NationStates Jolt Archive

Alright, as a student of Anthropology, I am very much interested in early human ancestry. So, the question is, what is your favourite species of Homo?

I prefer the classic Homo habilis. The first Homo, the first Homo to uses stone tools, the least human of the Homos. All good stuff. Seeing the skull casting in my Anthropology classroom was quite shocking as well, as it put some perspective on how small they actually were.

So really, what is your favourite homo?

Note, this is not supposed to be a debate about evolution, durn it. If you don't believe in evolution, that's fine. But this is not the place to debate that.

However, it is a place to debate possible Homo ancestry I would suppose.

Also, none of those pre-Homos count as Homos. So, no Australopithecenes, Kenyanthropus, Oreopithecus(Double stuffed is fine, I suppose), or other such. This is purely on those in the Genus Homo.

Well, I can't say I like any Homos as much as I do the Australopithecenes, so meh.

Well, I can't say I like any Homos as much as I do the Australopithecenes, so meh.

Australopithecenes are great and all, but at the end of the day, they are just way to long to type out. However, as that is no justification, I will allow it.

I like Homo Sapien Sapien. Especially this kind:

http://us.movies1.yimg.com/movies.yahoo.com/images/hv/photo/movie_pix/mgm/into_the_blue/jessica_alba/intotheblue5.jpg

I like Homo Sapien Sapien. Especially this kind:

http://us.movies1.yimg.com/movies.yahoo.com/images/hv/photo/movie_pix/mgm/into_the_blue/jessica_alba/intotheblue5.jpg

Perhaps I should have iterated pre-modern.

However, that is a prime example of a Homo Sapien specimen.

Perhaps I should have iterated pre-modern.

However, that is a prime example of a Homo Sapien specimen.

Jessica Alba. It just isn't fair that someone else gets to play in that field. :(

Perhaps I should have iterated pre-modern.

However, that is a prime example of a Homo Sapien specimen.

Poll! Poll! Poll!!

There aren't that many species, after all.

And she is a rather prime specimen, isn't she? Interesting the pose should be beside a body of water. You're aware, perhaps, of the pseudo-science theory that human sexual dimorphism arose because pre-human females would dash into a lake or a river or the ocean to escape predators, and so those with properly placed deposits of fat, that gave bouyancy, gained an evolutionary advantage.

Poll! Poll! Poll!!

There aren't that many species, after all.

And she is a rather prime specimen, isn't she? Interesting the pose should be beside a body of water. You're aware, perhaps, of the pseudo-science theory that human sexual dimorphism arose because pre-human females would dash into a lake or a river or the ocean to escape predators, and so those with properly placed deposits of fat, that gave bouyancy, gained an evolutionary advantage.

I hadn't heard that, but that's very interesting. I had heard that it was being semi-aquatic that made us hairless and gave us webbed fingers and toes...

Alright, as a student of Anthropology, I am very much interested in early human ancestry. So, the question is, what is your favourite species of Homo?

I prefer the classic Homo habilis. The first Homo, the first Homo to uses stone tools, the least human of the Homos. All good stuff. Seeing the skull casting in my Anthropology classroom was quite shocking as well, as it put some perspective on how small they actually were.

So really, what is your favourite homo?

Note, this is not supposed to be a debate about evolution, durn it. If you don't believe in evolution, that's fine. But this is not the place to debate that.

However, it is a place to debate possible Homo ancestry I would suppose.

Also, none of those pre-Homos count as Homos. So, no Australopithecenes, Kenyanthropus, Oreopithecus(Double stuffed is fine, I suppose), or other such. This is purely on those in the Genus Homo.

I can't say I have a favourite, maybe the most interesting for me are Neanderthals.

possible ancestry.......probably Archaic, but that could change next week with another discovery. Just the other day I was looking at some theories as to the evolutionary tree for Homo and I have the feeling there are still a number of branches of missing family members.

