil in any particular category
changes with new findings. In 1994 a find in the Hadar Badlands of
Ethiopia established a new date for the earliest Homo fossil
associated with stone tools, 2.33 mya. Dr. William H. Kimbel of the
Institute of Human Origins (IHO) and an international team of
scientists reported their discovery in the Journal of Human Evolution
(Kimbel, et.al., 1996). The fossil jaw they reported is about 400,000
years older than the previous oldest, securely dated fossil jaws
belonging to the Homo lineage. The previous finds, from Olduvai Gorge
and Koobi Fora, were found in the 1960's and 1970's. They are
classified as Homo habilis and H. rudolfensis and date to no more than
1.9 mya. The upper jaw of the early Homo discovered with primitive
stone tools at Hadar, Ethiopia, also represents the oldest firmly
dated association of stone tools with a possible human ancestor.
Previously the oldest association between a hominid fossil and stone
tools was about 1.85 mya.
>On Jul 28, 2:42 pm, Marc Verhaegen <m_verhae...@skynet.be> wrote:
> savanna fool still confuses Homo & apiths
>
> Op 28-07-2008 14:26, in artikel
> db89a01a-e62c-478b-9a29-3fd2e830a...@o40g2000prn.googlegroups.com, Lee Olsen
> <paleoc...@hotmail.com> schreef:
> > Boisei didn't make the stone tools, wetloon.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Marc Verhaegen
Op 29-07-2008 03:51, in artikel
dd937c10-aef2-43c7...@z11g2000prl.googlegroups.com, Lee Olsen
<pale...@hotmail.com> schreef:
Lee Olsen
> savanna fool still confuses Homo & apiths:
Wetloon still thinks 1470 is the only hominid ever found.
>
> Op 29-07-2008 03:51, in artikel
> dd937c10-aef2-43c7-b392-8ec48878f...@z11g2000prl.googlegroups.com, Lee Olsen
> <paleoc...@hotmail.com> schreef:
>
>
>
> > What part of this are you too stupid to understand, wetloon?
>
> >http://www.jqjacobs.net/anthro/paleo/fossils.html
>
> > From time to time the earliest fossil in any particular category
> > changes with new findings. In 1994 a find in the Hadar Badlands of
> > Ethiopia established a new date for the earliest Homo fossil
> > associated with stone tools, 2.33 mya. Dr. William H. Kimbel of the
> > Institute of Human Origins (IHO) and an international team of
> > scientists reported their discovery in the Journal of Human Evolution
> > (Kimbel, et.al., 1996). The fossil jaw they reported is about 400,000
> > years older than the previous oldest, securely dated fossil jaws
> > belonging to the Homo lineage. The previous finds, from Olduvai Gorge
> > and Koobi Fora, were found in the 1960's and 1970's. They are
> > classified as Homo habilis and H. rudolfensis and date to no more than
> > 1.9 mya. The upper jaw of the early Homo discovered with primitive
> > stone tools at Hadar, Ethiopia, also represents the oldest firmly
> > dated association of stone tools with a possible human ancestor.
> > Previously the oldest association between a hominid fossil and stone
> > tools was about 1.85 mya.
No answer.
blackma...@gmail.com
Neandro wrote; > A vey large portion of theNeanderthalpopulation
perished in
> Poseidonis, an island about the size of Ireland, situated in the
> Atlantic Ocean opposite the strait of Gibraltar, that sank in a major
> cataclysm in 9565 BC.
> Geologist Christian O'Brien believes that Poseidonis was a large mid-
> Atlantic ridge island centred on the Azores, that had originally
> measured 720 km across from east to west, and 480 km from north to
> south, with high mountain ranges rising over 3660 metres above sea
> level. Before or during its submergence, it tilted by about 0.4� with
> the result that the south coast sank about 3355 metres but the north
> coast only some 1830 metres. Only the mountain peaks remained above
> the waters, and now form the ten islands of the Azores. O'Brien thinks
> the island could have sunk within a period of a few years or even
> months, and points out that six areas of hot spring fields (associated
> with volcanic disturbances) are known in the mid-Atlantic ridge area,
> and four of them lie in the Kane-Atlantis area close to the Azores.
=============================================
Do you have any actual fossil evidence that can support this up as
FACT?
=========================================
Neandro wrote;> The rest of the European Neanderthals were wiped out
in a relatively
> short period of time. They vanished at exactly the same time that Cro-
> Magnon started to colonize Europe, bringing along lethal sexual
> transmitted diseases.
============================================
OR WAS IT THE OTHER WAY AROUND IF THIS ACTUALLY EVER OCURRED??
The way Neanderthals piled their meal remains against the cave walls
was anything but clean and orderly and I wonder if what really brought
their demise were rats....and with them vectors of lethal diseases
such as rabies, the bubonic plague etc, etc.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Neandro wrote; > But the last ones that could interbred with the new-
comers did pass on
> their genes and produced hybrids that are today's Iberians.
> And British...
