The paper's date is given at the very bottom as
Manuscript received on June 15, 2023;
accepted for publication on October 20, 2024
https://www.scielo.br/j/aabc/a/GGPvzpzxZpPccBWzFncgRTG/?format=pdf&lang=en
Abstract: Sahelanthropus tchadensis has raised
much debate since its initial discovery in Chad
in 2001, given its controversial classification
as the earliest representative of the hominin
lineage. This debate extends beyond the
phylogenetic position of the species, and
includes several aspects of its habitual
behavior, especially in what regards its
locomotion. The combination of ancestral and
derived traits observed in the fossils
associated with the species has been used to
defend different hypotheses related to its
relationship to hominins. Here, the cranial
morphology of Sahelanthropus tchadensis was
assessed through 16 linear craniometric
measurements, and compared to great apes
and hominins through Principal Component
Analysis based on size and shape and shape
information alone. The results show that
S. tchadensis share stronger morphological
affinities with hominins than with apes for
both the analysis that include size
information and the one that evaluates shape
alone. Since TM 266-01-060-1 shows a strong
morphological affinity with the remaining
hominins represented in the analysis, our
results support the initial interpretations
that S. tchadensis represents an early
specimen of our lineage or a stem basal
lineage more closely related to hominins
than to Panini.
"Taken together, these two analyses show a
strong morphological affinity of
Sahelanthropus with hominins."
"In conclusion, our analyses can safely
reject that the craniofacial morphology of
Sahelanthropus tchadensis is similar to that
of great apes, and in that sense they lend
support to those studies that place this
species within our lineage (Brunet et al.
2002, Guy et al. 2005, Zollikofer et al.
2005). However, from the perspective of
overall cranial morphology, Sahelanthropus
shows a bauplan that is significantly
departed from the one observed among apes
and early australopithecine, falling closer
to the morphospace occupied by early Homo
species. "
It's a rather strange, counterintuitive, result that the cladistically
most basal hominin, Sahelanthropus, is morphometrically closer to Homo
than to Australopithecus and the great apes.
-aPandora wrote:
It's a rather strange, counterintuitive, result that the cladistically
most basal hominin, Sahelanthropus, is morphometrically closer to Homo
than to Australopithecus and the great apes.
It's not a science it's an art, an interpretation. Value
judgments.
Secondly, and let's be honest here, the fossil record sucks.
No, it doesn't "have gaps," it is a gap. It's a chasm, a
massive expanse of nothingness punctuated by the all too
rare pieces of bone.
Sahelanthropus is found in the wrong place. There is only the
one individual represented. There is no basis for any
determinations what so ever.
Op 04-08-2024 om 00:17 schreef JTEM:
-a-aPandora wrote:
It's a rather strange, counterintuitive, result that the
cladistically most basal hominin, Sahelanthropus, is morphometrically
closer to Homo than to Australopithecus and the great apes.
It's not a science it's an art, an interpretation. Value
judgments.
Secondly, and let's be honest here, the fossil record sucks.
No, it doesn't "have gaps," it is a gap. It's a chasm, a
massive expanse of nothingness punctuated by the all too
rare pieces of bone.
Sahelanthropus is found in the wrong place. There is only the
one individual represented. There is no basis for any
determinations what so ever.
Actually, there's more than one individual of this taxon, from three different localities (TM 247, TM 266 and TM 292). This additional
material was announced in Nature in 2005:
https://dash.harvard.edu/handle/1/3716603
Not too far from where another hominin taxon, Australopithecus bahrelghazali, was discovered in 1995.
https://www.nature.com/articles/378273a0
If you think that's the wrong place you must have some concept of what
is the right place. Where would that be?
On 4.8.2024. 10:38, Pandora wrote:
Op 04-08-2024 om 00:17 schreef JTEM:
-a-aPandora wrote:
It's a rather strange, counterintuitive, result that the
cladistically most basal hominin, Sahelanthropus, is
morphometrically closer to Homo than to Australopithecus and the
great apes.
It's not a science it's an art, an interpretation. Value
judgments.
Secondly, and let's be honest here, the fossil record sucks.
No, it doesn't "have gaps," it is a gap. It's a chasm, a
massive expanse of nothingness punctuated by the all too
rare pieces of bone.
Sahelanthropus is found in the wrong place. There is only the
one individual represented. There is no basis for any
determinations what so ever.
Actually, there's more than one individual of this taxon, from three
different localities (TM 247, TM 266 and TM 292). This additional
material was announced in Nature in 2005:
https://dash.harvard.edu/handle/1/3716603
Not too far from where another hominin taxon, Australopithecus
bahrelghazali, was discovered in 1995.
https://www.nature.com/articles/378273a0
If you think that's the wrong place you must have some concept of what
is the right place. Where would that be?
-a-a-a-a-a-a-a Actually, it isn't in the wrong place. Lake Megachad is at the
end of Cameroon rift. This is very similar to lake Victoria and
East-African rift.
Op 04-08-2024 om 13:17 schreef Mario Petrinovic:
On 4.8.2024. 10:38, Pandora wrote:
Op 04-08-2024 om 00:17 schreef JTEM:
-a-aPandora wrote:
It's a rather strange, counterintuitive, result that the
cladistically most basal hominin, Sahelanthropus, is
morphometrically closer to Homo than to Australopithecus and the
great apes.
It's not a science it's an art, an interpretation. Value
judgments.
Secondly, and let's be honest here, the fossil record sucks.
No, it doesn't "have gaps," it is a gap. It's a chasm, a
massive expanse of nothingness punctuated by the all too
rare pieces of bone.
Sahelanthropus is found in the wrong place. There is only the
one individual represented. There is no basis for any
determinations what so ever.
Actually, there's more than one individual of this taxon, from three
different localities (TM 247, TM 266 and TM 292). This additional
material was announced in Nature in 2005:
https://dash.harvard.edu/handle/1/3716603
Not too far from where another hominin taxon, Australopithecus
bahrelghazali, was discovered in 1995.
https://www.nature.com/articles/378273a0
If you think that's the wrong place you must have some concept of
what is the right place. Where would that be?
-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a Actually, it isn't in the wrong place. Lake Megachad is at >> the end of Cameroon rift. This is very similar to lake Victoria and
East-African rift.
For African fault basin structure in relation to early hominin biography
see "Pliocene hominin biogeography and ecology" by Gabriele A. Macho, in particular fig.3:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/282980219
Northern Chad may have been a refugium for migrating mammals, but it may just as well have been a place of origin for what is hypothesized to be
the oldest hominin.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-022-04901-z
On 4.8.2024. 14:05, Pandora wrote:
Op 04-08-2024 om 13:17 schreef Mario Petrinovic:
On 4.8.2024. 10:38, Pandora wrote:
Op 04-08-2024 om 00:17 schreef JTEM:
-a-aPandora wrote:
It's a rather strange, counterintuitive, result that the
cladistically most basal hominin, Sahelanthropus, is
morphometrically closer to Homo than to Australopithecus and the
great apes.
It's not a science it's an art, an interpretation. Value
judgments.
Secondly, and let's be honest here, the fossil record sucks.
No, it doesn't "have gaps," it is a gap. It's a chasm, a
massive expanse of nothingness punctuated by the all too
rare pieces of bone.
Sahelanthropus is found in the wrong place. There is only the
one individual represented. There is no basis for any
determinations what so ever.
Actually, there's more than one individual of this taxon, from three
different localities (TM 247, TM 266 and TM 292). This additional
material was announced in Nature in 2005:
https://dash.harvard.edu/handle/1/3716603
Not too far from where another hominin taxon, Australopithecus
bahrelghazali, was discovered in 1995.
https://www.nature.com/articles/378273a0
If you think that's the wrong place you must have some concept of
what is the right place. Where would that be?
-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a Actually, it isn't in the wrong place. Lake Megachad is at
the end of Cameroon rift. This is very similar to lake Victoria and
East-African rift.
For African fault basin structure in relation to early hominin
biography see "Pliocene hominin biogeography and ecology" by Gabriele
A. Macho, in particular fig.3:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/282980219
Northern Chad may have been a refugium for migrating mammals, but it
may just as well have been a place of origin for what is hypothesized
to be the oldest hominin.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-022-04901-z
-a-a-a-a-a-a-a If you want to learn about the origins, please read Bible. WTF?
If there is something you want to say, say it. I wasted my time reading
the abstract of the first paper, and there is no mention of rifts. I
don't think that this woman knows what she is talking about, but hey,
she did some research, she wrote a paper about it, so everybody who does this knows the things, in your world. Well, not in mine.
On 4.8.2024. 19:26, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
On 4.8.2024. 14:05, Pandora wrote:
Op 04-08-2024 om 13:17 schreef Mario Petrinovic:
On 4.8.2024. 10:38, Pandora wrote:
Op 04-08-2024 om 00:17 schreef JTEM:
-a-aPandora wrote:
It's a rather strange, counterintuitive, result that the
cladistically most basal hominin, Sahelanthropus, is
morphometrically closer to Homo than to Australopithecus and the >>>>>>> great apes.
It's not a science it's an art, an interpretation. Value
judgments.
Secondly, and let's be honest here, the fossil record sucks.
No, it doesn't "have gaps," it is a gap. It's a chasm, a
massive expanse of nothingness punctuated by the all too
rare pieces of bone.
Sahelanthropus is found in the wrong place. There is only the
one individual represented. There is no basis for any
determinations what so ever.
Actually, there's more than one individual of this taxon, from
three different localities (TM 247, TM 266 and TM 292). This
additional material was announced in Nature in 2005:
https://dash.harvard.edu/handle/1/3716603
Not too far from where another hominin taxon, Australopithecus
bahrelghazali, was discovered in 1995.
https://www.nature.com/articles/378273a0
If you think that's the wrong place you must have some concept of
what is the right place. Where would that be?
-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a Actually, it isn't in the wrong place. Lake Megachad is at
the end of Cameroon rift. This is very similar to lake Victoria and
East-African rift.
For African fault basin structure in relation to early hominin
biography see "Pliocene hominin biogeography and ecology" by Gabriele
A. Macho, in particular fig.3:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/282980219
Northern Chad may have been a refugium for migrating mammals, but it
may just as well have been a place of origin for what is hypothesized
to be the oldest hominin.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-022-04901-z
-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a If you want to learn about the origins, please read Bible. >> WTF? If there is something you want to say, say it. I wasted my time
reading the abstract of the first paper, and there is no mention of
rifts. I don't think that this woman knows what she is talking about,
but hey, she did some research, she wrote a paper about it, so
everybody who does this knows the things, in your world. Well, not in
mine.
-a-a-a-a-a-a-a I mean, what I wanted to say? Did this woman research subcutaneous fat? If not, why not? You give me one piece of puzzle, and
act very smart. And this piece of puzzle is just another piece of paper. Just the other day I watched some show where there was a real criminal forensic researcher talking about what she is doing. In short, she said
that people have wrong impression, people think that, if you have a
body, and you have bullets in it, that forensic researcher can determine exactly what happened. Well, he cannot. What she actually does is,
somebody presents a scenario to her, and she says whether the evidence
is in tune with the scenario, or it isn't.
On 4.8.2024. 19:34, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
On 4.8.2024. 19:26, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
On 4.8.2024. 14:05, Pandora wrote:
Op 04-08-2024 om 13:17 schreef Mario Petrinovic:
On 4.8.2024. 10:38, Pandora wrote:
Op 04-08-2024 om 00:17 schreef JTEM:
-a-aPandora wrote:
It's a rather strange, counterintuitive, result that the
cladistically most basal hominin, Sahelanthropus, is
morphometrically closer to Homo than to Australopithecus and the >>>>>>>> great apes.
It's not a science it's an art, an interpretation. Value
judgments.
Secondly, and let's be honest here, the fossil record sucks.
No, it doesn't "have gaps," it is a gap. It's a chasm, a
massive expanse of nothingness punctuated by the all too
rare pieces of bone.
Sahelanthropus is found in the wrong place. There is only the
one individual represented. There is no basis for any
determinations what so ever.
Actually, there's more than one individual of this taxon, from
three different localities (TM 247, TM 266 and TM 292). This
additional material was announced in Nature in 2005:
https://dash.harvard.edu/handle/1/3716603
Not too far from where another hominin taxon, Australopithecus
bahrelghazali, was discovered in 1995.
https://www.nature.com/articles/378273a0
If you think that's the wrong place you must have some concept of >>>>>> what is the right place. Where would that be?
-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a Actually, it isn't in the wrong place. Lake Megachad is at
the end of Cameroon rift. This is very similar to lake Victoria and >>>>> East-African rift.
For African fault basin structure in relation to early hominin
biography see "Pliocene hominin biogeography and ecology" by
Gabriele A. Macho, in particular fig.3:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/282980219
Northern Chad may have been a refugium for migrating mammals, but it
may just as well have been a place of origin for what is
hypothesized to be the oldest hominin.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-022-04901-z
-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a If you want to learn about the origins, please read Bible.
WTF? If there is something you want to say, say it. I wasted my time
reading the abstract of the first paper, and there is no mention of
rifts. I don't think that this woman knows what she is talking about,
but hey, she did some research, she wrote a paper about it, so
everybody who does this knows the things, in your world. Well, not in
mine.
