Most Asians, most Native Americans and HE also share the common trait of shovel-shaped incisors.
Whatever does the Out of Africa Club say about that?
Min, OOA is silent on that subject. They'll probably use the same brilliant analysis that was used to explain away the head lice phenomenon: "A band of HSS traveling east to America picked up head lice from HE on the way there." That explanation, quite frankly, is retarded.
Might have been the Stone Age Hunters, one, Charlie.
Something is wrong here. War, disease, death, destruction, hunger, filth, poverty, torture, crime, corruption, and the Ice Capades. Something is definitely wrong. This is not good work. If this is the best God can do, I am not impressed.
Most Asians, most Native Americans and HE also share the common trait of shovel-shaped incisors.
Whatever does the Out of Africa Club say about that?
Min, OOA is silent on that subject. They'll probably use the same brilliant analysis that was used to explain away the head lice phenomenon: "A band of HSS traveling east to America picked up head lice from HE on the way there." That explanation, quite frankly, is retarded.
Why am I not surprised. I noted The Club avoided any discussion of the Pokotia Monolith and the Magna Fuenta bowl back when Beags posted some stuff about them. Then, they point out that the only people who take it seriously are the 'Atlantis' crowd.
It's a common trick of their's.
Something is wrong here. War, disease, death, destruction, hunger, filth, poverty, torture, crime, corruption, and the Ice Capades. Something is definitely wrong. This is not good work. If this is the best God can do, I am not impressed.
Minimalist wrote:
Why am I not surprised. I noted The Club avoided any discussion of the Pokotia Monolith and the Magna Fuenta bowl back when Beags posted some stuff about them. Then, they point out that the only people who take it seriously are the 'Atlantis' crowd.
It's a common trick of their's.
Scientology uses it too: discrediting. With a mean streak. So it's villification really. Slander actually.
Minimalist wrote:Might have been the Stone Age Hunters, one, Charlie.
Yeah, or the other PBS one. Sorry, I'm doing my quarterly wiping of my harddrive, and reinstalling everything. I'm on my daughter's laptop right now...
I've still got them somewhere. I think I burned them to a DVD.
Something is wrong here. War, disease, death, destruction, hunger, filth, poverty, torture, crime, corruption, and the Ice Capades. Something is definitely wrong. This is not good work. If this is the best God can do, I am not impressed.
Blimey! I started something here, you guys must have been up all night.
RS, what I'm saying is the if the CHINESE are correct then the Chinese and the NA Indian are HSE with a much later infusion of HSS and the Papuans and Abos are probably direct line descendents of HSE.
Frank Harrist wrote:Anybody know when humans first appeared in Hawaii and other polynesian places??????
Not wishing to take sides - I have no background here - but I happend to have tripped across this information today at lunch (while waiting for my time-challenged wife).
Jared Diamond in Guns, Germs, and Steel puts this date at 500AD (page 341, figure 17.2). The figure also gives corresponding dates for other islands in the "Austronesian Expansion".
Digit wrote:Blimey! I started something here, you guys must have been up all night.
RS, what I'm saying is the if the CHINESE are correct then the Chinese and the NA Indian are HSE with a much later infusion of HSS and the Papuans and Abos are probably direct line descendents of HSE.
Well, that would be a whole new take on things, now, wouldn't it? And what would that make current Africans?
Presumably HSS, but who knows. Till, or if, DNA becomes available for HSE, what actually is the difference between them?
Currently they are differentiated on the grounds of taxonomy, but there is a greater physical difference between early HSE and late HSE than the there is between late HSE and HSS.
To get round that problem we now have Ergaster.
Taxonomy is the best tool we have curently, but it's a pretty awful tool, it even resulted on one occasion in the remains of a prehistoric pig being classified as hominid!
Digit wrote:Presumably HSS, but who knows. Till, or if, DNA becomes available for HSE, what actually is the difference between them?
Currently they are differentiated on the grounds of taxonomy, but there is a greater physical difference between early HSE and late HSE than the there is between late HSE and HSS.
To get round that problem we now have Ergaster.
Taxonomy is the best tool we have curently, but it's a pretty awful tool, it even resulted on one occasion in the remains of a prehistoric pig being classified as hominid!
About HS.
I see the monikers HS, Homo Sapiens, as well as HSS, Homo Sapiens Sapiens, being used. Suggesting they are not the same. Can someone enlighten me please? What is the difference? When did HS evolve into HSS? Where? And did HS go extinct?
And, thinking out loud about Africans: could they be another hominid speciary experiment? 'Homo Sapiens Africanus'? A species that emerged after HSS?
HS is a group designation that covers Ergaster, Erectus, Neandertal and Sapien.
Correctly it is Homo Sapien Ergaster, Homon Sapien Erectus, Homo Sapien Neandertal and Homo Sapien Sapien.
Does that help?
Digit wrote:HS is a group designation that covers Ergaster, Erectus, Neandertal and Sapien.
Correctly it is Homo Sapien Ergaster, Homon Sapien Erectus, Homo Sapien Neandertal and Homo Sapien Sapien.
Does that help?
Classically speaking, drop the Sapien in front of Erectus and Ergaster. Then you have sort of a parent group, HS, or "Archaic" Sapiens, which classically inhabited Africa starting ca. 300,000 B.P. From HS were derived
Hsn and Hss, again, classically. I doubt it's that clearcut, but that's the formal terminology to date.
Digit wrote:HS is a group designation that covers Ergaster, Erectus, Neandertal and Sapien.
Correctly it is Homo Sapien Ergaster, Homon Sapien Erectus, Homo Sapien Neandertal and Homo Sapien Sapien.
Does that help?
Classically speaking, drop the Sapien in front of Erectus and Ergaster. Then you have sort of a parent group, HS, or "Archaic" Sapiens, which classically inhabited Africa starting ca. 300,000 B.P. From HS were derived
Hsn and Hss, again, classically. I doubt it's that clearcut, but that's the formal terminology to date.
That's a little bit clearer. Thanks. But still leaves these questions:
what is the difference between HS and HSS? When did HS evolve into HSS? Where? And did HS go extinct?
And about Africans: could they be another hominid speciary experiment? 'Homo Sapiens Africanus'? A species that emerged after HSS?
I'll never keep up with this naming game, soon as you get used to a name it's changed!
HS didn't evolve into anything RS, the second Sapien bit is used to show a close relationship.
Neandertal man was originally just HN, but in the 60s, I think it was, there was a clearing of a lot of confusion, as almost every tooth that came out of the ground was given its own classification.
Originally Erectus was Pithecanthropus Erectus, Peking Man was changed from Sinanthropus Pekinensis to Homo Erectus, Erectus was then split into Erectus and Ergaster, Hablis was fitted in somewhere!
The outcome was that Neandertal man was then reclassified as Homo Sapien. To distinguish him from us, we were reclassified as HSS and Neandertal became HSN.
Phew.
