Adventure Ausrama Blog

The research shows that super-archaic humans migrated from Africa to Eurasia two million years ago (note: Homo erectus is classed as human) . There is nothing special about them. Super-archaic is just a name given to them. Hominins are the line that resulted in us, from the time when the divergence from chimpanzee and bonobo occurred. Super-archaics had a long time out of Africa alone. Well we think that is the case. Much later, between 400,000 and 300,000 years ago another ancient human moved from Africa. Those who went to Europe evolved into Neanderthals, while those moving into Asia became Denisovans. Our ancestors who remained in Africa became Homo sapiens, us. There is a lot of debate and disagreement about when we left Africa. Theories range from 200,000 years ago or even earlier to 60,000 before the present. But it is thought that the early leavers died out - not yet fully proven. When Homo-sapiens met Neanderthals and Denisovans interbreeding took place. However

Denisovans were similar to humans . A finger bone has been found that is human-like. Neanderthals had quite different fingers than Homo sapiens. Only five fossils remain of Denisovans a little finger, a mandible and three molars. Despite artistic depictions of the hominid it is not know what they looked like. Denisovans  were much further ahead in their development than Neanderthals. It seems that  Denisovans  and humans followed a similar evolutionary path , while Neanderthals became large animal hunters and developed muscular bodies. Neanderthal could have taken on dangerous animals and survive while humans would succumb. Though  Denisovans  branched off from Neanderthals , just why they became more like humans is not known. Maybe common habitats make for creatures of the same ilk. There is evidence that the three types of apes interbred. This is a mystery in itself because the missing Y Chromosome would make fertile progeny impossible. What many scientists do not tak

    News: Modern Homo sapiens did not come from the land of the Afri. Australia was the home for Mankind |origin of man - not africa. ▶ | human articles stories news tackle paragraph habiliments collections ornaments apparatus articles up stories on news equipage teams fashion kit fixtures material furnishings trappings articles at stories it news furniture sets outfit gadgets writing things gadget attachment articles as stories in news machinery contraptions read vestiges utensils kaboodle provisioning articles an stories pad baggage fittings provisions tools article words array ear articles accompaniments impediments setup appliances shebang facilities accessories Attacnts display contrivances and belongings stock stuff traps devices taking rig appurtenances listen things| in man of |◀ | Progenitor? We were taught that anthropologists knew it all, and everything they held about human evolution was correct. Human lineage could be placed on a timeline This is now proved to be incor

Much has been said about humans having mated with neanderthals. Scientists claim that all of us have Neanderthal genes. There is the real issue of humans and Neanderthal having a different number of chromosomes. It is known that if a horse is mated with a donkey, the result is an infertile mule. This holds true for all species, so how is it possible for two type of man who branched away from each other a very long time ago to have fertile offspring - the answer is it isn't possible. Another issue is the premise that Denisovans mated with Man. There is little evidence for this. Currently, we do not know the number of chromosomes Denisovans had. Yet most scientists treat the mixing hypothesis as fact. Can scientists be wrong? They have of course been very mistaken in times past and the present is no different. Why do specialists accept theories that have not been tested by the well know scientific method. It must be the case that most of them accept that Santa exists and

It seems the level of intelligence is determined by a few genes.  This must surely be too simplistic, particularly because specialists cannot agree on what intelligence is.  How do you compare memorizing general knowledge to the skill of knitting a fine jumper?  There are people who know just about everything about Australian rugby league, but this is their only area of expertise. Finding will be made easier, apparently, by questioning the crowd rather that by brain scans, etc.  It is believed that the sought after genes affect brain size.  Considering that Neanderthals had larger brains than modern man, this seems to be the wrong hypothesis to start with. While "the team" is sure they will find the genes they do admit that culture, education, health and upbringing can affect intelligence.  How are they going to filter these things out?  Obviously they can't.  Twenty one thousand subjects were catalogued and brain imaging was used.  Strangely, when the team was r