My best guess for the LCA, the Homo/Pan split is
about 3.7 million years ago.
We were told for like a generation that it was about
6 million years. This was based on the fantasy that
mtDNA mutates at a steady of near clockwork rate.
It doesn't. It's heavily selected for.
In the deep past
the right mtDNA line was a powerful advantage. It
helped people live beyond the Tropics and even
outside the sub tropics, the mtDNA helping to keep
us warm. And as populations lived longer, the right
mtDNA made a huge difference. It slows down with
age, so a new line that gets older before slowing
down is an advantage. It's also associated with cancer.
The age ranges with the lowest risk of cancer TODAY
is like 20 to 44. People over 55 have like 4x to 5x the
risk. People dropping dead of cancer at 30 never made
a difference, evolutionarily speaking, when few ever
lived that long anyway. But as living longer posed an
advantage -- knowledge, skills being kept, passed down
-- the older they could push peak cancer cases the
better. And that, yes, that directly translates to selective
pressures on mtDNA.
So moving to new territories AND living longer were
both placing selective pressures on mtDNA, making it
change. No "Clock Like" mutation rate. Evolution.
Of course this rate it going to be a lot, Lot, LOT slower
once a population is stable. If the climate is good, if
the birth rate is high enough to not worry about the
people dying, there's very little pressure on mtDNA to
change. But, if you assume that the line which saw
precious little pressure mutated at the exact same rate
as a line that saw a great deal, your estimates are WAY
off.
No, the "Molecular Dating" is rancid dog meat...
Anyway, with selective pressures causing a lot of
changes in some mtDNA, and with the assumption that
these rapid changes were not rapid, "Molecular Dating"
wildly exaggerated the divergence point, placing it at
about 6 million years or more for the LCA. It had to be
more recent. A lot more recent.
I can go into other details but the short & sweet here is
that the Pan/Homo split took place around 3.7 million
years ago.
::Discuss::
My best guess for the LCA, the Homo/Pan split is
about 3.7 million years ago.
::Discuss::
It is easier to compare gene sequences that haven't been subject
of other ways of changing those, but only mutations. That is why
scientists use mtDNA and Y chromosome DNA to determine
distance and inheritance. Those genes are not subjects of
recombination.
Selective pressures do not cause changes in genes.
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chimpanzee%E2%80%93human_last_common_ancestor>
**************************************
While "original divergence" between populations may have occurred as
early as 13 million years ago (Miocene),
hybridization may have been
ongoing until as recently as 4 million years ago (Pliocene). **************************************
So not 6mya and not just mtDNA.
Instead, there are multiple lines of
evidence providing a broad range of plausible dates.
It doesn't. It's heavily selected for.
<https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3757997/> **************************************
Due to a combined lack of protective histones, ROS generation in the
inner membrane, and limited repair mechanisms, mtDNA is particularly susceptible to damage and has a mutation rate estimated to be 10 to 20
times higher than that of nuclear DNA ***************************************
Also, mutation rates are based on averages of observed data across
multiple generations. There is no presumption of a "steady clockwork
rate".
Öö Tiib wrote:
It is easier to compare gene sequences that haven't been subject
of other ways of changing those, but only mutations. That is why scientists use mtDNA and Y chromosome DNA to determine
distance and inheritance. Those genes are not subjects of
recombination.
They are subject to heavy selection, of course. the y chromosome
in chimps is heavily selected for, as there is enormous sperm
competition between chimps. So Chimps accumulate changes at
a far great (faster rate) than so called moderns. However, if you
assume the retarded "Molecular Clock" then your time of divergence
with humans is going to be wildly exaggerated. BECAUSE of this
selective pressure.
Majority of mutations are neutral and do not cause noticeable
differences in animal organism but are inherited regardless.
Selective pressures do not cause changes in genes.We're just going to stop right there. No point in moving on, not after
a mistake THAT massive...
On Wednesday, 5 April 2023 at 08:00:11 UTC+3, JTEM is my hero wrote:
Öö Tiib wrote:>> > It is easier to compare gene sequences that
haven't been subject> > of other ways of changing those, but only
mutations. That is why> > scientists use mtDNA and Y chromosome DNA to
determine> > distance and inheritance. Those genes are not subjects of>
recombination.
They are subject to heavy selection, of course. the y chromosome> in
chimps is heavily selected for, as there is enormous sperm> competition
between chimps. So Chimps accumulate changes at> a far great (faster
rate) than so called moderns. However, if you> assume the retarded
"Molecular Clock" then your time of divergence> with humans is going to
be wildly exaggerated. BECAUSE of this> selective pressure.
You snipped:
Majority of mutations are neutral and do not cause noticeable
differences in animal organism but are inherited regardless.
It is because value of vast majority of base pairs does not matter.
That is obvious and so you probably saw your error.
Selective pressures do not cause changes in genes.We're just going to stop right there. No point in moving on, not after>
a mistake THAT massive...>And here you run.
My best guess for the LCA, the Homo/Pan split is
about 3.7 million years ago.
We were told for like a generation that it was about
6 million years. This was based on the fantasy that
mtDNA mutates at a steady of near clockwork rate.
