Why are we here?

@Olivier5,

That's just incredible--you truly do see only what you want to see. The headline to the article i linked reads:

30,000 years ago, as few as 1,000 humans in Asia, Europe

From the article:

Quote:

The people who became modern Europeans and Asians underwent a severe population bottleneck sometime between 100,000 and 30,000 years ago, getting down to as few as 1,000 people who were reproducing, it appears.

This is a link to the abstract at the journal Nature which published the Durbin-Li paper. I'm not going to pay the magazine to demonstrate how obtuse you are.

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

By the way, your correlation thesis is feeble for another reason, which i didn't give before because i wanted to be certain before i post it. The earliest appearance of Aurignacian artifacts with human remains in Europe was at a site in what is now the Czech Republic, and dates to 30,000 to 31,000 ybp. This is more than a thousand years after the most recent Neanderthal remains found in Croatia. Additionally, the dating of Neanderthal remains in the Iberian (not Iberic) Peninsula was recently found to have been faulty--and those remains have been backdated 10,000 years, to about 45,000 ybp. Even with the earlier dating of 30,000 to 35,000 ybp, that's well before the Aurignacian culture reached Iberia.

1 Reply

@Setanta,

Quote:

The percentage of h.n. genes in the genome decreases. This is what Farmerman was talking about that you completely failed to understand. You just kept babbling about genes not disappearing, and completely missing the point that when new sources of a particular genetic material are lost, simple math means that over time, the proportion of that material decreases.

That comment alone shows you're out of your depth. The % of neanderthalian genes in european sapiens population was estimated at around 1 to 4% AT THE TIME OF OR SOON AFTER THE INTERBREEDING. This is very small, indicative of very limitted inter-species sex.

Quote:

Genetic evidence published in 2010 suggests that Neanderthals contributed to the DNA of anatomically modern humans, probably through interbreeding between 80,000 and 50,000 years ago with the population of anatomically modern humans who had recently migrated from Africa. According to the study, by the time that population began dispersing across Eurasia, Neanderthals genes constituted as much as 1–4% of its genome

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neanderthal

And yes, genes don't usually vanish into thin air as I tried to explain to Farmerman, but that's irrelevant anyway.

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

You just don't get what FM was telling you. With no new insertion of genetic material, the proportion of genetic material decreases as a function of the total genome. That's what he was telling you, and you just kept babbling about genes vanishing. Obtuse is the best word for what passes for intellect at your house.

1 Reply

@Setanta,

My point entirely: there is no clear indication of when that demographic minimum occurred. 'sometime between 100,000 and 30,000 years ago' is pretty vague, don't you think?

0 Replies

@Setanta,

The dating of the most recent IberiAN neanderthal remains is still disputed - no resolution there that I am aware of. And Aurignacian is attested well before 30,000 years ago in Europe. It's appearance there is circa -40,000 I think, right when Neanderthals are dying off.

1 Reply

Quote:

Making competition for resources alm the more likely.

This statement of yours also shows that you just aren't paying attention. In the earlier discussion, i pointed out that, even if there were an h.s.s. population of 10,000 individuals in the periglacial era, and 50% of the Eurasian land mass was under glaciation (i was being generous, it was not nearly that much), that leaves 50,000 square kilometers for each band of 20 humans. Since you don't seem to do well with math, 50,000 square kilometers is equivalent to a rectangle which is 200 kilometers by 250 kilometers. Are you really so obtuse that you don't realize that that is more than enough room to find all the resources one needs? You continue not to get the energy equation. In winter, one needs to replace all the calories one expends in any activity. But in warmer weather, one needs to take in far more calories than one expends, because one has to store fat to get through the winter. This is especially crucial because one cannot gather forage foods in winter, or even in early spring--and animals one hunts in winter and early spring have already used up most or all of their stored fat. Nobody had time to run around playing nazi and exterminating other people.

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

Have you got a source for that, or are we just to take your word as authority, as it seems you always want us to do?

Quote:

When the Neanderthals went extinct is disputed. Fossils found in the Vindija Cave in Croatia have been dated to between 33,000 and 32,000 years old, and Neanderthal artefacts from Gorham's Cave in Gibraltar are believed to be less than 30,000 years ago, but a recent study has re-dated fossils at two Spanish sites as 45,000 years old, 10,000 years older than previously thought, and may cast doubt on recent dates at other sites. (emphasis added)

Quote:

Although finds of human skeletal remains in direct association with Early Aurignacian technologies are scarce in Europe, the few available are also probably modern human. The best dated association between Aurignacian industries and human remains are those of at least five individuals from the Mladec cave in the Czech Republic, dated by direct radiocarbon measurements on the skeletal remains themselves to at least 31,000–32,000 years old. At least three robust but typically anatomically modern individuals from the Peștera cu Oase cave in Romania, were dated directly on the bones to ca. 35,000–36,000 BP. Although not associated directly with archeological material, these finds are within the chronological and geographical range of the earlier Aurignacian in southeastern Europe.

