Page 10 of 12
Posted: Fri Apr 14, 2006 1:55 pm
by Beagle
No - it's not. I use the name in another forum for different reasons, but when I joined this forum I wondered if anybody would think that :) . It actually is a reference to my RV. I'm retired and enjoy camping a lot and using my laptop.
Posted: Fri Apr 14, 2006 2:02 pm
by Frank Harrist
Cool! There are a few more retirees here too. You should fit right in. Welcome! (belatedly)
Posted: Fri Apr 14, 2006 3:07 pm
by Minimalist
Yeah! Retirees are cool. and we have lots of free time.
Posted: Mon May 08, 2006 10:49 am
by Minimalist
Okay...now where is Daybrown when we need her!
http://www.livescience.com/othernews/06 ... ution.html
The number of years that modern humans are thought to have overlapped with Neanderthals in Europe is shrinking fast, and some scientists now say that figure could drop to zero.
Neanderthals lived in Europe and western Asia from 230,000 to 29,000 years ago, petering out soon after the arrival of modern humans from Africa.
There is much debate on exactly how Neanderthals went extinct. Theories include climate change and inferior tools compared to those made by modern humans. Anthropologists also disagree on whether modern humans and Neanderthals are the same species and interbred.
And now, some scientists dispute whether they lived side-by-side at all in Europe.
Posted: Mon May 08, 2006 11:00 am
by Beagle
Good article. I can't quarrel with it. I hope everyone takes note of the last paragraph in that article also. HNS and HS lived side by side in the Levant for approx. 20K years. Thats a long time!. The first HNS fosssils showing signs of hybridization were found in Shanidar cave in the Levant. The author states, correctly in my opinion, that the Cro-magnon migration into Europe already carried HNS genes. The mtDNA has tracked the migration into Europe but only nuclear DNA will reveal a genetic makeup.
Posted: Mon May 08, 2006 11:07 am
by Minimalist
You know, Beagle, one thing that always troubled my about this whole "out of africa" scenario is, 'why did they do it?'
I mean, if Africa, including what is now the Sahara was this fertile paradise which climatologists seem to be suggesting, then what incentive did these people have to suddenly want to leave?
Did real estate prices get too high? Was there a sudden urge to spend the summer on the Riviera?
What suddenly would have caused a mass migration into unknown and inhospitable lands?
Posted: Mon May 08, 2006 11:19 am
by Beagle
Well, the "out of Africa" model does indeed suggest a mass migration into Europe. And it is by far the accepted model now. Earlier theories to me always made more sense and the fossil record supported them. I think there were probably many movements out of Africa - beginning with Homo Erectus and Ergaster. Why? - just hunting, gathering, and following the big game.
Posted: Mon May 08, 2006 11:34 am
by Minimalist
I wonder.
When we see refugees moving today they are usually reacting to some threat.
Of course, what organized threat could there have been in Africa in 35,000 BC?
Posted: Mon May 08, 2006 11:36 am
by Leona Conner
Thanks for the lead. A great article with some very interesting follow-up stories. Will have to read them all.
Posted: Mon May 08, 2006 11:47 am
by Beagle
If it were a migration of "refugees", I don't have a good guess right now. The climate was pretty good, and the Toba eruption would have happened around 40,000 yrs earlier. What's your feeling?
While I'm at it, my favorite theory is that there were very early migrations in small groups, eventually settling on 3 continents and having noticeable difference in appearance and structure. Today there are still 3 main blood groups. Check it out. Warning: these stats are confusing.
http://anthro.palomar.edu/vary/vary_3.htm
Posted: Mon May 08, 2006 1:43 pm
by Minimalist
I used refugees for want of a better word. Why do peoples migrate? Population pressure. War. Environmental problems. Political change...the image of the Muslim/Hindu treks when India was partitioned in 1947 comes to mind.
But just for the sake of argument, let's say that a group leaves Africa via the Sinai and settles in Southern Canaan. Now one of two things has to happen. Either that group keeps moving elsewhere or following groups have to a) displace them or b) pass through them. Seems like a recipe for constant conflict, doesn't it?
I'm going to go take a look at your web site, now.
Posted: Mon May 08, 2006 1:46 pm
by Minimalist
All human populations share the same 27 known blood systems, although they differ in the frequencies of specific types. Given the evolutionary closeness of apes and monkeys to our species, it is not surprising that some of them share a number of blood typing systems with us as well.
Ooh..arch isn't going to like that!
Posted: Mon May 08, 2006 2:05 pm
by Minimalist
Beagle wrote:If it were a migration of "refugees", I don't have a good guess right now. The climate was pretty good, and the Toba eruption would have happened around 40,000 yrs earlier. What's your feeling?
While I'm at it, my favorite theory is that there were very early migrations in small groups, eventually settling on 3 continents and having noticeable difference in appearance and structure. Today there are still 3 main blood groups. Check it out. Warning: these stats are confusing.
http://anthro.palomar.edu/vary/vary_3.htm
Okay. Interesting in that there seems to be a consistency between A and O types in the West Coast of the US, Mexico and South America. Too many mass migrations back and forth across Eurasia to make much of a sense of this, though.
Posted: Mon May 08, 2006 2:42 pm
by Beagle
Yeah, as I said it can be confusing. Especially since the percentage tables are different for each map. And how did the author decide at what point in time a group of people were the native population?
As shown, blood type O is what the majority of humans have. Given that I notice that the greatest incidence of type A is seen in Europe. By far. Those same tendencies apply to type B in Asia. Meaningful? I,m not sure.
Posted: Tue May 09, 2006 6:52 pm
by Leona Conner
I have often wondered why early men left Africa. Maybe for the same reason they left Asia and crossed the land bridge to North America. They were following the game and liked where it led them. Although for the life of me I can't figure out why they would have preferred Alaska during the Ice Age. Granted it's beautiful in summer, but it had to have been pretty rough during the Ice Age. Of course, once they got past the glaciers the living must have been pretty good. Makes me think I need to go back and read After the Ice Age.