I hadn't heard that, but that's very interesting. I had heard that it was being semi-aquatic that made us hairless and gave us webbed fingers and toes...

Yeah, the hairlessness is a big part of the theory. Have a linky (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aquatic_ape_hypothesis).

Hmm, to actually answer the question ... I do like the Neanderthals, though they evolved in Ice Age Europe and I'm much more a tropical gal. Stll, they were pretty cool.

I like Homo Sapien Sapien. Especially this kind:

http://us.movies1.yimg.com/movies.yahoo.com/images/hv/photo/movie_pix/mgm/into_the_blue/jessica_alba/intotheblue5.jpg

Good God, we need another Babe Thread.

I hadn't heard that, but that's very interesting. I had heard that it was being semi-aquatic that made us hairless and gave us webbed fingers and toes...

there are a couple of Sapien traits that are related to water just like aquatic mammals, I heard all these in a documentary about people who free dive(no oxygen)to depths of 500ft for up to 6mins on one breath of air. Their theory is that we have instinctual reflexs that are left over from our aquatic past.
-as soon as the face is immersed in water or water is splashed on face our heart rate slows.
-blood vessels in the arms and legs constrict forcing blood/oxygen it into the body and brain
-our trachea constricts and won't allow water to pass

there are a couple of Sapien traits that are related to water just like aquatic mammals, I heard all these in a documentary about people who free dive(no oxygen)to depths of 500ft for up to 6mins on one breath of air. Their theory is that we have instinctual reflexs that are left over from our aquatic past.
-as soon as the face is immersed in water or water is splashed on face our heart rate slows.
-blood vessels in the arms and legs constrict forcing blood/oxygen it into the body and brain
-our trachea constricts and won't allow water to pass

See, as I read this all I saw was Jessica there and I just imagined all of her body reactions to water...

Oh God...

Will you excuse me?

See, as I read this all I saw was Jessica there and I just imagined all of her body reactions to water...

Oh God...

Will you excuse me? are you having an instinctual reflex?:)

See, as I read this all I saw was Jessica there and I just imagined all of her body reactions to water...

Oh God...

Will you excuse me?
0_o

I kinda like Neanderthals, cos we know so little about them. Our image is classic Ug the caveman, but they were probably quite sophisticated.

Good God, we need another Babe Thread.

I second this post.

are you having an instinctual reflex?:)

Yeah. :(

See, as I read this all I saw was Jessica there and I just imagined all of her body reactions to water...

Oh God...

Will you excuse me?

Here, take the rest of my tissues. :p

I like Homo Sapien Sapien. Especially this kind:

http://us.movies1.yimg.com/movies.yahoo.com/images/hv/photo/movie_pix/mgm/into_the_blue/jessica_alba/intotheblue5.jpg

Imma make sure she shows up on every page.

Here, take the rest of my tissues. :p

Thanks. :)

Imma make sure she shows up on every page.


She is on my desktop now :p

I can't say I have a favourite, maybe the most interesting for me are Neanderthals.

possible ancestry.......probably Archaic, but that could change next week with another discovery. Just the other day I was looking at some theories as to the evolutionary tree for Homo and I have the feeling there are still a number of branches of missing family members.

It's actually quite interesting, as it is often taught that Neanderthals were the first to bury their dead, however there is some evidence to support that Homo heidelbergensis(Considered to be the ancestor of Neanderthals) actually was the first to bury their dead.

Also, the reason why I didn't do a poll, is that although there are only a handful of species, there a many different subspecies, which are very different morphologically than one another. For instance, take Homo erectus. THe three subspecies that are from Africa, Asia, and Java. The Asian specimens seem to have a larger Sagittal keel than the Africans, and the Javan specimens appear to be a bit more gracile than the other two. There are many differences between the several subspecies of Erectus, and other Homos, and to classify them all in a single category just wouldn't work all that well.