> People of Celtic ancestry were thought to have descended from tribes
> of central Europe. Professor Sykes, who is soon to publish the first
> DNA map of the British Isles, said: "About 6,000 years ago Iberians
> developed ocean-going boats that enabled them to push up the Channel.
> Before they arrived, there were some human inhabitants of Britain but
> only a few thousand in number. These people were later subsumed into a
> larger Celtic tribe... The majority of people in the British Isles are
> actually descended from the Spanish."
>
> If two small nations like Spain and Britain had agreed to join their
> forces, they would now control Planet Earth.
> Instead they chose to fight each other.
> Typically Neandertalish.
==============================
o_0
RichTravsky
>
> savanna fool still confuses Homo & apiths
Fossils assigned to homo and dated to 2.33 mya. The confusion, if any, is yours.
Marc Verhaegen
>> savanna fool still confuses Homo & apiths
SF:
> Fossils assigned to homo and dated to 2.33 mya.
Only a liar or an ignorant can write this.
If you mean ER-1470, then google "Bromage 1470".
Gerrit Hanenburg
Try A.L. 666-1
http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/39831/abstract
Gerrit
Marc Verhaegen
>>>> savanna fool still confuses Homo & apiths
SF:
>>> Fossils assigned to homo and dated to 2.33 mya.
>> Only a liar or an ignorant can write this.
>> If you mean ER-1470, then google "Bromage 1470".
> Try A.L. 666-1
> http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/39831/abstract
Yes, thanks for the confirmation: they say that AL-666-1 resembles "habilis"
or what they call "early representatives" of their "Homo clade" ("Homo
aff.H.habilis"). The "habilis" specimens are not undoubted Homo, but
morphologically between apiths & Homo (erectus-georgicus-ergaster etc.).
Systematic assessment of a maxilla of Homo from Hadar, Ethiopia
WH Kimbel, DC Johanson & Y Rak 1997 AJPA 103:235-262
The Hadar site in Ethiopia is a prolific source of hominid fossils
attributed to the species Australopithecus afarensis, which spans the period
3.4-3.0 million years (myr) in the Sidi Hakoma, Denen Dora and lower Kada
Hadar Members of the Hadar Fm. Since 1992 a major focus of field work
conducted at Hadar has centered on sediments younger than 3.0 myr,
comprising the bulk of the Kada Hadar Member. Witnessing the rise of the
robust Australopithecus clade(s), the origin of Homo, and the first record
of lithic artifacts, the period between 3.0 and 2.0 myr is strategically
vital for paleoanthropology. However, in eastern Africa it is a particularly
poorly sampled temporal interval.
This paper provides a detailed comparative description of a hominid maxilla
with partial dentition found at Hadar in 1994. The specimen, A.L. 666-1,
derives from a lithic artifact-bearing horizon high in the Kada Hadar
Member, 0.8 m below the BKT-3 tephra, dated by the 40Ar/39Ar method to 2.33
ą 0.07 myr. Our preliminary investigation of the hominid specimen showed
unambiguous affinities with early representatives of the Homo clade (Kimbel
et al. [1996] J. Hum. Evol. 31:549-561). Further studies on maxillary and
dental morphology lead us to attribute A.L. 666-1 to Homo aff. H. habilis.
The new Hadar jaw is the first paleontological evidence for the projection
of the H. habilis maxillofacial morphotype well back into the Pliocene. It
may represent a male of this species, whose maxillary hypodigm consists
chiefly of females. A subsidiary finding of our study is that of the three
earliest recorded species of Homo (H. habilis, H. rudolfensis, H. erectus),
it is H. habilis that exhibits facial morphology closest to that expected in
their last common ancestor.
Gerrit Hanenburg
>>>>> savanna fool still confuses Homo & apiths
>
>SF:
>>>> Fossils assigned to homo and dated to 2.33 mya.
>
>>> Only a liar or an ignorant can write this.
>>> If you mean ER-1470, then google "Bromage 1470".
>
>> Try A.L. 666-1
>> http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/39831/abstract
>
>Yes, thanks for the confirmation: they say that AL-666-1 resembles "habilis"
>or what they call "early representatives" of their "Homo clade" ("Homo
>aff.H.habilis"). The "habilis" specimens are not undoubted Homo, but
>morphologically between apiths & Homo (erectus-georgicus-ergaster etc.).
Nevertheless, A.L.666-1 shares a number of derived characters with
later Homo. And it is derived characters that determine membership of
a clade. Whether you call it Homo or something else, that which we
call a rose by any other name would smell as sweet.
Besides, if the assignment of occipital specimen KNM-ER 2598 to Homo
aff. H. erectus by Wood (1991: 130) holds than the first appearance
datum (FAD) of Homo erectus grade morphology is still in Africa at 1.9
mya, not Asia.
Wood, B. 1991. Koobi Fora Research Project Vol. 4: Hominid Cranial
Remains. Oxford University Press.