-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a I mean, what I wanted to say? Did this woman research
subcutaneous fat? If not, why not? You give me one piece of puzzle,
and act very smart. And this piece of puzzle is just another piece of
paper. Just the other day I watched some show where there was a real
criminal forensic researcher talking about what she is doing. In
short, she said that people have wrong impression, people think that,
if you have a body, and you have bullets in it, that forensic
researcher can determine exactly what happened. Well, he cannot. What
she actually does is, somebody presents a scenario to her, and she
says whether the evidence is in tune with the scenario, or it isn't.
-a-a-a-a-a-a-a And this goes for real life situations, something that happened
today, in our society, done by humans we know everything about them,
done in known location, where you can measure absolutely everything, and yet, you can apply how much science you can on it, and still you will
get nothing, until some smart guy comes with a realistic scenario.
On 4.8.2024. 19:37, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
On 4.8.2024. 19:34, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
On 4.8.2024. 19:26, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
On 4.8.2024. 14:05, Pandora wrote:
Op 04-08-2024 om 13:17 schreef Mario Petrinovic:
On 4.8.2024. 10:38, Pandora wrote:
Op 04-08-2024 om 00:17 schreef JTEM:
-a-aPandora wrote:
It's a rather strange, counterintuitive, result that the
cladistically most basal hominin, Sahelanthropus, is
morphometrically closer to Homo than to Australopithecus and >>>>>>>>> the great apes.
It's not a science it's an art, an interpretation. Value
judgments.
Secondly, and let's be honest here, the fossil record sucks.
No, it doesn't "have gaps," it is a gap. It's a chasm, a
massive expanse of nothingness punctuated by the all too
rare pieces of bone.
Sahelanthropus is found in the wrong place. There is only the
one individual represented. There is no basis for any
determinations what so ever.
Actually, there's more than one individual of this taxon, from
three different localities (TM 247, TM 266 and TM 292). This
additional material was announced in Nature in 2005:
https://dash.harvard.edu/handle/1/3716603
Not too far from where another hominin taxon, Australopithecus
bahrelghazali, was discovered in 1995.
https://www.nature.com/articles/378273a0
If you think that's the wrong place you must have some concept of >>>>>>> what is the right place. Where would that be?
-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a Actually, it isn't in the wrong place. Lake Megachad is
at the end of Cameroon rift. This is very similar to lake Victoria >>>>>> and East-African rift.
For African fault basin structure in relation to early hominin
biography see "Pliocene hominin biogeography and ecology" by
Gabriele A. Macho, in particular fig.3:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/282980219
Northern Chad may have been a refugium for migrating mammals, but
it may just as well have been a place of origin for what is
hypothesized to be the oldest hominin.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-022-04901-z
-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a If you want to learn about the origins, please read Bible.
WTF? If there is something you want to say, say it. I wasted my time
reading the abstract of the first paper, and there is no mention of
rifts. I don't think that this woman knows what she is talking
about, but hey, she did some research, she wrote a paper about it,
so everybody who does this knows the things, in your world. Well,
not in mine.
-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a I mean, what I wanted to say? Did this woman research
subcutaneous fat? If not, why not? You give me one piece of puzzle,
and act very smart. And this piece of puzzle is just another piece of
paper. Just the other day I watched some show where there was a real
criminal forensic researcher talking about what she is doing. In
short, she said that people have wrong impression, people think that,
if you have a body, and you have bullets in it, that forensic
researcher can determine exactly what happened. Well, he cannot. What
she actually does is, somebody presents a scenario to her, and she
says whether the evidence is in tune with the scenario, or it isn't.
-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a And this goes for real life situations, something that
happened today, in our society, done by humans we know everything
about them, done in known location, where you can measure absolutely
everything, and yet, you can apply how much science you can on it, and
still you will get nothing, until some smart guy comes with a
realistic scenario.
-a-a-a-a-a-a-a Why researching SC fat? All the terrestrial mammals (well, most
of them), have fur, we have SC fat. Don't you think that this is
important? All the primates (well, most of them) have huge canines, we
don't have them. Don't you think that this is important? To paraphrase
one famous comedian (watch the first minute of this): https://youtu.be/0QVPUIRGthI?si=IJU33hNKvn83d5Gg
-a-a-a-a-a-a-a I've seen that researcher is mentioning some bottleneck in human past. For gods sake, we don't have canines. Don't you think that
we would need then, just like every other animal needs them? Why they
need them? To escape bottlenecks. If we didn't need canines anymore, be
sure this is because we didn't have bottlenecks anymore. Any paper
mentions this? I would really like to see one. For gods sake. It is so
easy act smartly, just mention some paper. So easy. In paper they say everything. Just like in Bible.
On 4.8.2024. 19:56, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
On 4.8.2024. 19:37, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
On 4.8.2024. 19:34, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
On 4.8.2024. 19:26, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
On 4.8.2024. 14:05, Pandora wrote:
Op 04-08-2024 om 13:17 schreef Mario Petrinovic:
On 4.8.2024. 10:38, Pandora wrote:
Op 04-08-2024 om 00:17 schreef JTEM:
-a-aPandora wrote:
It's a rather strange, counterintuitive, result that the
cladistically most basal hominin, Sahelanthropus, is
morphometrically closer to Homo than to Australopithecus and >>>>>>>>>> the great apes.
It's not a science it's an art, an interpretation. Value
judgments.
Secondly, and let's be honest here, the fossil record sucks. >>>>>>>>>
No, it doesn't "have gaps," it is a gap. It's a chasm, a
massive expanse of nothingness punctuated by the all too
rare pieces of bone.
Sahelanthropus is found in the wrong place. There is only the >>>>>>>>> one individual represented. There is no basis for any
determinations what so ever.
Actually, there's more than one individual of this taxon, from >>>>>>>> three different localities (TM 247, TM 266 and TM 292). This
additional material was announced in Nature in 2005:
https://dash.harvard.edu/handle/1/3716603
Not too far from where another hominin taxon, Australopithecus >>>>>>>> bahrelghazali, was discovered in 1995.
https://www.nature.com/articles/378273a0
If you think that's the wrong place you must have some concept >>>>>>>> of what is the right place. Where would that be?
-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a Actually, it isn't in the wrong place. Lake Megachad is
at the end of Cameroon rift. This is very similar to lake
Victoria and East-African rift.
For African fault basin structure in relation to early hominin
biography see "Pliocene hominin biogeography and ecology" by
Gabriele A. Macho, in particular fig.3:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/282980219
Northern Chad may have been a refugium for migrating mammals, but >>>>>> it may just as well have been a place of origin for what is
hypothesized to be the oldest hominin.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-022-04901-z
-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a If you want to learn about the origins, please read Bible.
WTF? If there is something you want to say, say it. I wasted my
time reading the abstract of the first paper, and there is no
mention of rifts. I don't think that this woman knows what she is
talking about, but hey, she did some research, she wrote a paper
about it, so everybody who does this knows the things, in your
world. Well, not in mine.
-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a I mean, what I wanted to say? Did this woman research >>>> subcutaneous fat? If not, why not? You give me one piece of puzzle,
and act very smart. And this piece of puzzle is just another piece
of paper. Just the other day I watched some show where there was a
real criminal forensic researcher talking about what she is doing.
In short, she said that people have wrong impression, people think
that, if you have a body, and you have bullets in it, that forensic
researcher can determine exactly what happened. Well, he cannot.
What she actually does is, somebody presents a scenario to her, and
she says whether the evidence is in tune with the scenario, or it
isn't.
-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a And this goes for real life situations, something that >>> happened today, in our society, done by humans we know everything
about them, done in known location, where you can measure absolutely
everything, and yet, you can apply how much science you can on it,
and still you will get nothing, until some smart guy comes with a
realistic scenario.
-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a Why researching SC fat? All the terrestrial mammals (well, >> most of them), have fur, we have SC fat. Don't you think that this is
important? All the primates (well, most of them) have huge canines, we
don't have them. Don't you think that this is important? To paraphrase
one famous comedian (watch the first minute of this):
https://youtu.be/0QVPUIRGthI?si=IJU33hNKvn83d5Gg
-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a I've seen that researcher is mentioning some bottleneck in >> human past. For gods sake, we don't have canines. Don't you think that
we would need then, just like every other animal needs them? Why they
need them? To escape bottlenecks. If we didn't need canines anymore,
be sure this is because we didn't have bottlenecks anymore. Any paper
mentions this? I would really like to see one. For gods sake. It is so
easy act smartly, just mention some paper. So easy. In paper they say
everything. Just like in Bible.
-a-a-a-a-a-a-a Oh, but our so smart, so educated, so 21st century, scientist,
need bottleneck so much. Why? Because we all know that humans are so special, and we became special recently, because one individual became special, and we are all descendants of this particular special, magical, individual. And this can happen only in bottlenecks, from which this
magical individual and its magical descendants are the sole survivors.
-a-a-a-a-a-a-a Alchemy - the medieval forerunner of chemistry, concerned with
the transmutation of matter, in particular with attempts to convert base metals into gold or find a universal elixir
-a-a-a-a-a-a-a Like I am living in 15th century, for gods sake.
Actually, there's more than one individual of this taxon, from three different localities (TM 247, TM 266 and TM 292). This additional
material was announced in Nature in 2005:
Not too far from where another hominin taxon, Australopithecus bahrelghazali, was discovered in 1995.
If you think that's the wrong place you must have some concept of what
is the right place. Where would that be?
-a-a-a-a-a-a-a I mean, what I wanted to say? Did this woman research subcutaneous fat? If not, why not? You give me one piece of puzzle, and
act very smart.
On 8/4/24 11:07 AM, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
On 4.8.2024. 19:56, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
On 4.8.2024. 19:37, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
On 4.8.2024. 19:34, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
On 4.8.2024. 19:26, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
On 4.8.2024. 14:05, Pandora wrote:
Op 04-08-2024 om 13:17 schreef Mario Petrinovic:
On 4.8.2024. 10:38, Pandora wrote:
Op 04-08-2024 om 00:17 schreef JTEM:
-a-aPandora wrote:
It's a rather strange, counterintuitive, result that the >>>>>>>>>>> cladistically most basal hominin, Sahelanthropus, is
morphometrically closer to Homo than to Australopithecus and >>>>>>>>>>> the great apes.
It's not a science it's an art, an interpretation. Value
judgments.
Secondly, and let's be honest here, the fossil record sucks. >>>>>>>>>>
No, it doesn't "have gaps," it is a gap. It's a chasm, a
massive expanse of nothingness punctuated by the all too
rare pieces of bone.
Sahelanthropus is found in the wrong place. There is only the >>>>>>>>>> one individual represented. There is no basis for any
determinations what so ever.
Actually, there's more than one individual of this taxon, from >>>>>>>>> three different localities (TM 247, TM 266 and TM 292). This >>>>>>>>> additional material was announced in Nature in 2005:
https://dash.harvard.edu/handle/1/3716603
Not too far from where another hominin taxon, Australopithecus >>>>>>>>> bahrelghazali, was discovered in 1995.
https://www.nature.com/articles/378273a0
If you think that's the wrong place you must have some concept >>>>>>>>> of what is the right place. Where would that be?
-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a Actually, it isn't in the wrong place. Lake Megachad is
at the end of Cameroon rift. This is very similar to lake
Victoria and East-African rift.
For African fault basin structure in relation to early hominin
biography see "Pliocene hominin biogeography and ecology" by
Gabriele A. Macho, in particular fig.3:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/282980219
Northern Chad may have been a refugium for migrating mammals, but >>>>>>> it may just as well have been a place of origin for what is
hypothesized to be the oldest hominin.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-022-04901-z
-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a If you want to learn about the origins, please read >>>>>> Bible. WTF? If there is something you want to say, say it. I
wasted my time reading the abstract of the first paper, and there >>>>>> is no mention of rifts. I don't think that this woman knows what
she is talking about, but hey, she did some research, she wrote a >>>>>> paper about it, so everybody who does this knows the things, in
your world. Well, not in mine.
-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a I mean, what I wanted to say? Did this woman research >>>>> subcutaneous fat? If not, why not? You give me one piece of puzzle, >>>>> and act very smart. And this piece of puzzle is just another piece
of paper. Just the other day I watched some show where there was a
real criminal forensic researcher talking about what she is doing.
In short, she said that people have wrong impression, people think
that, if you have a body, and you have bullets in it, that forensic >>>>> researcher can determine exactly what happened. Well, he cannot.
What she actually does is, somebody presents a scenario to her, and >>>>> she says whether the evidence is in tune with the scenario, or it
isn't.
-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a And this goes for real life situations, something that >>>> happened today, in our society, done by humans we know everything
about them, done in known location, where you can measure absolutely
everything, and yet, you can apply how much science you can on it,
and still you will get nothing, until some smart guy comes with a
realistic scenario.
-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a Why researching SC fat? All the terrestrial mammals (well,
most of them), have fur, we have SC fat. Don't you think that this is
important? All the primates (well, most of them) have huge canines,
we don't have them. Don't you think that this is important? To
paraphrase one famous comedian (watch the first minute of this):
https://youtu.be/0QVPUIRGthI?si=IJU33hNKvn83d5Gg
-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a I've seen that researcher is mentioning some bottleneck in
human past. For gods sake, we don't have canines. Don't you think
that we would need then, just like every other animal needs them? Why
they need them? To escape bottlenecks. If we didn't need canines
anymore, be sure this is because we didn't have bottlenecks anymore.
Any paper mentions this? I would really like to see one. For gods
sake. It is so easy act smartly, just mention some paper. So easy. In
paper they say everything. Just like in Bible.
