Well, "Eurasia."
Well, either "Out of Eurasia" or "Out of Melanesia."
One of these is correct, "Out of Africa" is false. It's
falsified.
Ever hear of Mungo Man!
Actually it has nothing to do with Mungo Man except
for one slight controversy over his mtDNA.
Okay, so if you know anything about Mungo Man he's
what they call an "Anatomically Modern Man," found
in Australia, and an examination of his DNA found a
VERY old mtDNA line. This mtDNA line is so old that
it has long since gone extinct. It only exists today as
a freak mutation within the Chromosome 11 of some
billions of people
This is what upsets everyone. Because that mtDNA,
the line that only exists as a freak mutation on the
Chromosome 11 of billions of people, is so old. It's
older than an "Mitochondrial Eve" in the Out of Africa
purity myth. It's MUCH older than any African
Mitochondrial Eve. Much older.
AND IT'S EURASIAN! or possibly Melanesian.
It's not African.
So this means that if there was an Out of Africa
migration, those who migrated were descended from
an even earlier Eurasian population that had migrated
into Africa.
This mtDNA that's copied to the Chromosome 11 on
billions of people: It's found primarily OUTSIDE of
Africa. It's Eurasian. And by any and every means for
evaluating where mtDNA comes from, it's Eurasian.
If it was primarily found in Africa then nobody from the
peanut gallery would so much as question it's origins.
THEY WOULD INSIST THAT IT HAS TO BE AFRICAN!
But it's not. It's Eurasian. Or possibly Melanesian.
"Nooooo! Saying that an African population traces it's
ancestry to Eurasia is RACIST! It's RACIST, I tell you!
Exactly the same way saying that an Eurasian
population traces it's origins to Africa is not."
Yeah, paleo anthropology honestly is that fucked up...
This mtDNA that's copied to the Chromosome 11 on
billions of people:
Yeah, paleo anthropology honestly is that fucked up...
Apparently not: Heupink TH et al. 2016. Ancient mtDNA sequeces from the first Australians revisited. PNAS 113(25):6892–6897.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4922152/
You should also realize that in accordance with coalescent theory, there should be many haplotypes from 10s of thousands of years ago that are outside the range of mtEve determined from modern sequences
On 2/25/23 8:13 PM, JTEM wrote:
Well, "Eurasia."
Well, either "Out of Eurasia" or "Out of Melanesia."
One of these is correct, "Out of Africa" is false. It's
falsified.
Ever hear of Mungo Man!
Actually it has nothing to do with Mungo Man except
for one slight controversy over his mtDNA.
Okay, so if you know anything about Mungo Man he's
what they call an "Anatomically Modern Man," found
in Australia, and an examination of his DNA found a
VERY old mtDNA line. This mtDNA line is so old that
it has long since gone extinct. It only exists today as
a freak mutation within the Chromosome 11 of some
billions of people
This is what upsets everyone. Because that mtDNA,
the line that only exists as a freak mutation on the
Chromosome 11 of billions of people, is so old. It's
older than an "Mitochondrial Eve" in the Out of Africa
purity myth. It's MUCH older than any African
Mitochondrial Eve. Much older.
AND IT'S EURASIAN! or possibly Melanesian.
It's not African.
So this means that if there was an Out of Africa
migration, those who migrated were descended from
an even earlier Eurasian population that had migrated
into Africa.
This mtDNA that's copied to the Chromosome 11 on
billions of people: It's found primarily OUTSIDE of
Africa. It's Eurasian. And by any and every means for
evaluating where mtDNA comes from, it's Eurasian.
If it was primarily found in Africa then nobody from the
peanut gallery would so much as question it's origins.
THEY WOULD INSIST THAT IT HAS TO BE AFRICAN!
But it's not. It's Eurasian. Or possibly Melanesian.
"Nooooo! Saying that an African population traces it's
ancestry to Eurasia is RACIST! It's RACIST, I tell you!
Exactly the same way saying that an Eurasian
population traces it's origins to Africa is not."
Yeah, paleo anthropology honestly is that fucked up...
Apparently not: Heupink TH et al. 2016. Ancient mtDNA sequeces from the
first Australians revisited. PNAS 113(25):6892–6897.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4922152/
You should also realize that in accordance with coalescent theory, there >should be many haplotypes from 10s of thousands of years ago that are
outside the range of mtEve determined from modern sequences, though
Mungo Man appears not to have such a sequence.
John Harshman wrote:
This mtDNA that's copied to the Chromosome 11 on>
billions of people:
Yeah, paleo anthropology honestly is that fucked up...
