Archaeologica.org

Marduk, you mentioned France but forgot Belgium ... obviously, you're slipping

pffft
Belgium is just France with more dykes
everything is copied from England anyway
its the template for western civilisation because we have the best flag

see
England with more rules = Germany
England with less rules = France
England with more money = Italy
England with less money = Spain
England with more curry = India
England with less curry = Wales
England with more Alcohol = Scotland/Ireland
England with less Alcohol = Northern Ireland
England with more English = Australia
England with less English = New Zealand
England with more Dictators = Cuba
England with less Dictators = Utopia
England with less religious fundementalists = Switzerland
England with more religious fundementalists = America

God save the Queen

God save the Queen

don't get me started

http://www.alphagalileo.org/index.cfm?f ... z_search=1

The study is based upon climate reconstructions elaborated from marine records and using the experience of Spanish and international research groups on Western Mediterranean paleoceanography. The conclusions point out that Neanderthal populations did suffer fluctuations related to climate changes before the first Homo Sapiens arrived in the Iberian Peninsula. Cold, arid and highly variable climate was the least favourable weather for Neanderthals and 24,000 years ago they had to face the worst weather conditions in the last 250,000 years.

More on extinction by climate.
From the News Section.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/story ... 80,00.html

Modern humans were living in northern Africa far earlier than previously thought, according to scientists. A new analysis of a 160,000-year-old fossilised jawbone from Morocco shows that the homo sapiens in the area had started having long childhoods, one of the hallmarks of humans living today.
It is known that the species homo sapiens emerged in Africa 200,000 years ago, but the oldest fossils that resemble modern humans come from sites in Europe dated to around 20,000 to 30,000 years ago.

They still don't have a skull in Africa that looks like a modern human. The child cited in this article is a poor example and seems desparate. Denser facial structures appear later, even in humans today.

They still don't have a skull in Africa that looks like a modern human

you're actually making it up now arent you

The 130,000 year-old reconstructed skull shown below at left represents the earliest known example of a modern human being, Homo sapiens sapiens. It was found at Omo in East Africa

They look dead human to me!

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news ... brids.html

A growing number of studies has been presented as evidence that two animal species can combine to produce a third, sexually viable species in a process known as hybrid speciation. Newly identified examples include both insects and fish.

This evolutionary process, while known to be common in plants, has long been considered extremely rare among animals.

Animals are generally thought to evolve the opposite way, when a single species gradually splits into two over many generations.

But some scientists now believe that the behavior that has been called animals' sexual blunders could be an important force in their evolution.

Given the fact there have been several reported cases of hybrid speciation in animals, I think it's possible that's just the tip of the iceberg," said biologist James Mallet of University College London in the United Kingdom.

Mallet said that advances in technologies for decoding genes are only now giving scientists the opportunity to make such discoveries.

Hybrid-formed species are usually extremely difficult to detect because of their close physical resemblance to their parent species, he said.

But today scientists are able to collect the detailed molecular data needed to identify previously unrecognized hybrids.

No mention of HN, but we've talked about hybrids here.

marduk wrote:

They still don't have a skull in Africa that looks like a modern human

you're actually making it up now arent you


No....it says it

but the oldest fossils that resemble modern humans come from sites in Europe dated to around 20,000 to 30,000 years ago.

right there. Doesn't it?

well its a crappy and incorrect link then isnt it
reflects the research ability of the person posting it
or possibly their agenda

http://johnhawks.net/weblog/

However, although such comparisons are of interest, it is not the static genome but rather the dynamic proteome that determines the phenotype of an organism. Salient examples include the caterpillar and the tadpole, which share genomes with the butterfly and frog, respectively, but which have very different proteomes making them into very different organisms. Thus, rather than performing untargeted comparisons of sizable genomes, we suggest that it might be more useful to address this question using a standard hypothesis-driven approach. One such avenue might be the "fat utilization" hypothesis, which holds that the key mutations that differentiate us from Neanderthals and great apes are in the genes coding for proteins regulating fat metabolism, in particular, those regulating the phospholipids in brain synapses (3, 4). A specific search for variations in genomic DNA or gene expression related to lipid biochemistry and metabolism could be carried out.

Interesting new stuff at John Hawks weblog.

Beags, this is one of the most active areas in human genetic research at the current time. The human genome represents the "substrate" upon which proteins are created, but that's just the beginning. Identical genes can produce different proteins depending upon where the trascription starts or stops.

It is now believed that differences in transcription regulation may cause the physical differences we see between "races". In other words, our genetics might be very similar, but some proteins being produced are slightly different, resulting in outward appearance differences. In that case we would literally all be the same "underneath" but just look different on the outside.

Preliminary genomic sequencing on Neanderthals shows that they are different enough at the "substrate" level that they would be substantially different from HSS in physical appearance also. I all comes down to whether that genomic difference was great enough to result in sterile hybrids or not, and whether any successful Neanderthal/HSS hybrids carried any genes that had a selective advantage in Eurasia 30-40,000 years ago. The "D Allele" brain gene is a possible candidate, and Svante Paabo at the Max Planck Institute is researching that one at the present time.

In that case we would literally all be the same "underneath" but just look different on the outside.

Still hanging in there as a multi-regionalist, I could list some differences in the 3 primary races that lie beneath the skin, but the lack of diversity is a fact.

But sometime - about those 3 races, I'll post a link about the 3 major blood types. Provides a different sort of look at human migration also.

As Hawks said in his FAQ page, he believes there will be some surprises when all the info is available. I hope it doesn't take forever.

Still hanging in there as a multi-regionalist, I could list some differences in the 3 primary races that lie beneath the skin, but the lack of diversity is a fact.

Actually, I am also a multi-regionalist and agree with Wolpoff. What was not stated, but implied in my last post, is that the surprises will be found in the area of activity between the human genome and proteome. Only 30% of human proteins produced by the genome have been characterized so far. There is still a long way to go.