Really old news...but i bet few knew this!

[jverne]

Eve "was" way before than Adam

read it yourself

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/999030.stm

 

[_Z_Ryuken]

Adam may have never met Eve, but who did Eve give birth too? An ape? Most likely not.

 

[jverne]

Adam may have never met Eve, but who did Eve give birth too? An ape? Most likely not.

i dunno? some kind of mutant...just wait an answer will come sooner or later.

 

[MJ12]

I am a bit confused on what I read to be honest

 

[Dog--]

oops, never mind I actually read it..

 

[_Z_Ryuken]

I am a bit confused on what I read to be honest

I was too at first but what it is saying is modern woman arose thousands of years before modern man, as far as sex/gender goes. I think they need to take another look at their model.
A couple ways you can look at it, one is women have evolved less in that span of time.
You can also say men took longer to catch up to women?
Neither makes sense.
My first comment kinda makes a point about modern man and woman arriving at the same time, as it would make much more sense. A modern women should give birth to a modern man.

 

[Krynn72]

I am a bit confused on what I read to be honest

They're saying that technically the first woman existed 150,000 years ago, and the first man technically came about only ~60,000 years ago. Or at least, that how I understood it.

 

[_Z_Ryuken]

You know what I am thinking now is, maybe men more closely resembled women up until 60k years ago. Maybe that's when "true" masculinity came about.

 

[theotherguy]

I was too at first but what it is saying is modern woman arose thousands of years before modern man, as far as sex/gender goes. I think they need to take another look at their model.
A couple ways you can look at it, one is women have evolved less in that span of time.
You can also say men took longer to catch up to women?
Neither makes sense.
My first comment kinda makes a point about modern man and woman arriving at the same time, as it would make much more sense. A modern women should give birth to a modern man.

Unfortunately it can't quite possibly be as simple as that. The transition from our pre-human ancestors to modern humans was a slow one. There was no clear cut distinction between "modern" and "pre-modern" humans. We and our immediate ancestors probably interbred, and for females to be more genetically similar to "modern" humans seems not altogether unreasonable.

You have to realize that certain traits are exhibited only in females and other traits are characteristic only in males. The Y chromosome, for instance, has been decaying ever since first "modern" humans appeared. This decay is likely the cause of such an evolutionary phenomenon. Since a modern woman cannot pass on a Y chromosome, it makes perfect sense that a man could not possibly inherit those traits found in modern males from his mother, and that the evolution of the Y chromosome was completely separate from the evolution of any other human chromosome.

 

[Sudano]

Damn, thought it was something worth reading.

 

[_Z_Ryuken]

Unfortunately it can't quite possibly be as simple as that. The transition from our pre-human ancestors to modern humans was a slow one. There was no clear cut distinction between "modern" and "pre-modern" humans. We and our immediate ancestors probably interbred, and for females to be more genetically similar to "modern" humans seems not altogether unreasonable.

You have to realize that certain traits are exhibited only in females and other traits are characteristic only in males. The Y chromosome, for instance, has been decaying ever since first "modern" humans appeared. This decay is likely the cause of such an evolutionary phenomenon. Since a modern woman cannot pass on a Y chromosome, it makes perfect sense that a man could not possibly inherit those traits found in modern males from his mother, and that the evolution of the Y chromosome was completely separate from the evolution of any other human chromosome.

What you are saying here I already know, but part of the problem I have with this is I don't know what or whom they are using for the standard of what is "modern". What trait qualifies a man as modern that is lacking in pre-modern men?

 

[theotherguy]

What you are saying here I already know, but part of the problem I have with this is I don't know what or whom they are using for the standard of what is "modern". What trait qualifies a man as modern that is lacking in pre-modern men?

Nothing. Its an arbitrary boundary anyway. By "modern" they just mean more genetically similar to humans of today than whatever we choose to call the previous species. Humanity has retained a very similar genetic structure for the past few hundred thousand years, and its a merely arbitrary boundary that we give to "modern" humans. I thus cannot concede to the idea that there ever was a "first" human, but there can be a "first" human who is genetically similar enough to modern humans to be classified as "modern".

 

[MJ12]

I was too at first but what it is saying is modern woman arose thousands of years before modern man, as far as sex/gender goes. I think they need to take another look at their model.
A couple ways you can look at it, one is women have evolved less in that span of time.
You can also say men took longer to catch up to women?
Neither makes sense.
My first comment kinda makes a point about modern man and woman arriving at the same time, as it would make much more sense. A modern women should give birth to a modern man.

They're saying that technically the first woman existed 150,000 years ago, and the first man technically came about only ~60,000 years ago. Or at least, that how I understood it.

hmm, I want to think this is somehow related to the fact that women go through puberty earlier, and faster than men?