PB666

First I need to introduce a problem. And let me state from the start there is no problem with the way the genes or the genome evolves, and this appears to be pretty consistent over time but there are problems with the way that scientist have addressed the problem. So to see this I need to start with a completely uninteresting problem, the branching of the great apes. Overtime collections of bones have appeared in the fossil record and as paleontologist do, the tend to say 'Its a this, or its a that'. Evolution of the apes has been pretty consistent, its been a bit slower than other mammals in general but it has sped up a bit in the chimpanzee lineages. The reason it sped up in the chimpanzee lineages is that chimpanzees engage in sperm-selection, and the problem with this is about 75% of the SNP evolution occurs in the sperm in such situations, so it revs up the evolutionary rate. If we lay out a no apriori argument of some long stretch of a chromosome and follow it over time and overlay that with what paleontologist have put forth, they don't match, and some of the branch points are off by millions of years, up to 4 million in some cases. So the problem here is . . . To capsulize the argument Genetic [(Some effective breeding population) ------> Representations (Variants) ][Set 1]=====over time =======> [Set 2] As branches split over time you get branch points. [Set 1]=====over time =======> [Set 2],[Set 3] AS I stated don't get me started on the problem with strictly using paleontology to do this. I am going to break this up. First example, research claims to have found the missing link. [Set 0] - - - - - -> [Set 1, missing link] - - - - - ->[Set 2] Evolution is not a ladder, if you here a missing link argument, 99% of the time its wrong, it infers you captured a given subpopulation that rapidly evolving from a parent population to a new population (we are talking about populations within a 200 ky span). So in a general failing in the popular literature its either everything is a missing link, and in the critical literature nothing is a missing link. What can Set 1 be (examples of each have been identified [Set 0] - - - - - ->[Set 1a, Set 1b 'missing link] - - - - - - >[Set 1a-> Set2], [Set 1b - - - -> Extinct] Missing link was on other branch. [Set 0, pseudo Set 1 'missing link'] Missing link was just a trait variant and not statistically important in the evolution (ebb and flow of traits over time). [Set pre-0] - - - ->[Set 0], [Set 1] - - - - - - -> [Set 0's, Set 2] Missing link was on an entirely different (lower) branch anchored in a different ancestor. Frequently in these cases when the questioned is asked, was the comparative anatomy done objectively, its found often that it wasn't, but the historic opinion persists over time, often for decades. So that often, before you can do decent genetic analysis you have to fix a historic problem.

Australia once had big juicy megafauna with zero experience dealing with humans.