-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a Oh, but our so smart, so educated, so 21st century,
scientist, need bottleneck so much. Why? Because we all know that
humans are so special, and we became special recently, because one
individual became special, and we are all descendants of this
particular special, magical, individual. And this can happen only in
bottlenecks, from which this magical individual and its magical
descendants are the sole survivors.
-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a Alchemy - the medieval forerunner of chemistry, concerned >> with the transmutation of matter, in particular with attempts to
convert base metals into gold or find a universal elixir
-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a Like I am living in 15th century, for gods sake.
Don't be shy. Just say what you mean. Preferably in a single post.
-aMario Petrinovic wrote:
-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a I mean, what I wanted to say? Did this woman research
subcutaneous fat? If not, why not? You give me one piece of puzzle,
and act very smart.
You're thinking right here. It's not like an old crime drama where we
have a finger print and we need only match it to the culprit. No, it's
more like an extremely elaborate puzzle where at least half the pieces
are gone forever and most of the others are yet to be found. We have
to gleam from the other pieces where any one might fit...
'Tis the main reason I took such an interest in the good Doctor. I
can disagree with any one piece, or a large number of pieces, but the
man has constructed a model. A very broad model.
Oh, sure, he's wrong and I'm right but you had to know that. His
approach though, unlike anything you see from the status quo, can not
be denied.
On 4.8.2024. 21:38, JTEM wrote:
-a-aMario Petrinovic wrote:
-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a I mean, what I wanted to say? Did this woman research
subcutaneous fat? If not, why not? You give me one piece of puzzle,
and act very smart.
You're thinking right here. It's not like an old crime drama where we
have a finger print and we need only match it to the culprit. No, it's
more like an extremely elaborate puzzle where at least half the pieces
are gone forever and most of the others are yet to be found. We have
to gleam from the other pieces where any one might fit...
'Tis the main reason I took such an interest in the good Doctor. I
can disagree with any one piece, or a large number of pieces, but the
man has constructed a model. A very broad model.
Oh, sure, he's wrong and I'm right but you had to know that. His
approach though, unlike anything you see from the status quo, can not
be denied.
-a-a-a-a-a-a-a Well, I like to watch real life crime cases. In some cases even
fingerprint isn't enough. What if you match a person to the place, this still doesn't have to mean anything.
Mario Petrinovic wrote:
-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a Well, I like to watch real life crime cases. In some cases >> even fingerprint isn't enough. What if you match a person to the
place, this still doesn't have to mean anything.
-a-a-a-a-a-a-a Actually, see this, humans have SC fat, so this places humans
in water. Is this enough? There are some very knowledgeable lawyers who
will defend the savanna lie, not enough evidence, lol.
Don't be shy. Just say what you mean. Preferably in a single post.
On 4.8.2024. 20:50, John Harshman wrote:
Don't be shy. Just say what you mean. Preferably in a single post.
-a-a-a-a-a-a-a While we are at that, I will not be shy and I will ask you a question I always wanted to clear it up.
-a-a-a-a-a-a-a You have two situations. In Africa you have a lot of separated
small tribes, so high genetic diversity. In India you have all humans connected in one big society, so genes exchange among the whole
population, and they average over time, so we have low genetic
diversity. Now, the question is, in the view of geneticists is India the bottleneck?
-aMario Petrinovic wrote:
Mario Petrinovic wrote:
-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a Well, I like to watch real life crime cases. In some cases
even fingerprint isn't enough. What if you match a person to the
place, this still doesn't have to mean anything.
-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a Actually, see this, humans have SC fat, so this places humans
in water. Is this enough? There are some very knowledgeable lawyers
who will defend the savanna lie, not enough evidence, lol.
I'm a lazy fuck. Truly am. So I'm going to give you a super simple,
fast, accurate way to judge evidence:
Either apply the exact same rules/interpretations to contrary
evidence, or employ the exact same means of collection/interpretation
to contrary evidence.
Because what invariably happens in the case of pseudo science is
a sliding-scale. Like how teeth alone prove Chimps were somewhere
half a million years ago, but teeth can't prove hominids were in
Europe 10 million years ago. Teeth aren't enough.
I've pointed this out many times in my Geofacts (as opposed to
artifacts) arguments.
My one big or at least one of my biggest *Scores* in paleo
anthropology was... 2007? Over in talk.origins, back before usenet
died. I pointed out that, yes, there was interbreeding between
Neanderthals and so called "Moderns." And on the other side were
all these mouth breathers citing "DNA evidence." Well, there was
very little published DNA work at that time, on Neanderthals, it
dealt with the mtDNA and it was interpreted in the exact OPPOSITE
way the famous Wilson & Cann mtDNA study interpreted it, and THAT
study supposedly "Proved" Out of Africa purity and cemented the "Mitochondrial Eve" concept.
See, Wilson & Cann assumed that interbreeding wouldn't necessarily
show up in the mtDNA, while the Neanderthal claims were all based
in the idea that interbreeding would have to be reflected in mtDNA.
Opposite assumptions, opposite interpretations.
So how did I know which was right?
Well. The Wilson & Cann study African Americans for their African
mtDNA, though there had been CENTURIES on interbreeding. The study
was later replicated using purely African subjects! So it seemed
very likely to be the correct assumption; that interbreeding
wouldn't necessarily be reflected in the mtDNA.
I took THEIR rules and I applied it to ALL THE EVIDENCE, and that
disproved them.
Well. Not as far as they were concerned. Nobody in the group
ever admitted I was right, not even after the Neanderthal genome
was published and interbreeding was 100% confirmed (as if it
hadn't already been with the archeology). They just flipped poles
and pretended that they've always knew interbreeding happened.
Your memory hasn't been subjected to the rules/interpretations as you supposedly apply to other evidence. Very little of what you remember is true.
On 8/4/24 8:48 PM, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
On 4.8.2024. 20:50, John Harshman wrote:
Don't be shy. Just say what you mean. Preferably in a single post.
-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a While we are at that, I will not be shy and I will ask you a
question I always wanted to clear it up.
-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a You have two situations. In Africa you have a lot of
separated small tribes, so high genetic diversity. In India you have
all humans connected in one big society, so genes exchange among the
whole population, and they average over time, so we have low genetic
diversity. Now, the question is, in the view of geneticists is India
the bottleneck?
If you just waited a while before posting and thought more about what
you wanted to say, you wouldn't have this problem. Consider that.
Meanwhile, I don't understand the question. India is not a bottleneck.
What bottleneck? And you misunderstand the nature of African genetic diversity. Most of it is within populations, not between them. Africa
has much higher within-population diversity than does the rest of the
world.
On 5.8.2024. 6:40, John Harshman wrote:
On 8/4/24 8:48 PM, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
On 4.8.2024. 20:50, John Harshman wrote:
Don't be shy. Just say what you mean. Preferably in a single post.
-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a While we are at that, I will not be shy and I will ask you a
question I always wanted to clear it up.
-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a You have two situations. In Africa you have a lot of
separated small tribes, so high genetic diversity. In India you have
all humans connected in one big society, so genes exchange among the
whole population, and they average over time, so we have low genetic
diversity. Now, the question is, in the view of geneticists is India
the bottleneck?
If you just waited a while before posting and thought more about what
you wanted to say, you wouldn't have this problem. Consider that.
Meanwhile, I don't understand the question. India is not a bottleneck.
What bottleneck? And you misunderstand the nature of African genetic
diversity. Most of it is within populations, not between them. Africa
has much higher within-population diversity than does the rest of the
world.
-a-a-a-a-a-a-a India - This is from Wikipedia: "A population bottleneck or genetic bottleneck is a sharp reduction in the size of a population due
to environmental events such as famines, earthquakes, floods, fires, disease, and droughts; or human activities such as genocide, speciocide, widespread violence or intentional culling. Such events can reduce the variation in the gene pool of a population; thereafter, a smaller population, with a smaller genetic diversity, remains to pass on genes
to future generations of offspring. Genetic diversity remains lower, increasing only when..." So, they say that India is a bottleneck, it is
not me that is saying this, I know that India isn't a bottleneck.
-a-a-a-a-a-a-a Look, I am a retired train driver (who excellently understood
simple mathematics when he was kid), I do understand that in homogeneous population genes average. How come scientists have a complete lack of understanding of this, and why their logic is so simple that even kids
in kindergarten would be ashamed of it, is beyond me. In other words,
when humans are the most advanced, when they have multiple trading connections, when they all live *as one*, then they have the least
genetic variation. In other words, what in real life is the most
prosperous situation scientists describe as the least prosperous
situation. In the most prosperous situation humans advance, which is
only logical. But scientists postulate that in the least prosperous situation humans advance. How come? There is few people, and then comes
God and does his magic, and that magic advances those few.
-a-a-a-a-a-a-a Africa - Yes, of course, this is how variation emerges, you receive influxes from outside, and those influxes create genetic
diversity. In a homogeneous population, without outside influxes,
Actually, if those outside influxes are very small compared to your big size, you cannot have diversity. So, In Africa you have multiple
(because they are separated) sources of genes, which receive, from time
to time, influxes from other separated sources.
-a-a-a-a-a-a-a In other words, more separation, more genetic diversity, less
separation, less genetic diversity. More separation equals less
prosperous world, less separation equals prosperous world, just like we
have today. Scientists turned everything upside down, and there isn't a single one among them who understands this.
-a-a-a-a-a-a-a So, to have genetic variation you got to have a lot of similar
sizes separated gene pools. If you have a single gene pool there is no variation.
On 5.8.2024. 6:40, John Harshman wrote:
On 8/4/24 8:48 PM, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
On 4.8.2024. 20:50, John Harshman wrote:
Don't be shy. Just say what you mean. Preferably in a single post.
-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a While we are at that, I will not be shy and I will ask you a
question I always wanted to clear it up.
-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a You have two situations. In Africa you have a lot of
separated small tribes, so high genetic diversity. In India you have
all humans connected in one big society, so genes exchange among the
whole population, and they average over time, so we have low genetic
diversity. Now, the question is, in the view of geneticists is India
the bottleneck?
If you just waited a while before posting and thought more about what
you wanted to say, you wouldn't have this problem. Consider that.
Meanwhile, I don't understand the question. India is not a bottleneck.
What bottleneck? And you misunderstand the nature of African genetic
diversity. Most of it is within populations, not between them. Africa
has much higher within-population diversity than does the rest of the
world.
-a-a-a-a-a-a-a India - This is from Wikipedia: "A population bottleneck or genetic bottleneck is a sharp reduction in the size of a population due
to environmental events such as famines, earthquakes, floods, fires, disease, and droughts; or human activities such as genocide, speciocide, widespread violence or intentional culling. Such events can reduce the variation in the gene pool of a population; thereafter, a smaller population, with a smaller genetic diversity, remains to pass on genes
to future generations of offspring. Genetic diversity remains lower, increasing only when..." So, they say that India is a bottleneck, it is
not me that is saying this, I know that India isn't a bottleneck.
-a-a-a-a-a-a-a Look, I am a retired train driver (who excellently understood
simple mathematics when he was kid), I do understand that in homogeneous population genes average. How come scientists have a complete lack of understanding of this, and why their logic is so simple that even kids
in kindergarten would be ashamed of it, is beyond me. In other words,
when humans are the most advanced, when they have multiple trading connections, when they all live *as one*, then they have the least
genetic variation. In other words, what in real life is the most
prosperous situation scientists describe as the least prosperous
situation. In the most prosperous situation humans advance, which is
only logical. But scientists postulate that in the least prosperous situation humans advance. How come? There is few people, and then comes
God and does his magic, and that magic advances those few.
-a-a-a-a-a-a-a Africa - Yes, of course, this is how variation emerges, you receive influxes from outside, and those influxes create genetic
diversity.
In a homogeneous population, without outside influxes,
Actually, if those outside influxes are very small compared to your big size, you cannot have diversity. So, In Africa you have multiple
(because they are separated) sources of genes, which receive, from time
to time, influxes from other separated sources.
-a-a-a-a-a-a-a In other words, more separation, more genetic diversity, less
separation, less genetic diversity. More separation equals less
prosperous world, less separation equals prosperous world, just like we
have today. Scientists turned everything upside down, and there isn't a single one among them who understands this.
-a-a-a-a-a-a-a So, to have genetic variation you got to have a lot of similar
sizes separated gene pools. If you have a single gene pool there is no variation.
On 5.8.2024. 11:52, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
On 5.8.2024. 6:40, John Harshman wrote:
On 8/4/24 8:48 PM, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
On 4.8.2024. 20:50, John Harshman wrote:
Don't be shy. Just say what you mean. Preferably in a single post.
-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a While we are at that, I will not be shy and I will ask you
a question I always wanted to clear it up.
-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a You have two situations. In Africa you have a lot of >>>> separated small tribes, so high genetic diversity. In India you have
all humans connected in one big society, so genes exchange among the
whole population, and they average over time, so we have low genetic
diversity. Now, the question is, in the view of geneticists is India
the bottleneck?
If you just waited a while before posting and thought more about what
you wanted to say, you wouldn't have this problem. Consider that.
Meanwhile, I don't understand the question. India is not a
bottleneck. What bottleneck? And you misunderstand the nature of
African genetic diversity. Most of it is within populations, not
between them. Africa has much higher within-population diversity than
does the rest of the world.