It's actually quite interesting, as it is often taught that Neanderthals were the first to bury their dead, however there is some evidence to support that Homo heidelbergensis(Considered to be the ancestor of Neanderthals) actually was the first to bury their dead.

Also, the reason why I didn't do a poll, is that although there are only a handful of species, there a many different subspecies, which are very different morphologically than one another. For instance, take Homo erectus. THe three subspecies that are from Africa, Asia, and Java. The Asian specimens seem to have a larger Sagittal keel than the Africans, and the Javan specimens appear to be a bit more gracile than the other two. There are many differences between the several subspecies of Erectus, and other Homos, and to classify them all in a single category just wouldn't work all that well.

So you were just being lazy? :p That's okay, I just love polls. In a nice way, of course.

Erectus, and other Homos

Ahh hahah haha ahh hahha hhaha hhahah

http://www.aea16.k12.ia.us/TechData/inet4sp/BethByers/Beavis.GIF

I just love polls.

AHAH HAHAH HAHAHH AAAHH HHAH AHHAHAHAH HAHA

http://www.wisopinion.com/blogs/uploaded_images/BeavisButthead-711924.jpg

I can't say I have a favourite, maybe the most interesting for me are Neanderthals.

possible ancestry.......probably Archaic, but that could change next week with another discovery. Just the other day I was looking at some theories as to the evolutionary tree for Homo and I have the feeling there are still a number of branches of missing family members.

Oh, most definately. We only have a tiny handful of specimens of the species we do know of. How many are still out there?

For instance, the discovery in Flores of a possibly new, very recent, species of Homo in 2003 has sparked a great deal of attention. There are several remarkable and notable things about the find:

1. They were small. Practically tiny. Less than four feet tall tiny. They are not only smaller than Modern man, but also Homo erectus, and possibly even many Australopithecenes.
2. They were very similar to humans. A few slight differences in morphology are present from modern humans indicate that it could very well be a new species.
3. The remains found are dated between 93,000 and, get this, 16,000 years ago. That's right on our back door.
4. Some of the tribes in the area tell stories of tiny people who sometimes come into their villages and take things. Makes one think, perhaps.
5. They are nicknamed "Hobbits". How cool is that?

So you were just being lazy? :p That's okay, I just love polls. In a nice way, of course.

Well, there is that, and the fact that there are a couple dozen choices, depending on how specific I would want to get. Otherwise, I would have done a poll.

Oh, most definately. We only have a tiny handful of specimens of the species we do know of. How many are still out there?

For instance, the discovery in Flores of a possibly new, very recent, species of Homo in 2003 has sparked a great deal of attention. There are several remarkable and notable things about the find:

1. They were small. Practically tiny. Less than four feet tall tiny. They are not only smaller than Modern man, but also Homo erectus, and possibly even many Australopithecenes.
2. They were very similar to humans. A few slight differences in morphology are present from modern humans indicate that it could very well be a new species.
3. The remains found are dated between 93,000 and, get this, 16,000 years ago. That's right on our back door.
4. Some of the tribes in the area tell stories of tiny people who sometimes come into their villages and take things. Makes one think, perhaps.
5. They are nicknamed "Hobbits". How cool is that?Still a lot of controversy concerning Flores, not many specimens, only one skull I believe.

How about a living homo still with us, the Adannan(sp) Islanders how in the world did these people get where they are? where there closest relatives? little is known about them as they have a habit of attacking any researcher that comes near them. From what I understand there closest relatives are black Africans, quite a journey if true.

Homo economicus

Poll! Poll! Poll!!

There aren't that many species, after all.

And she is a rather prime specimen, isn't she? Interesting the pose should be beside a body of water. You're aware, perhaps, of the pseudo-science theory that human sexual dimorphism arose because pre-human females would dash into a lake or a river or the ocean to escape predators, and so those with properly placed deposits of fat, that gave bouyancy, gained an evolutionary advantage.
I never heard that before.....