yep, did you catch this one in there " sequenced the genome of a boy who lived in South Africa around 2,000 years ago — only the second ancient genome from sub-Saharan Africa to be sequenced. They determined that his ancestors on the H. sapiens lineage split from those of some other present-day African populations more than 260,000 years ago." This one is actually not too surprising, and there is another paper that points to ancient contributions to : https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26888264 I should note that my studies revealed a similar fiindings and were completely independent of these. It also revealed that the alternative centers of diversity outside were likely within Africa or close to Africa. If you look at the physical anthropology of Africa over the last 400,000 years you can surmise the same thing (see post above). As I said, Africa was a bit of a plum pudding, most groups intermixed during the constriction period, a few intermixed during the expansion. Plesiomorphies and apomorphies appeared to coexist side-by-side sometimes these were variants at other times these were self-isolating populations. Some pops might have been lost. Some of these plesiomorphies still exist, under then skin, in certain African populations. 75% of the human population genetics can be explained by two events (summarized, fully explained you have to look at Tishkoff's genome studies). The first is that mtDNA expanded along a line from East Africa to South Africa, with a strong favoritism along the Southern Rift valley, this is given by Tajima's D value for L5 and slightly higher L1 (these are the most equilibrated and slowly evolving mtDNAs in human, its a measure of stationary populations). The majority of Y chromosomal evolution comes from the A-B branch which is A is localized in Southern Africa and B splits to explain all others. The A00 deep branch dates to 265,000 kya is likely of N, W African or Arabian origin of the same period as the AB branch. Those events take a snap shot of where people were once at, but its a low resolution picture. We have to do refined genomic studies to see high resolution. But we have to note that there is not much in here to support a N. African origin of Hss, the N. African population appears to be an intermediate in geneflow more important geneflow of an earlier period, the anecdotes are that maybe a persistent N.African population contributed more recently, but where is the core of this population? And when we look for centers of diversity in the N or NW African population, not apparent deep centers of diversity although there is gene evidence from Iberia and NW Africa of a prolonged occupation. In fact the coast population has fractional diversity relative to the SSA population, by many techniques. So that if Jebel Irhoud substantially contributes to the modernization of Africa its contribution has to move southward at least by 215,000 years ago. I suspect that the N.African population contributed to the diversification of Central African populations. What N Africa archaics contributed to H. sapiens would be much, much more apparent if we had a sensor, aDNA, but unfortunately the temperatures of N. Africa are too high to hope that the DNA would survive. One might ask the question, why with almost 20 years of a complete human genome that it took so long to find these introgressions into the African population. The answer is that the diploid genome (is capable of) carrying alot of variation, and unless you know the selection coefficients you have to assume that the variants are pass through variants (The HLA loci have something like 10-16 passthrough gene variants for B and DRB1 genes, in comparison mtDNA had 1 invariant passthrough and Y appears now to have 2, but still rather recent TMRCA, HLA RDs TMRCA was estimated at 60 million years). In that context its not easy to often see introgression. HLA is peculiar because it resists exclusion and so its essentially an introgression trap. Africa has 3 fold more variation than the exo-African population. If the signals are weak and the noise is strong, they are difficult to find. The original HapMap studies were done of the Yoruban, which became a surrogate for Africans. Refined genomic analysis we can get a picture of what longer segments of African genomes look like by looking for long stretches of homozygosity that are unique to certain populations and when you do that you find the 'odd' variants that are in linkage disequilibrium and with that you can identify introgression events. So then you focus that sensor on isolate groups and see what you can find. Timing is a problem, and I will, if things stay calm, discuss that another day. Its a big topic and requires some patience to understand, if you want to read the physical side of the argument then. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29348642 This is more or less a review, and there is alot of opinion but they seek to show the evidence of MIS 4 (71-60 kya) verus MIS 5 (130-72 kya) migrations into Asia. This will help solve the dilemma of the anchor state and migration manifords (Surface positions over time).

Me and my wife share her car, when I am the driver, and because I am the driver

To parties, maybe airport, shop owners running errands etc. In Japan the expressways are an afterthought and they a-r-e expensive. Not everyone has cars, one of the neighborhoods I stayed in only 2 of 5 houses had a car, 2 had a motor scooter, one was an elderly woman. Its different, if you want to go to the shopping mall, most of these are integrated with the major train stations (so no benefit there). If you want to go out to dinner, alot of them are either walking distance, close to a train station. Grocery stores, usually there is on close to the train station, but they are in walking distances, smaller, more compact, and more of them. We wanted to go to a restaurant (one of those hole in the wall 5 star things) we had to take a bus, you could park, thats not the problem, but its just so much of a hassle to drive. Also you need to have a car park, because the streets are a US drive way wide and there is no room on the side to park. The cars are quite a bit smaller than ours, this allows them to fit in make shift driveways. Then there is driving in the country, and it can be a real chore, speed limits on Japanese hiways are typically 40 to 50 km/h which is 25 to 30 mph, and you might think that is bad, but some of the roads are like a bucket of snakes, i takes hours to go short distances some time. So you pay. Typically when we drove, we had an agenda, we went to this open market, that park, this restaurant, that seafood house, this specialty shop . . . . . . Once your are out and on the move you connect the dots. When you travel they will tell you, take this bus, its faster than train, or don't take the bus, takes five hours (its stops at residences along the way) and train takes 2.

