What is the cause of existence?

@farmerman,

I don't know how to say this in any more convincing way... Once new genetic material enters a population through breeding with another population, it does not GET OUT of that population. It's IN THE GENE POOL and it gets reproduced like anything else in that gene pool.

Traveling won't affect the gene pool.

Lack of additional influx of genetic material will not lead to the destruction of the material already present.

Our genes do not disappear for no good reason. They remain in our gene pool forever, unless they provide a strong disadvantage to their bearers.

1 Reply

@Setanta,

Quote:

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.

Hilarious indeed, but that's a strawman. Where oh where did I say anything like this???

You realize that a more rapid reproduction rate than what I calculated would only mean a faster time of population rebound after a catastrophe, don't you? Eg if you assume a generation = 15 years, and the population increase during that time is 50%, how much time do you need to multiply a population by 1000? The same 17 generations, now equal to 255 years instead of 510...

You are not being serious in this conversation, set. Try one more time, with feeling.

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

No, it's no straw man. This is what you wrote:

Olivier5 wrote:

A generation would rather be 20, or 30 years.

Maybe it's a language problem; maybe you don't know what the word generation means in this context. In the context of population growth, a generation is the number of years from the birth of a child until that child becomes sexually mature and produces a child of its own. In the UP, that would have been about 14 or 15 years. What is even more ridiculous is, in the sentence immediately following the one i quoted, you claimed that each couple would produce four children who would survive. Why should anyone believe that? Because you say so? That's not good enough. You continue to ignore stillbirths, infant mortality, childhood mortality, maternal mortality and the mortality of other band members while any surviving child reaches sexual maturity and successfully reproduces.

The one who is not being very serious is you. You don't seem to have thought this out very well at all. You still have not addressed the subject of how much time a band of hunter gatherers would have had to hunt down h.n. and slaughter them, nor the likely reaction of h.n. to such an event.

1 Reply

@Setanta,

Okay well, think what you will. I remain convinced that there no coincidences. Neanderthal survived for 200,000 years, and you haven't got the slightest idea why he disappeared. I do.

2 Replies

@Olivier5,

Slight is a good modifier for your idea. With no evidence at all, though, i'd say "no idea" would be better.

0 Replies

@Olivier5,

Its percentage of occurrence is done by multiple PCR analyses and even then we get a range of numbers. That's because STR sequences can come and go ( I think that even you stipulated to that back somewhere) With HW saying that genes get out of a pool as the "carriers" of those genes disappear (McClintock) or theres a mutations or inversions or elimination or substitution.

From biogeographic statistics it has been postulated that the "interbreeding " Hn/Hs population was in the levant (Im not sure where the evidence is, Im just reporting the conclusions).
We are panmictic and interbreed freely with our peregrinations.. Say we had a max of 20% of the population is an HS with Hn STRs.
As the populations grow and intermix, the very occurrence of NON Hn/Hs phenotypes will increase just by pure random distribution. As the "donor" Hn population disappears (and following with the following 600 to 1200+ generations). Wheres the population getting its "new" Hn STRs to reserve the percentile of 20%.
Yu still are avoiding discussing your evidence of malice against the Hn's.
Any hypothesis needs to gather evidence to be seriously considered.

1 Reply

That's like someone saying that when infants die in their cribs it's because fairies come along in the night and smother them. That's ridiculous, one might say. Well then, the speaker asks, why do they die in their cribs? To which one replies, i don't know. So the speaker says, see, you have no idea, but i do.

You're entertaining, in a nothing better to do sort of way.

0 Replies

@Olivier5,

Quote:

you haven't got the slightest idea why he disappeared. I do.

We love ideas. Original ideas are creativity in action. Ideas need to be demonstrated or evidenced to make it the next step from A... "decent adventure story" to B... "scientific possibility". Youre hovering around A

1 Reply

@farmerman,

Quote:

Wheres the population getting its "new" Hn STRs to reserve the percentile of 20%.

It doesn't need to. Those 20% are not going to evaporate into thin air. It's gona stay in the gene pool and get reproduced.

1 Reply

@farmerman,

Nope. I have proven beyond a shadow of doubt that a new technology gave H. sapiens a strong edge over Neanderthal, leading to the former invading the territory of the latter, and coinciding with the extinction of Neanderthal. You guys have only insults to counter this. Insults, and vague demographics.

How do you guys explain the 10 millions people estimate around -10,000? You just don't. And that's only for the old world, as the new world wasn't populated yet in any serious way.

2 Replies

@Olivier5,

Quote:

It's gona stay in the gene pool and get reproduced.

I never said it gets REMOVED (except by specific means like inversion or mutation etc). What I said was that the percentage of those with the STRs become percentage-wise a lesser and lesser commodity in the overall Hss genome. Were talking maybe 1000 generations. STRs get fixed into a staid population after about 60 to 100 generations. Then if members of that population mpve elsewhere where the STRs are different entirely, that population BEGINS at a lesser concentration of founder STRs and then even they become more infrequent as random mating is primarily among members WITHOUT that founder STR.