-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a India - This is from Wikipedia: "A population bottleneck or
genetic bottleneck is a sharp reduction in the size of a population
due to environmental events such as famines, earthquakes, floods,
fires, disease, and droughts; or human activities such as genocide,
speciocide, widespread violence or intentional culling. Such events
can reduce the variation in the gene pool of a population; thereafter,
a smaller population, with a smaller genetic diversity, remains to
pass on genes to future generations of offspring. Genetic diversity
remains lower, increasing only when..." So, they say that India is a
bottleneck, it is not me that is saying this, I know that India isn't
a bottleneck.
-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a Look, I am a retired train driver (who excellently understood
simple mathematics when he was kid), I do understand that in
homogeneous population genes average. How come scientists have a
complete lack of understanding of this, and why their logic is so
simple that even kids in kindergarten would be ashamed of it, is
beyond me. In other words, when humans are the most advanced, when
they have multiple trading connections, when they all live *as one*,
then they have the least genetic variation. In other words, what in
real life is the most prosperous situation scientists describe as the
least prosperous situation. In the most prosperous situation humans
advance, which is only logical. But scientists postulate that in the
least prosperous situation humans advance. How come? There is few
people, and then comes God and does his magic, and that magic advances
those few.
-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a Africa - Yes, of course, this is how variation emerges, you
receive influxes from outside, and those influxes create genetic
diversity. In a homogeneous population, without outside influxes,
Actually, if those outside influxes are very small compared to your
big size, you cannot have diversity. So, In Africa you have multiple
(because they are separated) sources of genes, which receive, from
time to time, influxes from other separated sources.
-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a In other words, more separation, more genetic diversity, less
separation, less genetic diversity. More separation equals less
prosperous world, less separation equals prosperous world, just like
we have today. Scientists turned everything upside down, and there
isn't a single one among them who understands this.
-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a So, to have genetic variation you got to have a lot of
similar sizes separated gene pools. If you have a single gene pool
there is no variation.
-a-a-a-a-a-a-a There is another thing those stupid scientists don't contemplate, gene diversity doesn't necessarily mean bigger abilities.
If animals are separated in two groups, and both groups separately
acquire the same ability, this ability will be represented with
different genes among each group. In general, one big gene pool can
acquire the same ability, and it will not have gene diversity. Then, it
is the question of compatibility. An organism functions as a complete system. If you introduce components from the outside, it will cause
friction (although it can bring new abilities) among the existing parts.
It is similar to compiling a hi-fi system from different manufacturers. Providing the quality is the same, a hi-fi system sounds the best if it
is made by one manufacturer. The advantage of gene mixing is introducing
new abilities, the disadvantage, though, is that the whole system
functions less fluidly.
-a-a-a-a-a-a-a And so on, and so on, those geneticists (just like a lot of other scientists) don't understand a lot of things, and simplify
everything (simply because only simple thinks are provable, and
scientists work only with provable things). The major problem with them
is that they are doing the reverse engineering. They are convinced that genes are producing the changes (of course, because the God is the one
who affects the genes, in their christian view, they want to involve God into the story, this way, or that way, this is their only
preoccupation), while the real truth is that genes are just the
reflection, the mirror image of what is going on, the transporter of the message, not the originator.
-aJohn Harshman wrote:
Your memory hasn't been subjected to the rules/interpretations as you
supposedly apply to other evidence. Very little of what you remember
is true.
The only thing I got wrong, actually, is I said 2007 with a question
mark. So THAT isn't even wrong. I'm making it clear that I'm
questioning the date... which turns out to have been 2003.
Not 2007 but 2003. Here's a post from one of the threads:
https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/6THXu66Nn0g/m/j1xFyF4e6gsJ
:-a No, actually, it failed to address the question. That is the
:-a inescapable fact that you have repeatedly managed to escape.
:-a The "evidence" does not apply to the question. It is "evidence,"
:-a yes, but not evidence for or against interbreeding. As Wilson
:-a & Cann demonstrated (and the entire frigging scientific community
:-a appears to have validated), the results of the testing are not
:-a inconsistent with interbreeding. They are not. In fact, they
:-a pretty much mirror the assumptions of the competing Out-Of
:-a Africa/Replacement fans.
That was 21 years ago, arguing with some shit stain faker going
by the name Don Hardmen or Jon Hapmlin or something retarded.
The moron literally "Argued" against reality. Like so many fakers,
you couldn't even deconstruct the problem!
But just open talk.origins in the old Google archive and search
on JTEM wilson & cann
A worthless piece of shit like you should even be able to handle
it... properly medicated, of course.
-aPandora wrote:
Actually, there's more than one individual of this taxon, from three
different localities (TM 247, TM 266 and TM 292). This additional
material was announced in Nature in 2005:
Where are those localities?-a I just did an exhaustive 30 second search
and could only find an actual location associated with 266.
And, yes, I did search longer than 30 seconds but it wouldn't have been nearly as funny if I offered a better time estimate...
Not too far from where another hominin taxon, Australopithecus
bahrelghazali, was discovered in 1995.
That appears to be where the 266 was found.
If you think that's the wrong place you must have some concept of what
is the right place. Where would that be?
Well any other day of the week the clown act insists it's South Africa:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cradle_of_Humankind
I would have guessed that you knew.
Op 04-08-2024 om 21:19 schreef JTEM:
-a-aPandora wrote:
Actually, there's more than one individual of this taxon, from three
different localities (TM 247, TM 266 and TM 292). This additional
material was announced in Nature in 2005:
Where are those localities?-a I just did an exhaustive 30 second search
and could only find an actual location associated with 266.
And, yes, I did search longer than 30 seconds but it wouldn't have been
nearly as funny if I offered a better time estimate...
If it doesn't exceed your attention span you can read the paper at:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/7920249
Anyway, the three Sahelanthropus sites are within an area of 0.73 km2.
Not too far from where another hominin taxon, Australopithecus
bahrelghazali, was discovered in 1995.
That appears to be where the 266 was found.
No, the Toros-Menalla Sahelanthropus sites are about 150 km west of the Koro-Toro australopithecine site and stratigraphically ~3.5 million
years older.
If you think that's the wrong place you must have some concept of
what is the right place. Where would that be?
Well any other day of the week the clown act insists it's South Africa:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cradle_of_Humankind
I would have guessed that you knew.
But why do you think South-Africa is the right place?
The phylogenetically most basal and stratigraphically oldest hominins
are from East- and North-Africa.
See for example:
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhevol.2023.103437
Their Bayesian inference analysis, with posterior probabilities for
nodes given as percentages (fig.6):
https://ars.els-cdn.com/content/image/1-s2.0-S0047248423001161-gr6_lrg.jpg
That tree topology would refute your hypothesis.
On 8/5/24 7:19 AM, Pandora wrote:
Op 04-08-2024 om 21:19 schreef JTEM:
-a-aPandora wrote:
Actually, there's more than one individual of this taxon, from three
different localities (TM 247, TM 266 and TM 292). This additional
material was announced in Nature in 2005:
Where are those localities?-a I just did an exhaustive 30 second search
and could only find an actual location associated with 266.
And, yes, I did search longer than 30 seconds but it wouldn't have been
nearly as funny if I offered a better time estimate...
If it doesn't exceed your attention span you can read the paper at:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/7920249
Anyway, the three Sahelanthropus sites are within an area of 0.73 km2.
Not too far from where another hominin taxon, Australopithecus
bahrelghazali, was discovered in 1995.
That appears to be where the 266 was found.
No, the Toros-Menalla Sahelanthropus sites are about 150 km west of
the Koro-Toro australopithecine site and stratigraphically ~3.5
million years older.
If you think that's the wrong place you must have some concept of
what is the right place. Where would that be?
Well any other day of the week the clown act insists it's South Africa:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cradle_of_Humankind
I would have guessed that you knew.
But why do you think South-Africa is the right place?
The phylogenetically most basal and stratigraphically oldest hominins
are from East- and North-Africa.
See for example:
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhevol.2023.103437
Their Bayesian inference analysis, with posterior probabilities for
nodes given as percentages (fig.6):
https://ars.els-cdn.com/content/image/1-s2.0-S0047248423001161-gr6_lrg.jpg >>
That tree topology would refute your hypothesis.
To be fair, if those are Bayesian posteriors, many of them are pretty
bad. But what is JTEM's hypothesis?
Op 05-08-2024 om 16:39 schreef John Harshman:
On 8/5/24 7:19 AM, Pandora wrote:
Op 04-08-2024 om 21:19 schreef JTEM:
-a-aPandora wrote:
Actually, there's more than one individual of this taxon, from
three different localities (TM 247, TM 266 and TM 292). This
additional material was announced in Nature in 2005:
Where are those localities?-a I just did an exhaustive 30 second search >>>> and could only find an actual location associated with 266.
And, yes, I did search longer than 30 seconds but it wouldn't have been >>>> nearly as funny if I offered a better time estimate...
If it doesn't exceed your attention span you can read the paper at:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/7920249
Anyway, the three Sahelanthropus sites are within an area of 0.73 km2.
Not too far from where another hominin taxon, Australopithecus
bahrelghazali, was discovered in 1995.
That appears to be where the 266 was found.
No, the Toros-Menalla Sahelanthropus sites are about 150 km west of
the Koro-Toro australopithecine site and stratigraphically ~3.5
million years older.
If you think that's the wrong place you must have some concept of
what is the right place. Where would that be?
Well any other day of the week the clown act insists it's South Africa: >>>>
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cradle_of_Humankind
I would have guessed that you knew.
But why do you think South-Africa is the right place?
The phylogenetically most basal and stratigraphically oldest hominins
are from East- and North-Africa.
See for example:
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhevol.2023.103437
Their Bayesian inference analysis, with posterior probabilities for
nodes given as percentages (fig.6):
https://ars.els-cdn.com/content/image/1-s2.0-S0047248423001161-gr6_lrg.jpg >>>
That tree topology would refute your hypothesis.
To be fair, if those are Bayesian posteriors, many of them are pretty
bad. But what is JTEM's hypothesis?
That australopithecines are the ancestors of the African apes (Pan and Gorilla) as suggested in this publication (see fig.3 on page 17):
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/376650459
And apparently also that the human clade originated in South-Africa.
Of course, none of it with any substantial support from phylogenetic systematics.
On 8/5/24 8:19 AM, Pandora wrote:
Op 05-08-2024 om 16:39 schreef John Harshman:
On 8/5/24 7:19 AM, Pandora wrote:
Op 04-08-2024 om 21:19 schreef JTEM:
-a-aPandora wrote:
Actually, there's more than one individual of this taxon, from
three different localities (TM 247, TM 266 and TM 292). This
additional material was announced in Nature in 2005:
Where are those localities?-a I just did an exhaustive 30 second search >>>>> and could only find an actual location associated with 266.
And, yes, I did search longer than 30 seconds but it wouldn't have
been
nearly as funny if I offered a better time estimate...
If it doesn't exceed your attention span you can read the paper at:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/7920249
Anyway, the three Sahelanthropus sites are within an area of 0.73 km2. >>>>
Not too far from where another hominin taxon, Australopithecus
bahrelghazali, was discovered in 1995.
That appears to be where the 266 was found.
No, the Toros-Menalla Sahelanthropus sites are about 150 km west of
the Koro-Toro australopithecine site and stratigraphically ~3.5
million years older.
If you think that's the wrong place you must have some concept of >>>>>> what is the right place. Where would that be?
Well any other day of the week the clown act insists it's South
Africa:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cradle_of_Humankind
I would have guessed that you knew.
But why do you think South-Africa is the right place?
The phylogenetically most basal and stratigraphically oldest
hominins are from East- and North-Africa.
See for example:
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhevol.2023.103437
Their Bayesian inference analysis, with posterior probabilities for
nodes given as percentages (fig.6):
https://ars.els-cdn.com/content/image/1-s2.0-S0047248423001161-gr6_lrg.jpg >>>>
That tree topology would refute your hypothesis.
To be fair, if those are Bayesian posteriors, many of them are pretty
bad. But what is JTEM's hypothesis?
That australopithecines are the ancestors of the African apes (Pan and
Gorilla) as suggested in this publication (see fig.3 on page 17):
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/376650459
And apparently also that the human clade originated in South-Africa.
Of course, none of it with any substantial support from phylogenetic
systematics.
I don't believe that the South African origin is JTEM's belief. He seems
to be making fun of it. But you may be right about his other hypothesis. It's so hard to tell.
The node that puts Sahelanthropus into the human lineage gets only 90% Bayesian support, which is very low, and the 77% for the Pan/human node means it might as well be collapsed, leaving a trichotomy for Gorilla/Pan/hominins.
On 8/5/24 2:52 AM, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
On 5.8.2024. 6:40, John Harshman wrote:
On 8/4/24 8:48 PM, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
On 4.8.2024. 20:50, John Harshman wrote:
Don't be shy. Just say what you mean. Preferably in a single post.
-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a While we are at that, I will not be shy and I will ask you
a question I always wanted to clear it up.
-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a You have two situations. In Africa you have a lot of >>>> separated small tribes, so high genetic diversity. In India you have
all humans connected in one big society, so genes exchange among the
whole population, and they average over time, so we have low genetic
diversity. Now, the question is, in the view of geneticists is India
the bottleneck?
If you just waited a while before posting and thought more about what
you wanted to say, you wouldn't have this problem. Consider that.