It doesn't. It's heavily selected for. In the deep past
the right mtDNA line was a powerful advantage. It
helped people live beyond the Tropics and even
outside the sub tropics, the mtDNA helping to keep
us warm. And as populations lived longer, the right
mtDNA made a huge difference. It slows down with
age, so a new line that gets older before slowing
down is an advantage. It's also associated with cancer.
The age ranges with the lowest risk of cancer TODAY
is like 20 to 44. People over 55 have like 4x to 5x the
risk. People dropping dead of cancer at 30 never made
a difference, evolutionarily speaking, when few ever
lived that long anyway. But as living longer posed an
advantage -- knowledge, skills being kept, passed down
-- the older they could push peak cancer cases the
better. And that, yes, that directly translates to selective
pressures on mtDNA.
So moving to new territories AND living longer were
both placing selective pressures on mtDNA, making it
change. No "Clock Like" mutation rate. Evolution.
Of course this rate it going to be a lot, Lot, LOT slower
once a population is stable. If the climate is good, if
the birth rate is high enough to not worry about the
people dying, there's very little pressure on mtDNA to
change. But, if you assume that the line which saw
precious little pressure mutated at the exact same rate
as a line that saw a great deal, your estimates are WAY
off.
No, the "Molecular Dating" is rancid dog meat...
Anyway, with selective pressures causing a lot of
changes in some mtDNA, and with the assumption that
these rapid changes were not rapid, "Molecular Dating"
wildly exaggerated the divergence point, placing it at
about 6 million years or more for the LCA. It had to be
more recent. A lot more recent.
I can go into other details but the short & sweet here is
that the Pan/Homo split took place around 3.7 million
years ago.
You are an optimist, 嘱. What in JTEM's previous posting leads you to
think he is able to recognize his error?
JTEM is my hero wrote:
Öö Tiib wrote:
It is easier to compare gene sequences that haven't been subject
of other ways of changing those, but only mutations. That is why scientists use mtDNA and Y chromosome DNA to determine
distance and inheritance. Those genes are not subjects of
recombination.
They are subject to heavy selection, of course. the y chromosome
in chimps is heavily selected for, as there is enormous sperm
competition between chimps. So Chimps accumulate changes at
a far great (faster rate) than so called moderns. However, if you
assume the retarded "Molecular Clock" then your time of divergence
with humans is going to be wildly exaggerated. BECAUSE of this
selective pressure.
You snipped:
Selective pressures do not cause changes in genes.
We're just going to stop right there. No point in moving on, not after
a mistake THAT massive...
jillery wrote:
<citation restored><https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chimpanzee%E2%80%93human_last_common_ancestor>
I LOVE IT! Typical of Wiki uselessness and the mindless contradictions of >usenet (f)Lame warriors: "There's no fossils, but the fossils prove it!"
: the fossil evidence is now fully compatible with older chimpanzee–human >: divergence dates [7 to 10 Ma...
WHAT fossil evidence?
Show us.
This is an a-prior assumption.
Why believe any such thing, unless you WANT a very old divergence date?
Why? You're religious, pointing to The Gospels of Wiki, written by usenet >trolls.
You don't give a reason, you simply pronounce it.
So not 6mya and not just mtDNA.
You could just Google it,
and see that the interwebs are absolutely
BRISTLING with citations naming the 6 million years. and other
years, yes, but you being autistic you can't deal with ambiguities.
Instead, there are multiple lines of
evidence providing a broad range of plausible dates.
No. There aren't. That is the point.
There is "Molecular Dating" alone and it sucks. It's just plain
wrong. It tends to WAY over exaggerate dates.
It doesn't. It's heavily selected for.
<https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3757997/>
**************************************
Due to a combined lack of protective histones, ROS generation in the
inner membrane, and limited repair mechanisms, mtDNA is particularly
susceptible to damage and has a mutation rate estimated to be 10 to 20
times higher than that of nuclear DNA
***************************************
Okay. This doesn't address what I said, which is that mtDNA is under
HEAVY selection, or at least it was in the past.
You're literally "Arguing" against evolution in your need to contradict.
Also, mutation rates are based on averages of observed data across
multiple generations. There is no presumption of a "steady clockwork
rate".
You're describing a "Steady" rate, an average.
And the fact is that the rate right now is WAY slower than in
the past, when humans were stretching into new environments.
We began as a tropical into sub tropics species. We needed
to evolve to cope with cold climates, and mtDNA was an
extremely important part of that.
Of course I did lay this all out in my original post, and not one word
of it registered in your, um, your "Special" mind.
Par for the course.
Since you don't like Wiki cites, cite something you do like
WHAT fossil evidence?
Show us.
You show your complete
Öö Tiib wrote:
JTEM is my hero wrote:
Öö Tiib wrote:
It is easier to compare gene sequences that haven't been subject
of other ways of changing those, but only mutations. That is why scientists use mtDNA and Y chromosome DNA to determine
distance and inheritance. Those genes are not subjects of recombination.
