Op 04-08-2024 om 00:17 schreef JTEM:
Pandora wrote:
It's a rather strange, counterintuitive, result that the
cladistically most basal hominin, Sahelanthropus, is morphometrically
closer to Homo than to Australopithecus and the great apes.
It's not a science it's an art, an interpretation. Value
judgments.
Secondly, and let's be honest here, the fossil record sucks.
No, it doesn't "have gaps," it is a gap. It's a chasm, a
massive expanse of nothingness punctuated by the all too
rare pieces of bone.
Sahelanthropus is found in the wrong place. There is only the
one individual represented. There is no basis for any
determinations what so ever.
Actually, there's more than one individual of this taxon, from three different localities (TM 247, TM 266 and TM 292). This additional
material was announced in Nature in 2005:
https://dash.harvard.edu/handle/1/3716603
Not too far from where another hominin taxon, Australopithecus
bahrelghazali, was discovered in 1995.
https://www.nature.com/articles/378273a0
If you think that's the wrong place you must have some concept of what
is the right place. Where would that be?
On 8/5/24 12:00 PM, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
On 5.8.2024. 15:28, John Harshman wrote:
On 8/5/24 2:52 AM, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
On 5.8.2024. 6:40, John Harshman wrote:
On 8/4/24 8:48 PM, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
On 4.8.2024. 20:50, John Harshman wrote:
Don't be shy. Just say what you mean. Preferably in a single post. >>>>>>While we are at that, I will not be shy and I will ask >>>>>> you a question I always wanted to clear it up.
You have two situations. In Africa you have a lot of >>>>>> separated small tribes, so high genetic diversity. In India you
have all humans connected in one big society, so genes exchange
among the whole population, and they average over time, so we have >>>>>> low genetic diversity. Now, the question is, in the view of
geneticists is India the bottleneck?
If you just waited a while before posting and thought more about
what you wanted to say, you wouldn't have this problem. Consider that. >>>>>
Meanwhile, I don't understand the question. India is not a
bottleneck. What bottleneck? And you misunderstand the nature of
African genetic diversity. Most of it is within populations, not
between them. Africa has much higher within-population diversity
than does the rest of the world.
India - This is from Wikipedia: "A population bottleneck or
genetic bottleneck is a sharp reduction in the size of a population
due to environmental events such as famines, earthquakes, floods,
fires, disease, and droughts; or human activities such as genocide,
speciocide, widespread violence or intentional culling. Such events
can reduce the variation in the gene pool of a population;
thereafter, a smaller population, with a smaller genetic diversity,
remains to pass on genes to future generations of offspring. Genetic
diversity remains lower, increasing only when..." So, they say that
India is a bottleneck, it is not me that is saying this, I know that
India isn't a bottleneck.
Who says that India is a bottleneck? All you have shown here is a
definition of the term. And that definition doesn't even apply to
India. You may be trying to say that India experienced a bottleneck
many years ago, but even that just isn't true.
The definition implies less diversity for less prosperous >> situation. I would say that India has more prosperous situation than
Africa.
The definition implies no such thing. A bottleneck is a population
reduction to near zero. All your quote does is give some of the possible reasons for that reduction. The population of India is huge and has been
for a very long time. No bottleneck. The reasons why Africa has more
genetic diversity than the rest of the world (not just India) are likely
to be that a small sub-population of modern humans left Africa and
rapidly expanded. Rapid expansion doesn't create genetic variation,
which remains at the level of the founder population for a long time.
Look, I am a retired train driver (who excellently
understood simple mathematics when he was kid), I do understand that
in homogeneous population genes average. How come scientists have a
complete lack of understanding of this, and why their logic is so
simple that even kids in kindergarten would be ashamed of it, is
beyond me. In other words, when humans are the most advanced, when
they have multiple trading connections, when they all live *as one*,
then they have the least genetic variation. In other words, what in
real life is the most prosperous situation scientists describe as
the least prosperous situation. In the most prosperous situation
humans advance, which is only logical. But scientists postulate that
in the least prosperous situation humans advance. How come? There is
few people, and then comes God and does his magic, and that magic
advances those few.
Maybe scientists understand something you don't. Maybe your
understanding here is just wrong. You are confusing a lack of
geographically structured variation with a lack of individual
variation. Do you even read what I say?
I read what you say, if this is the right meaning for what I
am doing, don't worry about it.
???
Africa - Yes, of course, this is how variation emerges, you
receive influxes from outside, and those influxes create genetic
diversity.
That has almost nothing to do with the variation within Africa.
In a homogeneous population, without outside influxes, Actually, if
those outside influxes are very small compared to your big size, you
cannot have diversity. So, In Africa you have multiple (because they
are separated) sources of genes, which receive, from time to time,
influxes from other separated sources.
In other words, more separation, more genetic diversity, >>>> less separation, less genetic diversity. More separation equals less
prosperous world, less separation equals prosperous world, just like
we have today. Scientists turned everything upside down, and there
isn't a single one among them who understands this.
So, to have genetic variation you got to have a lot of >>>> similar sizes separated gene pools. If you have a single gene pool
there is no variation.
This is just nonsense.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 715 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 20:44:17 |
| Calls: | 12,104 |
| Calls today: | 4 |
| Files: | 15,004 |
| Messages: | 6,518,104 |