Everything is solvable with proper planning, its just that the nature of elected and appointed planners tends to not make them very good at solving things. People put subways in Tokyo, which doesn't seem like a problem until you realize that most of the subterranean part of the system is below sea-level _AND_ it is one of the most seismically active places in the world _AND_ the soil in Tokyo is notorious for undergoing liquefaction during Earthquakes. But with the right clearances and engineering you can get it to work and survive Earthquakes (although the great Kanto is yet to come). I been on Tokyo subway a few times, you can see some of the mitigate engineering, its a rather utilitarian system. . . not much of a tourist thing, but it works. But then I hit the nail on the Head. People wonder "how do people survive in Japan without cars". If you lived in Japan a long time you might wander why people in the US go everywhere in their cars. In Japan you get out of your house, you walk to a train station, meh 6 or 7 minutes later your at a distribution center, and then maybe a shinkansen after about 3 minutes buying a ticket, . . . . .and then you are within an hour at a destination 250 km away, and then you stop, grab your gear, walk or take a taxi to your final. In the US, you get in your car, drive 30 minutes to an Airport, 15 minutes or more to park your car, wait for 1.5 hours to get on a flight, fly for 45 minutes, wait for the airplane to unload, go through security and/or retrieve your bag, hail a taxi drive another 30 minutes to your destination. You spend twice as much time, and probably paid in total (time and expense) 50% more. Sometimes Japan is surreal. I remember a trip one time between Kochi and another city along the inland sea, you get on the train, and then the train stops, and you are dropped on a makeshift platform in the middle of nowhere (and if there is a nowhere in Japan, I found it). And you wait, and wait, and wait . . .a farmer walks buy and offers to sell you some oranges. .and you wait some more, and wait. And then a rail-bus comes (a single car slightly bigger than a school bus) and you go off into the 'late paleolithic' and for an hour or and then you see a person, then another person, and finally at your destination you see more than afew people. BUt even that, despite the apparent backwards-ness of it all, still works. Problems get solved when people have a great desire to solve them. Some times the solutions are simple and sometimes sophisticated, but with no planning there is one solution, every man for himself . . .and inevitably your have freeways with intersections that are 20 x 20 lanes wide with the highest hiway death fatality rates per mile that one can dream of. For me when I look at one of those monstrosities what my mind sees is the end of the world.

OH sure, I would pick crew that had some kind of cancerous disease. You don't want to send your best forces, and the only thing you need are engineers so basically you don't need to tell them what the mission is, just say we want you to test this ship. [Ducking and running for cover] "Scotty"" I want to test your precisions warping" "Warp in this direction our stealth drone will relay you the coordinates in route, see if you can stop on a dime". {Again this assumes the drone ship can estimate intercept trajectories of the warp ship with the target}. But I do agree, if you had a AI ship, one hopes it wont get teed of at the person who is sending them to their death. Cultures have ways of wrapping these things up, drink a cup of holy water, war a holy shroud . . . . .And in general someone will be willing to go through with it. You can tell them that when a warp ship stops they will get a huge intoxicating buzz.

Its good for me because I own a truck, but mostly I don't drive it, getting the car out of the driveway is a good thing. People tend to accumulate junk in cars over time, their new car they will keep clean for a few weeks, then after that its wasted. So probably it would stay clean, and you would have the car go to a service site every few hours to be detailed and put back on the road. One of the solutions my family had that saved time and money (particularly for you people) was they would park at my house and I would drive 3 or 4 people to work. Given the cost of parking it smart to spread the cost out. But another solution to the crowding problem is to put a higher value on living close to work and put a higher tariff on living far from work. Even if you have autonomous cars being shared it does not get rid of the commute problem. Here we had nice farmland south of the city, prone to flooding but people would build these planned communities. The houses got built and then all of a sudden, within 4 years traffic went from being a small to a huge problem. Many people I knew that moved into big houses in new suburbia, moved into much smaller houses more expensive houses in town. Big houses can be big head-aches there are intangible cost to complicating your life with big commutes. The reason this happened is that cities manage development, typically if a metro sprawls out of its county then there is essentially no planning in the adjacent county for a decade or more. There are no trains that go to those areas, no public buses, . . . .IOW people get forced onto the road or very expensive private transportation systems. So the solution is really reactive mass transit, 6 people need a ride from points A,B,C,D,E,F close to point P to point Q close to destination U,V,W,X,Y,Z, where between P and Q is some overcrowded corridor. So cars are dispatched picking up A'B, C'D, E'F (you could even have people bicycling to point P) and brings them to P where they get in car, use the HOV lane, get off, head to destination point Q again redistribute the passengers (maybe a bike-share in centers) to U'V, W'X, Y'Z and then to final destinations. Another benefit of a properly structured route is that you can use all electric cars, they drive a set distance, recharge, drive the same set distance back, recharge . . . . . .Thus you can get rid of pollutants. And because they are small they don't have the problem of trains (traffic obstruction in redesigning unplanned cities) and buses (obstruction of traffic). IM all for this but the problem is that people are married to cars, and they really don't think about this kind of economization.

I was avoiding this thread, but what was the intent of this video? I have to say the many city planners want to do away with freeways systems in the heart of the central business system because of its untenability in expanding cities. No city ever says I will get the size of New York City, but if they are successful they will, then look at New York city for its transportation system, where are the personal cars. Even bicycles are not commonly used. Autonomous vehicles do not solve the problem either, they are just a want. Autonomous taxi's might be useful.

