HACSN1 report implies Throwing as primary to human evolution, bipedalism secondary #161 Rockthrowing theory
Archimedes Plutonium
<plutonium.archime...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/80beats/2008/09/05/like-your-opposa...
--- quoting from above website ---
Researchers first found a long sequence of DNA that had barely changed
during the entire evolution of backboned creatures, and then zeroed in
on a smaller stretch of code that had accumulated 16 changes since the
ancestors of humans and chimpanzees split, about 6 million years ago.
--- end quoting ---
I was not sure whether the unique gene code of 16 changes was 6
million years old. Apparently it is 6 million years old and unique to
humanity. It is proof that hand dexterity in throwing was the most
important and major change between ape and hominids. Apparently
bipedalism is subordinate to the dexterity of the hands in throwing.
We need more future
research to show just how subordinate was bipedalism compared to the
primacy of throwing.
In one of the magazines-- New Scientist? speaks of researching whether
Neanderthal
had those 16 changes. And it is the argument of Rockthrowing theory
that Neanderthal was
less-efficient in throwing versus CroMagnon and which would have
likely caused the extinction of Neanderthal. So if this is true then
genetics is the primary tool of anthropology. For it would be genetics
that tells us Neanderthals were a different species and genetics that
tells us they lacked the proficiency of throwing which likely caused
their extinction.
Archimedes Plutonium
www.iw.net/~a_plutonium
whole entire Universe is just one big atom
where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies
Archimedes Plutonium
<plutonium.archime...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Nov 15, 2:17 pm, Archimedes Plutonium
>
> <plutonium.archime...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/80beats/2008/09/05/like-your-opposa...
The above website from Discover calls it HACSN1
New Scientist calls it HACNS1
So which is it?
Lee Olsen
<plutonium.archime...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Nov 16, 1:44 pm, Archimedes Plutonium
>
> <plutonium.archime...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Nov 15, 2:17 pm, Archimedes Plutonium
>
> > <plutonium.archime...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > >http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/80beats/2008/09/05/like-your-opposa...
>
> The above website from Discover calls it HACSN1
>
> New Scientist calls it HACNS1
>
> So which is it?
>
Why would anyone who claims to be the originator of a revolutionary
evolutionary hypothesis continually refer to publications that for the
most
part aimed at the general public? One would think you should be
reading
the peer-reviewed journals.