Gerrit
Marc Verhaegen
Old stuff, as you know very well:
http://johnhawks.net/weblog/reviews/erectus/brown_2006_chronology_koobi_fora
.html
Gerrit Hanenburg
"all specimens from Koobi Fora assigned to H. aff. H. erectus by Wood
(1991), many of which are now referred to H. ergaster (Wood and
Richmond, 2000), are now estimated to be 1.45 to 1.65 myr old with the
exception of KNM-ER 2598."
The latter specimen was situated 4 m below the KBS tuff (1.869 ą 0.021
Ma), putting the FAD of erectus grade morphology still at at least
1.87 Ma in Africa.
Gerrit
Marc Verhaegen
1) "if the assignment holds"
2) so your whole argument is based on this occipital fragment...
3) the SF above said 2.33 Ma
Gerrit Hanenburg
New data (e.g. a more complete specimen) could change it.
>2) so your whole argument is based on this occipital fragment...
Every specimen is data.
And this specimen preserves fairly diagnostic information (e.g.
"marked occipital torus and relatively acute angle between the
squamous and nuchal surfaces of the occipital").
>3) the SF above said 2.33 Ma
That's the secure date of the FAD of derived Homo-like morphology in
Africa (A.L.666-1).
Gerrit
Marc Verhaegen
why not
>> 2) so your whole argument is based on this occipital fragment...
> Every specimen is data.
> And this specimen preserves fairly diagnostic information (e.g.
> "marked occipital torus and relatively acute angle between the
> squamous and nuchal surfaces of the occipital").
"marked" "rel.acute"
>> 3) the SF above said 2.33 Ma
> That's the secure date of the FAD of derived Homo-like morphology in
> Africa (A.L.666-1).
habilis-like, not Homo
Marc Verhaegen
Ma lived outside Africa for some time (at least between 4 & 3 Ma, say CT
Yohn cs 2005 PLoS Biol.3:1-11).
2) No *fossil* data contradict this: the first undoubted Homo fossils
(ext.nose, CC > 600 cc, very long legs etc.) are found in Dmanisi & probably
Mojokerto c 1.8 Ma.
IOW, I don't care where Homo originated, but Africa is not certain.
That's all.
All the "answers" of people who see H.erectus running over open plains like
Nilotic people today is irrelevant & obfuscating blabla.
_____
Gerrit Hanenburg
>1) Some retroviral data suggest that our *ancestors* after the H/P split c 5
>Ma lived outside Africa for some time (at least between 4 & 3 Ma, say CT
>Yohn cs 2005 PLoS Biol.3:1-11).
If you've read that paper then you know that's not the only
explanation for the absence of PTERV1 in humans.
Anyway, between 3 and 2 Ma derived Homo-like morphology appears in
Africa.
>2) No *fossil* data contradict this: the first undoubted Homo fossils
>(ext.nose, CC > 600 cc, very long legs etc.) are found in Dmanisi & probably
>Mojokerto c 1.8 Ma.
As Kimbel et al. argue the Hadar maxilla clearly belongs in the Homo
clade on the basis of the following derived characters:
-Reduced subnasal prognathism (index of .63 outside apith range).
-Clivus strongly angled to the nasal platform with distinct crista
spinalis and elevation of the anterior nasal cavity floor.
-Relatively broad palate (shape index >60% and outside apith range).
-Anterior division of maxillary sinus.
-narrow M1.
-rhomboidal M2
-P3 with vertical lingual face, elevated mesial
marginal ridge, buccal face basal symmetry, straight buccal enamel
line, and lack of strong mesial buccal groove; and P4 with vertical
lingual and buccal faces and hint of distolingual crown abbreviation.
-Thin molar enamel.
>IOW, I don't care where Homo originated, but Africa is not certain.
>That's all.
So far Africa holds the best cards.
Gerrit
Marc Verhaegen
>> 1) Some retroviral data suggest that our *ancestors* after the H/P split c 5
>> Ma lived outside Africa for some time (at least between 4 & 3 Ma, say CT
>> Yohn cs 2005 PLoS Biol.3:1-11).
> If you've read that paper then you know that's not the only
> explanation for the absence of PTERV1 in humans.
title: Lineage-Specific Expansions of retroviral insertions within the
Genomes of African Great Apes but Not Humans and Orangutans
... Comparison of human and other primate genomes provides evidence for a
retroviral infection that bombarded the genomes of chimpanzee and gorilla
between 3 and 4 Ma ...
`
- you have 0 indications our ancestors were in Africa then
- you have 0 indications they were no in Asia then
only fools believe far-fetched explainations first
> Anyway, between 3 and 2 Ma derived Homo-like morphology appears in
> Africa.
in your fantasy, my boy: no very long legs, no ext.nose, no very large brain
>> 2) No *fossil* data contradict this: the first undoubted Homo fossils
>> (ext.nose, CC > 600 cc, very long legs etc.) are found in Dmanisi & probably
>> Mojokerto c 1.8 Ma.
> As Kimbel et al. argue the Hadar maxilla clearly belongs in the Homo
> clade on the basis of the following derived characters:
> -Reduced subnasal prognathism (index of .63 outside apith range).