Apparently not: Heupink TH et al. 2016. Ancient mtDNA sequeces from the
first Australians revisited. PNAS 113(25):6892–6897.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4922152/
Hmm. It's not denying that this mtDNA was copied over to Chromosome
11 and is now carried by billions of people. It's claiming that Mungo Man doesn't carry the line.
So you're completely batshit crazy there.
Secondly, if you try to read your cite for comprehension, the exact same
way you did NOT read my post, you will see that it's not making a good
case at all.
For starters, it's pretending that their objections to the original findings only exist because of some later testing. This is not true at all. They
have never NOT attacked the original findings.
Secondly, even though the Mungo Man results are the only ones that
matter here, they test a great many other samples.
Why?
They also confuse the matter by intermixing samples to the point where
you can't even keep track of which one they are speaking of in any
particular line. You can't. YOU can't.
The original Mungo Man results can not be the result of contamination.
It's impossible.
"Oh, that extinct mtDNA that only exists on Chromosome 11 in some
people? That mtDNA was contamination."
No it wasn't. Nobody has that mtDNA. And the Mungo Man mtDNA is
a little different, as it would have to be because mtDNA is subject to a great deal of selective pressure.
Nobody has access to the remains for resampling. It's illegal. If they
are performing tests it's on materials that remained within the labs
all this time: Samples taken back then.
Finally, IT'S IRRELEVANT!
Even if you need to pretend that your "Cite" is accurate and you both
read it and understood it, it's irrelevant. Because the mtDNA exists
on Chromosome 11 within BILLIONS of people alive right now. So your
"Cite," as per your usual, is utterly irrelevant.
You remain the faker.
You should also realize that in accordance with coalescent theory, there
should be many haplotypes from 10s of thousands of years ago that are
outside the range of mtEve determined from modern sequences
That means nothing.
It's gibberish.
The fact is that the "Mitochondrial Eve" at the heart of Out of Africa purity is descended from an Eurasian population.
Possibly Melanesian.
So, once again: The Chromosome 11 insert found in BILLIONS of people,
this mtDNA far older than any Mitochondrial Eve, debunks Out of Africa purity. The Mitochondrial Eve at the basis for Out of Africa purity was herself descended from Eurasians.
The oldest Homo sapiens outside Africa is
Please cite the source for the Chromosome 11 insert, as I asked once
already and you ignored.
John Harshman wrote:
Please cite the source for the Chromosome 11 insert, as I asked once
already and you ignored.
Please READ YOUR OWN GODDAMN CITE!
: Importantly, these two sequences fell outside the range of contemporary
: human variation and clustered with a nuclear DNA insert.
If you had read your own goddamn cite, which you now admit that you
hadn't -- like a true faker you auto believe headlines -- you would have noted many references to a nuclear DNA insert.
I invite you to take your meds, ask your nurse to sit down next to you &
try to read the cite, and read it for comprehension.
Good luck!
P.S. You're own cite! You didn't even read your own cite! AND YOU
ADMITTED IT!
Pandora wrote:
The oldest Homo sapiens outside Africa is
Wow. I point to the Chromosome 11 insert and you... don't.
The MitoChondrial Eve nonsense at the heart of Out of Africa
purity was descended from an Eurasian population. She was
descended from a group that migrated into Africa.
Thanks to your help, I was able to find the actual reference:
Mitochondrial Eve has nothing to do with "Out of Africa"
John Harshman wrote:
Mitochondrial Eve has nothing to do with "Out of Africa"
I can understand why a blithering idiot such as yourself, fresh
from revealing that you never read much less comprehended
your own goddamn cite, would make such a stupid claim.
I know enough not to waste my time with you, especially after
your display here, but it is possible that someone could have
lived thousands even millions of years ago without them being
an ancestor of yours. And as we are talking about ancestors,
nobody else matters to us in this thread.
Again, I know it's a waste of time, that this is "Above your pay
grade" and all, but I have to say it in case any proverbial lurker
stumbles in.
-- --
https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/710311843910041600
Certainly true, and in fact that's what coalescence is all about. But,
for the lurkers, could you explain the relevance?
John Harshman wrote:
Certainly true, and in fact that's what coalescence is all about. But,
for the lurkers, could you explain the relevance?
For the lurkers, I have.
The "Africans" in the Out of Africa purity model are descended from
Eurasian migrants. Going by the standards imposed by the Out of
Africa purists, going by the accepted way of interpreting mtDNA, such
as in the case of "Mitochondrial Eve," the Chromosome 11 insert is
Eurasian -- possibly Melanesian -- and it's FAR older than any so called Mitochondrial Eve.
Everything is backwards. The generations of bullshit that characterized
the fake science which is paleo anthropology -- "Neanderthals were a
dead end that left no descendants! There was no interbreeding!" -- has
never stopped. It continues today.