Still a lot of controversy concerning Flores, not many specimens, only one skull I believe.

How about a living homo still with us, the Adannan(sp) Islanders how in the world did these people get where they are? where there closest relatives? little is known about them as they have a habit of attacking any researcher that comes near them. From what I understand there closest relatives are black Africans, quite a journey if true.

I'd be very interested in any links you could post about those people. :)

I recall not long ago there were remains of a young child found that had traits of both Neanderthal and sapien sapien, speculation was that it was evidence of a hybrid and that it may have been as recent as 13,000yrs bp......haven't heard how that has been resolved, interesting thought that Neanderthals didn't go extinct but were absorbed by Sapiens S, recent DNA results would seem to rule this out......but then other DNA studies have shown that many people alive today have incomplete DNA or duplicate DNA not the perfect 50/50 split that is assumed necessary....so who knows what is possible with hybrids and DNA....

I'd be very interested in any links you could post about those people. :)http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=378623

very respectable site-

you have to feel for these people they been persecuted by sailor/merchants for centuries so it's not surprising they are so hostile, not many left but I understand the Indian Government has forbidden anyone to approach the remaining groups. Those that do risk being killed anyways.

I never heard that before.....

Yeah, it's pretty much dismissed as pseudoscience but there's a link over in Post #10.

Still a lot of controversy concerning Flores, not many specimens, only one skull I believe.

True, however bones from at least 7 specimens have been found, and the tibia from a different individual than the more complete Little Lady of Flores or Flo for short, seems to indicate that it may very well be some very tiny species, or at the very least subspecies, of humans. Of course, more evidence is needed, but what we have is hardly conclusive either way.

The other problems with some calling her just a dwarf, is the fact that it lacks a chin, and the relatively wider leg bones in comparison to lengths, among others. Also, it does appear to have a slight resemblance to Homo erectus, as well, which was present in the area for quite some time(Although no actual remains in are found in Flores, stone tools similar to those used by Homo Erectus, dating possibly to 800,000 years ago, which is raising controversy).


How about a living homo still with us, the Adannan(sp) Islanders how in the world did these people get where they are? where there closest relatives? little is known about them as they have a habit of attacking any researcher that comes near them. From what I understand there closest relatives are black Africans, quite a journey if true.

Oddly, I don't recall these people. A quick search also revealed nothing, so perhaps you could inform me a bit?

http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=378623

very respectable site-

you have to feel for these people they been persecuted by sailor/merchants for centuries so it's not surprising they are so hostile, not many left but I understand the Indian Government has forbidden anyone to approach the remaining groups. Those that do risk being killed anyways.

Ah, I remember these people now. Isn't there a group living on an island not far off of India, which is pretty much forbidden to go to? I seem to remember at the very least a similar people involved in a huge debate over a couple fishermen whom got drunk, drifted onto the island, and were killed, about a year ago.

http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=378623

very respectable site-

you have to feel for these people they been persecuted by sailor/merchants for centuries so it's not surprising they are so hostile, not many left but I understand the Indian Government has forbidden anyone to approach the remaining groups. Those that do risk being killed anyways.

Thanks.

She's hot.

http://www2.db.dk/pe/images/Andaman/andaman-2.jpg

Thanks.

She's hot.

http://www2.db.dk/pe/images/Andaman/andaman-2.jpg
Jessica Alba of the Andaman Islands:)
do you feel another instinctive reflex coming on?

when the islands were hit by the big tsunami the Indian government feared they might have been wiped out as the neighbouring islands with Indian inhabitants were devastated....but when they came to check up on the Islanders they were met with the customary hail of arrows......

Homo Alvus.

Thanks.

She's hot.
<snip>
Um, ethnic and all yeah, but...

:eek: NUDITY!:eek:

Homo Eectus Baby!

I had a professor teaching her students that tehre was no way erectus spoke. Sadly she was wrong. There is as much evidence for as against nowadays.