They are subject to heavy selection, of course. the y chromosome
in chimps is heavily selected for, as there is enormous sperm competition between chimps. So Chimps accumulate changes at
a far great (faster rate) than so called moderns. However, if you
assume the retarded "Molecular Clock" then your time of divergence
with humans is going to be wildly exaggerated. BECAUSE of this
selective pressure.
You snipped:Yup. Ii castrated you. That was me.
I did not quote the irrelevant bit. Whether changes are neutral or not
has absolutely nothing what so ever to do with the fact that changes
to mtDNA are assumed to always occur at the same clock like rate.
Selective pressures do not cause changes in genes.
This was smart of me. No point in going further if some troll is goingWe're just going to stop right there. No point in moving on, not after
a mistake THAT massive...
to say something THAT obviously wrong... stupid... comical in scale,
it's so stupid.
JTEM is my hero wrote:
I did not quote the irrelevant bit. Whether changes are neutral or not
has absolutely nothing what so ever to do with the fact that changes
to mtDNA are assumed to always occur at the same clock like rate.
Precisely.
You
provide zero evidence about any of that been changed in any direction
during few last millions of years. You even do not talk about it.
Selective pressures do not cause changes in genes.
jillery wrote:
Since you don't like Wiki cites, cite something you do like
Why? What haven't you been able to find?
Why? What haven't you been able to find?
Why do you refuse to cite?
Öö Tiib wrote:
JTEM is my hero wrote:
I did not quote the irrelevant bit. Whether changes are neutral or not has absolutely nothing what so ever to do with the fact that changes
to mtDNA are assumed to always occur at the same clock like rate.
Precisely.Correct. I did not remove anything relevant. It was obfuscation and not
at all germane to the conversation.
You
provide zero evidence about any of that been changed in any direction during few last millions of years. You even do not talk about it.
I never pretended there was some imaginary "Molecular Clock" in the
first place. Why would I try to claim that it changed?
You are in denial of evolution. What I am stating is indisputable fact -- mtDNA is under selective pressures, and when Homo spread to new
environments the mtDNA was under great selection.
Fact. Nobody disputes it. Nobody disputes the link between mtDNA
and cancer, the link to mtDNA and body heat, the fact that mtDNA
slows down with age and the longer that takes the better off a
population that benefits from grandparents is.
Nobody.
And you're claiming that evolution doesn't exist. You're "Arguing"
that I must prove that what Darwin mistakenly called "Natural
Selection" exists.
No. I'm not playing.
Fuck off.
JTEM is my hero wrote:
It was obfuscation and not at all germane to the conversation.
Sentence "Mutations happen because of factors that cause inaccuracies
in replication and limitations in the 6 repair mechanisms in action."
proves you wrong?
I never pretended there was some imaginary "Molecular Clock" in the
first place. Why would I try to claim that it changed?
That is not a clock.
Öö Tiib wrote:
JTEM is my hero wrote:
It was obfuscation and not at all germane to the conversation.
Sentence "Mutations happen because of factors that cause inaccuraciesStop obfuscating.
in replication and limitations in the 6 repair mechanisms in action." proves you wrong?
I never pretended there was some imaginary "Molecular Clock" in the first place. Why would I try to claim that it changed?
That is not a clock.Stop obfuscating. If anyone doesn't know, and they are genuinely curious, they are going to Google "Molecular Clock" right now and see that I did
not invent the term, they are going to see the retarded troll game you're playing.
There is no "Molecular Clock." BECAUSE there is this thing called evolution. Nature places "Selective Pressures" on an organism. If the larger specimens can't hide, get picked off by birds, this is selective pressure to remain small.
Evolution.
When there is selective pressure the changes to the DNA are relatively rapid. Looking at the level of a population, they can be incredibly fast, like
in the case of a Founder Effect where outlying traits might rise to prominence in a single generation... albeit a small population at first.
MOVING is an event where selective pressures are going to be at work.
Just the different climate: Our mtDNA relates to body heat!
Stay put though and there's not any new selective pressure.
Assume that both groups mutate at the same rate and you've got a wildly exaggerated time of divergence, which is exactly what "Molecular Dating" does.
That's your lesson for today.
It is figurative term of
Öö Tiib wrote:
It is figurative term ofStop obfuscating. You're exposed. Again, if anyone besides you is here,
and they don't already know (fat chance), and they're curious, they
Googled it. They know you're a blithering idiot trying to obfuscate.
You're just a sick troll hiding behind rotating sock puppets.
On Tuesday, 11 April 2023 at 10:00:17 UTC+3, JTEM is my hero wrote:
Öö Tiib wrote:Mutations are still part of evolution. Mutation rate is still low
It is figurative term ofStop obfuscating. You're exposed. Again, if anyone besides you is here,
and they don't already know (fat chance), and they're curious, they
Googled it. They know you're a blithering idiot trying to obfuscate.
but existent. You still fail to tell how figurative terminology
used contradicts with evolution.
You're just a sick troll hiding behind rotating sock puppets.Take your meds ... I live in different country (and even on lot of cases >continent) than all other regulars here. Also my English is not
good ... maybe only Nando has worse. So people would discover
fast if I would use sock puppet and that is one of very few things
for what Dig bans here so I do not see a point.
