A discussion forum for history enthusiasts everywhere
 
HomeHome  ShortcutsShortcuts  FAQFAQ  RegisterRegister  Log inLog in  

Share | 
 

 Evolution not a tree? Homo naledi.

View previous topic View next topic Go down 
AuthorMessage
PaulRyckier
Censura
avatar

Posts : 1363
Join date : 2012-01-01
Location : Belgium

PostSubject: Evolution not a tree? Homo naledi.   Wed 10 Feb 2016, 22:03

Saw the day before yesterday this documentary: Dawn of Humanity...
As I know from the BBC time that Gilgamesh is interested too in all this matter I did some research about the latest news about human evolution.
First my links to comment them afterwards:
The documentarry (I saw it in French with French subtitles):




And some critics:
http://www.andywhiteanthropology.com/blog/the-first-rising-star-results-totally-badass


And Lee Berger:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IHpEmD-95CQ


And about the findings:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_naledi


And about: Is human evolution a "tree" or not?
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evograms_07
Source:http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/about.php
https://aeon.co/opinions/human-evolution-is-more-a-muddy-delta-than-a-branching-tree


Kind regards, Paul.
Back to top Go down
Triceratops
Censura
avatar

Posts : 2708
Join date : 2012-01-05

PostSubject: Re: Evolution not a tree? Homo naledi.   Thu 18 Feb 2016, 11:26

According to this article, modern Humans were interbreeding with Neanderthals 100,000 years ago.

It also means that modern Humans left Africa a good deal earlier than supposed;

Neanderthals
Back to top Go down
PaulRyckier
Censura
avatar

Posts : 1363
Join date : 2012-01-01
Location : Belgium

PostSubject: Re: Evolution not a tree? Homo naledi.   Thu 18 Feb 2016, 22:23

Triceratops, read once this article:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recent_African_origin_of_modern_humans
Tomorrow more comments...

Kind regards, Paul.
Back to top Go down
Gilgamesh of Uruk
Censura
avatar

Posts : 1397
Join date : 2011-12-27

PostSubject: Re: Evolution not a tree? Homo naledi.   Thu 18 Feb 2016, 22:42

@Triceratops wrote:
According to this article, modern Humans were interbreeding with Neanderthals 100,000 years ago.

It also means that modern Humans left Africa a good deal earlier than supposed;

Neanderthals
Unless, of course, the "separate evolutionist" idea holds water.
Back to top Go down
PaulRyckier
Censura
avatar

Posts : 1363
Join date : 2012-01-01
Location : Belgium

PostSubject: Re: Evolution not a tree? Homo naledi.   Fri 19 Feb 2016, 21:24

Triceratops and Gilgamesh,

from the wiki link that I provided yesterday:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recent_African_origin_of_modern_humans

a lot of different views and theories, until now not yet a founded unified theory...
for instance: multiregional origin of modern human
and
multiple dispersal model: two outs of Africa...
From the wiki article:

Other scientists have proposed a multiple dispersal model according to which there were two migrations out of Africa, one across the Red Sea and along the coastal regions to India (the coastal route), which would be represented by haplogroup M. Another group of migrants with haplogroup N followed the Nile from East Africa, heading northwards and crossing into Asia through the Sinai. This group then branched in several directions, some moving into Europe and others heading east into Asia. This hypothesis is supported by the relatively late date of the arrival of modern humans in Europe as well as by both archaeological and DNA evidence. Results from mtDNA collected from aboriginal Malaysians called Orang Asli and the creation of a phylogentic tree indicate that the hapologroups M and N share characteristics with original African groups from approximately 85,000 years ago and share characteristics with sub-haplogroups among coastal southeast Asian regions, such as Australasia, the Indian Subcontinent, and throughout continental Asia, which had dispersed and separated from its African origins approximately 65,000 years ago. This southern coastal dispersion would have occurred before the original theory of dispersion through the Levant approximately 45,000 years ago.[67] This hypothesis attempts to explain why haplogroup N is predominant in Europe and why haplogroup M is absent in Europe. Evidence of the coastal migration is hypothesized to have been destroyed by the rise in sea levels during the Holocene epoch.[68][69] Alternatively, a small European founder population that initially expressed both haplogroup M and N could have lost haplogroup M through random genetic drift resulting from a bottleneck (i.e. a founder effect).
Today at the Bab-el-Mandeb straits, the Red Sea is about 20 kilometres (12 mi) wide, but 50,000 years ago sea levels were 70 m (230 ft) lower (owing to glaciation) and the water was much narrower. Though the straits were never completely closed, they were narrow enough and there may have been islands in between to have enabled crossing using simple rafts.[70][71] Shell middens 125,000 years old have been found in Eritrea,[72] indicating the diet of early humans included seafood obtained by beachcombing.


And from a French forum that I also attend I read today this:
http://www.nature.com/articles/nature16544.epdf?referrer_access_token=o5aDmvgYtIGYL2LdpEGlJtRgN0jAjWel9jnR3ZoTv0MInt_2jYvKBG--7sOqWdGTzUvToNHVvyhzE6mZLLgJJk-xwPlVu6cq_cgI4vcmhH2utoks_DbU5ieQAjiolCiOIQT10JeCT708MMEwLfMWg5GggbX6-6lZdnndQHTnvIcR5fAY4dyuZxaGTMgxuLcr&tracking_referrer=www.bbc.com


Kind regards, Paul.
Back to top Go down
 

Evolution not a tree? Homo naledi.

View previous topic View next topic Back to top 
Page 1 of 1

Permissions in this forum:You cannot reply to topics in this forum
Res Historica History Forum :: The history of people ... :: Civilisation and Community-