Skulls Add to "Out of Africa" Theory of Human Origins

It has been puzzling the international scientific community for quite a while now, did the early humanities interbreed or not? If you think of it, we do know that we share with chimpanzees more than 95% of our genome, right? And the two groups (humans and chimpanzees) were separated definitely some 4.5 million years ago (if I am not mistaking with the number), right? So maybe just MAYBE early Homo sapiens and early Homo neandertalensis interbreed, or maybe Homo sapiens and other human forms, who knows.

The question is not only a poetic one, thinking about early romances across the borders of tribal wars and what ever some poets might imagine. No the question is deeper, or at least more troubling for some, more interesting for others. It's orbits mainly 2 points:

• A strictly scientific question:
  
  Let's remember the definition of species:
  
  1. Wordnet: taxonomic group whose members can interbreed
  
  
  2. Wikipedia: In biology, a species is, loosely speaking, a group of related organisms that share a more or less distinctive form and are capable of interbreeding.
  
  
  You can search more definitions, you know the procedures type "define:species" and you'll get a myriad of definitions, however an important detail will certainly repeat itself in all definitions: Interbreed, Interbreeding. Fore this is an important detail about naming species, two ordinary individuals that are grouped in one species need to be able to interbreed in order to belong to the same species. However, some scientists tend to put the modern human and the Neandertal human in one species: Homo sapiens. In that perspective, the modern human would be Homo sapiens sapiens and the Neandertal human would be Homo sapiens neandertalensis. Could that be true?
  
  We certainly have no way to reach a sexually functional Neandertal in order to try and make it fuck a human and then see if they give a healthy, fertile offspring (keep in mind that many animals belonging to two different species may breed but their offspring is sterile there fore the process is scientifically a failure). But modern day scientists don't always refer to actual interbreeding to define species, they use molecular biology and genetic studies of the genome and so on. But even that is useless as the sample of Neandertals are rare (same as any ancient human remains) and when we do find some remains, it's usually bones, and even when we do find remains of soft tissues it's usually mineralized tissues and not mummified tissues... In other words we have no material to extract DNA from, some studies did find a few fragments of DNA but that hasn't been able to clear the question of whether neandertals and modern humans belong to the same species or not.
  
  But many scientists already speak of Homo sapiens neanderalensis... Which brings us to another point that is less scientific, but more philosophical and existential...
  




• What is a Human?
  
  Of course, if you do sink deep into Paleoanthropology and evolution in general, humanity will lose its spark and it will make Man the special creature of God... it will make him just another animal. I don't know whether it's insulting or relieving to acknowledge that but for most people it's simply disturbing! But so far we did preserve a small shred of superiority: We, the Homo sapiens, have ruled the world with our wit and intelligence.
  
  But what if We didn't rule it? What if other humans have ruled it with us? What if we were not pure Homo sapiens what if we were a mix of humans and that other humans rule the earth together with the combination of all our genes. Of course some might argue that we don't look like neandertals or like Homo ergaster or any other humans. But the truth is that Phenotypes (looks) are deceiving we can hold more DNA from Neandertals than we do from Homo sapiens and still look like the latter. Because different pieces of DNA fulfill different roles. If that is true then we would have nothing, and I mean, NOTHING, that sets us apart from other animals.
  
  I know many of those who follow my blog may not find this so shocking or so disturbing. But come on people we might not be the world's number 1 believers, but many people around the earth are strong believers and many of them believe that God created all animals in one day and MAN on a totally other day. Many people justify their right to kill animals because they are...animals... not Humans...not special enough.
  

I have been trying to follow the news of this subject for nearly 2 years now, reading every article about it. And finally I have found a study that claims to have some rational answer to that question. You can read it in the Scientific American Online edition.