On Tuesday, 11 April 2023 at 10:00:17 UTC+3, JTEM is my hero wrote:
Tiib wrote:>> > It is figurative term ofbut existent. You still fail to tell how figurative terminology
Stop obfuscating. You're exposed. Again, if anyone besides you is
here,> and they don't already know (fat chance), and they're curious,
they> Googled it. They know you're a blithering idiot trying to
obfuscate.>Mutations are still part of evolution. Mutation rate is
still low
used contradicts with evolution.
You're just a sick troll hiding behind rotating sock puppets.>Take yourcontinent) than all other regulars here. Also my English is notgood
meds ... I live in different country (and even on lot of cases
... maybe only Nando has worse. So people would discover
fast if I would use sock puppet and that is one of very few things
for what Dig bans here so I do not see a point.
On Tuesday, 11 April 2023 at 10:00:17 UTC+3, JTEM is my hero wrote:
Tiib wrote:Mutations are still part of evolution. Mutation rate is still low
It is figurative term ofStop obfuscating. You're exposed. Again, if anyone besides you is here,
and they don't already know (fat chance), and they're curious, they
Googled it. They know you're a blithering idiot trying to obfuscate.
but existent. You still fail to tell how figurative terminology
used contradicts with evolution.
You're just a sick troll hiding behind rotating sock puppets.Take your meds ... I live in different country (and even on lot of cases >continent) than all other regulars here. Also my English is not
good ... maybe only Nando has worse. So people would discover
fast if I would use sock puppet and that is one of very few things
for what Dig bans here so I do not see a point.
JTEM accuses others of what he does
Mutations are still part of evolution. Mutation rate is still
jillery wrote:
JTEM accuses others of what he does
Cite me doing this. Actual quotes.
Öö Tiib wrote:
Mutations are still part of evolution. Mutation rate is stillGreat. You're answering a question nobody asked, responding to
something nobody said.
The so called "Molecular Clock" is idiocy. It's false. It's predicated on the believe that evolution never existed, there is no such thing as
natural selection and any changes to mtDNA over time all occurred
as the result of random mutations happening at a consistent rate.
If you have a group under heavy selective pressure, and a group under
little or none, and assume that they changed at the same "Clock like
pace," you are going to wildly exaggerate the date of divergence. And
this is what has happened. And this is exactly what they did. And
instead of correcting the error -- pushing things more recent -- they
went in the opposite direction. NOW the idiots are claiming as much
as 13 million years ago for a point of divergence.. instead of the
original 6 million based on a non existing "Molecular Clock."
JTEM trolled:
Mentally unstable jillery wrote:
JTEM accuses others of what he does
Cite me doing this. Actual quotes.
You don't specify what your "this" is. Quelle surprise.
If you have a group under heavy selective pressure, and a group under little or none, and assume that they changed at the same "Clock like pace," you are going to wildly exaggerate the date of divergence. And
this is what has happened. And this is exactly what they did. And
instead of correcting the error -- pushing things more recent -- they
went in the opposite direction. NOW the idiots are claiming as much
as 13 million years ago for a point of divergence.. instead of the original 6 million based on a non existing "Molecular Clock."
"Heavy pressure" means something like selective breeding
jillery wrote:
JTEM trolled:
Mentally unstable jillery wrote:
JTEM accuses others of what he does
Cite me doing this. Actual quotes.
You don't specify what your "this" is. Quelle surprise.
Lol! Loser! Waving your disorder around like a flag, again!
from the Mid-Vallesian Dinotheriensande of Eppelsheim.You're entitled to your own opinions.European hominins?
You're not entitled to your own facts.
The generally poor quality of reporting of our human ancestral lineage is amazing. This paper Lutz, H., Engel, T., Lischewsky, B. and von Berg, A., 2017, “A new great ape with startling resemblances to African members of the hominin tribe, excavated
First report (Hominoidea, Miocene, MN 9, Proto-Rhine River, Germany)” Mainzer Naturwissenschaftliches Archiv, 54, attracted ridiculous headlines. This was also just after the publication of “Potential hominin affinities of Graecopithecus from theLate Miocene of Europe" (Jochen Fuss, Nikolai Spassov, David R. Begun, Madelaine Böhme, May 22, 2017 PLoS ONE12(5): e0177127).
On Wed, 12 Apr 2023 15:05:34 -0700 (PDT), JTEM trolled:
jillery wrote:
JTEM trolled:
Mentally unstable jillery wrote:
JTEM accuses others of what he does
Cite me doing this. Actual quotes.
You don't specify what your "this" is. Quelle surprise.
Lol! Loser! Waving your disorder around like a flag, again!So you have no idea what you're talking about and are proud of it.
Quelle surprise.
--
You're entitled to your own opinions.
You're not entitled to your own facts.
They were breeding with the survivors.
On Thursday, April 13, 2023 at 7:25:18?AM UTC-7, jillery wrote:
On Wed, 12 Apr 2023 15:05:34 -0700 (PDT), JTEM trolled:
jillery wrote:So you have no idea what you're talking about and are proud of it.