Meanwhile, I don't understand the question. India is not a
bottleneck. What bottleneck? And you misunderstand the nature of
African genetic diversity. Most of it is within populations, not
between them. Africa has much higher within-population diversity than
does the rest of the world.
-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a India - This is from Wikipedia: "A population bottleneck or
genetic bottleneck is a sharp reduction in the size of a population
due to environmental events such as famines, earthquakes, floods,
fires, disease, and droughts; or human activities such as genocide,
speciocide, widespread violence or intentional culling. Such events
can reduce the variation in the gene pool of a population; thereafter,
a smaller population, with a smaller genetic diversity, remains to
pass on genes to future generations of offspring. Genetic diversity
remains lower, increasing only when..." So, they say that India is a
bottleneck, it is not me that is saying this, I know that India isn't
a bottleneck.
Who says that India is a bottleneck? All you have shown here is a
definition of the term. And that definition doesn't even apply to India.
You may be trying to say that India experienced a bottleneck many years
ago, but even that just isn't true.
-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a Look, I am a retired train driver (who excellently understood
simple mathematics when he was kid), I do understand that in
homogeneous population genes average. How come scientists have a
complete lack of understanding of this, and why their logic is so
simple that even kids in kindergarten would be ashamed of it, is
beyond me. In other words, when humans are the most advanced, when
they have multiple trading connections, when they all live *as one*,
then they have the least genetic variation. In other words, what in
real life is the most prosperous situation scientists describe as the
least prosperous situation. In the most prosperous situation humans
advance, which is only logical. But scientists postulate that in the
least prosperous situation humans advance. How come? There is few
people, and then comes God and does his magic, and that magic advances
those few.
Maybe scientists understand something you don't. Maybe your
understanding here is just wrong. You are confusing a lack of
geographically structured variation with a lack of individual variation.
Do you even read what I say?
-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a Africa - Yes, of course, this is how variation emerges, you
receive influxes from outside, and those influxes create genetic
diversity.
That has almost nothing to do with the variation within Africa.
In a homogeneous population, without outside influxes, Actually, if
those outside influxes are very small compared to your big size, you
cannot have diversity. So, In Africa you have multiple (because they
are separated) sources of genes, which receive, from time to time,
influxes from other separated sources.
-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a In other words, more separation, more genetic diversity, less
separation, less genetic diversity. More separation equals less
prosperous world, less separation equals prosperous world, just like
we have today. Scientists turned everything upside down, and there
isn't a single one among them who understands this.
-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a So, to have genetic variation you got to have a lot of
similar sizes separated gene pools. If you have a single gene pool
there is no variation.
This is just nonsense.
On 8/5/24 4:03 AM, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
On 5.8.2024. 11:52, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
On 5.8.2024. 6:40, John Harshman wrote:
On 8/4/24 8:48 PM, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
On 4.8.2024. 20:50, John Harshman wrote:
Don't be shy. Just say what you mean. Preferably in a single post.
-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a While we are at that, I will not be shy and I will ask you
a question I always wanted to clear it up.
-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a You have two situations. In Africa you have a lot of >>>>> separated small tribes, so high genetic diversity. In India you
have all humans connected in one big society, so genes exchange
among the whole population, and they average over time, so we have
low genetic diversity. Now, the question is, in the view of
geneticists is India the bottleneck?
If you just waited a while before posting and thought more about
what you wanted to say, you wouldn't have this problem. Consider that. >>>>
Meanwhile, I don't understand the question. India is not a
bottleneck. What bottleneck? And you misunderstand the nature of
African genetic diversity. Most of it is within populations, not
between them. Africa has much higher within-population diversity
than does the rest of the world.
-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a India - This is from Wikipedia: "A population bottleneck or
genetic bottleneck is a sharp reduction in the size of a population
due to environmental events such as famines, earthquakes, floods,
fires, disease, and droughts; or human activities such as genocide,
speciocide, widespread violence or intentional culling. Such events
can reduce the variation in the gene pool of a population;
thereafter, a smaller population, with a smaller genetic diversity,
remains to pass on genes to future generations of offspring. Genetic
diversity remains lower, increasing only when..." So, they say that
India is a bottleneck, it is not me that is saying this, I know that
India isn't a bottleneck.
-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a Look, I am a retired train driver (who excellently
understood simple mathematics when he was kid), I do understand that
in homogeneous population genes average. How come scientists have a
complete lack of understanding of this, and why their logic is so
simple that even kids in kindergarten would be ashamed of it, is
beyond me. In other words, when humans are the most advanced, when
they have multiple trading connections, when they all live *as one*,
then they have the least genetic variation. In other words, what in
real life is the most prosperous situation scientists describe as the
least prosperous situation. In the most prosperous situation humans
advance, which is only logical. But scientists postulate that in the
least prosperous situation humans advance. How come? There is few
people, and then comes God and does his magic, and that magic
advances those few.
-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a Africa - Yes, of course, this is how variation emerges, you
receive influxes from outside, and those influxes create genetic
diversity. In a homogeneous population, without outside influxes,
Actually, if those outside influxes are very small compared to your
big size, you cannot have diversity. So, In Africa you have multiple
(because they are separated) sources of genes, which receive, from
time to time, influxes from other separated sources.
-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a In other words, more separation, more genetic diversity, >>> less separation, less genetic diversity. More separation equals less
prosperous world, less separation equals prosperous world, just like
we have today. Scientists turned everything upside down, and there
isn't a single one among them who understands this.
-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a So, to have genetic variation you got to have a lot of >>> similar sizes separated gene pools. If you have a single gene pool
there is no variation.
-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a There is another thing those stupid scientists don't
contemplate, gene diversity doesn't necessarily mean bigger abilities.
Nobody says it does. Where do you get all these strawmen?
If animals are separated in two groups, and both groups separately
acquire the same ability, this ability will be represented with
different genes among each group. In general, one big gene pool can
acquire the same ability, and it will not have gene diversity. Then,
it is the question of compatibility. An organism functions as a
complete system. If you introduce components from the outside, it will
cause friction (although it can bring new abilities) among the
existing parts. It is similar to compiling a hi-fi system from
different manufacturers. Providing the quality is the same, a hi-fi
system sounds the best if it is made by one manufacturer. The
advantage of gene mixing is introducing new abilities, the
disadvantage, though, is that the whole system functions less fluidly.
-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a And so on, and so on, those geneticists (just like a lot of
other scientists) don't understand a lot of things, and simplify
everything (simply because only simple thinks are provable, and
scientists work only with provable things). The major problem with
them is that they are doing the reverse engineering. They are
convinced that genes are producing the changes (of course, because the
God is the one who affects the genes, in their christian view, they
want to involve God into the story, this way, or that way, this is
their only preoccupation), while the real truth is that genes are just
the reflection, the mirror image of what is going on, the transporter
of the message, not the originator.
Sorry, but that's just incoherent. Who is it that wants to involve God
in the story? Not geneticists, that's certain. What are your trying to
say, and why are you so arrogant as to believe you know more than the
people who actually study this stuff?
On 5.8.2024. 15:32, John Harshman wrote:
On 8/5/24 4:03 AM, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
On 5.8.2024. 11:52, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
On 5.8.2024. 6:40, John Harshman wrote:
On 8/4/24 8:48 PM, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
On 4.8.2024. 20:50, John Harshman wrote:
Don't be shy. Just say what you mean. Preferably in a single post. >>>>>>-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a While we are at that, I will not be shy and I will ask >>>>>> you a question I always wanted to clear it up.
-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a You have two situations. In Africa you have a lot of >>>>>> separated small tribes, so high genetic diversity. In India you
have all humans connected in one big society, so genes exchange
among the whole population, and they average over time, so we have >>>>>> low genetic diversity. Now, the question is, in the view of
geneticists is India the bottleneck?
If you just waited a while before posting and thought more about
what you wanted to say, you wouldn't have this problem. Consider that. >>>>>
Meanwhile, I don't understand the question. India is not a
bottleneck. What bottleneck? And you misunderstand the nature of
African genetic diversity. Most of it is within populations, not
between them. Africa has much higher within-population diversity
than does the rest of the world.
-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a India - This is from Wikipedia: "A population bottleneck or
genetic bottleneck is a sharp reduction in the size of a population
due to environmental events such as famines, earthquakes, floods,
fires, disease, and droughts; or human activities such as genocide,
speciocide, widespread violence or intentional culling. Such events
can reduce the variation in the gene pool of a population;
thereafter, a smaller population, with a smaller genetic diversity,
remains to pass on genes to future generations of offspring. Genetic
diversity remains lower, increasing only when..." So, they say that
India is a bottleneck, it is not me that is saying this, I know that
India isn't a bottleneck.
-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a Look, I am a retired train driver (who excellently
understood simple mathematics when he was kid), I do understand that
in homogeneous population genes average. How come scientists have a
complete lack of understanding of this, and why their logic is so
simple that even kids in kindergarten would be ashamed of it, is
beyond me. In other words, when humans are the most advanced, when
they have multiple trading connections, when they all live *as one*,
then they have the least genetic variation. In other words, what in
real life is the most prosperous situation scientists describe as
the least prosperous situation. In the most prosperous situation
humans advance, which is only logical. But scientists postulate that
in the least prosperous situation humans advance. How come? There is
few people, and then comes God and does his magic, and that magic
advances those few.
-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a Africa - Yes, of course, this is how variation emerges, you
receive influxes from outside, and those influxes create genetic
diversity. In a homogeneous population, without outside influxes,
Actually, if those outside influxes are very small compared to your
big size, you cannot have diversity. So, In Africa you have multiple
(because they are separated) sources of genes, which receive, from
time to time, influxes from other separated sources.
-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a In other words, more separation, more genetic diversity, >>>> less separation, less genetic diversity. More separation equals less
prosperous world, less separation equals prosperous world, just like
we have today. Scientists turned everything upside down, and there
isn't a single one among them who understands this.
-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a So, to have genetic variation you got to have a lot of >>>> similar sizes separated gene pools. If you have a single gene pool
there is no variation.
-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a There is another thing those stupid scientists don't
contemplate, gene diversity doesn't necessarily mean bigger abilities.
Nobody says it does. Where do you get all these strawmen?
-a-a-a-a-a-a-a I am just contemplating this.
If animals are separated in two groups, and both groups separately
acquire the same ability, this ability will be represented with
different genes among each group. In general, one big gene pool can
acquire the same ability, and it will not have gene diversity. Then,
it is the question of compatibility. An organism functions as a
complete system. If you introduce components from the outside, it
will cause friction (although it can bring new abilities) among the
existing parts. It is similar to compiling a hi-fi system from
different manufacturers. Providing the quality is the same, a hi-fi
system sounds the best if it is made by one manufacturer. The
advantage of gene mixing is introducing new abilities, the
disadvantage, though, is that the whole system functions less fluidly.
-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a And so on, and so on, those geneticists (just like a lot of
other scientists) don't understand a lot of things, and simplify
everything (simply because only simple thinks are provable, and
scientists work only with provable things). The major problem with
them is that they are doing the reverse engineering. They are
convinced that genes are producing the changes (of course, because
the God is the one who affects the genes, in their christian view,
they want to involve God into the story, this way, or that way, this
is their only preoccupation), while the real truth is that genes are
just the reflection, the mirror image of what is going on, the
transporter of the message, not the originator.
Sorry, but that's just incoherent. Who is it that wants to involve God
in the story? Not geneticists, that's certain. What are your trying to
say, and why are you so arrogant as to believe you know more than the
people who actually study this stuff?
-a-a-a-a-a-a-a Who is it? Gregor Mendel and his followers.
-a-a-a-a-a-a-a Why am I so arrogant? Because I am 62.
On 5.8.2024. 15:28, John Harshman wrote:
On 8/5/24 2:52 AM, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
On 5.8.2024. 6:40, John Harshman wrote:
On 8/4/24 8:48 PM, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
On 4.8.2024. 20:50, John Harshman wrote:
Don't be shy. Just say what you mean. Preferably in a single post.
-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a While we are at that, I will not be shy and I will ask you
a question I always wanted to clear it up.
-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a You have two situations. In Africa you have a lot of >>>>> separated small tribes, so high genetic diversity. In India you
have all humans connected in one big society, so genes exchange
among the whole population, and they average over time, so we have
low genetic diversity. Now, the question is, in the view of
geneticists is India the bottleneck?
If you just waited a while before posting and thought more about
what you wanted to say, you wouldn't have this problem. Consider that. >>>>
Meanwhile, I don't understand the question. India is not a
bottleneck. What bottleneck? And you misunderstand the nature of
African genetic diversity. Most of it is within populations, not
between them. Africa has much higher within-population diversity
than does the rest of the world.
-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a India - This is from Wikipedia: "A population bottleneck or
genetic bottleneck is a sharp reduction in the size of a population
due to environmental events such as famines, earthquakes, floods,
fires, disease, and droughts; or human activities such as genocide,
speciocide, widespread violence or intentional culling. Such events
can reduce the variation in the gene pool of a population;
thereafter, a smaller population, with a smaller genetic diversity,
remains to pass on genes to future generations of offspring. Genetic
diversity remains lower, increasing only when..." So, they say that
India is a bottleneck, it is not me that is saying this, I know that
India isn't a bottleneck.
Who says that India is a bottleneck? All you have shown here is a
definition of the term. And that definition doesn't even apply to
India. You may be trying to say that India experienced a bottleneck
many years ago, but even that just isn't true.