> -Clivus strongly angled to the nasal platform with distinct crista
> spinalis and elevation of the anterior nasal cavity floor.
> -Relatively broad palate (shape index >60% and outside apith range).
> -Anterior division of maxillary sinus.
> -narrow M1.
> -rhomboidal M2
> -P3 with vertical lingual face, elevated mesial
> marginal ridge, buccal face basal symmetry, straight buccal enamel
> line, and lack of strong mesial buccal groove; and P4 with vertical
> lingual and buccal faces and hint of distolingual crown abbreviation.
> -Thin molar enamel.
they say it was no robust apith, but that doesn't imply, my little boy, that
it was close to us
a *little* bit of logic please
>> IOW, I don't care where Homo originated, but Africa is not certain.
>> That's all.
> So far Africa holds the best cards.
in your fantasy, yes
grow up
Gerrit Hanenburg
>>> 1) Some retroviral data suggest that our *ancestors* after the H/P split c 5
>>> Ma lived outside Africa for some time (at least between 4 & 3 Ma, say CT
>>> Yohn cs 2005 PLoS Biol.3:1-11).
>
>> If you've read that paper then you know that's not the only
>> explanation for the absence of PTERV1 in humans.
>
>title: Lineage-Specific Expansions of retroviral insertions within the
>Genomes of African Great Apes but Not Humans and Orangutans
>... Comparison of human and other primate genomes provides evidence for a
>retroviral infection that bombarded the genomes of chimpanzee and gorilla
>between 3 and 4 Ma ...
>`
>- you have 0 indications our ancestors were in Africa then
Except for the fossil bipedal hominids from that period on that
continent?
>- you have 0 indications they were no in Asia then
Except for the lack of fossil bipedal hominids from that period on
that continent?
>only fools believe far-fetched explainations first
Indeed.
>> Anyway, between 3 and 2 Ma derived Homo-like morphology appears in
>> Africa.
>
>in your fantasy, my boy: no very long legs, no ext.nose, no very large brain
Those are not the exclusive criteria by which we judge a specimen to
be Homo, See Strait & Grine (2004) "Inferring hominoid and early
hominid phylogeny using craniodental characters: the role of fossil
taxa", JHE 47: 399-452.
>>> 2) No *fossil* data contradict this: the first undoubted Homo fossils
>>> (ext.nose, CC > 600 cc, very long legs etc.) are found in Dmanisi & probably
>>> Mojokerto c 1.8 Ma.
>
>> As Kimbel et al. argue the Hadar maxilla clearly belongs in the Homo
>> clade on the basis of the following derived characters:
>> -Reduced subnasal prognathism (index of .63 outside apith range).
>> -Clivus strongly angled to the nasal platform with distinct crista
>> spinalis and elevation of the anterior nasal cavity floor.
>> -Relatively broad palate (shape index >60% and outside apith range).
>> -Anterior division of maxillary sinus.
>> -narrow M1.
>> -rhomboidal M2
>> -P3 with vertical lingual face, elevated mesial
>> marginal ridge, buccal face basal symmetry, straight buccal enamel
>> line, and lack of strong mesial buccal groove; and P4 with vertical
>> lingual and buccal faces and hint of distolingual crown abbreviation.
>> -Thin molar enamel.
>
>they say it was no robust apith, but that doesn't imply, my little boy, that
>it was close to us
Kimbel et al. explicitly state: "The Hadar maxilla A.L. 666-1 clearly
belongs in the Homo clade". That means it is closer to us than to any
australopithecine s.l.
>a *little* bit of logic please
>
>>> IOW, I don't care where Homo originated, but Africa is not certain.
>>> That's all.
>
>> So far Africa holds the best cards.
>
>in your fantasy, yes
Fantasy has nothing to do with it. It's a matter of comparative
morphology, stratigraphy, and secure radiometric dating. All within
the domain of science.
Gerrit
Marc Verhaegen
>>>> 1) Some retroviral data suggest that our *ancestors* after the H/P split c
>>>> 5 Ma lived outside Africa for some time (at least between 4 & 3 Ma,
>>>> say CT Yohn cs 2005 PLoS Biol.3:1-11).
>>> If you've read that paper then you know that's not the only
>>> explanation for the absence of PTERV1 in humans.
>> title: Lineage-Specific Expansions of retroviral insertions within the
>> Genomes of African Great Apes but Not Humans and Orangutans
>> ... Comparison of human and other primate genomes provides evidence for a
>> retroviral infection that bombarded the genomes of chimpanzee and gorilla
>> between 3 and 4 Ma ...