JTEM trolled:
Mentally unstable jillery wrote:
JTEM accuses others of what he does
Cite me doing this. Actual quotes.
You don't specify what your "this" is. Quelle surprise.
Lol! Loser! Waving your disorder around like a flag, again!
Quelle surprise.
--
You're entitled to your own opinions.
You're not entitled to your own facts.
European hominins?from the Mid-Vallesian Dinotheriensande of Eppelsheim. First report (Hominoidea, Miocene, MN 9, Proto-Rhine River, Germany)” Mainzer Naturwissenschaftliches Archiv, 54, attracted ridiculous headlines. This was also just after the publication of “
The generally poor quality of reporting of our human ancestral lineage is amazing. This paper Lutz, H., Engel, T., Lischewsky, B. and von Berg, A., 2017, “A new great ape with startling resemblances to African members of the hominin tribe, excavated
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Adam_Bonwitt/publication/320518472_A_new_great_ape_with_startling_resemblances_to_African_members_of_the_hominin_tribe_excavated_from_the_Mid-Vallesian_Dinotheriensande_of_Eppelsheim_First_report_Hominoidea_Miocene_MN_9_Proto-Rhine_Riv/links/59e9bee2a6fdccfe7f0601d6/A-new-great-ape-with-startling-resemblances-to-African-members-of-the-hominin-tribe-excavated-from-the-Mid-Vallesian-Dinotheriensande-of-Eppelsheim-First-report-Hominoidea-Miocene-MN-9-Proto-Rhine.pdf
The Graecopithecus fossils were presented by Fuss et al (2017) as early human ancestors, not "the first humans." Nor were they presented as the last common ancestor between human and chimp lineages. But many news headlines were falsely claiming "humansevolved in Europe!" Soon after the absurd media distortions died down they are fired up again by Lutz et al (2017).
The science reported starts with the fact that the closest living relatives of modern humans are the African great apes; the chimps and gorillas.molecular clock of primates" Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A.; 113(38): 10607–10612. concluded; “Taking this approach, we estimate the human and chimpanzee divergence time is 12.1 million years, and the human and gorilla divergence time is 15.1 million
From genetic studies it had been estimated that our last common ancestors (LCA) with the other great apes lived about eight to 14 million years ago. Priya Moorjani, Carlos Eduardo G. Amorim, Peter F. Arndt, and Molly Przeworski 2016 "Variation in the
The oldest African fossils of our ancestral line are Orrorin tugenensis ( ~5.8–6.0 Ma), and Sahelanthropus tchadensis (~6–7 Ma). However, both of these species have a number of characteristics like up-right posture, and relatively smaller teeth torule them out as being the last common ancestor (LCA). They were already ‘too human.’ About 14 million years ago, there were a group of apes diverging on the edges of the expanding savannas in Southern Europe. The human-chimp LCA was somewhere in
The dryopithecines were Eurasian apes commonly thought by professionals to be the closest candidates to the LCA.*1 Fossils for 8 species in that group are known dating from over 20 million to just 7 million years ago. This covered the time period thatthe human-chimp LCA would have lived. The study that has poor creationists and racists so confused used CAT scans to look at the dental structure of Graecopithecus freybergi from Greece, and Graecopithecus sp. from Azmaka, Bulgaria. Their approximate age
Their conclusion was that there were dental features placing Graecopithecus into the human side of the lineage, and the hunt for the human-chimp LCA continues. But the real discovery is that the search area for the LCA is not limited to Africa. TheseGraecopithecus fossils were not "the first humans." If we were to see one in the flesh it would be in a Zoo, not in a suit. The modern humans emerged from African migrations into Eurasia, and subsequent divergence and recombination over the last 400
Since Oct. 20, 2017 we have been seeing more popular press stupidity following the pre-publication release of Lutz et al. Their discovery was two teeth they attribute to a single individual. While newspapers trumpet the “re-writing of human evolution,the facts are that the new find is not assigned any exact affiliation, but are suggested to be a new species in the Dryopithecus group. They have less affiliation with the hominins than Graecopithecus.
But the real discovery is that the search area for the LCA is not limited to Africa.they inhabited the Old World; but not Australia nor any oceanic island, as we may infer from the laws of geographical distribution. In each great region of the world the living mammals are closely related to the extinct species of the same region. It is
It is much better to read the actual scientific reports than the confused presentations of journalists.
Carol V. Ward, Ashley S. Hammond, J. Michael Plavc, David R.Begune 2019 "A late Miocene hominid partial pelvis from Hungary" Journal of Human Evolution
Abstract: A recently discovered partial hipbone attributed to the 10 million-year-old fossil ape Rudapithecus hungaricus from Rudabánya, Hungary, differs from the hipbones of cercopithecids and earlier apes in functionally significant ways.