Oh, so you are writing the story now? You are going to colonize some place that you attacked thinking that you are going to wipe out all their (spacefaring) kind with 30 to 50 men. lol. Mostly, if you are going to attack a distance star, pretty much the men you have will be tragic heroes, send as few as possible. I remember the Movie Avatar where they sent all these men on sleeper ships to fight some alien race on a far off planet, one that was not apparently space fairing. It struck me as kind of funny that if you just wanted to annihilate a race, just use the same amount of money spent on getting the men there (using near-light speed ships) and just put a thin diffraction shield at their L1 and freeze them out. You'de leave most of the ecosystem, and take out the top of the food chain. Do this for about a 5 days and it would suffice to have any population pretty much begging for a resolution. (Although incredibly expensive is still much cheaper than sending 10,000s of men across space time, each man requiring 20 tons or so of equipment and drives) In my opinion, colonizing systems that have already colonized is very bad karma, particularly when you consider the unseen risk involved in doing that, the only reason you would plan an attack on a exosystemic civilization is if they were an existential threat, in which case it might be cheaper to just colonize new systems (its not like there are aliens everywhere jumping over each other to colonize systems). How could they know you left, you put up a massive defense as a pretense. The pretext to the argument is this, you are an interplanetary species, you have colonies in space, you have already some sort of facilities for photo transfer (for getting that last bit of solar energy before you leave the system, you would not want to leave that behind) and you pretty much can fry anything that enters the interior of the system or make it extremely difficult to approach your targets. And also difficult for you to approach them. Consequently if you had a 'realistic' warp drive your best weapon is to drop out of warp at their position and create tragic heroes. Why would you waste 10 men when 3 would do. I mean you could even do it by de-warping at the core of a planet, with a steep enough warping of space time you should, with all the collected mass in the bow shock be able to create a black hole, not only a black hole but one with spurious momentum. You would never even realize what you created the rxn would be so fast. Since the black hole does not have enough momentum to leave the planet, the planets core would eventually begin collapsing into the hole and eventually the planet would blink.

[snip] Here is a human skull. Note the brow and thin-ness of the bones in the skull. Bodo is NOT AMH, kabwe (Broken hill 1) is the rhodesiensis type specimen and was called a Neanderthal by its founder. I have never heard anyone support these as Modern [snip]. Secondarily you can't use Kabwe 1 to date AMH because . . .[drum roll] it was never dated, the skull was posted on a stake and miners took pot shots at it. Bad Archaeology, worst use of fossils for dating AMH that I've yet to see. Ndutu Note the pronounced brow ridges and thickness of the skull (400kya) {classified as homo erectus or homo rhodesiensis) Also lacking dentate. Kabwe (Broken hill 1) Date is uncertain, note the pronouced heavily pnuematized brow (definition of homo rhodesiensis) undated. (c.1975 date 150,000 to 300,000 ya <== not to be trusted) Eyasi (Mumba Cave) no human remains. Trivial. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Florisbad-Helmei-Homo_heidelbergensis.jpg dated to 259 kya with ESR, no other dating performed. Classified as homo heidelbergensis Laetoli - irrelevant fluff http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/human-fossils/fossils/eliye-springs-es11693 Species: Homo heidelbergensis (no dentate) [snip] Where are these Anatomically Modern humans running around 200 to 300 kya. Show me at least one clear example? Here, let me help you, this is the only paper you have https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28593953. Dated with TL, some other papers also dated with the same technique have been refuted (I.e. LM3). The dentate recovered IIRC are plesiomorphic (Neanderthal like).

I wouldn't say most. And BTW I don't know when people started believing this because up to a few years ago it was only 100ky or so. There are a ton of problems with the early definition that can be shown as flawed. Since you don't comprehend the genetics I will end the discussion now. Note: I just saw your request for reference on the N/ML request, just to make point, I generally don't keep track of hype any more than I take stock in what Nature publishes.

Yeah you can make a coffin with a heat shield, very clostrophobic but a single pass oxygen system maybe one orbit then reentry. 500kg plus body. Would you want to do that, that may be the way we end up getting people off of Mars. Shoot em up and catch them in space, then worry about keeping them alive. Just a manned capsule does not need any computers, windows, you need a tube that supplies about 3 mls of oxygen per second, maybe some base to absorb the carbon dioxide that the person has to exhale through. Something that mixes the O2 into the air. What else, no food or water needed, no toilet . . .what else temperature regulation maybe passive. What else, a pressure regulator.

