| Author |
Message |
    
Sidescraper_gal
hunter
Username: Sidescraper_gal
Post Number: 387
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, August 12, 2006 - 7:07 pm: |     |
All:
According to Erik Trinkaus, it is not Neandertals who are evolutionarily unique, it is "modern" humans. This is via Dieneke's Anthropology blog. An abstract from Current Anthropology, but even the abstract is worth reading(but then, anything by Trinkaus is worth reading).
Anne G |
Sidescraper_gal
hunter
Username: Sidescraper_gal
Post Number: 388
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, August 12, 2006 - 7:08 pm: | |
All:
Yikes! I forgot to post the URL for the above post! Here it is:
http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2005/07/early-modern- humans.html
Anne G |
Cavebear
cave painter
Username: Cavebear
Post Number: 2812
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Monday, August 14, 2006 - 1:55 am: | |
Not to be picking nits, but isn't that almost a "given"? Either all dead end homonid lineages are evolutionarily unique, or only the survivng one is. Or both?
What I mean is that all species are unique. But does that mean that they all had survival advantages?
BTW, I read in NewScientist magazine that there is evidence that H erectus evolved in Western Asia and contributed genetic improvements to both Africa and Eastern Asia. Any thoughts on that?
Thank you, Carl Sagan... |
Sidescraper_gal
hunter
Username: Sidescraper_gal
Post Number: 389
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Monday, August 14, 2006 - 9:17 pm: | |
Cavebear:
To answer your first question as best I can: Well, yes and no. I think Trinkaus had something quite specific in mind. And that was the "distinctiveness" of "modern" human physical traits The study apparently found(I haven't been able for various reasons to read it yet), that "modern" humans apparently have more traits that are unique to them than do Neandertals. Neandertals apparently ahd more traits in common with the common ancestors of both "modern" humans and Neandertals. I don't think, from what I understand of this article, that Trinkaus had anything to say about whether or not these traits contributed to increased "survivability".
As for H.erectus evolving in Western Asia(I presume you mean the area that is sometimes called "the Levant"), this could be true. Although there are some workers that believe what is commonly described as H.erectus is really fourspecies, all separated geographically. Personally, I think this is "splitting" carried to an extreme, and I don't buy it. OTOH, H.erectus people got around over great distances, quite obviously. So I think it's quite possible that various little populations spread their genes far and wide. And that's about as "far" as I'm willing to go with this, at least at this time.
Anne G |
Scott
flint knapper
Username: Scott
Post Number: 1467
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 22, 2006 - 4:35 am: | |
Yeah that's what Trinkaus is saying - we have more the define us as unique, in other words were are more different from all the rest.
I think cavebear is referring to Georgia Anne G (Dmanisi).
Scott
PS: Trinkaus is really worth reading people - anything, even napkin doodles!
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Ces gens, Jondalar, ils sourient. Ils me sourient. - Ayla |
Sidescraper_gal
hunter
Username: Sidescraper_gal
Post Number: 400
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Friday, September 08, 2006 - 9:20 pm: | |
All:
According to Erik Trinkaus, the Neandertal expert, "modern" humans ore the evolutionary oddballs. You can read more about his ideas here:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/space/20060908/sc_space/sc ientisthumansstrangeneanderthalsnormal
Maybe he's right. I'm not a Neandertal expert, only a Starving Writer, so I don't know.
Anne G |
Cavebear
cave painter
Username: Cavebear
Post Number: 2846
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 12, 2006 - 2:40 am: | |
Trinkaus doesn't seem to like modern humans very much... He seems to think that all types of hominids are so distinct that they won't interbreed, like each type of hominid arose separately and distinctly. I don't see much sense in that idea. That geography isolates our ancestors when we know that they wandered around and must have met each other, and that (an assumption of my own from his views) we seem to replace each other (violently or not).
I just don't agree with his assumptions. I think hominids and the later humans interbred almost anywhere they met. That's just something we all tend to do. When we meet, we either kill each other and steal mates or we mate with the new ones more peacefully.
Thank you, Carl Sagan... |
Scott
flint knapper
Username: Scott
Post Number: 1479
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 12, 2006 - 3:10 am: | |
cavebear,
Trinkaus is one of the leading proponents that AMH and Neanderthal did interbreed - see the Lapedo Child (Portugal). He is definitely the world's leading expert on Neanderthal morphology.
What he is saying cavebear is that if you look at the human lineage, from a phenotypical pov, you will notice (at least he has) that we are the most atypical of all the hominids, there is "less" continuity as homo transitioned to modern man.
He is not saying there wasn't interbreeding, especially between AMH and Neanderthal.
Scott
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Ces gens, Jondalar, ils sourient. Ils me sourient. - Ayla |
Cavebear
cave painter
Username: Cavebear
Post Number: 2847
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 12, 2006 - 3:46 am: | |
Sorry, I thought Trinkaus was one of the OOA group.
So I don't get the "oddball" reference...
Thank you, Carl Sagan... |
Scott
flint knapper
Username: Scott
Post Number: 1485
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 12, 2006 - 3:50 am: | |
Well since we are the most "atypical", then we are the 'odd man out' sort of idea. At least I think that is what he is saying. I haven't read the full article in Current Anthropology but I will this week and if I am off base, I will email him for clarification.
Scott
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Ces gens, Jondalar, ils sourient. Ils me sourient. - Ayla |
Cavebear
cave painter
Username: Cavebear
Post Number: 2848
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 12, 2006 - 4:01 am: | |
It might be more accurate to say we are "the odd man in". Doesn't it seem that whatever variety of humans survived to be the only ones, they would have been equally unique?
If neanderthals had been the lucky winners, they would be very different from all other hominids. Same with Ergaster et al...
Thank you, Carl Sagan... |
Sidescraper_gal
hunter
Username: Sidescraper_gal
Post Number: 401
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 12, 2006 - 8:07 pm: | |
Cavebear:
But that isn't what Trinkaus is saying(at least in an evolutionary sense). As far as "not liking modern humans very much", --- I'm quoting here from an earlier post of yours, I think it's more a case of, well, for various reasons, he got into what might be called "Neandertal studies" at a time when virtually nobody else was doing it, and he's been studying them for a long time. I think some of his ideas are kind of "off the wall" in some ways, and sometimes he's been shown to be (probably) wrong. But on other issues, such as this one, he may be on to something. At the very least, his studies suggest a different angle to look at "modern" human origins from.
Anne G |
|
People, Places, Cultures and Resources