Neanderthals

[devance]

http://www.physorg.com/news129132016.html

' organigram published by the journal Nature declares.

The method, invented by evolutionary analysts in Argentina, marks a break with the conventional technique by which anthropologists chart the twists and turns of the human odyssey.

That technique typically divides the the genus Homo into various classifications according to the shape of key facial features -- "flat-faced," "protruding-faced" and so on.

Reconciling these diverse classifications from a tiny number of specimens spanning millions of years has led to lots of claims and counter-claims, as well as much confusion in the general public, about how we came to be here.

Various species of Homo have been put up for the crown of being our direct ancestor, only to find themselves dimissed by critics as failed branches of the Homo tree.

The authors of the new study, led by Rolando Gonzalez-Jose at the Patagonian National Centre at Puerto Madryn, Argentina, say the problem with the conventional method is that, under evolution, facial traits do not appear out of the blue but result from continuous change.

So the arrival of a specimen that has some relatively minor change of feature as compared to others should not be automatically held up as representing a new species, they argue.

The team goes back over the same well-known set of specimens, but uses a different approach to analyse it, focussing in particular on a set of fundamental yet long-term changes in skull shape.

They took digital 3D images of the casts of 17 hominid specimens as well as from a gorilla, chimpanzee and H. sapiens.

The images were then crunched through a computer model to compare four fundamental variables -- the skull's roundness and base, the protrusion of the jaw, and facial retraction, which is the position of the face relative to the cranial base.

When other phylotogenic techniques are used, the outcome is a family tree whose main lines closely mirror existing ones but offers a clearer view as to how the evolutionary path unfolded.

The paper suggests that, after evolving from the hominid Australopithecus afarensis, the first member of Homo, H. habilis, arose between 1.5 and 2.1 million years ago.

We are direct linear descendants of H. habilis. H. sapiens started to show up around 200,000 years ago.

None of the species currently assigned to Homo are discarded, though.

On the other hand, the Neanderthals are declared "chronological variants inside a single biological heritage," in other words, evolutionary cousins but still a separate species from us.

The squat, low-browed Neanderthals lived in parts of Europe, Central Asia and the Middle East for around 170,000 but traces of them disappear some 28,000 years ago, their last known refuge being Gibraltar.

Why they died out is a matter of furious debate, because they co-existed alongside anatomically modern man.

Some opinions aver that the Neanderthals were slowly wiped out by the smarter H. sapiens in the competition for resources.

Other contend that we and the Neanderthals were more than just kissing cousins. Interbreeding took place, which explains why the Neanderthal line died out, but implies that we could have Neanderthal inheritage in our genome today, goes this theory.

'

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I can only thank God that the above crap is recognizable.

'Why they died out is a matter of furious debate, because they co-existed alongside anatomically modern man. '

[2b]

May be we are fundamentally evil and we killed them off because we were smarter.

[devance]

Scientific terms are based on latin roots as to nouns.

As polymorh.

Poly means many, morph means changing.

Who ever wrote the article wasn't even versed to do so.

A classic propaganda or just write anything for a paycheck without even a remote interest comprehension of science.

We night be in the age of who you know as to the power structure.

So the sky is fall9ing for the credit/banking system.

They [pigs] ate out the trough but so furiously they knocked it over.

Know they want like before.

[ballzac]

I'm just curious as to whether any of the findings are in disagreement with the commonly accepted understanding of the human family tree, as what is written seems to pretty much agree with what has been said time and time again over the last decade or so.

And in response to you last post Devance..."Huh?"

[devance]

Well Ball there alot of disagreement with the commonly accepted understanding of the human family tree,.

Unfortuntely it takes some reading of cutting edge scientific articles that mention theorys tp know about such.

For those that not up to it, a slow diet of easy to learn dogma is in order.

After all telling someone of their uneducated or pathetically subnormal state is not the way of.

Just the opposite they should be pleased with the accepted state of abyssmal ignorance of the general public.

After all it time consuming to educate someone.

And not all will be that lucky.

[devance]

Actually science term are based on verbs not nouns.

Well I am slack sometimes but no one corrected, but me.

But a least I am accurate.