The article focuses on the fact that humans did in fact expand to the world starting from Ethiopia (Africa), which is no longer seriously questioned by scientists. In proving their point they rely on the decline of variability in skull structure from the cradle of modern humanity (Ethiopia) to the farthest regions (Asia for example). However here's the piece that interests us:

As smaller bands broke off from larger settlements, they would have carried with them a less diverse subset of the bigger group's genes, which partly translate into anatomical features such as skull shape. So the farther early Homo sapiens trod from their homeland, the less variable their skulls should become. Unless, that is, they bred with previously established populations of Neandertal or other early humans, which would have injected new genes and boosted variability.

The researchers found no signs of interbreeding, they report online today in Nature. "What you find is a very nice linear decline of variability as you move farther away from Africa," Amos says. Prior studies had identified an identical trend in the diversity of simple genetic sequences or markers.

So maybe religious lunatics can sleep well tonight... We didn't interbreed with Neadertals. But that leaves an important question yet unanswered:

Was it biologically impossible for us to interbreed?

Just because we didn't interbreed with them doesn't mean it would have been impossible. One thing is certain, we had all the chances to do so. The variation of weather over the last 100 000 years (modern Man's appearance is estimated to around 120 000 years) have defined many regions of crossing at least between modern man and Neadertals. The most important region being the Middle East in which I live. Unfortunately, studies in here are rare, the only place where serious scientific research takes place is Israel (the only place where an abundance of remains was found, though Lebanon for example contains many caves, thus must've had many remains).

On the other hand, knowing of how humans are xenophobic by nature (check out this article in National geographic news). You can't help but to think to yourself: Both groups must've forbidden such contact between different members, probably declaring it a sin or something and promoting the others' mass murder.

I strongly believe that

Week in photo

Now in terms of information, the Scientific American remains my site of choice, that is no secret, but there is a site with outstanding charm the National Geographic news!

A very interesting feature of this site is, as it is the case with the Nat Geo magazine, the great emphasis on pictures. Pictures are the neglected child of science, though the early scientists were naturalists, that simply loved to observe nature, the visual part simply faded and lost its initial role, we stoped enjoying pictures as scientists, we simply use them as a means of explanation, clarification. But pictures, can be a great pleasure, that might not help with transmitting knowledge directly (there fore can't be used in those BIG, sophisticated references) but they can play a great role in humanizing science.

Well maybe my opinion is biased in this, being the daughter of an amateur photographer makes me particularly vulnerable to lovely pictures.

But here's a funny use of pictures, in the week in photo category you'd find this week two interesting photos:


Source

Not bad for a dress made out of condoms! Don't you think? Actually I can say that this is one of the best colorful dresses I have every seen, but the design does seem a bit poor, the model looks like a tank in it. More fit for a children's fashion... But I guess that dressing kids with condoms won't be so socially and ethically acceptable now would it?


Second picture of the week: the tallest guy weds:

Source

I don't know what does this picture demonstrate exactly...

• Every beast will find a beauty that will love him?


• In most parts of the world, romance is still nonexistent? and marriages are ruled by money and social opression?

Well I get the feeling that both are incomplete, inaccurate and rather naive conclusions, but what is undeniable is that this picture demonstrates the persistence of our circus-like curiosity and infatuation with exoticism as a sign of our normality's superiority and not as a celebration of human diversity.

Christianity and False Reform

Now this is funny. What I enjoy the most about this blog is the fact that I can be as anti-clerical as I like. Not that I hate the church, I honestly don’t, I do have beautiful memories from that phase of my life. However, the church never chose to be neither modern nor tolerant, it was on a few occasions forced to evolve, to drop its old teaching and to claim tolerance. Forced because they lost popularity, they lost power, influence, so they had to remake their image to a more modern one, with much softer values that would attract the new generations. You see, the new generations were rather attracted to Buddhism and Gnosticism in terms of spirituality. Especially in the Occident as we call it. People simply lost faith in the church as the path to reach heaven/God, the discovery of old scriptures convinced the Occident of many churches and not only one and only church, the recent memory of religious clashes between Catholics and Protestants fortified the belief that there isn’t just one Church but many churches, that no one hold the truth eventually the conclusion was inevitable: Christianity is not THE religion and religion is not THE goal of life.