170 kya is not modern human, this is pre AMH, homo sapiens idulatu is defined as the delineation point between Anatomically Modern and Premodern dates to 160 kya. Some people hold that anatomically modern human evolved between 200 to 300 kya, but I should point out that the definition maybe inclusive of more than just preOoA humans. Again, the pointers to mtDNA which forced back as far back as the dating can be force requires an initiation no earlier than 250 kya and a procession of at least 50,000 years within a Ne population of 10,000 individuals. When you are talking about entry into the constriction almost by definition you are talking about premodern and the holoarchaeology of sub-saharan africa does not support a designation of fully modern. Rabat is the Jebel Irhoud samples and Kef Oum Touiza is in Algeria. This can mean one of two things, its too early for anatomically modern humans or that the affinities are the result of flux in the north African archaic population. By definition you are talking about the evolution of Apomorphies not immigration of moderns.

too many.

In Africa the paleontology allows for older occurrence, that is because modern evolution was stochastic. Specific trait evolution (apomorphies) attributed top AMH were variants until rather recently. I should point out that its not by my definition, hominims with certain level of plesiomorphies are called Archaic homo sapiens, but an earlier name Homo rhodesiensis (c.1921), by a recent name homo heidelbergensis. Again, I am not going to mince the terminology, but I should point out that there was also apomorphic gene flow from Europe into Africa (ergo the name African Neandertals) and from SSA and there is no reason to believe that genes flowed one direction and not the other. So N. African hominids are a mixed bag and the best name for a mixed bag is archaic homo sapiens. IN species we call this a gradient. You start with Classic (stage 4) Neanderthals, you have Levantine Neandertals, you Have North Africa archaics, then . . . homo sapiens. But that by definition is a recent thing, before that plesiomorphies and apomorphies in Africa appears stocastically intermixed with exceptions. And the exceptions lack statistical weight to mean anything. But the genetics shows waves of motions, first before 500 kya then around 200-250 kya and finally recent introgression, this informs us why there is stochasm. Genes don't flow like waves, they move in pulses the same way small groups migrate. The dentate you seem to so strongly support as a human determinant, . . . nor do we know when or where it evolved in Africa.

In the context of 500 miles in Africa and the distribution of fossils during that period 500 miles is a few foot steps. You don't know, those hominims might have been in Levant during the summer and back in Sudan by the fall. Remember, pre-neolithic peoples were unsettled. Even worse, they could have traveled from Blombos cave region all the way to the Red Sea by dugout. 40 kya, 80 kya even 100 kya, no problem. 170 kya its dubious. If you ever have studied gene flow in a population or even collection of subpopulations 70 ky is a very long time. http://haplogroup-a.com/Ancient-Root-AJHG2013.pdf http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-14947363 What it leaves is that until rather recently Africa was more like a plum pudding with pocketed variation persisting in spots, isolated as the human population largely underwent speciation. S. and E. Africa was the core, on the peripheral of the core other interesting things were going on. Some of these things were captured by the human population, some of them were not. The things that were not captured we have no further evidence of or where they roamed. The genetic anomalies in the West/Central African population we spotted 20 years ago, and supported by physical anthropology 7 years ago. Likewise the genetics spotted admixture, probably between Homo neandertalensis narmada/desinova that occurred in Indonesia with no, I repeat, no evidence of Neanderthals being in Indonesia. If you can't see what I am getting at you are not thinking abstractly enough. The physical typology of paleoanthropology is pretty much a fail without the genetics (aDNA and molecular evolution), even with genetics its pretty incomplete. The plums in the pudding (like florensiensis) were more frequent than anyone can imagine, and tracking the plums over time is not a trivial issue. There is one other abstract issue, we can detect admixture if an only if we have a sensor, otherwise its just evolution. Yes, there have been studies in humans to detect ancient outgroups without aDNA, but the result is more like classical physics trying to replicate QM on the small scale. What you need are sensors . . . .but I have to say there are elements in the human population that neither fit Hss or Neandertal and they are spatially localized which means there are phantom plums. In terms of archaeology I can point you to the fact that one site (unknowingly mesolithic) was characterized as having Neandertal stone tools (and in all fairness they really looked homologous to Neanderthal stone tools at a different site) until it was precisely dated and later found to be mesolithic tools. Tools reflect what people are doing, not their genes per say, but how they live, if you have a clever tool that makes what I am doing easier, I will strive to make it. The differences between N.African Archaics and humans of the same period, cognitively, were trivial.

