[rcne]

Both of these quotes are from Nature.com and since you provided the links, I assume you have a different view.

As far as we know, Homo sapiens is the only species of human that yet lives on the planet. It is very easy to take this solitary estate (and our consequent separateness from the rest of the animal world) for granted, so much has it become ingrained in our philosophy, ethics and religion, even our science. Until very recently, evolutionary thought was couched in terms of a linear, progressive trajectory rising from lower life forms and culminating in man. I have argued elsewhere that this view is not, regrettably, as extinct as it should be6. In palaeoanthropology, this idea is seen in the view that only one species of hominid has existed at any one time, each one succeeding the next in a scheme of orderly replacement. This idea began to crumble in the 1970s7, since when discoveries of ancient relatives of humans have revealed a marked diversity of form. Human evolution is like a bush, not a ladder8. But these discoveries concerned the more remote reaches of human ancestry. Despite the fact that some of our relatives, such as Neanderthal man and Homo erectus, are thought to have become extinct in relatively recent times9, our complacency that this view holds for recent history has not been shaken. Until now. If it turns out that the diversity of human beings was always high, remained high until very recently and might not be entirely extinguished, we are entitled to question the security of some of our deepest beliefs. Will the real image of God please stand up? second article: My own feeling is that future archaeological discoveries in Southeast Asia will show that human dispersal and cultural change were much more complex than previously believed, and that Asia may have played a much more prominent role in these issues than adherents of the simplistic 'Out of Africa' explanation for everything would have us believe. Does this change your own feelings about the uniqueness and modernity of Homo sapiens? PB: Yes and no. Although it was a member of our genus, H. floresiensis is unlikely to have contributed to the gene pool of H. sapiens. So for me, its importance is not in the evolutionary story of modern humans, but in how the broad group from which modern humans evolved may have adapted and evolved to different ecosystems. Prior to this finding it would not have been thought that a hominin with the brain size, and possibly limited cognitive ability, of H. floresiensis could make the type of tools associated with the skeleton, or even get to Flores at all. I suppose that this is what challenges existing notions of what it is to be human the most.

I do use the internet quite often to read items of interest - don't you. My anthropology books are somewhat dated so...the net is the most readily available source of current material.

Originally posted by gallo Golly. My heart just palpitates in anticipation!

Don't give yourself a heart attack, its not worth it.