>> - you have 0 indications our ancestors were in Africa then
> Except for the fossil bipedal hominids from that period on that
> continent?
still confusing vertical & bipedal...
sigh
again
- all living hominids (HPG) had more bipedal (wading/hanging) ancestors
- all living apes (incl.gibbons) had vertical ancestors (Moroto lumbar
vertebra 19 Ma)
afarensis had curved phalanges (branch-hanging), found in swamp forests,
their diet included AHV, large airsacs, bipedal features, vertical posture,
thick enamel etc., resemble gorillas, but smaller & less KWing, their
dentition & locomotion suggests they spent more time in forest swamps
feeding on AHV than lowland gorillas, fruits, waterside plants & presumably
hard-shelled invertebrates google "Shabel durophage"
= example of how Afr.ape ancestors lived
= parttime bipedal & +-always vertical (in swamp & in branches)
>> - you have 0 indications they were no in Asia then
> Except for the lack of fossil bipedal hominids from that period on
> that continent?
- fossil record = fragmentary (esp.coasts)
- bipedal hominids in Africa might be closer related to P or G than to H
- still confusing ancestors (retroviral data) & fossils (no ancestors)
>> only fools believe far-fetched explanations first
> Indeed.
good you admit
>>> Anyway, between 3 and 2 Ma derived Homo-like morphology appears in
>>> Africa.
>> in your fantasy, my boy: no very long legs, no ext.nose, no very large brain
> Those are not the exclusive criteria by which we judge a specimen to
> be Homo, See Strait & Grine (2004) "Inferring hominoid and early
> hominid phylogeny using craniodental characters: the role of fossil
> taxa", JHE 47: 399-452.
those are
the criteria traditionally used to discern Homo ("bipedality", dentition
etc.) ar primitive for hominids
http://users.ugent.be/~mvaneech/Fil/Verhaegen_Human_Evolution.
>>>> 2) No *fossil* data contradict this: the first undoubted Homo fossils
>>>> (ext.nose, CC > 600 cc, very long legs etc.) are found in Dmanisi &
>>>> probably
>>>> Mojokerto c 1.8 Ma.
>>> As Kimbel et al. argue the Hadar maxilla clearly belongs in the Homo
>>> clade on the basis of the following derived characters:
>>> -Reduced subnasal prognathism (index of .63 outside apith range).
>>> -Clivus strongly angled to the nasal platform with distinct crista
>>> spinalis and elevation of the anterior nasal cavity floor.
>>> -Relatively broad palate (shape index >60% and outside apith range).
>>> -Anterior division of maxillary sinus.
>>> -narrow M1.
>>> -rhomboidal M2
>>> -P3 with vertical lingual face, elevated mesial
>>> marginal ridge, buccal face basal symmetry, straight buccal enamel
>>> line, and lack of strong mesial buccal groove; and P4 with vertical
>>> lingual and buccal faces and hint of distolingual crown abbreviation.
>>> -Thin molar enamel.
>> they say it was no robust apith, but that doesn't imply, my little boy, that
>> it was close to us
> Kimbel et al. explicitly state: "The Hadar maxilla A.L.666-1 clearly
> belongs in the Homo clade". That means it is closer to us than to any
> australopithecine s.l.
- they think apelike = primitive
- if you start from the wrong preassumptions, you can prove what you want
- that a feature is closer to H than to P or G, doesn't mean it's H: in some
instances P & G are more primitive, in others H is
- that is was unlike apiths doesn't mean it belongs to H
>> a *little* bit of logic please
>>>> IOW, I don't care where Homo originated, but Africa is not certain.
>>>> That's all.
>>> So far Africa holds the best cards.
>> in your fantasy, yes
> Fantasy has nothing to do with it. It's a matter of comparative
> morphology, stratigraphy, and secure radiometric dating. All within
> the domain of science.
- if you start from the wrong preassumptions (eg, "bipedality" means human),
your "science" is fantasy
- if you don't use all the evidence (eg, Yohn cs above, comparative
biology...), your "science" is a bunch of prejudices
RichTravsky
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6WJS-4GFCSW2-1&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=94fbe698d4f77c3db6d3a23fc9b1ebd4
or
http://tinyurl.com/crf6m
Journal of Human Evolution
Volume 49, Issue 2 , August 2005, Pages 230-240
Marc Verhaegen
RichTravsky
"First occurrence of early Homo ..."
If you can't refute the paper Marc then don't say anything.
spiznet
> Marc Verhaegen wrote:
>
> > >> SF:
> > >>> Fossils assigned to homo and dated to 2.33 mya.
>
> > >> Only a liar or an ignorant can write this.
> > >> If you mean ER-1470, then google "Bromage 1470".
>
> > > =10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_ url
> > > Version=0&_userid=10&md5=94fbe698d4f77c3db6d3a23fc9b1ebd4
> > > or
> > >http://tinyurl.com/crf6m
>
> > > Journal of Human Evolution
> > > Volume 49, Issue 2 , August 2005, Pages 230-240
>
> > > First occurrence of early Homo in the Nachukui Formation (West Turkana,
> > > Kenya) at 2.3-2.4 Myr
>
> > > Received 3 March 2004; accepted 25 March 2005. Available online 20 June 2005.
> > > Abstract
> > > ...