This loss in followers that gradually degraded the Catholic church in its cradle (Europe) meant a huge loss in political power and in money. Then Miraculously came John-Paul II, a man that many regard as remarkably tolerant, good, modern, gentle and so on. Some praise him as the iron fist that shook communism in Poland, others praise him as the defender of poor people around the world, the man who renewed the church… A lot has been said about this man but let’s get back to earth, his presence, his actions and his decisions were all part of a good plan:

1. Attract the young generation:
   He gave the young generation a distinct place in the church they had camps and activities inside the Vatican itself, he emphasized on their role thus attaching them and using them for work that needs to be done



2. Looking like a saint
   Well you know how they teach us in the bible that the early Christians lived in total poverty? How they relied only on the help of God? How Jesus in person forbidden us from piling riches? Well every time the Catholic church went through a identity crisis, they did readopt that Saint appearance. Just as an example, remember the establishment of the Dominicans and the Franciscans , also known as the Mendicant Orders. These orders were established as a direct response to the rise of Catharism. These orders quickly spread like mushroom on wet lands, the prohibition of Catharism and the inquisitions favored the rise of Mendicant Orders on the detriment of Catharism naturally. But the fast expansion of Mendicant Orders expresses the need among the population for a better spiritual guidance. That’s what was going on since the dawn of the last century, and that is why the church has been trying to restore a stoic/humble/poor façade.
   
   You see, a lesson that history has taught us, humans have an empathy/selfishness balance within them; rough environmental conditions favor selfish behavior, clement conditions favor empathetic behavior. This, in my opinion, partially explains the clash of cultures also. But in general the modern world is more at ease and satisfies its needs much more easily than before, especially in the Occident (again and again). That is why people would find a docile and soft Christianity far more appealing than a tough and powerful one. Christianity has the ability to fulfill that role, because Christianity in its beginning was a very oppressed religion, it was found and established in a hostile environment under constant threat, unlike Islam that spread quickly and establish an empire even quicker (the Coran being written under the guidance of kings not fugitives) and Judaism, a religion who’s holy books were written over a long period of time, and more often than not by an independent nation. So the New Testament is a tolerant book, because tolerance is usually the demand of the weak and the minority facing an oppressive majority. Christians in post-war Lebanon demand tolerance, Christians before the war demanded the right to preserve the Christian privileges by force.
   
   So the Catholic Church, back at the good old days of John-Paul II tried to resurrect the memory of that old Christianity backed with a very tolerant New Testament…
   
   

However there are a few flaws that show the insincerity of this docility. The Church is only docile with the powers… So can we call it a resurgence of tolerance or reassessment of alliances?

1. Reinforcing the role of Africa and Latin America, but also the InterChristian, the Christian/Jewish and the Christian/Muslim Dialogue:
   Europe has always been the cradle of Catholicism and all Catholic Christians were subjugated to the central power of the Vatican, in fact all Catholic Churches were obliged to sing in Latin (except our Maronite Church), to pay the tax directly to the Vatican, the Pope was almost always an Italian… Many saw that the election of John-Paul II and his work afterwards was colossal and amazing, sort of like a liberation a modernism… Well allow me to disagree, though I do agree on these moves I don’t really understand how can people neglect the fact that John-Paul II’s election in itself indicated that the change within the church wasn’t the result of that pope’s election, on the contrary it is the change that brought him to power. In fact it was utterly absurd and idiotic to keep the power of the Church so centralized, it was absurd that Africans and Latin Americans would be so excluded of the church, it was absurd for people who never even come in contact with the latin alphabet to be forced to pray in Latin, thus pray in a language they cannot understand, the changes John-Paul II generated were the strict minimum that anyone would demand, he didn’t liberate the church he just didn’t want to fight the changes that were inevitably happening.
   
