A different model proposes that a small, relatively isolated population of early humans evolved into modern Homo sapiens, and that this population succeeded in spreading across Africa, Europe, and Asia -- displacing and eventually replacing all other early human populations as they spread. In this scenario, the variation among modern populations is a recent phenomenon. Part of the evidence to support this theory comes from molecular biology, especially studies of the diversity and mutation rate of nuclear DNA and mitochondrial DNA in living human cells. From these studies, an approximate time of divergence from the common ancestor of all modern human populations can be calculated. This research has typically yielded dates around 200,000 years ago, too young for the "Multiregional Hypothesis." Molecular methods have also tended to point to an African origin for all modern humans, implying that the ancestral population of all living people migrated from Africa to other parts of the world -- thus the name of this interpretation: the "Out of Africa Hypothesis."
Whichever model (if either) is correct, the oldest fossil evidence for anatomically modern humans is about 130,000 years old in Africa, and there is evidence for modern humans in the Near East sometime before 90,000 years ago. Most found in Europe such as Cro-Magnon date from about 50,000 BP.
If, as most scientists believe (I am but a minor one of them) Homo sapiens, judging by the 1987 Berkeley Studies, is as unrelated to Neanderthal, as Homo-erectus was to Homo-sapiens, then the question which I asked was never answered properly in undergraduate school, is still being debated, from where did Homo-sapiens come?
The unsatisfactory answer I received was, Out of the North.
I asked the seemingly absurd question based purely on logic because there was no time between Neanderthal and the appearance of HS for further natural evolution or for the mutation of an entire organism the size of man. That, however, is the only answer I ever got and it is insufficient for a scientist. Homo sapiens suddenly appeared. Is he still evolving? Perhaps. Will there be a new type Homo-modernis? Perhaps, but not in our lifetime. Is Pete Still inured to evolution and the Big Bang? With certain reservations, of course, at least, until a better explanation comes along... and one will, one always does among scientists. Maybe the next one will be the right one, the end-all, one, and it may be simply a revised version of what we now have.
"According to Sowa (2000), [2] up until the twentieth century, three assumptions described by Max Born in 1949 were dominant in the definition of causality:
1. "Causality postulates that there are laws by which the occurrence of an entity B of a certain class depends on the occurrence of an entity A of another class, where the word entity means any physical object, phenomenon, situation, or event. A is called the cause, B the effect.
2. "Antecedence postulates that the cause must be prior to, or at least simultaneous with, the effect.
3. "Contiguity postulates that cause and effect must be in spatial contact or connected by a chain of intermediate things in contact." (Born, 1949, as cited in Sowa, 2000) However, according to Sowa (2000), "relativity and quantum mechanics have forced physicists to abandon these assumptions as exact statements of what happens at the most fundamental levels, but they remain valid at the level of human experience."
See cause and effect in Hindu and western philosophy.
Cheney/Rove, see it as relatively easy to defeat pious men and women-because they will either hesitate or refuse to seize and use the means which Cheney/Rove quite easily, without qualms seize, and use. Am I saying that only believers are moral? No, there is great evidence that the opposite is often the case; I am saying that, not everyone is bright and not everyone is docile. St. Paul and Jesus indicated, in coded language, in parables, in similes, and the former aggressively, the latter subtly, that intellect is a strong prerequisite for complete understanding. Even if they had not, it is certainly the prerequisite for almost everything else in life, but they did, and why not, it is the truth. Paul said more than once, for people to know their limitations. Only a fool does not.
People lacking intellectual tools fail at most things, which require intelligence, if nothing else, The Peter Principle taught us that, but certainly climbing the grade ladder throughout school was no subtle reminder.
Throughout history, humans with mild manners, the Clark Kent's of real life, unless they had a hard inner core and displayed other vast resources, were coaxed, bullied, intimidated, or destroyed, by humans that are more aggressive. The only escape for those not of homicidal tendencies was their intellect and their other resources. Often, as we have seen, homicidal types infest churches and governments, but never before have there been several things which showed up recently and formed a coalition; so many not so bright people, so many people of homicidal tendencies, so many avaristic people, so many lacking true morality, in both parties, and so many God-damned fools. The result, many homicidal types in churches and in government, browbeating more benign types, not-so-bright-types, and just plain lazy types, who simply chose not to vote.
I asked Google and others the following question: What Was The Largest Base of Non-Voters, In The Elections of 2000 & 2004? Several sites gave the same answers. Here is one of them.
July 25, 2004
Single women aren't married to voting booth
San Antonio Express-News
Melissa Fletcher Stoeltje
"First it was the soccer moms. Then the security moms. Next came the NASCAR dads.
Now the hot new catchphrase percolating in politics is "women on their own."
The phrase refers to the estimated 22 million unmarried women who sat out the 2000 election. They represent an electoral behemoth that could clinch the 2004 vote if its members would only show up at the polls, analysts says.
Those who track such data note that if unmarried women had voted in 2000 at the same rate as their married peers, 6 million more votes would have been cast in that election, including 200,000 in Florida (which Bush carried by 537 votes)."
April 24, 2006
Women's Voices. Women Vote. Selects First Four States for 2006 Turnout Efforts
Unmarried women's turnout jumped 13 percent in WVWV's "final four" states in 2004. Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, Washington to be targeted for registration and turnout efforts
Melissa Fletcher Stoeltje
According to the Current Population Survey, November 2004 Supplement, there are hundreds of thousands of unmarried women in WVWV's first four targeted states who are either unregistered or who did not vote in the 2004 election.
A state-by-state breakdown follows:
Michigan:
1,735,495 unmarried women
503,857 unregistered
177,189 registered, but did not vote in 2004
Ohio:
2,053,296 unmarried women
701,963 unregistered
162,268 registered, but did not vote in 2004
Pennsylvania:
2,200,607 unmarried women
736,526 unregistered
209,402 registered, but did not vote in 2004
Washington:
981,586 unmarried women
302,408 unregistered
87,698 registered, but did not vote in 2004
My question to above is, why did these people not vote? Look at what their non-voting has cost in lives alone! Add that to those who reject abortion, many former Democrats, affected by the abortion issue, which many conservative Protestant Churches rallied against and pope's letter to all American Bishops, reminding them that voting for a candidate which supports, or does not condemn abortion faces defacto excommunication, sent a good 10,000,000 Judeo/Christian votes over to Bush and you see the reasons there are 675,000 dead and 1,100,000 maimed Iraqi's, and American's. In 2006, however, the horror of the war and the Katrina episode, galvanized voters of conscience into voting for a good many Democrats, to little avail, as the Democrats have, so far betrayed those who gave so much, and asked little other than to regenerate the Bill of Rights and the Constitution and end the war and in stead of using the lately added trillions of dollars to authorize more killing and maiming, instead of sending Jimmy Carter and others over to officially make peace with the Iraqi Patriot-"Insurgents."
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