And Sean, we are also not really sure whether all those different sagittal crests were from different species, or subspecies, or simply anatomical differences between individuals, or where the samples we have fit into the whole "erectus" lineage at all. The best we have right now are good guesses.

In fact, our ancestors archeological records are so damned confusing that there really is no "unified theory" of our lineage yet. Just about every qualified Anthropologist will have some strange pet theory that everybody else sneers at.

Which is why I fell in love with ANthropology :) there's just sooo much digging left to do!

My particular interest is in how we got to North America. There claim is that we came over the Bering Straight or sailed along coastlines. But this ignores so much other evidence that it can't be the complete story. That's what I am working on at the moment, trying to collect evidence that we got here earlier, and via the South Pacific. We don't have much evidence in S America, but there is some on islands that could lead you to believe that much of what we know is...crap:p So I am trying to build up enough evidence to force people to look differently at the Americas. And Australia :)

Homo Eectus Baby!

I had a professor teaching her students that tehre was no way erectus spoke. Sadly she was wrong. There is as much evidence for as against nowadays.

And Sean, we are also not really sure whether all those different sagittal crests were from different species, or subspecies, or simply anatomical differences between individuals, or where the samples we have fit into the whole "erectus" lineage at all. The best we have right now are good guesses.

In fact, our ancestors archeological records are so damned confusing that there really is no "unified theory" of our lineage yet. Just about every qualified Anthropologist will have some strange pet theory that everybody else sneers at.

Which is why I fell in love with ANthropology :) there's just sooo much digging left to do!

My particular interest is in how we got to North America. There claim is that we came over the Bering Straight or sailed along coastlines. But this ignores so much other evidence that it can't be the complete story. That's what I am working on at the moment, trying to collect evidence that we got here earlier, and via the South Pacific. We don't have much evidence in S America, but there is some on islands that could lead you to believe that much of what we know is...crap:p So I am trying to build up enough evidence to force people to look differently at the Americas. And Australia :)

I don't think there is any evidence as yet to support a South Pacific route as yet...last I heard the only evidence in the s Pacific was for the early Polynesians and nothing earlier....if the water levels were lower than now the evidence in Polynesia may be beneath the waves but I would think something would have been found at the higher elevations........I'm firmly in the northern Pacific sea route camp......the technology was present and so was the seamanship, the Ainu(sp?) obviously made to Japan very early and the Bearing Sea Islands weren't far off....and the Inuit who until the last century were still a stone age culture who mastered an arctic enviroment and have demonstrated that arctic waters are no obstacle for them.....

....then there is the interesting theory that a migration also came via the North Atlantic ...whoa!

Possibly there were many migrations? South Pacific, North Pacific, North Atlantic?

Homo Eectus Baby!

I had a professor teaching her students that tehre was no way erectus spoke. Sadly she was wrong. There is as much evidence for as against nowadays.

And Sean, we are also not really sure whether all those different sagittal crests were from different species, or subspecies, or simply anatomical differences between individuals, or where the samples we have fit into the whole "erectus" lineage at all. The best we have right now are good guesses.

In fact, our ancestors archeological records are so damned confusing that there really is no "unified theory" of our lineage yet. Just about every qualified Anthropologist will have some strange pet theory that everybody else sneers at.

Which is why I fell in love with ANthropology :) there's just sooo much digging left to do!



All very true. One only needs to look at the varying morphologies and massive differences between the various species of Australopithecus to see that species can differ greatly, even among probably very closely related individuals. For instnace, some species of Australos have a massive sagital crest(robustus), and others have pretty much none(africanus). However, as with erectus they appear similar enough to be of the same species from the various areas, however different enough to have their own specific supspecies, to most. Of course, it is indeed possible that they are entirely different species, it's just that as the time being the different populations are considered close enough to be lumped together.

