[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]

Re: Jurassic genitals and early humans



I have learned not to disagree with you often, but I do think there is
dissension in the ranks of paleoanthropologists about Cro Magnon being
essentially us or ancestor.  Some new human and/or culture came out of Africa
and displaced Cro Magnon and Neanderthal according to some.  So the answers not
definitely in, but you may well be holding the right hand.  Maybe there will be
more pieces of the puzzles in before we die.

Do we know that dinosaurs had cloaca?

Best,

Michael Teuton

Thomas R. Holtz, Jr. wrote:

> Now THAT'S an interesting subject heading...
> On a totally unrelated subject, Allan Edels wrote:
> >    Cro Magnon, at one point in the past 15 years was thought to be a
> >dead-end line of _Homo sapiens_, just like Neanderthals.  They had larger
> >braincase sizes than most of the _Homo sapiens sapiens_ do today, and they
> >were taller than most humans until this past century.  This theory is not
> >currently supported.
>
> I cannot think of a reference in the last 100 years, much less the last 15,
> which implied that Cro Magnon was other than a good old fashioned _Homo
> sapiens sapiens_.  Yes, they were taller on average than most Europeans
> (Masai-sized), and consequently had bigger brains than average Europeans
> (but only the expected brain size for a modern human of that same size).
> Nevertheless, as far as I have read, they have universally been regarded as
> simply a culture of people, just as the Ainu or Inuit or the Tasmanians or
> the Caribs or the Hittites are or were a culture of people.  Like some
> cultures, they had some distinctive physical characteristics.  Like some
> cultures, they do not seem to have been with us, and may have in fact been
> wiped out or assimilated.  However, they have not been regarded as a
> different species or subspecies of humans.
>
> >    Neanderthals (remember NOT to pronounce the 'h') are by most current
> >standards _Homo sapiens neanderthalus_.
>
> Minor correction, it is "_neanderthalensis_".
>
> Major correction, most paleoanthropologists working today consider
> Neanderthalers a distinct species (_H. neanderthalensis_).  There are some
> profound morphological differences between Neanderthalers and all living
> human populations.  And, before someone writes in, this is NOT due to the
> fact that some of the first material found was arthritic: the differences in
> these cases have to do with features found throught Neanderthaler
> populations.  The genetic study Allan mentioned, if substantiated, helps to
> confirm this difference, but it has been well established on morphological
> grounds.
>