Gerard D. Gierli?ski, Grzegorz Nied?wiedzki, Martin G. Lockley, Athanassios Athanassiou, Charalampos Fassoulas, Zofia Dubicka, Andrzej Boczarowski, Matthew R.Bennett, Per Erik Ahlberg
2017 "Possible hominin footprints from the late Miocene (c. 5.7 Ma) of Crete?" Proceedings of the Geologists' Association, Volume 128, Issues 5–6, October 2017, Pages 697-710
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S001678781730113X
hominin trackway - good evidence
*1 “The Descent of Man and Selection in Relation to Sex” Charles R. Darwin, Charles Murray, ed. Vol. 2, 1871, Page 199.
“On the Birthplace and Antiquity of Man.—We are naturally led to enquire where was the birthplace of man at that stage of descent when our progenitors diverged from the Catarhine stock. The fact that they belonged to this stock clearly shews that
period; and since so remote a period the earth has certainly undergone many great revolutions, and there has been ample time for migration on the largest scale.”
Interestingly, the Dryopithecus are currently thought to be close to the last common ancestor to chimps and humans. Charles Darwin scores again!
In the category of "Darwin vs Necrophilia"
They were breeding with the survivors.jillery wonders how many species successfully bred with corpses.
--
On Thursday, April 13, 2023 at 11:35:19?PM UTC+1, jillery wrote:
In the category of "Darwin vs Necrophilia"
They were breeding with the survivors.jillery wonders how many species successfully bred with corpses.
--
somewhat shockingly, the best birds >https://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/jun/09/sex-depravity-penguins-scott-antarctic
OK, for a certain value of "successful" and "bred", but I'm sure one of them had fun :o)
Öö Tiib wrote:
If you have a group under heavy selective pressure, and a group under little or none, and assume that they changed at the same "Clock like pace," you are going to wildly exaggerate the date of divergence. And this is what has happened. And this is exactly what they did. And instead of correcting the error -- pushing things more recent -- they went in the opposite direction. NOW the idiots are claiming as much
as 13 million years ago for a point of divergence.. instead of the original 6 million based on a non existing "Molecular Clock."
"Heavy pressure" means something like selective breedingNo. It means things like "They can't cope with the cold."
They had no idea what mtDNA was, they weren't breeding for it. They
were breeding with the survivors.
The mostly likely source of selective pressures was pushing north, out
of tropical and sub tropical environments.
So you
Thank you for these excellent and relevant citations.
It has nothing to do with rate of mutations.
From genetic studies it had been estimated that our last common ancestors (LCA) with
the other great apes lived about eight to 14 million years ago.
Öö Tiib wrote:
It has nothing to do with rate of mutations.
You have no fucking clue. None.
Gary Hurd wrote:
From genetic studies it had been estimated that our last common ancestors (LCA) with
the other great apes lived about eight to 14 million years ago.
Are you out of your fucking mind?
Chimps are so close to us right now that there are many who argue we should abolish
Pan altogether, classify Chimps as a second species of Homo!
I've never met ANYONE who clings to a 14 million year old LCA.
It's absurd. It's contrived.
It's not based on reality, the claim is based on an agenda, the necessity to promote a
specific agenda.
Just to demonstrate the idiocy in your date: The oldest CLAIMED Chimpanzee fossils
are only teeth -- AND YOU'RE DISPUTING CLAIMS BASED ON TEETH HERE -- are half >a million years old. Which means you're missing AT LEAST 13.5 million years worth of
Chimp fossils. At least.
Oh, that's right, YOU'RE FUCKNG INSANE! You have no idea that you just "Argued" against
teeth based claims. Well, go back to the top of your post and start reading. The finds in
Germany you're attempting to dispute were -- now get this -- teeth. So if we apply your
argument elsewhere in the fossil record, LIKE CHIMPS, then we don't even have the half
million year old Chimp fossils anymore...
Damn. Seriously. DAMN! You are an idiot...
Here's some clues for you:
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutation_rate>
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_drift>
I've never met ANYONE who clings to a 14 million year old LCA.
How many evolutionary anthropologists have you met?
OTOH you replied to Gary Hurd, who is an evolutionary anthropologist.
Retarded. Autistic. Mentally ill, jillery wrote:
Here's some clues for you:
Speaking of which, what does your mental illness cause you to
believe you are refuting?
jillery wrote:
I've never met ANYONE who clings to a 14 million year old LCA.
How many evolutionary anthropologists have you met?
Go out on the limb here so I can abuse you the way your mother did:
Do you believe that the LCA lived more than 13 million years ago?
Yes or no: Answer!
OTOH you replied to Gary Hurd, who is an evolutionary anthropologist.
I replied to a fucking sock puppet, your personality disorder hijacking a >disused handle.
ANYONE so fucking stupid as to dismiss teeth when the only evidence
for Chimps even as far back HALF A MILLION YEARS is teeth, probably
eats out of a dumpster and posts from library because the shelter
doesn't have computers...
Just Google it, you fucked up spazz. Google it. Chimps really are so
close to humans, genetically, that many really do argue that we should
do away with Pan altogether and reclassify them as Homo.
Done.
But even THAT is so far removed from you, from any form of "academia"
that you pretend to be part of... or once heard about... anyway, even a >rudimentary 30 second Google search is TOO difficult and TOO much of
a threat for your ever so fragile emotional state...
Impressive!
