What is the cause of existence?

1. Coincidence between a new technology invented by Sapiens, Sapiens on the move out of Africa and into Europe, and Neanderthal extinction. Needless to say, Neanderthal lived in Europe.

2. Your demographics are worth little. Even if there was a low point of human population after Toba of at another point, a human population can grow double every generation in good times, meaning a population multiplied by 1000 each 200 years (assuming that is 10 generations, 2^10=10024). So even if there was no more than 1000 sapiens and the same number of neanderthal survivors right after Toba (supposedly the lowest estimate for the lowest demographic point), they could have reached a MILLION EACH only 200 YEARS after it. That's hiw fast populations can bounce back. For all we know, there could have been millions of Neanderthal and Cro Magron over the period we're looking at 50 ky - 25 ky before present). At the dawn of neolithic (10 kybp) the total human polpulation is estimated at 10 millions.

Coincidences (alleged) are not evidence for your thesis, just as population density maps which don't give the total populations, or pretty images of stone tools, which have no bearing on your claim. More ludicrous still is a claim that human populations could double every generation.

So, as has been the case since you spewed out your ill-considered and unsubstantiated claim, you provide no evidence.

Just calling arguments ludicrous won't help you. The coincidence in time is materially proven. Homo sapiens stayed away from Europe for 150,000 years prior to the Aurignacian revolution, and right after it, ge goes in and wipoes out Homo neanderthal.

There is no reliable estimates of human populations during the upper paleolithic. What is certain is that populations went up and down but reached a point of saturation after a number of good years, as any other species does. The idea that they could never have been in competition for hunting grounds because they were thousand of km apart at all times during the upper paleolithic is not supported by anything.

We already had shared a huge complement of genes with HS (and chimps for that matter) The genetic percentage of those that define purely Neanderthal are mostly those STR's that define a population . Im siure, if you read further you will see how your original statement that 1 or 2% isn't

significant is not borne out.

How
many species have a geologically rapid distribution (maybe the
whale) Humans have always been panmictic. Only through ultimate

settlement did their STRs become fixed. HOWEVER, As genes of a founder population or some of the panmictic "donors" a species begins to lose the percentage complement of genes it had originally
acquired.



Also, with the Toba "bottleneck" (Admittedly a few paleogeneticists deny that Toba was responsible for the bottleneck), and the simple fact that Neanderthals were removed, the gene flow ended and the percentage influence of these genes were diluted.

If you wish to defend a principal hypothesis that we slew the Neanderthals, AGAIN, Id really like to see soe evidence.
As I said before, there are many areas of evidence that show quite the opposite. Even If, as you now wish, to take refuge in a "OK your partly right", Im not sure you can defend your killer ape story with any evidence at all.

Just continually stating your unsubstantiated claim "ge [sic] goes in and wipes out Homo neanderthal" doesn't provide evidence that it was ever a reasonable claim on your part. Your claim about human populations is not supported by anything. I have provided references to population estimates by people expert in the field of genetics. All you have provided is your statement that you don't accept the estimates. So what? Do you now claim to have expert knowledge which makes such a statement meaningful?

Amen . . . in this case, absence of evidence equals absence of credibility.

Isn't it more likely that neanderthals weren't all killed off, but that the species vanished by interbreeding with other species?
Do we know if neanderthals and the species of human that came after could breed together?

Ok so neither you nor I have firm evidence, but the general chronology pleads for my thesis.

Sorry to say but none of what you write make any genetic sense. Genes do not get mixed up when species travel. I repeat: YOUR GENES DO NOT GET MIXED UP WHEN YOU TRAVEL.

1 or 2% genes from Neanderthal in Sapiens do not indicate widespread interbreeding between the two species.

But if only 3% separates Sapiens from gorillas, 1 or 2% might be quite a bit of indication, could it not?

We're talking of how much mating happened between the two Homo species. If there had been a lot of that, you'd expect something like 20 or 30% genes of neanderthal origin among those (European) populations resulting from the inter-breeding.

Nonsense--your "thesis" is something just pulled out of thin air, and a jauncdiced view of humans. I have provided evidence that humans were never numerous and have faced extinction many times. Your response has been to sneer at the source, and then to throw out yet another unsubstantiated and truly hilarious claim--that the human population could double in a generation. Do you have any idea what life expectancy was 40,000 years ago? It seems to me that you don't. If you have a band of 20 humans, with five breading pairs (an improbably high number), they could produce five offspring in a year's time--that is if none of them were stillborn. There would, however, be no new infants in the following year due to lactational amenorrhea--this is if there were no infant mortality in that year. The population of the band would have increased by 25%! . . . of course, if there were no stillbirths, no infant mortality and no maternal deaths due to postpartum bleeding or childbed fevers. If five mothers have five infants which they nurse, and all five infants survive, there will be no new pregnancies for two years, so the 25% increase averages out to about 8%--once again, if there are no stillbirths, no maternal deaths and no infant deaths.