As to no "unified theory", that is absolutely true. There is some evidence that shows that Homo erectus may infact not be an ancestor of Homo sapiens, largely due to it's rather derived traits. The point I was making, however, was that there are far to many subspecies of Homo, each having it's own distinctive characteristics, that a poll wouldn't really be a great way of going about it.


My particular interest is in how we got to North America. There claim is that we came over the Bering Straight or sailed along coastlines. But this ignores so much other evidence that it can't be the complete story. That's what I am working on at the moment, trying to collect evidence that we got here earlier, and via the South Pacific. We don't have much evidence in S America, but there is some on islands that could lead you to believe that much of what we know is...crap:p So I am trying to build up enough evidence to force people to look differently at the Americas. And Australia :)

Interesting idea, however most evidence does seem to indicate a North-South migration. It appears this is how it happened, however it is not necessessarily conclusive.

As to South Pacific islanders, are you referring to Easter Island, by chance, which is out in the middle of nowhere? Humans COULD have sailed to the Americas, as it is pretty much the same distance from mainland Southeast Asia(Which is pretty much regarded as where Easter Islanders came from, due not only similarities in cultures, but also oral traditions of the natives that seem to indicate this). Howver, I have yet to see any evidence of such, really.

Also, with Australia, there is massive amounts of evidence supporting several progressive migrations by various species of Homo enterring Australia. However, as with everything dealing with early humans, it is purely speculative.

There is evidence, just so little and so uncorroborated, and with such bad dating that it's being blown off.

No, not really any reason for folks to head to the hills, which is what the islands we see today would have been back then. We have found some evidence of very old ceremonial uses in South America, but very little very old evidence related to the same dates in the south seas, or mid pacific region for that matter. To suggest that we came from the North all the way to the south in a couple of thousand years ignores the physical issue swith actually doing that. Yes it was possible, but I think it at least as likely that we migrated both north and south in a relatively similar time zone (remembering how young homo sapiens is). I also think the same stock went north and south, so genetically we won't see much drift (as has been shown in modern indigies of both North and south. I think we are seeing a group that split three ways: one stayed home, one went north, one went south. Of course, FINDING that evidence is harder than cliaming I know what the hell I am talking about lol!
I doubt we will ever prove it for sure, but if you really look at the amount of digging we have done in South america (think Peru), well, let's say we need to do more work.

my favourite topic:D fascinating stuff, I love a good mystery......

if you REALLY want to blow your own mind, find a map of major ocean currents and ask yourself why we go to the americas, and how, and why we never went BACK to Eurasia LoL!

if you REALLY want to blow your own mind, find a map of major ocean currents and ask yourself why we go to the americas, and how, and why we never went BACK to Eurasia LoL!

Well, to explain why we never back, most Native American groups weren't exactly ocean going people. Although the Southeast Asians had quite sturdy canoes, which were capable of ocean travel(And quite massive), I do not know of any Native American tribe or group that had ocean going vessels.

homo erectus. they make me giggle. cuz i'm a child.

Well, to explain why we never back, most Native American groups weren't exactly ocean going people. Although the Southeast Asians had quite sturdy canoes, which were capable of ocean travel(And quite massive), I do not know of any Native American tribe or group that had ocean going vessels.

Erm... I was more thinking of the fact that ocean currents make it easier to get here than to go back. I suspect that is why we lost thetechnology so quickly. And yeah, I meant Easter Island (sort of). If you look closely at a map, tehre is a chain of islands that, when combined with ocean currents, would make it pretty easy for an ocean going society to get here ia Peru. And if you look at the waves hitting Australia, why would they stop there? and if they missed the AU, where do the currents take them? Mnd hese are people who CAN survive on blue water for long periods of time. I'm just saying, it's not only possible. It's likely, that we got to Peru as well...

Mind, This is what I am doing my field work on right now, so give me ten years and maybe I'll prove myself right or wrong, eh?

[QUOTE=Seangoli;12056910] Homo erectus

hehehehehehehehe *said in peter griffin voice*