Sorry. I forgot
On 2/27/23 9:32 AM, JTEM wrote:
John Harshman wrote:
Certainly true, and in fact that's what coalescence is all about. But,
for the lurkers, could you explain the relevance?
For the lurkers, I have.
The "Africans" in the Out of Africa purity model are descended from Eurasian migrants. Going by the standards imposed by the Out of
Africa purists, going by the accepted way of interpreting mtDNA, such
as in the case of "Mitochondrial Eve," the Chromosome 11 insert is
Eurasian -- possibly Melanesian -- and it's FAR older than any so called Mitochondrial Eve.
Everything is backwards. The generations of bullshit that characterized
the fake science which is paleo anthropology -- "Neanderthals were a
dead end that left no descendants! There was no interbreeding!" -- has never stopped. It continues today.
Sorry. I forgot that you never actually explain anything.
On Monday, 27 February 2023 at 22:33:40 UTC+2, John Harshman wrote:
On 2/27/23 9:32 AM, JTEM wrote:
John Harshman wrote:
Certainly true, and in fact that's what coalescence is all about. But, >> for the lurkers, could you explain the relevance?
For the lurkers, I have.
The "Africans" in the Out of Africa purity model are descended from Eurasian migrants. Going by the standards imposed by the Out of
Africa purists, going by the accepted way of interpreting mtDNA, such
as in the case of "Mitochondrial Eve," the Chromosome 11 insert is Eurasian -- possibly Melanesian -- and it's FAR older than any so called Mitochondrial Eve.
Everything is backwards. The generations of bullshit that characterized the fake science which is paleo anthropology -- "Neanderthals were a dead end that left no descendants! There was no interbreeding!" -- has never stopped. It continues today.
Sorry. I forgot that you never actually explain anything.
Hard to tell the relevance but scientists researching those things seem
to draw connections:
<https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5036973/>
For my taste it looks too lot of ideas and conclusions from few dozen
data points.
And let's not forget: nobody here disputes the thesis that Homo is descended from
African apes.
[1] Would Harshman prefer "Homo is an African ape"? that would
probably follow from his penchant for saying things like "Birds are dinosaurs"
and "Humans are fish."
And let's not forget: nobody here disputes the thesis that Homo is descended from
African apes. [1]
So you're completely batshit crazy there.
Peter Nyikos wrote:
And let's not forget: nobody here disputes the thesis that Homo is descended from
African apes.
Oh, I do. It's not at all established. It's an assumption.
There's data, what you call "Evidence,"
and then there's models that explain HOW that data came to be:
A hypothesis.
There is more than one hypothesis to explain the data,
Secondly, there is a genuine issue with the data itself. Yes, never mind the interpretation, I'm speaking of the collecting.
IF, for example, IF you were doing a study on the sex life of the average woman,
and your study subjects are all patients at the nearest VD clinic, your "Data" is
invalid. It really can't show what you claim it to show.
Understand?
There is a sample bias, a selection bias. There's even a preservation bias!
Well, I know; "There's nothing we can do about a preservation bias! That's nature for you, and try as we might nature is going to do what it wants and not what makes things simple for us."
Correct... if you pardon the straw man. But efforts can be made. Perhaps more
so in theory than in reality, given costs and hardship but, how many billions of
dollars -- billions of Euros -- was spent on the search for the Higgs Boson particle?
How many, many billions was spent on that search?
Don't you think the search for human origins, where we came from, how we evolved is worth AT LEAST as much?
[1] Would Harshman prefer "Homo is an African ape"? that would
probably follow from his penchant for saying things like "Birds are dinosaurs"
and "Humans are fish."
https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/962773160
JTEM wrote:
Hmm. It's not denying that this mtDNA was copied over to Chromosome
11 and is now carried by billions of people. It's claiming that Mungo Man doesn't carry the line.
So you're completely batshit crazy there.
Well, "Eurasia."
Well, either "Out of Eurasia" or "Out of Melanesia."
One of these is correct, "Out of Africa" is false. It's
falsified.
Ever hear of Mungo Man!
Actually it has nothing to do with Mungo Man except
for one slight controversy over his mtDNA.
Okay, so if you know anything about Mungo Man he's
what they call an "Anatomically Modern Man," found
in Australia, and an examination of his DNA found a
VERY old mtDNA line. This mtDNA line is so old that
it has long since gone extinct. It only exists today as
a freak mutation within the Chromosome 11 of some
billions of people
This is what upsets everyone. Because that mtDNA,
the line that only exists as a freak mutation on the
Chromosome 11 of billions of people, is so old. It's
older than an "Mitochondrial Eve" in the Out of Africa
purity myth. It's MUCH older than any African
Mitochondrial Eve. Much older.