   To understand why this is not such a great work, you should simply remember how big Latin America and Africa are in terms of Christianity, of blind belief and compare it to the atheist and small Europe. I am shocked it took them so long to take this step don’t you think? These are powerful groups that the church simply needs
   And think of their attitude toward other entities…




2. What about powerless minorities
   Now the modern society hasn’t just abandoned the old catholic beliefs like for example Muslims and Jews brought the plague in the medieval times or Protestants are heretics… They morphed their whole society, there were the emancipation of women, the gay pride, just to name a few. However, in an all-Male Vatican, the emancipation of women does seem absurd, of course don’t beat them but would they want to invert roles in society? Why do they refuse to bear children? Why do they demand to become part of the Ecclesiastic body? Why do they want to head the religious celebrations?
   
   I am sadly speechless against these questions as they express the blindness and the stupidity of the people in charge, starting from the head of the church back then to the simple priests… They simply refuse to listen, ever since the election of John-Paul II and his work for the Catholic Church’s reform feminists tried and tried to reason with them, it just wasn’t heard, we just looked funny for him.
   
   And allow me NOT to mention the homosexuality debate… The mere mention of such a subject is sufficient explanation in itself.
   
   In fact the Church is still the dictator that it always was, it only started to realize who have become too powerful for her to oppress, those that are still not powerful enough are still oppressed



3. Condom anyone?
   Well it’s very very very very simple, what is the objection against safe sex? What is the objection against enjoying sex? What kind of modern church are we talking about? Why? Why? Why? Why?
   

My personal conclusion: It wasn’t that great and he wasn’t that much of a saint afterall

But wait! Don’t close the window just yet!

Well, I am not a big fan of John-Paul II but the last thing I wanted was the return of fundamental Catholicism. Yes I know many people cried out Nazi when Pope Benedictus was elected… and I know they were cruel, inaccurate and silly. But that doesn’t change the other aspects about this person. Benedictus is, just like John-Paul, the result of the changes that are storming in the Church and the world. And his ascendance to power was not the fruit of chance either. Three main points:

1. The absence of Greater enemies
   When John-Paul II was elected, the Church was threatened by new ideas such as communism, there were a sense of anti-religion, a sort of anti-religion imposed by politics, churches were being burnt Christianity was being attacked (along with other religions). At that time the Catholic church had to struggle against that current to preserve its political influence, after all communism and other ideologies failed to eradicate Christianity as a belief but did manage to eradicate the financial and political power of the Institution (the Church).
   
   Nowadays, it’s different, attacking any entity is banned, there fore religions can’t be eradicated. However, a worse anti-religion has been established… the one that grows inside the individual, individuals are no longer against the church, they are indifferent to it! This is even more lethal than the political oppression.
   
   Struggling against the Church is now being tougher, to distinguish itself from others, to affirm itself as THE right belief, sort of creating a new Identity for Catholics. It is no longer OK to agnostic/atheist/muslim/jew/Buddhist for as long as you are “tolerant” no you HAVE to be Catholic Christian to be GOOD.
   
   Sadly this attitude is nothing but a regression to a time that we thought won’t come back.



2. The rise of extreme Islamism
   Fundamental Islamism has hasted many changes both in the Muslim Middle East, The Christian West and the Secular West. Though the Christian and the Secular West have evolved side by side and have become archenemies they do rely on the same population. The Secular West could be described as a dreamer for the past few centuries they have promulgated fundamentalism as THE problem, claiming that secularism and tolerance will solve all the problems and that others (Muslims for instance) will be friendly if we are friendly… Skipping many details we can say that this simplistic view of the Middle East failed to protect the Europe and the West against gruesome and unimaginable violence.
   
