Returning to maintain the infrequent order of our posts, we now select weeks main topics from completely other areas than the phone-, cloud-, road- or home-computing. So, in opposite to our customary practices, we focus on regular world news, mainly the ones we've picked from BBC (recent months/weeks). However, being keen followers of Mozilla's products, we can't let ourselves pass by just without noticing a few quite recent creations: 1st comes the betas from the awaited Firefox 3.1 version; As well as TraceMonkey script engine, it is now publicly announced to also contain Geode, an extension for use as easy (geo)locationer, supported already on many websites. As well as that, there's now also Ubiquety (Guess I spelled the name/project correct...), another relatively recent extension to help any regular users to create simple web-apps for their pages decoration, etc, even without any extra skills. Hey ho, let's go!
Challenging the archeological theories of human origins..Perhaps surprisingly, but quite convincingly(maybe) the scientist have confirmed that modern humans must be of relatively recent (some 100 000 years past, at most) Out-of-Africa-in-origin (genetics also 'can prove' that inhabitants of other areas of world have quite unique genetic inheritance lacking some multiple forms in DNA found on Africans.) Briefly simplified the alternative theory, multiregional model claims that people today evolved directly- and/or less-directly in separate areas around the Globe from descendants of Homo Erectus (who inhabited the Earth some 1.2 M years ago). Whatever the explanations, anyway most suppose that Homo Sapiens migrated from Africa to Near East someabout 70 000 years ago, and, now they even believe they've discovered the route and placings for that migration past Saharan deserts(they also suppose that the first group of people, containing the 'modern man' genes might have been as small as some 150 people). We don't necessary disagree with either theory (most likely answer between competing scientists often lies in-between) but cannot help but noticing that making some conclusions from 1 Millenia (100000) ago is almost as difficult as from some 1 Million years past. Small group of people, led by that revolutionary man who first decided to leave 'the homeground' might have traveled to Levant by the routes said (the newly discovered rivers that existed at the time), but who says how quickly they then might have traveled? Couldn't they actually have gone around everywhere similarly, much quicker speed than seems to be the 'prevailing belief'? The natural conclusion that follows is that who says the Australian aboriginals(ancestors) got to continent some 40 000 year ago? To prove that hypothesis, it has been confirmed (at least on archeological basis) that ancient Man/Lady found from Lake Mungo have lived there around 40 000 years past, as these are the oldest human remains found there. Since the Australia was among first areas to be inhabited by 'modern humans' (pre Cro Magnon man never got there, they seem to think), we just suppose, that almost as likely they must have gone there by boat, via islands (known as Indonesian archipelago or something like that...) Who say they didn't? But as the archeology is our favorite field of guessing and making puzzling theories we're just as happy to add that the main reason for such belief, the loss of pre human remains, doesn't anyway prove the theory of 'late-comers'. Even less that it should have taken some 20 to 30 000 years for them just to get there (even considering changes in climatic circumstances like icy periods, the hunter-gather anthropologist theories, etc). There should be some archeological evidence but hasn't been found? Has been found? We don't know, but simply think that people practically moved to many parts of the world a lot faster than seems to be common belief. Didn't they? Do they actually believe so?
No comments:
Post a Comment