AND IT'S EURASIAN! or possibly Melanesian.
It's not African.
So this means that if there was an Out of Africa
migration, those who migrated were descended from
an even earlier Eurasian population that had migrated
into Africa.
This mtDNA that's copied to the Chromosome 11 on
billions of people: It's found primarily OUTSIDE of
Africa. It's Eurasian. And by any and every means for
evaluating where mtDNA comes from, it's Eurasian.
If it was primarily found in Africa then nobody from the
peanut gallery would so much as question it's origins.
THEY WOULD INSIST THAT IT HAS TO BE AFRICAN!
But it's not. It's Eurasian. Or possibly Melanesian.
"Nooooo! Saying that an African population traces it's
ancestry to Eurasia is RACIST! It's RACIST, I tell you!
Exactly the same way saying that an Eurasian
population traces it's origins to Africa is not."
Yeah, paleo anthropology honestly is that fucked up...
-- --
https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/25145388699
On Thursday, March 9, 2023 at 6:32:56 PM UTC-5, JTEM wrote:
Peter Nyikos wrote:
And let's not forget: nobody here disputes the thesis that Homo is descended from
African apes.
Oh, I do. It's not at all established. It's an assumption.
I see I overlooked you. But note, what I wrote is compatible with us ALSO having descended
from Asian apes or European apes. Given that hominids include orangutans, and hominoids
include gibbons [I don't know why siamangs are not included in most lists of gibbons], some
Asian ancestry seems highly probable. And there are European possibilities, including
close relatives of Dryopithecus and Oreopithecus.
However, if one takes either the short view (Sahelanthropus and closely related genera
of Hominini), or the long Hominoidea view you see here... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ape
... then the existence of African ancestors can hardly be doubted. There you see Proconsul, and a bunch
of other Africans in the phylogenetic tree there.
There's data, what you call "Evidence,"
including that summarized above...
and then there's models that explain HOW that data came to be:
A hypothesis.
There is more than one hypothesis to explain the data,
Secondly, there is a genuine issue with the data itself. Yes, never mind the
interpretation, I'm speaking of the collecting.
IF, for example, IF you were doing a study on the sex life of the average woman,Your IF is counterfactual.
and your study subjects are all patients at the nearest VD clinic, your "Data" is
invalid. It really can't show what you claim it to show.
Understand?
I understand that you were belaboring the obvious, and would have understood that
back in my teen years. [I'm in my seventies.]
There is a sample bias, a selection bias. There's even a preservation bias!
Well, I know; "There's nothing we can do about a preservation bias! That's nature for you, and try as we might nature is going to do what it wants and
not what makes things simple for us."
Correct... if you pardon the straw man. But efforts can be made. Perhaps more
so in theory than in reality, given costs and hardship but, how many billions of
dollars -- billions of Euros -- was spent on the search for the Higgs Boson
particle?
How many, many billions was spent on that search?
Don't you think the search for human origins, where we came from, how we evolved is worth AT LEAST as much?No. The Higgs boson helps us understand a hell of a lot of what makes
our universe what it is. And then, too, throwing hundreds of millions of Euros
at hominoid/hominid/hominini research is ill-advised unless there are promising sources of fossils that could change the picture significantly from what we have.
[1] Would Harshman prefer "Homo is an African ape"? that would
probably follow from his penchant for saying things like "Birds are dinosaurs"
and "Humans are fish."
https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/962773160Thanks for filling in the main intermediates between the two things
I said about Harshman. I wonder why he hasn't re-entered this thread yet. Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
Univ. of South Carolina at Columbia
http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos
Peter Nyikos wrote:
And let's not forget: nobody here disputes the thesis that Homo is descended from
African apes.
No, no: African apes = Gorilla + Pan.
We do NOT descend from them!
marc verhaegen wrote:
And let's not forget: nobody here disputes the thesis that Homo is descended from
African apes.
No, no: African apes = Gorilla + Pan.
We do NOT descend from them!
The exact genus/species is irrelevant, as if these distinctions
aren't invented by the minds of men, it's how we are related
that counts. And everywhere we look, bipedalism is older than
is any supposed LCA shared with Chimps, and probably older
than gorillas as well.
Hard to gauge when people only ever look for fossils were it's
easy to look, and anything they find can't contradict their
beloved narrative...
I tend to move things MORE recent than is convention.
This is because "Molecular Dating" has a habit of greatly
exaggerating age.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 546 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 01:44:11 |
| Calls: | 10,385 |
| Calls today: | 2 |
| Files: | 14,057 |
| Messages: | 6,416,579 |