The source for both of these passages is Wikipedia, the articles on Neanderthals and Aurginacian respectively

Leaving aside that you seem to continue not to understand that correlation is not evidence of causation, it appears that there is no correlation in operation.

1 Reply

@Setanta,

The point is that the proportion of genetic material does not decrease or increase overtime without a reason... Somehow it bothers me that such a simple argument would escape you. Imagine a pool: why would the water level go up or down if one is not adding or withdrawing water to/from it?

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

Your pool analogy is specious. If, however, you spoke of dye being added to the pool, you might get it. If no new dye is added to the pool, but water continually flows into the pool, maintaining the water level, then the coloration of the water fades. That's the point of FM's remark. As humans continue to reproduce, and no new h.n. genetic material is added, the proportion of h.n. genetic material decreases as a function of the entire genome. There is simply no way to state that more clearly. It doesn't bother me, nor does it surprise me, that such a simple concept seems to escape you.

1 Reply

@Setanta,

Quote:

, even if there were an h.s.s. population of 10,000 individuals in the periglacial era

Where is that 10,000 figure coming from? Why not 100,000, or 1 million? And why would you assume the population was constant rather than going through ups and downs depending on good or lean years, as any natural population does?

Quote:

Nobody had time to run around playing nazi

Another baseless assumption. Modern hunter-gatherers do fight wars on occasion, they aren't that tied up with work that they can't attack the nearby tribe...

1 Reply

@Setanta,

You apparently can't understand wikipedia articles. When they say "The best dated association between Aurignacian industries and human remains [is] at least 31,000–32,000 years old", they mean proof of that very association between human remains and tools. It doesn't mean Aurignacian tools by themselves are not dated sooner. In fact, the same article you quoted says Aurignacian in Europe starts around -40,000.

And when they say "a recent study has re-dated fossils [...] and may cast doubt on recent dates at other sites" they mean there is a dispute between two teams of scientists (or more) about the dating of those sites. It doesn't mean that the issue is solved once and for all. Such dating remains very tricky and there are widely different date estimates for most paleontological sites, even when you can use carbon 14.

1 Reply

@Setanta,

I can go along your dye analogy if you prefer... no problem.

Quote:

If no new dye is added to the pool, but water continually flows into the pool, maintaining the water level, then the coloration of the water fades.

1) if water continually flows into the pool, the water level is going to rise, not stay stable... Try to keep your analogy logical please.
2) what is the gene flow continuously flowing into the European pool? Where are those genes coming from?

0 Replies

@Herald,

Herald wrote:

And where did the energy of this strong force come from ... in the beginning.

Once again, you're assuming your conclusions. What makes you assume the energy would have to come from anywhere?

Herald wrote:

Thomas wrote:
Next, hydrogen and deuterium cores formed out of protons and neutrons as an unintended consequence of the Weak Force.

Do you have this in a lab experiment ... or it is just unplausible theory.

The Weak Force is a well-researched physical phenomenon. If our theories about it hadn't been well-tested and found accurate, the atomic bombs we built would not have exploded, and the nuclear reactors we built would not have generated electricity. So yes, we do have lab experiments for the theory, and this is a straightforward prediction from it.

Herald wrote:

And where did the gravity come from in the first place?

Once again, you are assuming your conclusion. What makes you assume it had to come from anywhere?

Herald wrote:

Thomas wrote:
Next, nuclear fission ignited in some of the collapsed-into-themselves clouds

How and by reason of what?

By reason of heat and pressure. Compressing a volume of gas heats it up, whether you compress it with a bicycle pump or a gravitational implosion of galactic proportions. But gravitational implosions of galactic proportions compress hydrogen a lot more.

Herald wrote:

Thomas wrote:
Next, the chemical composition of stars changed as an unintended consequence of fission, as it kept generating heavier chemical elements out of lighter ones.

Can you do this a lab ... without test setting.

No, because the necessary heat and pressure would destroy the lab, not to mention our planet. Hydrogen clouds, not being human, face no comparable concerns. That being said, you can do it in a hydrogen bomb, and we have experimental fusion reactors where it happens, too --- up to the point where the hydrogen is converted to helium. We lack the energy levels that would be necessary to go on from helium to Sodium, coal, etc..

In addition to these lab-like experiments, we have measured the spectra of each star's light. Each chemical element in the periodic table absorbs light at frequencies unique to this element. Hence, by measuring the spectrum of a star's light and looking for these spectral lines, we can calculate the star's chemical compositon. The chemical composition we observe in stars is consistent with their energy coming from nuclear fusion, and with each star being at a different stage of burning out. By the way, I'm just realizing a mindo on my part: In my last post, I have consistently written "fission" when I meant "fusion". Sorry about that.

Herald wrote:

Big bang is everywhere and is 'still in operation'.

No, it isn't. Your hypothesis that it is was known in astrophysics as the "steady-state model" of the universe. It's a reputable hypothesis in principle, and astrophysicists considered it seriously during the mid-20th century. But then they discarded it in favor of one Big Bang at the beginning of time. The reason was that both hypotheses made predictions about the distribution of galaxies in space, and about the 3-Kelvin background radiation radio-astronomers observe. The Big-Bang theory's predictions were consistent with observation, the Steady-State theory's were not.