Apparently, you really think those people were long-lived--to double the band's size in a generation, you'd need to have no deaths in the band from any causes (assuming a generation to be 13 years, and taking into account lactational amehnorrhea). All mothers and all infants would have to survive at all times. All other members of the band would have to survive during this process.

You don't seem to do math well, and are so desperate to back up your ill-considered claim that you'll just throw anything out there. You also seem willing to reject the expert evidence which has been provided from reputable scientists. You really, really can't deal with contradiction, in my never humble opinion.

A generation would rather be 20, or 30 years. And yes, a couple can have 4 children who would survive until reproductive age over that period.

You want to do maths? Assume 30 years for a generation. Assume not a doubling but just a multiplication by say, 1.5 over that period. How much time do you need to multiply the original population by 1000?

The answer is: only 510 years = 17 generations.

However you calculate it, populations can bounce back very very fast, so any low point / near extinction means nothing whatsoever, since only 1000 or 2000 years later, the population would have rebounded way way up.

How could you tell them apart if even between humans and monkeys there is less than 5% difference? Or am i missing something?

Putting up a 25% genic percentage after several thousand generations in which any pf the contributing genes were no longer in the "mix) is ridiculous.

All the genes that confer some benefit were already accounted for. Apparently there was no hybrid vigor conferred by any of the genes that were STR alleles from Hn or Hs.

From the Academy of Forensic SCience Journal , there was an article of how the STRs of a founder population decerease into a general populational occurrence AFTER individuals leave the founer population and after several tens of generations the gene frequencies are arithmetically reduced.
STRs aren't (usually) evidence of conferral of any genetic fitness. They act more as , a Gould had said "Bar code addresses of where the founder populations originated'

You should read some of what Barbara MClintocks work had to say about "jumping genes" and STR occurences in forensics.

Bull, entire sequences in the genome are thereby missing or, conversely theres a marked populational increase of one or more alleles.
Once again wheres your evidence??

I don't have the time to go into these complicated matters, but my guess is that the difference with Chimps is about genes, while the % of neanderthal genetic material is about alleles, i.e. the different ways a given gene can be coded in your DNA.

The fact that humans and chimps share 95% of their genes means that only 5% (or less in fact) of our genes are entirely different, eg chimps would have a gene for a protein which we do not have, or vice versa. That difference in genes, in the case of sapiens vs. Neanderthal, was probably close to 0: he and we had the same genes. E.g. we both had genes coding for the color of our hair, yet Neanderthal had different expressions (alleles) of those genes, eg they had people with red hair, which sapiens did not use to have.

They never got out of the mix to begin with.

cfr back to your HW assumptions.ou seem to contradict yourself.

Ive asked for evidence. Im not unreasonable and hve hd my conclusions changed in the pst but not without a bit of compelling please!!!

That's really hilarious. You really know nothing about how people lived then, do you? People were lucky to live 30 years. What's even more hilarious is that you seem to think that young humans, who become reproductively viable at about 13 or 14 years of age, could be restrained from sexual activity for six or seven years, or in the later example 16 or 17 years. Do you actually know any humans? You really crack me up. Kids are going to wait betwen 20 and 30 years to attempt to reproduce and then die shortly afterward. Ah-hahahahahahahahahahaha . . .



Source. This gentleman is employed in scientific research at the University of Washington--i'm sure you'll want to sneer at him.

Once again, you take no account of infant mortality, child mortality and maternal mortality. I think you completely lack a sense of the human condition then, and maybe even now. Although somewhat melodramatic, Thomas Hobbes was not far off what scientists have discovered to have been the truth in studying the UP: ". . . and which is worst of all, continual fear, and danger of violent death; and the life of man, solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short." Any serious injury was as good as a death warrant. Any serious illness was as good as a death warrant. Every activity of the band--making warm and relatively waterproof clothing, making stone tools, make spear shafts, making reliable storage containers and pits, making shelter and gathering fuel (usually bone, in fact, since there is little standing timber in periglacial regions)--must be repaid with more calories than are expended. Hunting and gathering must be repaid with far more calories than are expended, not the least of the reasons being that it must feed not just the hunters, but all those band members who didn't participate in the hunt, as well as providing food to be stored for winter--ditto for foraging.

And yet you want to claim that small bands of humans who have to work from sun to sun every day of the year when the weather permits, had the leisure to hunt down and slaughter Neanderthals. Oh, and of course, the Neanderthals are not going to defend themselves against human who are physically puny in comparison. They will not come seeking revenge.

Say . . . you don't believe in magic, do you?