   Up until recently, secularism was THE rule, among the Western population. The rise of Islamism and the apparent absurdity of this philosophy/ideology makes the Western population more inclined to the Fundamental Ideologies (throw the Muslims back to where they belong kind of ideas). One of the fundamental Ideologies is expressed by the rise of Christian Fundamentalism, remember when Benedictus claimed that Europe is unfaithful to its Christian roots and ungrateful to its Christian History. Unfortunately, people are now going to be more and more attracted to fundamental speech, and to be honest I am no longer sure if secularism/tolerance is the solution anyway, but I am certain that Fundamentalism is NOT.
   

As a final result, the Church tightens its grip and it launches outrageously intolerant remarks hiding behind the excuse of caring for linguistic precision! Just check this article:

Catholicism is the only true church, Vatican declares

Or this one (thank you Nomad for posting it):

Catholic claim 'offensive'

Ok let’s consider that this source is not that objective or whatever! I am honestly tired of this! This is STUPID… there shouldn’t be any comments that could be interpreted in a negative way by unsubjective sources.


I have no idea why I have spent around 5 hours writing this!

Make-up oh Make-up how I hate you to the bones

Now why do women consider that a stupid beauty expert knows better than her in the way to “choose” make-up? Why do women assume that it’s such a bad thing to screw up from time to time while choosing a color… Even worse why do they consider that they need to put make-up in the first place? If make-up was so essential then why don’t men put some?

Allow me to answer that: Men don’t put make-up for three main reasons:

1. They have terrible rashes because of their shaved beards


2. They don’t have to, since women don’t demand it


3. They know it’s pointless

Oh for crying out loud! Why do we put make-up? Make-up is something you put once a month maximum, on a party, something fancy, I don’t know, how can women wake up everyday put that damn toxic waste all over their faces and then pretend they are doing a great job?

And where the fuck are the feminists?! Why are we so busy demanding a woman’s right to kill a fetus and no longer remember the essential part? Making the woman enjoy her beauty that she will preserve with or without a baby. I read and hear and watch movies about feminists attacking the stereotyped looks of a Barbie doll, attacking the excessive love of looks. What I see now is new bread of feminists that don’t defend the woman’s right to enjoy her looks (without social pressure to look perfectly like Britney Spears) but defend the woman’s right to abort a child to preserve her looks… She will no longer look like Britney Spears if she had extra pounds now would she?


Oh and as if that is not enough, they have now come up with a magnificent device that would actually decide of the color you’ll need to have the perfect shade of make-up… Let us all scream: FUUUUUUUCK. Oh but it’s hp…. Like WOOOOOOW!

Please everyone, welcome the super busy ultra successful Pazuzuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu

I’m a bad bad blogger I know, but in the last couple of weeks I actually had a social life… do you people believe that?! I, Pazuzu, have a social life. I know you people are probably pissed off with my long absence but let me give you a quick view of the last few weeks and how I spent them. I am not sure if that will amuse you or make you hate me even more.

So on the 4th of July I had my biotechnology exam, the last of my exams and I did reasonably well. The same day I went out with some friends to Macdonald’s (yeah a bunch of adults enjoying our Macflurry) we stayed there from 7 till 10 or something.

The next day a friend of mine (A) invited me to go out with him and his boyfriend (C), being euphoric and super duper happy about my results I accepted and went out with them, it was very sweet and I had great fun, we had dinner at roadster and then ice cream and a couple of beers in a gay-friendly place. That was a Thursday, right?

Friday, I was supposed to go out with some friends but it didn’t work out, again (A) invited me to go out with him and his boyfriend, being thrilled about going out with this couple I accepted, but later on I was informed by (A) himself that he intended to break-up with (C)… All of a sudden I was no longer thrilled about it :-/… I really loved that couple they’re both awesome! Why did they have to break up, so I stayed at home that night (did I mention that I had left for my uncles’ place on Friday.

Saturday, I went out for a pseudo-pyjama night (we didn’t sleep there but we stayed up late and some of us slept there) with some girlfriends’. Again I had great fun.