-a-a-a-a-a-a-a The definition implies less diversity for less prosperous situation. I would say that India has more prosperous situation than
Africa.
-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a Look, I am a retired train driver (who excellently
understood simple mathematics when he was kid), I do understand that
in homogeneous population genes average. How come scientists have a
complete lack of understanding of this, and why their logic is so
simple that even kids in kindergarten would be ashamed of it, is
beyond me. In other words, when humans are the most advanced, when
they have multiple trading connections, when they all live *as one*,
then they have the least genetic variation. In other words, what in
real life is the most prosperous situation scientists describe as the
least prosperous situation. In the most prosperous situation humans
advance, which is only logical. But scientists postulate that in the
least prosperous situation humans advance. How come? There is few
people, and then comes God and does his magic, and that magic
advances those few.
Maybe scientists understand something you don't. Maybe your
understanding here is just wrong. You are confusing a lack of
geographically structured variation with a lack of individual
variation. Do you even read what I say?
-a-a-a-a-a-a-a I read what you say, if this is the right meaning for what I am
doing, don't worry about it.
-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a Africa - Yes, of course, this is how variation emerges, you
receive influxes from outside, and those influxes create genetic
diversity.
That has almost nothing to do with the variation within Africa.
In a homogeneous population, without outside influxes, Actually, if
those outside influxes are very small compared to your big size, you
cannot have diversity. So, In Africa you have multiple (because they
are separated) sources of genes, which receive, from time to time,
influxes from other separated sources.
-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a In other words, more separation, more genetic diversity, >>> less separation, less genetic diversity. More separation equals less
prosperous world, less separation equals prosperous world, just like
we have today. Scientists turned everything upside down, and there
isn't a single one among them who understands this.
-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a So, to have genetic variation you got to have a lot of >>> similar sizes separated gene pools. If you have a single gene pool
there is no variation.
This is just nonsense.
Op 05-08-2024 om 17:57 schreef John Harshman:
On 8/5/24 8:19 AM, Pandora wrote:
Op 05-08-2024 om 16:39 schreef John Harshman:
On 8/5/24 7:19 AM, Pandora wrote:
Op 04-08-2024 om 21:19 schreef JTEM:
-a-aPandora wrote:
Actually, there's more than one individual of this taxon, from
three different localities (TM 247, TM 266 and TM 292). This
additional material was announced in Nature in 2005:
Where are those localities?-a I just did an exhaustive 30 second
search
and could only find an actual location associated with 266.
And, yes, I did search longer than 30 seconds but it wouldn't have >>>>>> been
nearly as funny if I offered a better time estimate...
If it doesn't exceed your attention span you can read the paper at:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/7920249
Anyway, the three Sahelanthropus sites are within an area of 0.73 km2. >>>>>
Not too far from where another hominin taxon, Australopithecus
bahrelghazali, was discovered in 1995.
That appears to be where the 266 was found.
No, the Toros-Menalla Sahelanthropus sites are about 150 km west of >>>>> the Koro-Toro australopithecine site and stratigraphically ~3.5
million years older.
If you think that's the wrong place you must have some concept of >>>>>>> what is the right place. Where would that be?
Well any other day of the week the clown act insists it's South
Africa:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cradle_of_Humankind
I would have guessed that you knew.
But why do you think South-Africa is the right place?
The phylogenetically most basal and stratigraphically oldest
hominins are from East- and North-Africa.
See for example:
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhevol.2023.103437
Their Bayesian inference analysis, with posterior probabilities for >>>>> nodes given as percentages (fig.6):
https://ars.els-cdn.com/content/image/1-s2.0-S0047248423001161-gr6_lrg.jpg
That tree topology would refute your hypothesis.
To be fair, if those are Bayesian posteriors, many of them are
pretty bad. But what is JTEM's hypothesis?
That australopithecines are the ancestors of the African apes (Pan
and Gorilla) as suggested in this publication (see fig.3 on page 17):
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/376650459
And apparently also that the human clade originated in South-Africa.
Of course, none of it with any substantial support from phylogenetic
systematics.
I don't believe that the South African origin is JTEM's belief. He
seems to be making fun of it. But you may be right about his other
hypothesis. It's so hard to tell.
The node that puts Sahelanthropus into the human lineage gets only 90%
Bayesian support, which is very low, and the 77% for the Pan/human
node means it might as well be collapsed, leaving a trichotomy for
Gorilla/Pan/hominins.
Let's also throw in a little parsimony analysis (majority-rule consensus tree from 10,000 pseudoreplicates, bootstrap support values (%) given as Group-present/Contradicted (GC) frequencies:
https://ars.els-cdn.com/content/image/1-s2.0-S0047248423001161-gr3_lrg.jpg
On 8/5/24 12:00 PM, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
On 5.8.2024. 15:28, John Harshman wrote:
On 8/5/24 2:52 AM, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
On 5.8.2024. 6:40, John Harshman wrote:
On 8/4/24 8:48 PM, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
On 4.8.2024. 20:50, John Harshman wrote:
Don't be shy. Just say what you mean. Preferably in a single post. >>>>>>-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a While we are at that, I will not be shy and I will ask >>>>>> you a question I always wanted to clear it up.
-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a You have two situations. In Africa you have a lot of >>>>>> separated small tribes, so high genetic diversity. In India you
have all humans connected in one big society, so genes exchange
among the whole population, and they average over time, so we have >>>>>> low genetic diversity. Now, the question is, in the view of
geneticists is India the bottleneck?
If you just waited a while before posting and thought more about
what you wanted to say, you wouldn't have this problem. Consider that. >>>>>
Meanwhile, I don't understand the question. India is not a
bottleneck. What bottleneck? And you misunderstand the nature of
African genetic diversity. Most of it is within populations, not
between them. Africa has much higher within-population diversity
than does the rest of the world.
-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a India - This is from Wikipedia: "A population bottleneck or
genetic bottleneck is a sharp reduction in the size of a population
due to environmental events such as famines, earthquakes, floods,
fires, disease, and droughts; or human activities such as genocide,
speciocide, widespread violence or intentional culling. Such events
can reduce the variation in the gene pool of a population;
thereafter, a smaller population, with a smaller genetic diversity,
remains to pass on genes to future generations of offspring. Genetic
diversity remains lower, increasing only when..." So, they say that
India is a bottleneck, it is not me that is saying this, I know that
India isn't a bottleneck.
Who says that India is a bottleneck? All you have shown here is a
definition of the term. And that definition doesn't even apply to
India. You may be trying to say that India experienced a bottleneck
many years ago, but even that just isn't true.
-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a The definition implies less diversity for less prosperous >> situation. I would say that India has more prosperous situation than
Africa.
The definition implies no such thing. A bottleneck is a population
reduction to near zero. All your quote does is give some of the possible reasons for that reduction. The population of India is huge and has been
for a very long time. No bottleneck. The reasons why Africa has more
genetic diversity than the rest of the world (not just India) are likely
to be that a small sub-population of modern humans left Africa and
rapidly expanded. Rapid expansion doesn't create genetic variation,
which remains at the level of the founder population for a long time.
-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a Look, I am a retired train driver (who excellently
understood simple mathematics when he was kid), I do understand that
in homogeneous population genes average. How come scientists have a
complete lack of understanding of this, and why their logic is so
simple that even kids in kindergarten would be ashamed of it, is
beyond me. In other words, when humans are the most advanced, when
they have multiple trading connections, when they all live *as one*,
then they have the least genetic variation. In other words, what in
real life is the most prosperous situation scientists describe as
the least prosperous situation. In the most prosperous situation
humans advance, which is only logical. But scientists postulate that
in the least prosperous situation humans advance. How come? There is
few people, and then comes God and does his magic, and that magic
advances those few.
Maybe scientists understand something you don't. Maybe your
understanding here is just wrong. You are confusing a lack of
geographically structured variation with a lack of individual
variation. Do you even read what I say?
-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a I read what you say, if this is the right meaning for what I
am doing, don't worry about it.
???
-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a Africa - Yes, of course, this is how variation emerges, you
receive influxes from outside, and those influxes create genetic
diversity.
That has almost nothing to do with the variation within Africa.
In a homogeneous population, without outside influxes, Actually, if
those outside influxes are very small compared to your big size, you
cannot have diversity. So, In Africa you have multiple (because they
are separated) sources of genes, which receive, from time to time,
influxes from other separated sources.
-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a In other words, more separation, more genetic diversity, >>>> less separation, less genetic diversity. More separation equals less
prosperous world, less separation equals prosperous world, just like
we have today. Scientists turned everything upside down, and there
isn't a single one among them who understands this.
-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a So, to have genetic variation you got to have a lot of >>>> similar sizes separated gene pools. If you have a single gene pool
there is no variation.
This is just nonsense.
On 8/5/24 12:03 PM, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
On 5.8.2024. 15:32, John Harshman wrote:
On 8/5/24 4:03 AM, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
On 5.8.2024. 11:52, Mario Petrinovic wrote:Nobody says it does. Where do you get all these strawmen?
On 5.8.2024. 6:40, John Harshman wrote:
On 8/4/24 8:48 PM, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
On 4.8.2024. 20:50, John Harshman wrote:
Don't be shy. Just say what you mean. Preferably in a single post. >>>>>>>-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a While we are at that, I will not be shy and I will ask
you a question I always wanted to clear it up.
-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a You have two situations. In Africa you have a lot of >>>>>>> separated small tribes, so high genetic diversity. In India you >>>>>>> have all humans connected in one big society, so genes exchange >>>>>>> among the whole population, and they average over time, so we
have low genetic diversity. Now, the question is, in the view of >>>>>>> geneticists is India the bottleneck?
If you just waited a while before posting and thought more about
what you wanted to say, you wouldn't have this problem. Consider
that.
Meanwhile, I don't understand the question. India is not a
bottleneck. What bottleneck? And you misunderstand the nature of
African genetic diversity. Most of it is within populations, not
between them. Africa has much higher within-population diversity
than does the rest of the world.
-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a India - This is from Wikipedia: "A population bottleneck
or genetic bottleneck is a sharp reduction in the size of a
population due to environmental events such as famines,
earthquakes, floods, fires, disease, and droughts; or human
activities such as genocide, speciocide, widespread violence or
intentional culling. Such events can reduce the variation in the
gene pool of a population; thereafter, a smaller population, with a >>>>> smaller genetic diversity, remains to pass on genes to future
generations of offspring. Genetic diversity remains lower,
increasing only when..." So, they say that India is a bottleneck,
it is not me that is saying this, I know that India isn't a
bottleneck.
-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a Look, I am a retired train driver (who excellently >>>>> understood simple mathematics when he was kid), I do understand
that in homogeneous population genes average. How come scientists
have a complete lack of understanding of this, and why their logic
is so simple that even kids in kindergarten would be ashamed of it, >>>>> is beyond me. In other words, when humans are the most advanced,
when they have multiple trading connections, when they all live *as >>>>> one*, then they have the least genetic variation. In other words,
what in real life is the most prosperous situation scientists
describe as the least prosperous situation. In the most prosperous
situation humans advance, which is only logical. But scientists
postulate that in the least prosperous situation humans advance.
How come? There is few people, and then comes God and does his
magic, and that magic advances those few.
-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a Africa - Yes, of course, this is how variation emerges, >>>>> you receive influxes from outside, and those influxes create
genetic diversity. In a homogeneous population, without outside
influxes, Actually, if those outside influxes are very small
compared to your big size, you cannot have diversity. So, In Africa >>>>> you have multiple (because they are separated) sources of genes,
which receive, from time to time, influxes from other separated
sources.
-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a In other words, more separation, more genetic diversity,
less separation, less genetic diversity. More separation equals
less prosperous world, less separation equals prosperous world,
just like we have today. Scientists turned everything upside down,
and there isn't a single one among them who understands this.
-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a So, to have genetic variation you got to have a lot of >>>>> similar sizes separated gene pools. If you have a single gene pool
there is no variation.
-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a There is another thing those stupid scientists don't >>>> contemplate, gene diversity doesn't necessarily mean bigger abilities. >>>
-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a I am just contemplating this.
If animals are separated in two groups, and both groups separately
acquire the same ability, this ability will be represented with
different genes among each group. In general, one big gene pool can
acquire the same ability, and it will not have gene diversity. Then,
it is the question of compatibility. An organism functions as a
complete system. If you introduce components from the outside, it
will cause friction (although it can bring new abilities) among the
existing parts. It is similar to compiling a hi-fi system from
different manufacturers. Providing the quality is the same, a hi-fi
system sounds the best if it is made by one manufacturer. The
advantage of gene mixing is introducing new abilities, the
disadvantage, though, is that the whole system functions less fluidly. >>>> -a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a And so on, and so on, those geneticists (just like a lot of
other scientists) don't understand a lot of things, and simplify
everything (simply because only simple thinks are provable, and
scientists work only with provable things). The major problem with
them is that they are doing the reverse engineering. They are
convinced that genes are producing the changes (of course, because
the God is the one who affects the genes, in their christian view,
they want to involve God into the story, this way, or that way, this
is their only preoccupation), while the real truth is that genes are
just the reflection, the mirror image of what is going on, the
transporter of the message, not the originator.
Sorry, but that's just incoherent. Who is it that wants to involve
God in the story? Not geneticists, that's certain. What are your
trying to say, and why are you so arrogant as to believe you know
more than the people who actually study this stuff?
