3 ms·
The authors publishing this are members of school of thought not widely accepted in modern Anthropology. They argue that humans in modern East Asia are "primari
by AlotOfReading 3y ago
The authors publishing this are members of school of thought not widely accepted in modern Anthropology. They argue that humans in modern East Asia are "primarily" descended from local archaic hominins, not "primarily" from humans out of Africa that admixed with archaic hominins as they migrated around the world.
This paper is specifically an argument for a "missing link" between archaic H. erectus and modern human morphologies, which pushes the emergence of these features back before Out-Of-Africa. So they avoid those terms because they're semantic distinctions the authors don't fully recognize.
- pvaldes 3y agoI see, the old "China was first" that mix a pinch of science with a little of politics. Is an old anthropological war but Africa and Europe provided much more evidence until today If I remember correctly. Even if they don't recognize neanderthals, is a well established taxon, and this does not differ a lot of them (in my non expert opinion), so they should show why this is enough different to deserve a second "oriental neanderthal" species. I can imagine easily neanderthals following migrating animals and conquering most of the northern hemisphere just walking from Atlantic to Pacific coasts in several generations.
- thefounder 3y ago>> so they should show why this is enough different t In politics you don't need that. Just see how some political leaders avoid mentioning "sensitive" words (i.e the name of the opponent, climate change etc) for their target audience.
- tremon 3y agoMaybe that missing link had a more like Winnie the Pooh-like appearance?