The launch center is at 5'14" north it need a 2' burn to get to 3'N which does not explain the 21' inclination difference, this could mean that it was off by 18 or 24 degrees. But anyway lets just look at the dV requirement of SES-14 If orbit is 235 x 43,150 km this means that its a = (235000 + 43150000)/2 + 6371000 = 28,063,000 km with that we can derive e = 0.764 we can deduce the v at apo as being SQRT(mu (2/r - 1/a)) =1378 m/s. If the planned inclination change is made at this point then it is 428 to 560 m/second, which is nothing for an ION driven space craft. Thus burns can be reduced by combining them with the circularization burns. In anycase this is still a successful launch. I should also point out that for a highly eccentric orbit, you really don''t care where its pXY coordinates are since in the process of gaining orbit the earth is always turning under that orbit until geostationary status is reached, you adjust the timing of your burns to intercept the desired station.

The point is that I am skeptical. I used to follow MREH, but then I looked at the genetic studies and i realized that Paleontology was very good at dressing up lies, packaging them into expensive books and selling them. As a scientist nothing ever taught me to be so much of skeptic as the historical study of paleoanthropology. And more importantly to basically defend MREH one has to take the devil's advocacy. . . . prove what you are saying true. And eventually it was proven, but not by the physical paleoanthropologist, almost all (not stringer he has 97% correct) of their conclusions were wrong, it was the molecular evolution that eventually (after much beating and critique) proved the point , 10 fold less. When I see something like humans were in Israel 170kya and knowing about all the consistencies in the molecular genetics and the plotting of human fossils and MDTs around the Earth, it raises the eyebrow very high. As I pointed out that inside of a bubble 235 to 170 kya (which can really be extended as a slowly opening funnel to about 120 kya) you have a container, and then outside the container things are going on. The container does not contain all human apomorphies it only excludes certain molecular traits (that is to say plesiomorphies of certain types were excluded, observed with X-chromosome, mtDNA and Y chromosome). Nor does it restrict the engagement of external apomorphies with the human population, it simply argues that if those traits enter the Hss population they should be highly selective to fix in humans by the time that they expand. There is nothing that limits admixture of traits before the expansion other than violations of the 2N rule. That is to say that if a male contributes an apomorphy, and his offspring or offsprings offspring are all female, we can not trace Y flow with the apomorphy even if the apomorphy is selective. What it means is that novel claims create uncertainties in several directions and we should not be fast to throw these under the rug simply because a popular author offers a conclusion.

Then his views have changed, which leads one to wonder why he would hype up the claim, 20 years ago he was decidedly OoA. He's now touting claims that me and others were pointing at 10 to 15 years ago and saying hey, guys why are you ignoring these. There is nothing in these links that I disagree with, it is unfortunate that the conclusions are so late in coming. These view I have held for more than a decade. If these teeth were found 500 miles to the SW, it would hardly raise an eyebrow. My point is that apomorphies can move into adjacent populations. And also I feel very uncomfortable about calling something a human apomorphy in the sense that we assume that the gene flow was from human and dates in the 170ky range, simply because it could be a trait that flowed from the N.African population into SSA population and not vice versa. But when we talk about homo sapiens in the North African context we are talking about Archaics, that means they have a spectrum of plesiomorphic and apomorphic traits. As such we can talk about apomorphies in SW Eurasia, at times as being trans Saharan gene flow, not necessarily human or Netherlander in their origin. There is something else that needs to be stated, since I studied 6p21.3 (about 3 mnts) that along with scant evidence for admixture in the gene population, when the human population is polled for extreme examples of evolution (the most variant or deepest branches) the pocketed variation (see manifold definition) did not appear in Eurasia, but was pocketed in W/Central Africa . . . .very close to the deepest branch of the Y chromosome and proximal to one of the latest appearance of multiple plesiomorphic traits in Africa. Taken together it does hold for some sort of complex model of Hss evolution. The idea of AMH (anatomically modern human) is a simply a purest idea its a fantasy to believe that all humans became AMH at once. In if thats true, then its more true for adjacent populations. But also, based on genetics, neither is it evident that these Archaics evolved into to something else, in fact the genetic evidence shows the opposite, that if they contributed they would have needed in totality to have moved south admixed into SSA and then reexpanded as something else. I find this highly unlikely. In my mind the original suggestion that these were African Neandertals is partially true and that they were also homo sapiens is also true, both are true, but the problem is we don't know how stable the population was AND that any stability it might have had might be attributed to evolving Hss and Hn. Likewise as humans expanded (L1 tangenika, L2 central and west Africa) really 100 to 140 kya time range, that the stability of this 'trans'species might have been in jeopardy. Once Humans appear in Europe then its stability is in great jeopardy. When genetic approaches are properly applied, when they are fully statistically condition it is one of the most most powerful tools that paleoanthropology has, when it is misapplied, when it represents a huge selection bias, or when statistics are not used to condition the arguments, then like any other technique it can be bunk. For example most of the Y studies before 2000 are bunk. But in terms what has been more misinterpreted, the physical versus the genetic. . . .the first studies by V. Sarich in 1975 are largely validated as with the first studies by Brown in 1980 and Vigilant there after. And of course no single person in the study of physical paleoanthropology approaches the quality and breadth of work that Sarah Tishkoff has done.