WE ARE talking phenotypic percentages NOT genotypic

0 Replies

@Olivier5,

You have proven nothing. All you have is a jaundiced view of humans as the classic killer apes alleged 50 years ago. What's even more pathetic, is that you don't even realize that you're peddling a discredited hypothesis which was dismissed 50 years ago. Simply because you won't accept contradiction, you claim we are insulting you (you started that ****, Bubba) and are relying on vague demographics.

Speaking of demographics, what is "10 millions people estimate around -10,000" supposed to mean? I know this is not your native language, but you'll have to do better than that. If it is supposed to mean that the human population was ten million individuals, 10000 ybp, leaving aside that you must not understand the impact of agriculture, where is your source for such a claim? If it is supposed to mean something else, why don't you try again, and find a native English-speaker to help you before you post.

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

Quote:

5376793)
Nope. I have proven beyond a shadow of doubt that a new technology gave H. sapiens a strong edge over Neanderthal, leading to the former invading the territory of the latter

Maybe this "without a shadow" would stnd as a nice fireside story but its not overly convincing.

Its like all the dusky bats are disapperared (You come up with a story that housing developments have invaded its habitat and the household "Smoke " has caused the demise of the populations because the two occurences seem to coincide. WE call that AUTOCORRELATION and its unscientific and more of a "religious" based way of developing an argument (requires that I BELIEVE like you)

Science is a bit more demanding

PS, Ive not insulted you and if I did , Im sorry. Remember , people are passionate about stuff and you've been sirta namecalling yourself. When I said that this argument needs less pejorative posts, I was talking about you.

1 Reply

@farmerman,

I could live with a little less aggresivity from both you guys, but setanta is the main offender, as always. In any case, whatever the amount of evidence (and I agree it's largely circumstancial), you will believe what you want to believe... Like that genes magically disappear from the gene pool when people travel... Go figure how some people build their world view.

1 Reply

@Setanta,

Quote:

If it is supposed to mean that the human population was ten million individuals, 10000 ybp, leaving aside that you must not understand the impact of agriculture, where is your source for such a claim?

Agriculture wasn't even invented by that time. The source is the graph on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleodemography

Unfortunately, I've been unable to find a similar graph for before 10,000 years ago, e.g. during upper paleolithic.

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

Now you are caverlierly disregarding what Ive said . Are you concerned how you may finally understand ?

PS, Ive gotten my nd my wifes genetic information into the 23 and me" project service. We havent gotten our envelopes back but Id like to see how my Ashkenazim ancestors, Running from the Tsar and becoming Christians has left its indelible marks upon my genome. There are several STR markers that are ubiquitous within the Ashkenzim genome

1 Reply

@farmerman,

Whatever....

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

Quote:

Agriculture wasn't even invented by that time.

You just keep digging that hole more and more deeply.

This is from the journal Nature, a highly-respected science journal. The easiest thing would have been to send you to Wikipedia, but you seem alergic to that. In the linked article, the author continual refers to "the last 13,000 years," however, in this quoted passage, he explicitly refers to 8,500 BC [sic], which is more than 10,000 years before the present:

Quote:

Beginning around 8500 BC, the transition from the hunter–gatherer lifestyle to food production enabled people to settle down next to their permanent gardens, orchards and pastures, instead of migrating to follow seasonal shifts in wild food supplies. (Some hunter–gatherer societies in especially productive environments were also sedentary, but most were not).

Source

This table at the About-dot-com Archaeology section shows the domestication of figs and emmer (an ancestor of wheat) at 9000 BC [sic], which is 11,000 years before the present.

This table on the domestication of animals from the same source shows pigs, goats and cats being domesticated 10,500 years before the present. They also suggest that dogs were domesticated anywhere from 14,000 ybp to 30,000 ybp, but i think that can safely be left out of the realm of agriculture.

This is from the National Geographic's education web site, inteneded for more mature children--i though it might be easier for you:

Quote:

People first domesticated plants about 10,000 years ago, between the Tigris and Euphrates rivers in Mesopotamia (which includes the modern countries of Iran, Iraq, Turkey, and Syria).

Source

This page from About-dot-com's Archaeology section suggests that the domestication of rice may have taken place as long ago as 10,000 ybp, the claim is controversial.

Quote:

Early evidence for the use of wild O. rufipogon has been identified at Shangshan and Jiahu, both of which contained ceramic vessels tempered with rice chaff, dated between 8000-7000 BC.

**********************************************

For people who pay attention to these sorts of things, as i have done for nearly all of my life, and for well over 50 years, the time of the rise of agriculture is a no-brainer. People who pay attention just automatically assume 10,000 ybp, ore even earlier.

It's bizarre to see this--it's as though you have this compulsion to show just how ignorant you are on these subjects.

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

Quote:

Whatever....

That's the spirit!!
Now, as a GRE question (or your essay for grad school entry)
.
Give several reasons why percentage of gene frequency will decline in a panmictic population. ?

Im sorta thinking that youre not going to develop any evidence for a "Neanderthal smackdown" being responsible for the disappearance of H n, H id, H in, H h

1 Reply

@farmerman,

Quote:

Now, as a GRE question (or your essay for grad school entry)

If one day you rate a paper of mine, and one about genetics to boot, it will be the day hens instruct airforce pilots.

2 Replies

What is the cause of existence?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know