> > > In 2002 a new palaeoanthropological site (LA1greek small letter alpha), 100
> > > meters south of the LA1 archaeological site, produced a first right lower
> > > molar of a juvenile hominid (KNM-WT 42718). The relative small size of the
> > > crown, its marked MD elongation and BL reduction, the relative position of
> > > the cusps, the lack of a C6 and the mild expression of a protostylid,
> > > reinforced by metrical analyses, demonstrate the distinctiveness of this
> > > tooth
> > > compared with Australopithecus afarensis, A. anamensis, A. africanus and
> > > Paranthropus boisei, and its similarity to early Homo. The LA1greek small
> > > letter alpha site lies 2.2 m above the Ekalalei Tuff which is slightly
> > > younger
> > > oldest occurrence of the genus Homo in West Turkana.
> > > ...
>
> > savanna fool still confuses Homo & apiths
>
> "First occurrence of early Homo ..."
>
> If you can't refute the paper Marc then don't say anything.
The migrating band of Homo brought the teeth of their ancestors from
Asia. And they used a steam-powered ferry to move along the coast,
hunting and hunted by giant clams as they came.
Comm
Read this - and know that Richard Lynn agrees with 99% of it
http://www.erectuswalksamongst.us
"Dr. Cavortian" <perry...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:b45a78c0-b918-4ae1...@x35g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
" The Science of Racism"
Last fall, James Watson, the father of DNA, spoke the unspeakable,
saying that blacks are intellectually inferior. In a conversation
with
The Root Editor-in-Chief Henry Louis Gates Jr., Watson clarified his
views about race and genetics. Read what he says now ó and why Gates
regards him as "a racialist."
TheRoot.com
Updated: 2:07 PM ET May 30, 2008
June 2, 2008 -- James Watson has long assumed a certain special
status
among American scientists. The molecular biologist was awarded the
Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine in 1962, along with Francis
Crick and Maurice Wilkins, for, as the Swedish Academy put it in its
announcement for the prize, "their discoveries concerning the
molecular structure of nucleic acids and its significance for
information transfer in living material." Watson and his British
colleague Crick are remembered popularly for identifying the elegant
and unexpected "double helix" three-dimensional structure of
deoxyribonucleic acid, commonly known as DNA. Watson's important
contribution to this uncanny discovery was to define how the four
nucleotide bases that make up DNAóguanine (G), cytosine (C), adenine
(A) and thymine (T)ócombine in pairs to form its structure. These
base
pairs turn out to be the key to both the structure of DNA and its
various functions. In other words, Watson identified the language and
the code by which we understand and talk about our genetic makeup.
I have been among those who have long held Watson in high regard for
several reasons. First of all, the discovery of DNA's three-
dimensional structure was counterintuitive; it was an ingenious act
of
deduction, using models made of cardboard and paste with an exacto
knife and a straight edge. How Watson and Crick, working at the
Cavendish Laboratory at the University of Cambridge, became the first
scientists to identify this elusive structure is the stuff of drama,
especially when we recall that Watson was just 25 years old when he
and Crick published their findings in the journal Nature on April 25,
1953.
Though Watson would tell me during our recent interview that he had a
rather low IQ, as proof that IQ tests aren't really that important,
he
enrolled at the University of Chicago when he was merely 15 and
earned
his B.S. in zoology there in 1947 at the age of 19 and a Ph.D. in
zoology from Indiana University at age 22. He was 34 when he won the
Nobel Prize. Not too shabby for a guy with a "low" IQ.
Watson's youth and a certain absent-minded professorial quirkiness
made him an American hero, the symbol of American enterprise and
intelligence. What's more, unlike Crick, or Einstein, say, Watson was
an American born and bred: His discovery, coming at the height of the
Cold War, would be hailed as attesting to American genius and the
unrivaled potential of the free market system versus communism. The
intrigue over allegations that Watson and Crick made unauthorized use
of the seminal work on X-ray diffraction by Rosalind Franklin, a
brilliant scientist who died before the Nobel Prize committee made
its
decision, only made Watson's story all the more titillating.
And Watsonónever camera shy or publicity averseócontributed to the
power of his own myth first by writing "Molecular Biology of the
Gene," a 1965 textbook that, updated, remains enormously popular
today, and, three years later, "The Double Helix," an account of the
dramatic story of his discovery that also contained startling and
scandalous revelations of petty tensions, jealousies and rivalries
among scientists whom we all had assumed were motivated primarily by
the pursuit of truth. Watson's book did nothing less than deconstruct
the myth of the scientist as secular saint, laboring away in a
laboratory for knowledge's sake at the service of mankind. (One
scientist summed up Watson's view of the scientific profession as
"with malice toward most and charity toward none.") But Watson's
account also made his quest to determine the structure of DNA
gripping
and exciting, one of science's greatest and most compelling triumphs.
Though he was a professor at Harvard University at the timeóhe taught
there from 1956 to 1976óthe Harvard University Press refused to
publish the book because of its tell-all nature. A commercial press
published it instead, it became a best-seller and Watson's celebrity
only grew.