This is basic shit.
We're not even close to anything resembling controversial here. Yet, you're >so emotionally frail that you can't deal with it!
Chimps are VERY close to us genetically. No denying it. Close enough to
think of them as a species of Homo.
Öö Tiib wrote:
It has nothing to do with rate of mutations.
You have no fucking clue. None.
It's regarding populations. A random mutation that poses
a disadvantage is not going to propagate. A mutation that
is an advantage will propagate. A neutral mutation may or
may not. It doesn't really matter.
In the course of a single generation, given the Founder
Effect, you ignorant snot wad, an outlier trait (and it's
DNA) can come to characterize a population. A change
to the environment might result in the same type of
swift transformation of the populations genetic makeup
i.e. evolution.
I'm not going to explain this again. Have your meds
adjusted. Go back and read everything I have already
explained to you on this topic. Ask a grownup to help.
On Saturday, 22 April 2023 at 16:05:28 UTC+3, JTEM is my hero wrote:
Öö Tiib wrote:Yet still nothing changed mechanisms that result with mutations.
It has nothing to do with rate of mutations.
You have no fucking clue. None.
The rate is about same for all alive mammals, humans included.
It's regarding populations. A random mutation that posesYes you reiterate what we agree and what is irrelevant.
a disadvantage is not going to propagate. A mutation that
is an advantage will propagate. A neutral mutation may or
may not. It doesn't really matter.
What you discard is that at least 75% of mutations are of that
last, "neutral" category. So mammal species that did split 5
millions years ago have about 0.6% of base pairs different
from common ancestor. And about 1.2% of base pairs are
different from each other plus lot of said differences are
totally neutral.
That is so if all three have all traits rather close. These are
very close when environment where that ancestor was close
to optimal stayed same for each of split specie. So all
mutations that weren't neutral or very insignificant posed
only one or other disadvantage and so were selected against.
Like opossums are quite similar to what they were 5 millions
years ago.
That is also so when all three differ in major way because the
environments differed or changed and in different manners
posing new pressures. So the split species adapted in different
directions. Like grizzly and polar bear that give still fertile
hybrids despite of major differences.
IOW the selection pressure does have nothing to do with
rate of mutations in DNA. Species differ or not but DNA
differs inevitably and by about same amount.
In the course of a single generation, given the FounderNo one disagrees with it. You just discard that vast majority of
Effect, you ignorant snot wad, an outlier trait (and it's
DNA) can come to characterize a population. A change
to the environment might result in the same type of
swift transformation of the populations genetic makeup
i.e. evolution.
base pair changes are totally neutral but just happen anyway.
Why you continue to behave like immature wuss during you
yourself being confused and so for decades, only you can tell.
It is boring, sad and not entertaining. Grow up. Search for your
ability to reason within that pile ... or don't, your tragedy not
mine.
I'm not going to explain this again. Have your medsYes don't explain same thing over what no one disagrees
adjusted. Go back and read everything I have already
explained to you on this topic. Ask a grownup to help.
with but what does not matter. Mechanisms and
environmental factors that result with random mutations
haven't evolved nor changed during last tens of millions of
years for mammals so mutation rate is about same. That is
why we can calculate that Chihuahua diverged from wolves
about 30 000 years ago and that domestic pig diverged from
eurasian wild boar about 9 000 years ago. Read the articles,
these explain how it works. And stop wiggling around and
explaining what does not matter.
So none. Quelle surprise.
Go out on the limb here so I can abuse you the way your mother did:
Do you believe that the LCA lived more than 13 million years ago?
Yes or no: Answer!
You first.
As you note above, JTEM repeatedly conflates mutation rate with the expression of phenotypic mutations.
I absolutely adore JTEM who bestowed upon us all:
Speaking of which, what does your mental illness cause you to
believe you are refuting?
Since you asked
jillery wrote:
As you note above, JTEM repeatedly conflates mutation rate with the expression of phenotypic mutations.Lol!
You don't even know what the subject line states, you literally have no
clue what I've said here -- YOU EVEN CHALLENGED ME TO STATE,
YES OR NO, IF I BELIEVE THE LCA LIVED MORE THAN 13 MILLION
YEARS AGO!
Hey, shit for brains; over here! Can you see this? Well, you drooling
reject from the halfway home, JTEM has been pointing out that
molecular dating is a fantasy. YOU are pretending it is not, because
as a psychopath suffer a compulsion to contradict.
Here you ignore the fact that reality does not change because one
imbecile writes something incorrect
What you said was wrong
Öö Tiib wrote:
Here you ignore the fact that reality does not change because oneThat's a mischaracterization of everything EXCEPT the fact that you
imbecile writes something incorrect
are just one person.
It's not merely "Incorrect" to challenge me to state something when
my statement is the very subject under debate.
This goes beyond mere "Error."
You, under that other handle, were directly challenged to state, yes
or no, if you believe the LCA lived more than 13 million years ago.
And you cowered from that challenge, and instead "Challenged" me
to state something that I not only stated but put into the subject
line.
AND THEN you pretended that my comments about molecular dating
are really about not molecular dating...
