<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Human origins in 2011</title>
	<atom:link href="http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/2011/12/human-origins-in-2011/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/2011/12/human-origins-in-2011/</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 19 Jun 2013 14:55:00 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.4.2</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Torbjörn Larsson, OM</title>
		<link>http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/2011/12/human-origins-in-2011/#comment-38706</link>
		<dc:creator>Torbjörn Larsson, OM</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 20 Dec 2011 22:32:20 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/?p=14885#comment-38706</guid>
		<description>@ CtC:

Note though that the &quot;OOA&quot; hypothesis pertains solely to the populations that goes into todays extant population.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>@ CtC:</p>
<p>Note though that the &#8220;OOA&#8221; hypothesis pertains solely to the populations that goes into todays extant population.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Chris the Canadian</title>
		<link>http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/2011/12/human-origins-in-2011/#comment-38705</link>
		<dc:creator>Chris the Canadian</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 20 Dec 2011 21:18:23 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/?p=14885#comment-38705</guid>
		<description>I&#039;m fascinated by what is being found in the human genome and comparing it to our cousins and ancestors.   I think archeologists get a bit of tunnel vision when theorizing about human origins.   The problem I see is we have so few samples to go by that to make a hypothesis on the origins and progression of humanity from them would be like trying to figure out the diversity of modern humans from bone samples of one family found in Pompeii and the big toe bone of a person found in New York City.    When the reality is probably far more complex and far more interrelated than anyone has even pondered.   The Out of Africa model isn&#039;t necessarily wrong, but it is likely not the only theory that is relevant.

I can definately picture the origins of the human species in africa, with a number of &#039;Out of Africa&quot; events throughout early hominid history.  Homo Erectus, the Australopithecines etc moving out of africa in different millenia and evolving independently or mixing with new groups of hominids as they arrived into the middle east, europe, india and southest asia.   I can also see groups of hominids moving to and from africa over the millenia, as climate and temperature changes and resource fluctuations force populations to migrate in search of sustinence.   Hominids until modern humans were nomadic after all.  Those hominids well adapted to their environment, such as Neanderthal or the Indonesian &quot;Hobbit&quot; people didn&#039;t leave their local habitats because there was no advantage or need for them to.  They were well adapted to their environments and were thriving.

Our history and how we came to be human will likely have stories and realities that we will never uncover completely but every discovery, whether in the field digging up the bones of our long lost ancestors or in the laboratory digging through genomes and finding out who we take after and who we don&#039;t as a species  brings us answers and a piece of the story that may have been missing before.  That is what makes this field so EXCITING!!!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I&#8217;m fascinated by what is being found in the human genome and comparing it to our cousins and ancestors.   I think archeologists get a bit of tunnel vision when theorizing about human origins.   The problem I see is we have so few samples to go by that to make a hypothesis on the origins and progression of humanity from them would be like trying to figure out the diversity of modern humans from bone samples of one family found in Pompeii and the big toe bone of a person found in New York City.    When the reality is probably far more complex and far more interrelated than anyone has even pondered.   The Out of Africa model isn&#8217;t necessarily wrong, but it is likely not the only theory that is relevant.</p>
<p>I can definately picture the origins of the human species in africa, with a number of &#8216;Out of Africa&#8221; events throughout early hominid history.  Homo Erectus, the Australopithecines etc moving out of africa in different millenia and evolving independently or mixing with new groups of hominids as they arrived into the middle east, europe, india and southest asia.   I can also see groups of hominids moving to and from africa over the millenia, as climate and temperature changes and resource fluctuations force populations to migrate in search of sustinence.   Hominids until modern humans were nomadic after all.  Those hominids well adapted to their environment, such as Neanderthal or the Indonesian &#8220;Hobbit&#8221; people didn&#8217;t leave their local habitats because there was no advantage or need for them to.  They were well adapted to their environments and were thriving.</p>
<p>Our history and how we came to be human will likely have stories and realities that we will never uncover completely but every discovery, whether in the field digging up the bones of our long lost ancestors or in the laboratory digging through genomes and finding out who we take after and who we don&#8217;t as a species  brings us answers and a piece of the story that may have been missing before.  That is what makes this field so EXCITING!!!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
