Posted on 07/01/2004 12:22:40 PM PDT by Junior
Findings like this make me wonder: Just how many human "sub-species" have there been? How many of them completely disappeared, leaving no trace, and how many were absorbed into the genetic group we call "Homo Sapiens?" After all, if the Neanderthals could have been absorbed by our ancestors (as some believe), what about other groups of sort-of-humans?
Heads are shrunken by removing the skull in little pieces over a period of time. If this were the result of a "shrinking" ritual, it wouldn't exist.
American Indians were on their way to be a separate subspecies, being reproductively isolated -- until those damnable Vikings wandered by...
They must have been very scientifically advanced to even know what genes were. Unless it's a misspelling and he meant "jeans".
Post of the day. I have diet coke up my nose, you b*stard.
Considering any moronic welfare queen can swap genes effectively, I'm not sure this requires any advanced science.
The same is probably true for the inhabitants of Africa, south of the Sahara. And for the natives of Australia. And probably other groups. It was the development of ocean-going ships that ended everyone's genetic isolation. Then railroads, then planes. Nowadays, you can swap genes all over the planet during a two-week vacation.
I've read that Australian Aborigines are genetically different enough from other people that breeding with non- Aborigines is difficult, leading to a very high rate of miscarriage.
As we learn more about the human genome, I wonder what we'll discover about various genetically-isolated groups of humans.
Prehistoric dwarf-tossing gone wrong, maybe?
Or, even more interestingly, I wonder what will happen when (if?) humans spread to other planets.
They're extinct now, but the natives of Tasmania were morphologically different from other modern humans. I'm not sure there are any part-blood Tasmanians out there, which means they could not breed with others (though they were unattractive enough that this may have been an aesthetic thing).
Every little valley has a story to tell. For example: The Blue People of Troublesome Creek.
Good point. I don't know much about anthropology, but it does seem that whenever they find a human fossil, they assume the find is typical of the culture at the time. What if, by the laws of random chance, the two people alive today whose fossils get preserved are Shaquille O' Neil and Robert Reich?
In one million years, the textbooks might be saying "In the primitive globalization era, humans consisted of two tribes: giants and pygmies. We suspect they were at war most of the time."
It is Bush's fault!
Wow! 55 posts and I'm the first to suggest the obvious -- it was an alien.
Duh.
> it does seem that whenever they find a human fossil, they assume the find is typical of the culture at the time.
Statistically valid, and generally supported by further evidence. When you find a fossil *anything*, the greatest likelyhood is that it is a more or less average example of whatever it is.
Heck, doesn't even need to be a fossill... just pick a human (or cow, or cat, whatever) at random, and chances are pretty good that it'll be pretty representative.
My understanding is that Neanderthals were sufficiently distinct from modern humans so that interbreeding (and absorption) could not occur.
No hobbits in Africa.
Hobbits live in areas that look deceptively like the midlands in Africa.
Since this is in a volcanic ridge it has to be one of the discards of the evil one.
No hobbits in Africa.
Hobbits live in areas that look deceptively like the midlands in England..
Since this is in a volcanic ridge it has to be one of the discards of the evil one.
Quick correction. I saw the error as I hit the post button. It was too late to recall. I am a fool.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.