-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a Who is it? Gregor Mendel and his followers.
-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a Why am I so arrogant? Because I am 62.
Gregor Mendel is way older than you, so should be even more arrogant.
No, that was Chris Ho-Stuart
If it doesn't exceed your attention span you can read the paper at:
Anyway, the three Sahelanthropus sites are within an area of 0.73 km2.
No, the Toros-Menalla Sahelanthropus sites are about 150 km west of the Koro-Toro australopithecine site and stratigraphically ~3.5 million
years older.
But why do you think South-Africa is the right place?
John Harshman:
To be fair, if those are Bayesian posteriors, many of them are pretty
bad. But what is JTEM's hypothesis?
That australopithecines are the ancestors of the African apes (Pan and Gorilla) as suggested in this publication (see fig.3 on page 17):
And apparently also that the human clade originated in South-Africa.
On 5.8.2024. 22:38, John Harshman wrote:
On 8/5/24 12:03 PM, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
On 5.8.2024. 15:32, John Harshman wrote:
On 8/5/24 4:03 AM, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
On 5.8.2024. 11:52, Mario Petrinovic wrote:Nobody says it does. Where do you get all these strawmen?
On 5.8.2024. 6:40, John Harshman wrote:
On 8/4/24 8:48 PM, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
On 4.8.2024. 20:50, John Harshman wrote:
Don't be shy. Just say what you mean. Preferably in a single post. >>>>>>>>-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a While we are at that, I will not be shy and I will ask
you a question I always wanted to clear it up.
-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a You have two situations. In Africa you have a lot of >>>>>>>> separated small tribes, so high genetic diversity. In India you >>>>>>>> have all humans connected in one big society, so genes exchange >>>>>>>> among the whole population, and they average over time, so we >>>>>>>> have low genetic diversity. Now, the question is, in the view of >>>>>>>> geneticists is India the bottleneck?
If you just waited a while before posting and thought more about >>>>>>> what you wanted to say, you wouldn't have this problem. Consider >>>>>>> that.
Meanwhile, I don't understand the question. India is not a
bottleneck. What bottleneck? And you misunderstand the nature of >>>>>>> African genetic diversity. Most of it is within populations, not >>>>>>> between them. Africa has much higher within-population diversity >>>>>>> than does the rest of the world.
-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a India - This is from Wikipedia: "A population bottleneck
or genetic bottleneck is a sharp reduction in the size of a
population due to environmental events such as famines,
earthquakes, floods, fires, disease, and droughts; or human
activities such as genocide, speciocide, widespread violence or
intentional culling. Such events can reduce the variation in the
gene pool of a population; thereafter, a smaller population, with >>>>>> a smaller genetic diversity, remains to pass on genes to future
generations of offspring. Genetic diversity remains lower,
increasing only when..." So, they say that India is a bottleneck, >>>>>> it is not me that is saying this, I know that India isn't a
bottleneck.
-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a Look, I am a retired train driver (who excellently >>>>>> understood simple mathematics when he was kid), I do understand
that in homogeneous population genes average. How come scientists >>>>>> have a complete lack of understanding of this, and why their logic >>>>>> is so simple that even kids in kindergarten would be ashamed of
it, is beyond me. In other words, when humans are the most
advanced, when they have multiple trading connections, when they
all live *as one*, then they have the least genetic variation. In >>>>>> other words, what in real life is the most prosperous situation
scientists describe as the least prosperous situation. In the most >>>>>> prosperous situation humans advance, which is only logical. But
scientists postulate that in the least prosperous situation humans >>>>>> advance. How come? There is few people, and then comes God and
does his magic, and that magic advances those few.
-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a Africa - Yes, of course, this is how variation emerges,
you receive influxes from outside, and those influxes create
genetic diversity. In a homogeneous population, without outside
influxes, Actually, if those outside influxes are very small
compared to your big size, you cannot have diversity. So, In
Africa you have multiple (because they are separated) sources of
genes, which receive, from time to time, influxes from other
separated sources.
-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a In other words, more separation, more genetic diversity,
less separation, less genetic diversity. More separation equals
less prosperous world, less separation equals prosperous world,
just like we have today. Scientists turned everything upside down, >>>>>> and there isn't a single one among them who understands this.
-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a So, to have genetic variation you got to have a lot of >>>>>> similar sizes separated gene pools. If you have a single gene pool >>>>>> there is no variation.
-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a There is another thing those stupid scientists don't >>>>> contemplate, gene diversity doesn't necessarily mean bigger abilities. >>>>
-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a I am just contemplating this.
If animals are separated in two groups, and both groups separately
acquire the same ability, this ability will be represented with
different genes among each group. In general, one big gene pool can >>>>> acquire the same ability, and it will not have gene diversity.
Then, it is the question of compatibility. An organism functions as >>>>> a complete system. If you introduce components from the outside, it >>>>> will cause friction (although it can bring new abilities) among the >>>>> existing parts. It is similar to compiling a hi-fi system from
different manufacturers. Providing the quality is the same, a hi-fi >>>>> system sounds the best if it is made by one manufacturer. The
advantage of gene mixing is introducing new abilities, the
disadvantage, though, is that the whole system functions less fluidly. >>>>> -a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a And so on, and so on, those geneticists (just like a lot
of other scientists) don't understand a lot of things, and simplify >>>>> everything (simply because only simple thinks are provable, and
scientists work only with provable things). The major problem with
them is that they are doing the reverse engineering. They are
convinced that genes are producing the changes (of course, because
the God is the one who affects the genes, in their christian view,
they want to involve God into the story, this way, or that way,
this is their only preoccupation), while the real truth is that
genes are just the reflection, the mirror image of what is going
on, the transporter of the message, not the originator.
Sorry, but that's just incoherent. Who is it that wants to involve
God in the story? Not geneticists, that's certain. What are your
trying to say, and why are you so arrogant as to believe you know
more than the people who actually study this stuff?
-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a Who is it? Gregor Mendel and his followers.
-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a Why am I so arrogant? Because I am 62.
Gregor Mendel is way older than you, so should be even more arrogant.
-a-a-a-a-a-a-a Gregor Mendel is idiot and liar.
-aJohn Harshman wrote:
No, that was Chris Ho-Stuart
Look at the thread, you cowardly twat. You were arguing AGAINST
me and I was pointing out that the so called evidence "against"
interbreeding was consistent with interbreeding, as per the
mainstream.
It was all just fuckheads, like you, changing the rules from
one sentence to the next. Which is a lot of things but it's
never "Science."
-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a Gregor Mendel is idiot and liar.
Say what now?
On 8/6/24 2:49 AM, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
On 5.8.2024. 22:38, John Harshman wrote:
On 8/5/24 12:03 PM, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
On 5.8.2024. 15:32, John Harshman wrote:
On 8/5/24 4:03 AM, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
On 5.8.2024. 11:52, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
On 5.8.2024. 6:40, John Harshman wrote:
On 8/4/24 8:48 PM, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
On 4.8.2024. 20:50, John Harshman wrote:
Don't be shy. Just say what you mean. Preferably in a single >>>>>>>>>> post.
-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a While we are at that, I will not be shy and I will ask
you a question I always wanted to clear it up.
-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a You have two situations. In Africa you have a lot of
separated small tribes, so high genetic diversity. In India you >>>>>>>>> have all humans connected in one big society, so genes exchange >>>>>>>>> among the whole population, and they average over time, so we >>>>>>>>> have low genetic diversity. Now, the question is, in the view >>>>>>>>> of geneticists is India the bottleneck?
If you just waited a while before posting and thought more about >>>>>>>> what you wanted to say, you wouldn't have this problem. Consider >>>>>>>> that.
Meanwhile, I don't understand the question. India is not a
bottleneck. What bottleneck? And you misunderstand the nature of >>>>>>>> African genetic diversity. Most of it is within populations, not >>>>>>>> between them. Africa has much higher within-population diversity >>>>>>>> than does the rest of the world.
-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a India - This is from Wikipedia: "A population bottleneck
or genetic bottleneck is a sharp reduction in the size of a
population due to environmental events such as famines,
earthquakes, floods, fires, disease, and droughts; or human
activities such as genocide, speciocide, widespread violence or >>>>>>> intentional culling. Such events can reduce the variation in the >>>>>>> gene pool of a population; thereafter, a smaller population, with >>>>>>> a smaller genetic diversity, remains to pass on genes to future >>>>>>> generations of offspring. Genetic diversity remains lower,
increasing only when..." So, they say that India is a bottleneck, >>>>>>> it is not me that is saying this, I know that India isn't a
bottleneck.
-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a Look, I am a retired train driver (who excellently >>>>>>> understood simple mathematics when he was kid), I do understand >>>>>>> that in homogeneous population genes average. How come scientists >>>>>>> have a complete lack of understanding of this, and why their
logic is so simple that even kids in kindergarten would be
ashamed of it, is beyond me. In other words, when humans are the >>>>>>> most advanced, when they have multiple trading connections, when >>>>>>> they all live *as one*, then they have the least genetic
variation. In other words, what in real life is the most
prosperous situation scientists describe as the least prosperous >>>>>>> situation. In the most prosperous situation humans advance, which >>>>>>> is only logical. But scientists postulate that in the least
prosperous situation humans advance. How come? There is few
people, and then comes God and does his magic, and that magic
advances those few.
-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a Africa - Yes, of course, this is how variation emerges,
you receive influxes from outside, and those influxes create
genetic diversity. In a homogeneous population, without outside >>>>>>> influxes, Actually, if those outside influxes are very small
compared to your big size, you cannot have diversity. So, In
Africa you have multiple (because they are separated) sources of >>>>>>> genes, which receive, from time to time, influxes from other
separated sources.
-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a In other words, more separation, more genetic diversity,
less separation, less genetic diversity. More separation equals >>>>>>> less prosperous world, less separation equals prosperous world, >>>>>>> just like we have today. Scientists turned everything upside
down, and there isn't a single one among them who understands this. >>>>>>> -a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a So, to have genetic variation you got to have a lot of
similar sizes separated gene pools. If you have a single gene
pool there is no variation.
-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a There is another thing those stupid scientists don't >>>>>> contemplate, gene diversity doesn't necessarily mean bigger
abilities.
Nobody says it does. Where do you get all these strawmen?
-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a I am just contemplating this.
If animals are separated in two groups, and both groups separately >>>>>> acquire the same ability, this ability will be represented with
different genes among each group. In general, one big gene pool
can acquire the same ability, and it will not have gene diversity. >>>>>> Then, it is the question of compatibility. An organism functions
as a complete system. If you introduce components from the
outside, it will cause friction (although it can bring new
abilities) among the existing parts. It is similar to compiling a >>>>>> hi-fi system from different manufacturers. Providing the quality
is the same, a hi-fi system sounds the best if it is made by one
manufacturer. The advantage of gene mixing is introducing new
abilities, the disadvantage, though, is that the whole system
functions less fluidly.
-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a And so on, and so on, those geneticists (just like a lot
of other scientists) don't understand a lot of things, and
simplify everything (simply because only simple thinks are
provable, and scientists work only with provable things). The
major problem with them is that they are doing the reverse
engineering. They are convinced that genes are producing the
changes (of course, because the God is the one who affects the
genes, in their christian view, they want to involve God into the >>>>>> story, this way, or that way, this is their only preoccupation),
while the real truth is that genes are just the reflection, the
mirror image of what is going on, the transporter of the message, >>>>>> not the originator.
Sorry, but that's just incoherent. Who is it that wants to involve
God in the story? Not geneticists, that's certain. What are your
trying to say, and why are you so arrogant as to believe you know
more than the people who actually study this stuff?
-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a Who is it? Gregor Mendel and his followers.
-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a Why am I so arrogant? Because I am 62.
Gregor Mendel is way older than you, so should be even more arrogant.
-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a Gregor Mendel is idiot and liar.
Say what now?
Op 06-08-2024 om 15:14 schreef John Harshman:
-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a Gregor Mendel is idiot and liar.
Say what now?
Can't argue with that.
He's got you in a corner, John.
Look at the thread, you cowardly twat. You were arguing AGAINST
me and I was pointing out that the so called evidence "against"
interbreeding was consistent with interbreeding, as per the
mainstream.
Nevertheless, it was Chris Ho-Stuart you were responding to in the post
you just quoted.
John Harshman wrote:
Look at the thread, you cowardly twat. You were arguing AGAINST
me and I was pointing out that the so called evidence "against"
interbreeding was consistent with interbreeding, as per the
mainstream.
Nevertheless, it was Chris Ho-Stuart you were responding to in the
post you just quoted.
What I did with the quote was lay down in no uncertain terms what
I was saying in that THREAD.
Science is consistent. You are not. You're actually pretending that
one quote was in isolation from everything else, even though it's a
lengthy thread.
I love the quote. It demonstrates how you can uses pieces to assemble
the complete picture yet you instead try to use them to obscure the
picture. Like you're doing right now.
I have no idea
-aJohn Harshman wrote:
I have no idea
No you don't. You're far too mentally ill.
You're a pussy and you got caught. Again.