Chris falls into a camp that focuses on two populations Hss and Hn or He, if you read my post, you will see that manifolds are only description of spatially defined peoples over time, it does not detail the relationships between peoples. And the problem here is that unless you have some idea about those populations you have not idea about gene-flow. Both Stringer and Wolpoff both idealized populations over time but to opposite extremes. As the genetic information unveils itself this has proven to be much more complex (you should read my post). If you define populations in absolute terms then the teeth are absolute determinants. But if you cannot then they are not. But the people I know who studied human evolution of Africa would say maybe, but probably not. And I reluctantly agreed. This is what stringer says. This is just hype and this is not true, it doesn't break the mold, it just verifies what we have know for a long time, as humans evolved apomorphies in Africa and as the population expanded northward (As evidence by L2, L3 lineages which branched ~120 kya) and even before this . . .that humans and the archaics that lived in North Africa interacted and moved back and forth with respect to time. We've know this to be true for a long time. We also know that as the Human popualtion expanded in Africa, the Neandertal populations began loosing ground and we see more human influences. If you disregard dentate as anything important, what you will note is that in North Africa that human Apomorphies were appearing more frequent over time. IOW, to state succinctly it only tells you that human apomorphies (modernisms) were appearing more frequent over time, it does not tell you whether they come from humans or admixtures of humans and other archaics living in the region. This is the same caution you gave the other day, and I caution you that these things have to be studied in a larger context, not just physical anthropology, because physical anthropology by itself has a terrible historical track record for making correct conclusions. Same goes for all paleontology.