Sunday, went out with (C) and (M) (she had organized the Saturday night out) and some other friends. We had lunch and laughed very hard.

Monday, I was too busy preparing for the defense of my thesis. I was scared and stressed and scared and worried and stressed and freaking out, but it went on great and I even scored 85/100! Do you believe that?! I, Pazuzu the #1 college failure, I scored 85 on my memoire! I was impressed! The highest grade I believe is 90, in the case of a memoire of course!

On the same day I met Jos at 2:30 am and we kept talking for 2 or 3 hours, then I left home, at 7 am (A) calls me inviting me to watch a movie and grab something to eat from crepaway in Ashrafieh (yes the very same place where an explosion took place a while back killing an elderly woman). I accepted and again it was very very nice, we watched shrek the third, it was very very funny. That night I slept in Beirut to avoid coming home at 12:30 am.

Wednesday, I came home, arrived home just in time to take G from his gym class and then I took him to macdonald’s for lunch, then when I came home I was TIIIIIIIRED. I’ve been suffering a headache and feeling so sleepy…. I wonder why?

Updating (N.B.: this was supposed to be posted on friday but my connection is not cooperating)

So it has been more than a week since my last update, I think it’s because of the exams, studying didn’t exactly take all that much of my time, but the stress was lethal, I think I have been able to really study for the first time! Like REALLY study. Well at least for the physiology exam I had on the 27th, and to make a long story short there were a few points that really made the difference:

1. I was convinced of my ability to do well on this exam, confident with my knowledge in this field


2. I was aware and convinced that I needed to study for this in order to show the best out of my knowledge, because knowing a whole process and forgetting the names of the different components is useless


3. The Teacher is by all means: excellent!. With her you feel that you understand and you feel motivated to show how much you know, because you know that extra effort is noticed and rewarded, she knows most of us by name (at least she knows my name). I felt that I wanted to do well to impress her… Hope I did!


4. I had no real distractions, I was no longer trying to seek his attention, my brother’s school ended early and without exams so I had all the time to prepare for my exams, the internet addiction was surprisingly as bad as I had thought, I mean I always knew that my addictive personality was the real problem not the internet itself, but I had never assumed that – given the right circumstances and motives – I would prefer studying on chatting/blogging/reading


5. I was selfish, I thought selfishly, I acted selfishly, at least toward my extended circle of friends, during the last 3 to 4 weeks I have called none of my friends and didn’t even justify that absence to them when they called. Not that I am punishing them, it wasn’t even intentional! But you see, a few weeks ago I came to the conclusion that I am still not satisfied with my circle of close friends (except for very few who have proven to be great friends that I am proud of). I don’t feel that the attention I give to my friends is reciprocated, I do feel loved, but not really appreciated, I know it sounds silly or like something a teenager would say but think of it this way: I called them, they rarely called back, if they do they call to say “hey I have no units in my cell phone can you please call me”; I took the extra effort to detect every sign showing a bad mood, when they didn’t seem fine I’d try to talk to them about it and stuff, it’s not always that simple because if I am mistaking and they are feeling fine I’d risk looking ridiculous, but then again when someone needs your help you should provide it. However that effort was never done with me, most of my friends would just tell me I am being silly if I ever confide to them with my problems… SO why should I keep on making that extra effort? Some of them are now blaming me for changing!

So as a conclusion I ended up doing well on my exams, I am optimistic. Then two days later we had another exam and I had to work on my memoire none went that well… but I don’t feel like talking about those and finally I have my final exam on Wednesday, then the defense on my memoire on the 10th, after that I celebrate the end of the academic year with my old friends on the 12th (that’s the date of their defense) … And then I study for the exams I had failed (5 in total) then when I do finish all that…euh… nothing, that’s as far as my actual plans go, after that I have a myriad of plans that none seems achievable unfortunately. Let’s just focus on today, can we?