On 8/5/24 9:14 AM, Pandora wrote:
Op 05-08-2024 om 17:57 schreef John Harshman:Thanks. Notice how bad those bootstrap values are. But something seems
On 8/5/24 8:19 AM, Pandora wrote:
Op 05-08-2024 om 16:39 schreef John Harshman:
On 8/5/24 7:19 AM, Pandora wrote:
Op 04-08-2024 om 21:19 schreef JTEM:
-a-aPandora wrote:
Actually, there's more than one individual of this taxon, from >>>>>>>> three different localities (TM 247, TM 266 and TM 292). This
additional material was announced in Nature in 2005:
Where are those localities?-a I just did an exhaustive 30 second >>>>>>> search
and could only find an actual location associated with 266.
And, yes, I did search longer than 30 seconds but it wouldn't
have been
nearly as funny if I offered a better time estimate...
If it doesn't exceed your attention span you can read the paper at: >>>>>>
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/7920249
Anyway, the three Sahelanthropus sites are within an area of 0.73 >>>>>> km2.
Not too far from where another hominin taxon, Australopithecus >>>>>>>> bahrelghazali, was discovered in 1995.
That appears to be where the 266 was found.
No, the Toros-Menalla Sahelanthropus sites are about 150 km west
of the Koro-Toro australopithecine site and stratigraphically ~3.5 >>>>>> million years older.
If you think that's the wrong place you must have some concept >>>>>>>> of what is the right place. Where would that be?
Well any other day of the week the clown act insists it's South >>>>>>> Africa:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cradle_of_Humankind
I would have guessed that you knew.
But why do you think South-Africa is the right place?
The phylogenetically most basal and stratigraphically oldest
hominins are from East- and North-Africa.
See for example:
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhevol.2023.103437
Their Bayesian inference analysis, with posterior probabilities
for nodes given as percentages (fig.6):
https://ars.els-cdn.com/content/image/1-s2.0-S0047248423001161-gr6_lrg.jpg
That tree topology would refute your hypothesis.
To be fair, if those are Bayesian posteriors, many of them are
pretty bad. But what is JTEM's hypothesis?
That australopithecines are the ancestors of the African apes (Pan
and Gorilla) as suggested in this publication (see fig.3 on page 17):
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/376650459
And apparently also that the human clade originated in South-Africa.
Of course, none of it with any substantial support from phylogenetic
systematics.
I don't believe that the South African origin is JTEM's belief. He
seems to be making fun of it. But you may be right about his other
hypothesis. It's so hard to tell.
The node that puts Sahelanthropus into the human lineage gets only
90% Bayesian support, which is very low, and the 77% for the
Pan/human node means it might as well be collapsed, leaving a
trichotomy for Gorilla/Pan/hominins.
Let's also throw in a little parsimony analysis (majority-rule
consensus tree from 10,000 pseudoreplicates, bootstrap support values
(%) given as Group-present/Contradicted (GC) frequencies:
https://ars.els-cdn.com/content/image/1-s2.0-S0047248423001161-gr3_lrg.jpg >>
odd. How can the great ape node get only 2% bootstrap support? Was the
data set chosen so as to omit most of the character support? No, only
lots of conflict could give support that low, and there aren't enough possible trees for a tree supported at only 2% to come out on top in a majority rule consensus. Still, anything below 70% might as well be collapsed, leaving a massive polytomy.
Op 05-08-2024 om 22:49 schreef John Harshman:
On 8/5/24 9:14 AM, Pandora wrote:
Op 05-08-2024 om 17:57 schreef John Harshman:Thanks. Notice how bad those bootstrap values are. But something seems
On 8/5/24 8:19 AM, Pandora wrote:
Op 05-08-2024 om 16:39 schreef John Harshman:
On 8/5/24 7:19 AM, Pandora wrote:
Op 04-08-2024 om 21:19 schreef JTEM:
-a-aPandora wrote:
Actually, there's more than one individual of this taxon, from >>>>>>>>> three different localities (TM 247, TM 266 and TM 292). This >>>>>>>>> additional material was announced in Nature in 2005:
Where are those localities?-a I just did an exhaustive 30 second >>>>>>>> search
and could only find an actual location associated with 266.
And, yes, I did search longer than 30 seconds but it wouldn't >>>>>>>> have been
nearly as funny if I offered a better time estimate...
If it doesn't exceed your attention span you can read the paper at: >>>>>>>
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/7920249
Anyway, the three Sahelanthropus sites are within an area of 0.73 >>>>>>> km2.
Not too far from where another hominin taxon, Australopithecus >>>>>>>>> bahrelghazali, was discovered in 1995.
That appears to be where the 266 was found.
No, the Toros-Menalla Sahelanthropus sites are about 150 km west >>>>>>> of the Koro-Toro australopithecine site and stratigraphically
~3.5 million years older.
If you think that's the wrong place you must have some concept >>>>>>>>> of what is the right place. Where would that be?
Well any other day of the week the clown act insists it's South >>>>>>>> Africa:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cradle_of_Humankind
I would have guessed that you knew.
But why do you think South-Africa is the right place?
The phylogenetically most basal and stratigraphically oldest
hominins are from East- and North-Africa.
See for example:
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhevol.2023.103437
Their Bayesian inference analysis, with posterior probabilities >>>>>>> for nodes given as percentages (fig.6):
https://ars.els-cdn.com/content/image/1-s2.0-S0047248423001161-gr6_lrg.jpg
That tree topology would refute your hypothesis.
To be fair, if those are Bayesian posteriors, many of them are
pretty bad. But what is JTEM's hypothesis?
That australopithecines are the ancestors of the African apes (Pan
and Gorilla) as suggested in this publication (see fig.3 on page 17): >>>>>
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/376650459
And apparently also that the human clade originated in South-Africa. >>>>>
Of course, none of it with any substantial support from
phylogenetic systematics.
I don't believe that the South African origin is JTEM's belief. He
seems to be making fun of it. But you may be right about his other
hypothesis. It's so hard to tell.
The node that puts Sahelanthropus into the human lineage gets only
90% Bayesian support, which is very low, and the 77% for the
Pan/human node means it might as well be collapsed, leaving a
trichotomy for Gorilla/Pan/hominins.
Let's also throw in a little parsimony analysis (majority-rule
consensus tree from 10,000 pseudoreplicates, bootstrap support values
(%) given as Group-present/Contradicted (GC) frequencies:
https://ars.els-cdn.com/content/image/1-s2.0-S0047248423001161-gr3_lrg.jpg >>>
odd. How can the great ape node get only 2% bootstrap support? Was the
data set chosen so as to omit most of the character support? No, only
lots of conflict could give support that low, and there aren't enough
possible trees for a tree supported at only 2% to come out on top in a
majority rule consensus. Still, anything below 70% might as well be
collapsed, leaving a massive polytomy.
But notice how support for the great ape node in iteration 3 of the parsimony analysis changes to 98% when Papio and Colobus are removed and fossil taxa Victoriapithecus and Ekembo are retained as outgroup:
https://ars.els-cdn.com/content/image/1-s2.0-S0047248423001161-gr4_lrg.jpg
Now, how can that be?
Post et al. did three iterations using parsimony and three using
Bayesian Analysis. I've reproduced the figures from their table 2
(hoping it formats right in your reader), with iteration 1, 2, and 3 as column 1, 2, and 3 respectively:
Bootstrap support (%):
Pongo-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a 21-a-a 2-a 98
Gorilla-a-a-a-a-a-a-a 74-a 59-a 86
Pan-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a 41-a 40-a 52
S. tchadensis-a 30-a 32-a 31
A. ramidus-a-a-a-a 68-a 62-a 75
Au. anamensis-a 74-a 73-a 75
Au. afarensis-a 63-a 62-a 63
Bayesian posteriors (%):
Pongo-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a 100-a 97-a 80
Gorilla-a-a-a-a-a-a-a 93-a 96-a 98
Pan-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a 73-a 77-a 73
S. tchadensis-a 86-a 90-a 84
A. ramidus-a-a-a-a 80-a 80-a 81
Au. anamensis-a 95-a 94-a 93
Au. afarensis-a 97-a 97-a 97
What's your cut-off point (low vs high) with regard to posteriors in Bayesian analysis?
The Paranthropus node ("robust australopithecines" (not in the table))
gets persistently high support in both parsimony (never less than 96%)
and Bayesian analysis (always 100% posterior probability)
Op 05-08-2024 om 22:49 schreef John Harshman:
On 8/5/24 9:14 AM, Pandora wrote:
Op 05-08-2024 om 17:57 schreef John Harshman:Thanks. Notice how bad those bootstrap values are. But something seems
On 8/5/24 8:19 AM, Pandora wrote:
Op 05-08-2024 om 16:39 schreef John Harshman:
On 8/5/24 7:19 AM, Pandora wrote:
Op 04-08-2024 om 21:19 schreef JTEM:
-a-aPandora wrote:
Actually, there's more than one individual of this taxon, from >>>>>>>>> three different localities (TM 247, TM 266 and TM 292). This >>>>>>>>> additional material was announced in Nature in 2005:
Where are those localities?-a I just did an exhaustive 30 second >>>>>>>> search
and could only find an actual location associated with 266.
And, yes, I did search longer than 30 seconds but it wouldn't >>>>>>>> have been
nearly as funny if I offered a better time estimate...
If it doesn't exceed your attention span you can read the paper at: >>>>>>>
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/7920249
Anyway, the three Sahelanthropus sites are within an area of 0.73 >>>>>>> km2.
Not too far from where another hominin taxon, Australopithecus >>>>>>>>> bahrelghazali, was discovered in 1995.
That appears to be where the 266 was found.
No, the Toros-Menalla Sahelanthropus sites are about 150 km west >>>>>>> of the Koro-Toro australopithecine site and stratigraphically
~3.5 million years older.
If you think that's the wrong place you must have some concept >>>>>>>>> of what is the right place. Where would that be?
Well any other day of the week the clown act insists it's South >>>>>>>> Africa:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cradle_of_Humankind
I would have guessed that you knew.
But why do you think South-Africa is the right place?
The phylogenetically most basal and stratigraphically oldest
hominins are from East- and North-Africa.
See for example:
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhevol.2023.103437
Their Bayesian inference analysis, with posterior probabilities >>>>>>> for nodes given as percentages (fig.6):
https://ars.els-cdn.com/content/image/1-s2.0-S0047248423001161-gr6_lrg.jpg
That tree topology would refute your hypothesis.
To be fair, if those are Bayesian posteriors, many of them are
pretty bad. But what is JTEM's hypothesis?
That australopithecines are the ancestors of the African apes (Pan
and Gorilla) as suggested in this publication (see fig.3 on page 17): >>>>>
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/376650459
And apparently also that the human clade originated in South-Africa. >>>>>
Of course, none of it with any substantial support from
phylogenetic systematics.
I don't believe that the South African origin is JTEM's belief. He
seems to be making fun of it. But you may be right about his other
hypothesis. It's so hard to tell.
The node that puts Sahelanthropus into the human lineage gets only
90% Bayesian support, which is very low, and the 77% for the
Pan/human node means it might as well be collapsed, leaving a
trichotomy for Gorilla/Pan/hominins.
Let's also throw in a little parsimony analysis (majority-rule
consensus tree from 10,000 pseudoreplicates, bootstrap support values
(%) given as Group-present/Contradicted (GC) frequencies:
https://ars.els-cdn.com/content/image/1-s2.0-S0047248423001161-gr3_lrg.jpg >>>
odd. How can the great ape node get only 2% bootstrap support? Was the
data set chosen so as to omit most of the character support? No, only
lots of conflict could give support that low, and there aren't enough
possible trees for a tree supported at only 2% to come out on top in a
majority rule consensus. Still, anything below 70% might as well be
collapsed, leaving a massive polytomy.
But notice how support for the great ape node in iteration 3 of the parsimony analysis changes to 98% when Papio and Colobus are removed and fossil taxa Victoriapithecus and Ekembo are retained as outgroup:
https://ars.els-cdn.com/content/image/1-s2.0-S0047248423001161-gr4_lrg.jpg
Now, how can that be?
Post et al. did three iterations using parsimony and three using
Bayesian Analysis. I've reproduced the figures from their table 2
(hoping it formats right in your reader), with iteration 1, 2, and 3 as column 1, 2, and 3 respectively:
Bootstrap support (%):
Pongo-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a 21-a-a 2-a 98
Gorilla-a-a-a-a-a-a-a 74-a 59-a 86
Pan-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a 41-a 40-a 52
S. tchadensis-a 30-a 32-a 31
A. ramidus-a-a-a-a 68-a 62-a 75
Au. anamensis-a 74-a 73-a 75
Au. afarensis-a 63-a 62-a 63
Bayesian posteriors (%):
Pongo-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a 100-a 97-a 80
Gorilla-a-a-a-a-a-a-a 93-a 96-a 98
Pan-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a 73-a 77-a 73
S. tchadensis-a 86-a 90-a 84
A. ramidus-a-a-a-a 80-a 80-a 81
Au. anamensis-a 95-a 94-a 93
Au. afarensis-a 97-a 97-a 97
What's your cut-off point (low vs high) with regard to posteriors in Bayesian analysis?
The Paranthropus node ("robust australopithecines" (not in the table))
gets persistently high support in both parsimony (never less than 96%)
and Bayesian analysis (always 100% posterior probability)
Well
| Sysop: | Amessyroom |
|---|---|
| Location: | Fayetteville, NC |
| Users: | 65 |
| Nodes: | 6 (0 / 6) |
| Uptime: | 09:00:30 |
| Calls: | 862 |
| Files: | 1,311 |
| D/L today: |
2 files (6,679K bytes) |
| Messages: | 265,062 |