I have doubts, although my intent was not to express them. (Erectine I think it the proper terminology). If you want a brief outline, and it really comes no where close to giving the topic justice is the typology issue. In terms of non-human hominid species typology was a horrifically overstated case (meaning specifically defined was a definition lacking substance) but has improved. In this structure we place the Earth into a manifold by which all surface points are laid out in two dimension and a third dimension is time, and we roll this out from about 6 mya to the onset of the middle eastern Neolithic (lets say 12 kya, even though in principle since the ME neolithic begins all neolithics its hard to define). Then as we cross a barrier between 2.3 and 1.8 million years ago (the hominims) a putative genus (a significant one, as opposed to potentially trivial species like boisei, robustus, (as opposed to paraanthrops) and later australopithiforms) homo arises . There in lies the problem as Erectines (homo ergaster strictu sensu) spread from Africa into Asia. Following this groups and tolerating some interbreeding with australopiths we get basically a partially representative structure. So here is the problem, some of these structures intermixed, some for only brief periods of time and some almost never (meaning leaky species barrier). We being good scientist presume that we do not know all of these, but we know enough to make some conclusion that there was a multihominim world. There is no real genetic understanding of this since humans are geographically isolated and the samples of ADNA must be less than 100,000 years. The problem with this report is that these numbers are well before 100,000 years. So I am going to give a timeline of the origin of homo sapiens sapiens. At the beginning of a time manifold about 250,000 years ago homo sapiens would fall into the category of archaic homo sapiens which applies to almost all homo living in africa at the time. It share traits with Neanderthals and other traits uncommon in Neanderthals and modern humans. By 235,000 years ago the SSA component entered a bottle neck, in which it emerged within 50 to 100ky, so by the time 170 ky come along, and there are studies in Africa suggesting the population ebbed and flow, at this time there are still a large number of primitive traits in human. From that period on the human population only grew slowly up until about 80 kya. The genetics gives a kind of neat answer and currently both mtDNA and Y chromosomal studies are in pretty strong agreement at the inflection point in the branching we have homo sapiens sapiens. HLA studies suggest two centers of expansion in Africa, one from Central (Cameroon, CAR, N. Congo) and East Africa. The dominance of traits among click speakers at the core of these regions testifies to the driving forces of modernization many of these populations are gracile and short stature, which makes sense for a survival perspective in confined population living in an equitorial region. So then we have to ask the question what is going on in Africa, and that is very much more complex. To start, there is, after 170 kya, no single species Africa population that actually works. According to Paabo, although the timeline of isolation goes back before 500ky, there has been some admixture in the intermediate times, and there is a perfect candidate for this, the N.African Levantine Neanderthal population. The problem, a non-trivial one, has been distinguishing the southward (but still in the northern hemisphere) 2-D+time construct of that population over time, no such boundary can be defined. And its not because of the lack of fossils, its because in the time between 200 kya and 20 kya such clear distinctions cannot be made. So one possible theory here is that you had Homo sapiens sapiens, Homo sapiens sapiens x neandertalensis (southern), Homo sapiens neandertalensis (southern; Levanatine Neanderthals) Homo sapiens neandertalensis, Homo sapiens neandertalenis (Desanova), Homo floresiensis, Homo erectus (& subspecies) in which the modes of each population does not intermix but the peripheral of some populations do. For example Desanova, although largely archaic homo sapiens carries a presumably erectine mtDNA and does have non-Neanderthal/non-human DNA (whereas the contribution of Desanovan-like peoples to Indonesia does not). I have to state I believe there were other admixture events in Asia, we just don't have a sensor to parse these out of humans (and because they contributed trace amounts of heritable material. If you can't see my skepticism then let me lay it out clearly; the fossil record from super-equitorial Africa is not such that it clearly allows delineation of Hss in parts of Africa south of the Mediterranean border regions prior to 50 kya (even as late as 20kya). The people who lived there, obviously human, may no longer be apart of the human population, or alternatively, admixed with humans when they left in small units (a handful of admixture events)(I should add that Sarah Tishkoff the leading expert in human evolution in Africa does not believe, last I read, that humans and Neanderthals admixed in Africa). This indicates possibly that not only did the classic Neanderthal went extinct, but also large swaths of the human population). I am not questioning the dates per say, but even in SSA its hard to find a clearly modern Hss representative 160-180 kya. Thus the dentate is open to multiple interpretations. Even as far south as the Klaisus river, primitive traits continue to appear in the human population after the expansion into Eurasia occurred, and in the west/central African region primitive traits continue to appear into 20 kya. And the argument is coming from a person who deeply questions the results of Paabo (from the pre 2000 period) suggesting humans spread 52,000 +/-29,000 years ago from Africa, I was and am advocate for earlier expansion and exit from Africa, but in further study I find that the physical anthropology has not supported a clean time-line and it is unclear the method by which people left. I should remind everyone that there is human evidence of arrival in Australia up to 65 kya despite a land route that places them there, that humans arrived in the Okinawa chain ~30 kya despite a visible route of arrival. So that the first arrivals of Hss (our guys) to Eurasia need not have come through the Levant and spread. In fact if you look at the M lineages of DNA, there is a much cleaner route that travels from the horn of Africa and b-lines into India. This is not the only tme this route has been used. . . . . So really the question revolves not around did genes flow from Africa into the Levant, we know this is true even looking at Levantine Neandertals, the question is whose genes traveled into the Levant. Again avoid drawing me into arguements of Paleontology, its not conducive to pleasant debate.

One of the satellites is an ION drive it will not lose any hardly any of its dV as it will take months to get to its proper orbit. As for either of them being in the wrong orbit a source of that information (hype) was not posted. From spaceflight.com Its important when making spurious claims to provide the source.

And then I read the comment below that: I'm both dismayed at the failure and impressed that the 2nd stage continued on "alone". (Emphasis mine) And at that moment, the song "Alone" by Alan Walker which was playing in the background reached the vocal section where it said "I know I'm not alone" so yay! A three vehicles were carried safely to orbit by the hype train.