What you said was wrong
Nope. Molecular dating is wrong. If you use it on different genes you
get WILDLY different results. If it were real, this could not happen.
Molecular dating greatly exaggerates age. Maybe I could further
clarify and say WHEN IT IS COMPARING TWO POPULATIONS. And
it does greatly exaggerate age. Because it assumes identical
mutation rates when this can't happen at all. It's a fundamental fact
of science. You may have even heard of it, you fraud: Evolution.
Evolution doesn't change size or color or anything like that. It
changes DNA.
I'm going to stop here...
I'm going to stop here
What
Nope. Molecular dating is wrong. If you use it on different genes you
get WILDLY different results. If it were real, this could not happen.
That I also already explained
Molecular dating greatly exaggerates age. Maybe I could further
clarify and say WHEN IT IS COMPARING TWO POPULATIONS. And
it does greatly exaggerate age. Because it assumes identical
mutation rates when this can't happen at all. It's a fundamental fact
of science. You may have even heard of it, you fraud: Evolution.
The LCA lived approximately 3.7 million years ago. THIS is a
close match to numerous data points, and not dependent upon
non-existing fossils.
Öö Tiib wrote:
What
So, again, I posit a 3.7 million year date of divergence.
Molecular dating is idiocy, there are no fossils, the best, safest, most conservative "Guess" as to the missing fossils is that we have found
them only they don't look like Chimps... placing them more recent...
The oldest "Chimp" fossils anywhere are only half a million years old,
If they are 100% definitely "Chimp" -- no question about it -- then what does that say about the 10 million year old teeth in Germany that
look like Ardi & Lucy?
This actually alines well with estimates on the retrovirus evidence,
where African apes carry the evidence for it's spread by Asian apes
and humans do not.
That is usually placed at 3 to 4 million years.
Wow. And I said 3.7 million years...
Nope. Molecular dating is wrong. If you use it on different genes you get WILDLY different results. If it were real, this could not happen.
That I also already explained
Yeah. I explained it in the very first post in this thread: Molecular dating sucks. It's not real. There is no molecular clock.
So, again: I say 3.7 million years ago.Molecular dating greatly exaggerates age. Maybe I could further
clarify and say WHEN IT IS COMPARING TWO POPULATIONS. And
it does greatly exaggerate age. Because it assumes identical
mutation rates when this can't happen at all. It's a fundamental fact
of science. You may have even heard of it, you fraud: Evolution.
I agree with the good Doctor that the Chimp ancestor did not look like Chimps. It looked more like Homo.
I have noticed, and I remember going back to a time when there were
actual humans here, that as the evidence pushed the LCA more & more
recent, the media has been moving in the opposite direction.
Here. You're pretending to be various long-time posters:
https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/lCJUZc7EFqs/m/90DfETjfWd4J
That's 2009. The piece in Nature was claiming 6.3 million years AT THE EARLIEST, with interbreeding continuing for more than another million
years.
which in itself is stupid. There is no solid line dividing closely related populations into separate species. There is no definitive "Test" to see
if two populations are the same or different species. But, the single
BEST and most definitive test is interbreeding. And they are saying that
was going on...
Read the post. Click the cite. You clearly missed the last 16 years of evidence in your need to contradict...
And yes there were other studies, other conclusions, based on the DNA.
They generally pushed everything MORE recent.
I didn't make up the 3.7 million year date. I never sequenced any DNA, certainly never studied it. I'm taking it from actual published works and marrying it to other information -- like the retrovirus.
JTEM truthed:
The LCA lived approximately 3.7 million years ago. THIS is a
close match to numerous data points, and not dependent upon
non-existing fossils.
You *still* haven't identified these "numerous data points".
This actually alines well with estimates on the retrovirus evidence,
where African apes carry the evidence for it's spread b[ut] Asian apes
and humans do not.
That is usually placed at 3 to 4 million years.
JTEM is my hero wrote:
So, again, I posit a 3.7 million year date of divergence.
To my knowledge groundlessly.
These species started to diverge about
10M years ago
Chimp lives in environments where good fossils are rare
This actually alines well with estimates on the retrovirus evidence,
where African apes carry the evidence for it's spread by Asian apes
and humans do not.
That is usually placed at 3 to 4 million years.
Wow. And I said 3.7 million years...
So humans do not have retrovirus of apes dated 3 to 4 millions years? Perhaps then the divergence was earlier than 3 to 4 millions years?
Yeah. I explained it in the very first post in this thread: Molecular dating
sucks. It's not real. There is no molecular clock.
That I also addressed.
I agree with the good Doctor that the Chimp ancestor did not look like Chimps. It looked more like Homo.
Here. You're pretending to be various long-time posters:
https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/lCJUZc7EFqs/m/90DfETjfWd4J
Nope
And yes there were other studies, other conclusions, based on the DNA. They generally pushed everything MORE recent.
Note that from difference in mitochondria we can figure distance to last common mother (A)
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 498 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 55:50:58 |
| Calls: | 9,811 |
| Calls today: | 13 |
| Files: | 13,754 |
| Messages: | 6,190,817 |