Herald wrote:

It should take control over the things

By what compulsion should it?

Herald wrote:

Thomas wrote:
How exactly this happened is unknown.

If some component in a given theory is unknown or not knowable the whole they becomes invalidated ... to the clarification of the case.

Says who? In the scientific method as commonly applied, theories get invalidated by evidence that's inconsistent with them. Lack of tests renders a theory unconfirmed, but not invalidated.

Herald wrote:

If this bootstrap evolution means 'getting better at getting better', how many positive mutations (radiation resistant individuals) has the operation of the natural selection done so far with the personnel of the NPPs, for example?

In human beings, none, because nuclear power plants have only been existing for two or three human generations. That's not enough for natural selection to work on. But in bacteria, whose generations are short enough that we can observe their evolution in the lab, plenty. In this paper, for example, bacteriologists exposed E.coli bacteria to increasing intensities of radiation. At each round through the process, they killed 99% of the population. After 20 rounds, the bacteria's resistance to radiation had risen 200-fold.

Herald wrote:

As about the prehistoric plants, have you verified whether they can withstand to acid rain of 7000 ppm CO2 in the air

No. If you are accusing me of not working out every little detail in the history of the universe, I plead guilty. But considering the level of specficity you have offered for your account so far, I'd say you're sitting in a glass house and would be ill-advised to throw stones.

2 Replies

@Olivier5,

First, i haven't assumed that populations remained static. My references were to the genetic bottleneck, which i have already referenced and for which i have provided links. This, from the American Institute of Biological Sciences, suggests a possible larger population:

Quote:

The low amount of genetic variation in modern human populations suggests that our origins may reflect a relatively small founding population for Homo sapiens. Analysis of mtDNA by Rogers and Harpending12 supports the view that a small population of Homo sapiens, numbering perhaps only 10,000 to 50,000 people, left Africa somewhere between 50,000 and 100,000 years ago.

However, even if the population had been as large as 50,000, that would have been all h.s.s., including those who migrated to the east as well as though who migrated into Eurasia west of the Ural mountains. But, once again, to give your idea the benefit of the doubt, 50,000 individuals in the Eurasian land mass, and taking an extreme view of glaciation, would have meant 10,000 square kilomters per band of 20 humans. That's a box 100 kilometers by 100 kilometers--still more than enough resources to dismiss your claim about scarce resources. Of course, you objection about static populations applies here, too, and this figure does not take into account the genetic bottleneck which is referred to in all of these sources.

What modern hunter/gatherers fight wars? You peddling bullshit again, based on statements from authority on your part. War is a product of agriculture. You can't go to war without a significant surplus of food, which hunting and gathering cannot produce, but agriculture can. Neanderthals had been gone for tens of thousands of years before humans invented agriculture.

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

I'm done playing your idiot games. You've made a claim, you're not honest enough to admit that it's opinion rather than fact, and you've produced no evidence to support your thesis. I'm not going to constantly repeat myself just to gratify your desire to argue for no better reason than that you can argue. Unless and until you produce some reasonable evidence, which doesn't rely of false correlation, or very dubious inferences, i have no more to say to you.

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

I'll answer the posts you made before i said i wouldn't continue with this discussion, but that will be the end. The point, which you obviously missed, is that Aurignacian culture is not found west of what we call the Czech Republic until after 30,000 ybp--so people with that cultural heritage could hardly be said to have exterminated anyone living west of that region. The point of the argument about when h.n. disappeared from the Iberian Peninsula ties into that, in that it means that h.n. disappeared no later than 30,000 ybp or earlier, and that therefore it is not reasonable to claim that they were exterminated by h.s.s.

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

The pool analogy i used refers to a naturally occuring pool, not some municipal swimming pool. I guess you don't get out into the natural world much. Pools have water sources, and they have outflows. New water flows in, and the excess flows out. Try to conceive of that.

1 Reply

@Setanta,

Quote:

I'm done playing your idiot games.

Fine with me, go fvck yourself if you can't understand the most basic logical argument. You want to keep an eden-like picture of the noble savage and will go to any length to protect it for some reason...

0 Replies

@Setanta,

Quote:

The pool analogy i used refers to a naturally occuring pool, not some municipal swimming pool. I guess you don't get out into the natural world much. Pools have water sources, and they have outflows. New water flows in, and the excess flows out. Try to conceive of that.

You lost track of the fact that this was an analogy.

What was the outflow of genes from the Eurasian gene pool, and where was the inflow coming from????

0 Replies

@Thomas,

I believe, Thomas, that you're having too much fun with Mr. Science there.

1 Reply

@Setanta,

I am, I am.

Also, I am responding at length just in case this thread might get found by some on-the-fence juvenile who's been brought up by creationist parents. There's no harm in putting the state of science out there for them to find, if only in broad strokes. Ideally, someone should re-compile the bible, covering the themes that it covers from a scientific perspective. But that's a little much for me.

1 Reply

Why are we here?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know