New Human Fossils found

Really the only part of evolution that really interests me, is human evolution, I am not sure what kind of evolutionist that makes me, but yeah, great looking out on the article.the only comment I have is: they specifically mention a time when there were e species of Homo alive, yet when you look at the graph it clearly shows a time period when there were FOUR (erectus, ergaster, habilis, and rudolfensis). Strikes me as weird to mention 3 as news especially when we think the youngest 3 (sapiens, neanderthalensis, and erectus) lived at the same time.weird.

I am not a geneticist but I am not sure about that. I think Sapiens and Neaderthalensis are decendants of Heidelbergensis, making them more on the same level rather than one being a sub species of another. I see not geographical difference. I think sapiens encountered both, and I know Erectus were in Europe, but did the other two exist when they were is more the real question.

right. I just like these stories, and this branch of it more. I would rather read about "cavemen", than some "ancient lizard".

is this in the same way that most canines can reproduce, even though they are not the same species? of course, I absolutely agree, and I am not trying to argue really or disagree with you on purpose, I just have different thoughts (my arbitrary line is elsewhere). I tend to side with more diversity in species. once again it depends on where you want to split the hairs. Boxgrove Man for instance is either Homo Erectus or very early Heidelbergensis, depends. They both had the same acheulean tool kit.what about Pakefield? Error I am not saying you are wrong, but I think erectus came to europe and then evolved into heidelbergensis. More due to the pakefield dates and the consensus on the earliest heidelbergensis dates. I agree its arbitrary and spitting hairs, but then why else are we here talking about this stuff? ok now we are getting somewhere, yes this is very interesting.

do you think it was a pattern of coexistence or one species supplanting another?if coexistence is the answer then I would guess they occupied similar but slightly diffenrt niches or share a large habitat. All I can compare it to in my amatuer thoughts on this is three similar and definately related species that live in the similar Kenyan Region today: All Canines, Lycaon pictus, Canis mesomelas, and Otocyon megalotis African Wild Dog, Black-backed Jackal, and Bat-Eared Fox respectively. now you can say they are not all part of the same Genus like the homo example, but they all live in the same habitat and have a similar function of semi-omivourus predator, most of the time scavenger (probably like earlier hominids), I am not saying one way or the other as this is very interesting information, and great news. I just feel like animals that are so similar they share a genus classification would be interbreeding or supplanting each other like the case of the North American Red Wolf, instead of coexisting. but I guess that is my bias.your location says Kentucky so I would think you live in or close to former red wolf habitat (though they could still probably exist in eastern KY). you have the Red Wolf, the Red fox, and the Coyote. two Canis and Vulpes. the Canis can breed so interchangably that The Red "Wolf" may be nothing more than a hybrid of the coyote and the gray wolf (A genome-wide perspective on the evolutionary history of enigmatic wolf-like canids - PMC). Which kind of ties into the questions that heathen is asking.I don't know myself, it will be interesting, I look forward to further research and future conclusions.