In 1989, such was the power and force of Watson's reputation and his
place in the history of science that he was named the head of the
Human Genome Project at the National Institutes of Health, a position
he held until 1992, when he resigned because of what he said was his
opposition to NIH's intention to patent gene sequences; others
suggested his ownership of stock in biotechnology companies posed a
possible conflict of interest. In 1994, Watson became president of
the
Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory (he had been its director since 1968),
a
lavishly funded and idyllic center on Long Island for the advanced
study of genomics and cancer that in 1998 created the Watson School
of
Biological Sciences. In 2004, he became Cold Spring's chancellor.
On Oct. 14, 2007, one of Watson's former assistants, Charlotte Hunt-
Grubbe, wrote an article about him in London's Sunday Times that
quoted him making racist comments about black people by suggesting
there are inherent, unalterable biological differences in
intelligence
between black people and everyone else. The response was swift and
impressively devastating. The father of DNA had spoken the
unspeakable. Echoing racist remarks that have been used to justify
the
enslavement and colonization of black people since the Enlightenment
(think Hume, Kant, Jefferson, Hegel), Watson's comments implied that
he believed that nature had created a primal distinction in
intelligence and innate mental capacity between blacks and whites,
which no amount of social intervention could ever change.
He had uttered the unutterable, the most ardent fantasy of white
racists (David Duke would wax poetic on his Web site that the truth
had at last been revealed, and by no less than the discoverer of the
structure of DNA). His words caused a ripple effect of shock, dismay
and disgust among those of us who embrace the range of biological
diversity and potential within the human community. It was as if one
of the smartest white men in the world had confirmed what so many
racists believe already: that the gap between blacks and whites in,
say, IQ test scores and SAT results has a biological basis and that
environmental factors such as centuries of slavery, colonization, Jim
Crow segregation and race-based discriminationóall contributing to
uneven economic developmentódon't amount to a hill of beans. Nature
has given us an extra basketball gene, as it were, in lieu of native
intelligence.
Watson is no stranger to controversy. Since the heated critical
reception to the publication of "The Double Helix" 40 years ago, he
has seemed to delight in making, with some regularity, outrageously
provocative comments, comments designed at best to disturb the status
quo, to shock if not awe both his fellow scientists and the general
public. His autobiography, "Avoid Boring People," published in
September 2007, lambastes his fellow scientists as "dinosaurs,"
"deadbeats" and "has-beens." By the time the London Sunday Times
article appeared, Watson had been engaged in several controversies
over genetic screening, genetic engineering, homosexuality, obesity
and the purported relation between skin color and libido.
But none of those controversies could begin to prepare him for the
intensity of the firestorm ignited by the Sunday Times article, which
quoted him as saying that "he was inherently gloomy about the
prospect
of Africa," since "all of our social policies are based on the fact
that their intelligence is the same as oursówhereas all the testing
says not really"; that "people who have to deal with black employees
find that [the belief that everyone is equal] is not true"; and that
"there is no firm reason to anticipate that the intellectual
capacities of peoples geographically separated in their evolution
should prove to have evolved identically. Our wanting to reserve
equal
powers of reason as some universal heritage of humanity will not be
enough to make it so." Five days after the article was published, he
profusely apologized in a statement to the press; on Oct. 25, he
abruptly retired from his position at Cold Spring Harbor, after 40
years of service there.
When I read about Watson's remarks, I was astonished, not to mention
angered and saddened. I was also determined to ask him about these
comments directly. Though The Root was still in its nascent form and
we wouldn't launch until January 2008, I sent him a letter, offering
him a platform in the black world through which he could explain,
defend and perhaps clarify the remarks attributed to him. He accepted
my invitation to give The Root his first major interview since the
Hunt-Grubbe article appeared.
I had read, with the admiring avidity of a high school senior
hellbent
on medical school, his best-selling book, "The Double Helix," back in
1968. It never occurred to me that I would one day be making
documentaries for public television about the uses of DNA for
ancestry
tracing among African Americans. But it was not until December 2006
that I met the scientist I had so admired. I was in New York,
delivering a lecture for alumni of Clare College at the University of
Cambridge. I had earned my M.A. and Ph.D. in English language and
literature from Clare in February 1979, and Watson was living there
and working at the Cavendish Laboratory when he and Crick identified
the structure of DNA. As I rose to deliver my lecture at the podium,
the Master of Clare College whispered to me that James Watson was in
the audience. I was astonished; I had no idea that he was still
alive.
Following the lecture, I was seated next to Dr. Watson at dinner. He
was indeed still alive; he was a sprightly and mentally acute 78 at
the time. I found him friendly, but a bit awkward in conversation;
generous and thoughtful, funny, but quirky-funny. A week later,
unsolicited, a signed copy of "The Double Helix" arrived at my home.
I thought of that slightly awkward dinner conversation and his
gracious gift as I arrived at his offices at Cold Spring Harbor on
March 17 for our interview. We talked for well over an hour, with no
holds barred.
"Well?" one of my friends asked later. "Is he a racist?"
I don't think James Watson is a racist. But I do think that he is a
racialistóthat is, he believes that certain observable traits or
forms
of behavior among groups of human beings might, indeed, have a
biological basis in the code that scientists, eventually, may be able
to ascertain, that the "gene" is some mythically neutral space and
what it purportedly "measures" or "determines" is independent of
environmental factors, variables and influences. The difference, the
distinction, between being a racist and a racialist is crucial. James
Watson is not the garden-variety racist as he has been caricatured by
the press and bloggers, the sort epitomized by David Duke and his
ilk,
and he seemed genuinely chagrined, embarrassed and remorseful that
Duke and other racists had claimed him as their champion, as one of
their own, because of his remarks as quoted in the London Sunday
Times. And, as we might expect, he apologized profusely for those
remarks, contending that he had been misquoted, at worst, and his
remarks taken out of context, at best. (I have not been able to
determine if the writer who reported the remarks taped them or
reconstructed them from notes or memory.)
But I did leave Cold Spring Harbor convinced that Dr. Watson
believes
that many forms of behaviorósuch as "Jewish intelligence" (his
phrase)
and the basketball prowess of black men in the NBA (his example)ó
could, possibly, be traced to genetic differences among human beings,
although no such connection has been made, and will probably never be
made on any firm scientific basis, it seems to me. And I have to say
that it was ultimately chilling to me when he remarked, with what
seemed to me to be monumental naivete, that "if they find genes for
all kinds of Jewish intelligence, I don't think it's going to affect
me in the slightest," especially when we couple that sort of remark
with his passionate belief that "everyone should be judged as
individuals. No one should be judged by a term like 'black.'"
Yet precisely because of the misuses of science and pseudoscience
since the 18th century, which put into place fixed categories of
four
or five "races" to justify an economic order dependent upon the
exploitation of blacks (and other people of color) as cheap sources
of
labor, starting with slavery and continuing through Jim Crow and
beyond, it has never been possible for a person of African descent to
function in American society simply and purely as an "individual."
And
if the presidential candidacy of Barack Obama has taught him, and us,
anything at all, it is that this perhaps ideal state of affairsóto
function as an individual and to be judged on your individual meritsó
still remains a most elusive and somewhat naÔve dream.
Watson's error is that he associates individual genetic differences
(which, of course, do in fact exist) with ethnic variation (which is
sociocultural and highly malleable). Character traitsóabilities and
behaviors, such as intelligence or basketball skills, that are
popularly attributed to groups and are defined as "genetic"ówill, in
fact, continue to delimit the freedom of choice and expression of
individuals who fall into those "racial" categories, regardless of
our
individual attainments and achievements. In the end, visions that are
racialist may end up doing the same work of those that are racist.
This is a lesson Watson has lived, and it is one from which we all
might learn.
Having spent the past three decades studying racist discourse in the
West (starting with my Ph.D. dissertation on the Enlightenment), I
know that such conclusionsósay, about an entity called "Jewish
intelligence"ówould deleteriously affect me as a black person because
it would reinforce stereotypes about Jewish people being genetically
superior to us, and that such a conclusion would reinforce
stereotypes
about black people being inherently less intelligent than other
members of the human community. If such differences in intelligence
were purported to have a genetic basis, as David Duke proclaimed on
his Web site with such naked glee, all of the social intervention in
the world could have only so much effect. (Head Start? Why bother,
when nature is to blame.) Sooner or later, in a time of increasing
economic scarcity, members of these supposedly "different" or
"lesser"
ethnic groups or genetic populations could very well find their life
possibilities limited and perhaps even regulated. Who among us can
doubt that this would be true?
Likewise, I worry even more that Dr. Watson confessed to me that "we
shouldn't expect that different persons have equal intelligence,
because we don't know that. And people say that these should be the
same [that is, that all human beings, that all members of different
"racial" groups, should have the same basic range and potential for
development of intelligence genetically]. I think the answer is we
don't know." And later, he remarked in passing that "we're not all
the
same," by which he meant genetically. Rest assured that in the very
near future, some scientist somewhere will claim to have proven this
through our genes, and that claim will be deeply problematic for the
future development of black people in American society.
As I drove away from Cold Spring Harbor, I realized that my
conversation with Dr. Watson only confirmed something I already, with
great trepidation, have come to believe: That the last great battle
over racism will be fought not over access to a lunch counter, or a
hotel room, or to the right to vote, or even the right to occupy the
White House; it will be fought in a laboratory, in a test tube, under
a microscope, in our genome, on the battleground of our DNA. It is
here where we, as a society, will rank and interpret our genetic
difference.
(Henry Louis Gates Jr. is editor-in-chief of The Root and is the
Alphonse Fletcher University Professor at Harvard University.)
Comm
http://www.erectuswalksamongst.us
Richard Lynn agrees with most of it, 99%. The citations are meticulous -
and please, IGNORE the title and joke-cover. The book is dead serious.
YES, there are in fact two races, however. Africans and Euroasians
(everyone else).