Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
I bet you didnt know that
Options
Comments
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
I always wondered that and thought I was going mad! So between the n7 and n3? Wonder what happened there
The original plan was to use it as a point where the N7 could join the M50 whilst running city bound traffic down the Long Mile Road. This plan was dropped in favour of the new red Cow intersection that was remodified in 2008.
South Dublin Co Co want to build a new exit to take traffic onto the Nangor Rd, but the NRA are against it as it would increase non local traffic on the Nangor Rd and increase congestion in the Park West area. It would also slow traffic down between the N7 and N4, something which should be avoided.
The NRA want the status of a motorway upheld and don't want the M50 reduced to an even slower route.
That's my understanding of it, I'm sure somebody else could give you better info, or the Infrastructure forum has plenty of people on it with more knowledge than me.
0 -
-
Advertisement
-
-
Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 60,159 Mod ✭✭✭✭
Join Date:Posts: 59087
True C, but it's not nearly as clearcut as it once was. There were two competing - and as these things go, diametrically opposed - ideas; the OOA model and Multiregional model. The latter reckoned that archaic* Humans(likely Homo Erectus) left Africa and continued to evolve separately with some overlap and gene flow between modern populations and that gave us the human species of today. The finding of non modern human DNA in modern populations took some of the oft hardline shine off the pure OOA model.The Neanderthal Index test?
All non Africans harbour between 1-4% of the Neanderthal genome with some regional variation. Non Africans generally don't exactly impress on the genetic diversity front in comparison with their African cousins.
Non Africans account for only about 30% of overall human genetic diversity, one of the many convincing indicators supporting the Out of Africa model of evolution. If 70% of genetic diversity is found in Africa, it follows that's where we've been the longest, and global patterns of diversity are well elucidated by geography in support of the OOA model.
I'd personally go further. I was never an either/or model adherent. Neither made much logical sense, certainly the total replacement OOA model made the least sense. That was jump the gun science IMH and with the sniff of right on US college campus thinking with it. "We're all Africans you know!" stuff. IMH that kinda simplistic notion demeans our incredible journey as humans to get to who we are today. It's more complex than that.
The reality on the ground was when Anatomically Modern Humans left East Africa in a couple of migration waves, they were not walking into virgin territory. The places they were migrating into and through were already inhabited. Neandertals in Eurasia, Denisovans in Asia, with some Homo Erectus knocking about(and Homo Florensis in Java) and likely a couple yet undiscovered.
Indeed if we look at AMA migrations the first thing that strikes you is that our earliest second wave movements(there was a first wave, but we ran back when an ice age hit, most likely with our Neandertal cousins shouting "Losers!" and making the forehead L sign, cos they stayed and thrived
) were along the coasts. By this route we reached Australia at least 50,000 years ago at a remarkably quick pace. We knew there were people inland and likely avoided them(and they us). At first.
Aye C, but when we add in the influx of other non modern human DNA into the mix, that figure must increase. Put it another way, Otzi the Iceman from 5000 years ago has a much higher Neandertal admixture than modern folks(nearly 8% IIRC, so nearly double). He was closer to the source and not by that much, given "pure" Neandertals had gone the way of the dodo by 20, even 20,000 years ago. That's quite a lot of "family blood" to have survived to that point. Another lad found in Russia, IIRC at 20 odd 1000 years old, had a "pure" Neandertal as a great grandparent. Those folks were adding to our diversity.The really interesting thing about human diversity is the low Effective Population Size - the measure of how many of a species it would take to replicate the entire diversity in the whole population. Inbred pedigree dogs might have an effective population size of a couple of hundred, rodents might have an EPS of 7 or 8 hundred thousand.
Us humans have a rather low EPS of about 15 thousand to replicate the diversity of all 7 plus billion of us.
Not just outside Africa either. It was just as complex a pattern within Africa. There wasn't just one small group of novel AMA's in East Africa rocking about neatly ready to go walkabout and that was that. For a start they spread throughout that continent. They had their own mix of peoples and those archaic peoples mixed with them back and forth. There's a group of finds in West Africa from only about 15,000 years ago of people with skulls that show some very archaic non AMA features and one modern lad has been found in that neck of the woods and in the US with an incredibly rare genetic marker from this archaic population(well "rare" so far. Considering how many billions of people have yet to have their genomes mapped who knows what cool shít is yet to be uncovered).
We're a lot more diverse and wonderfully complex than some of the simplistic answers seem to suggest. And this is a good thing. If you put me with my 3 odd percent Neandertal, beside a lad or lass from Papua New Guinea, with their 2 percent Neandertal and 5 percent Denisovan and a lad or lass from Africa with their so far unnamed god knows what percentage of "other" we're more diverse again. And this is a good thing.
Even the all one hard defined Human species thing doesn't sit too well with me TBH. If we were any other animal being described, we as a general tag would be seen as a collection of sub species of the whole. Both in genotype and phenotype. And again this is, or should be, a good thing. Now I can see why this simplistic approach is seen as gospel. Christ knows there have been horrendous crimes committed in looking to differences, but IMH that pendulum has swung too far the other way, though with very noble intentions, but for me it demeans us and our own journeys as humans to describe us all as basically the same.
We can see that changing cultural twist with the most famed of all archaic folks, the Neandertals. We apply that byword to anyone or anything we see as somehow primitive. That sprang from a 19th century mindset. They were among the first archaic humans to be found and described(because this stuff was almost exclusively a European scholarship thang at the time.) And that 19th century mindset saw them as lesser, non human, brutes. That cultural religious stuff was still running strong even in the most agnostic minds of the time. So they were portrayed as "apemen", a base mirror of our own foibles, the Other™. And that continued on for most of the 20th century. Yet when we found out that we, us modern erudite and civilised people, carried their blood in our veins, this view changed. In the sciences anyway. The same skulls that had been before fleshed out as hideous debased dark skinned humans, now are made to look like a funny looking modern European. A modern European that with a haircut and suit would pass unnoticed walking down the street. Both positions, inc these days, use(d) bad "science" to bolster a cultural idea. Where these people unthinking degraded human brutes? No, but if around today, they would make an impression in a big way. If you've ever held a cast of one of their skulls in your hands and noted the differences, you'd see those differences.
Fcuk me! That's a long one, even for me. As the actress said to the bishop...
:D I forgot I wasn't in the Palaeontology Forum.
PS, if you're viewing this on a phone, as the younger than me tend to do, I apologise unreservedly and will forward the costs to you of any Physio therapy required because of scroll strain.
*for clarity; I don't use "archaic" as a negative, merely a description of these various peoples. And I consider Neandertals, Denisovans et al as people. Homo Erectus I'd be more on the fence. They were human, but much less so.Rejoice in the awareness of feeling stupid, for that’s how you end up learning new things. If you’re not aware you’re stupid, you probably are.
0 -
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
![[Deleted User]](/applications/dashboard/design/images/defaulticon.png)
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement