https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-022-05283-y
It's the father/daughter thing that bugs me.
I'm not into DNA at all, it was so WRONG and so
MISUSED for so many years that I just stopped
caring at all. And for many (MANY!) years that
served me well, opened me to right answers that
others were blind to, because they read some
story no I meant "Study" that claimed to PROVE
something with misused and misinterpreted DNA...
Now why does the father/daughter thing bug me,
if I admit that I shunned DNA for 20 years and this
is a DNA thing, how and why could I pick a fight?
Because it's not about the DNA at all.
Look. Let's both assume that the DNA is correct,
that it's exactly what they claim. The claim, and
I saw this all elsewhere but I'm too lazy to dig up
a specific cite but, the claim was that these two are
first degree relatives -- Father & Daughter or Brother
& Sister but they have different mtDNA, thus they
conclude Father & Daughter.
But...
https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/full/10.1098/rspb.2010.1740?sid=0ad44173-f595-4165-9e7b-8bf7d5aabd82
I liked this. Because I always imagined, as far as
sexual/reproductive strategies go, Neanderthals were
more like a gorilla, or an early Mormon, than a Chimp
or so called "Modern Man." There was more than one
sexual/reproductive strategy it seems (clear to me)
and it seemed that I could squeeze Neanderthals into
a gorilla (Mormon) like arrangement but it was far less
of a fit into other strategies...
Anyway, IF the two ideas are correct -- Neanderthal
males boinked his troupe of females -- then the two
in the first cite -- the Father & Daughter pair -- could be
Brother & Sister. The different mtDNA in the pair would
be consistent with what the second cite argues.
So it's really not about evidence, it's about INTERPRETATIONS,
and so often, so very (Very, VERY) often people confuse
the conclusions, the interpretations -- the OPINIONS -- for
scientific fact.
AND THESE OPINIONS DUBBED FACT FOLLOW YOUR BIAS
And, yes, sometimes the data, the "Facts" are themselves
bullshit, but that's a story best left for a different thread...
So what I've been seeing recently is that people are using
the CONCLUSIONS, the OPINIONS of those who performed
a study to attack the good Doctor... opinions... "Well this
other person has a different opinion, they interpret things
differently, and that's not allowed!"
If you've got what you think of as facts then build a model,
a model of human origins/evolution... like the good Doctor
has done. If these interpretations you mistaken for facts
doesn't allow you to do that, doesn't answer questions
elsewhere -- DOESN'T FIT -- then drop it and move on. No
matter how certain you were that they were "Facts," they
clearly are not.
-- --
https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/706458573430013952
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)