The taxonomy of Sahelanthropus tchadensis from a craniometric perspective

[Primum Sapienti]

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. "

[Pandora]

Post by Primum Sapienti
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.

[Mikko]

Post by Pandora

Post by Primum Sapienti
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.

Perhaps the climat at the time of Sahelanthropus was closer to climat at
the time of early Homo than the climat between those times.

[Mario Petrinovic]

Post by Mikko

Post by Pandora

Post by Primum Sapienti
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.

Perhaps the climat at the time of Sahelanthropus was closer to climat at
the time of early Homo than the climat between those times.

My advice to you would be, if you want to understand the past,
whenever you see the world "climate", or "climate change", just stop
reading, and put this book/paper you are reading into garbage can.
Because, those who don't know anything, when they are asked to explain
something, they just use words "climate change". Climate changes every
year. Maybe not in Finland, but in my country (Croatia), we have warm
summers and cold winters. Look at that, "climate change".

[Mario Petrinovic]

Post by Mikko

Post by Pandora

Post by Primum Sapienti
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.

Perhaps the climat at the time of Sahelanthropus was closer to climat at
the time of early Homo than the climat between those times.

        My advice to you would be, if you want to understand the past,
whenever you see the world "climate", or "climate change", just stop
reading, and put this book/paper you are reading into garbage can.
Because, those who don't know anything, when they are asked to explain
something, they just use words "climate change". Climate changes every
year. Maybe not in Finland, but in my country (Croatia), we have warm
summers and cold winters. Look at that, "climate change".

And also, don't read "Molecular clock" estimations. Per Molecular
clock humans and chimps separated 4.5 mya, at the earliest. When you see
a paragraph in paper which talks about molecular clock estimations, just
skip it.
And there you have it, all the 21st century additions to scientific
thought, "climate change", "molecular clock", just forget it. Science
became a playground for retards, spreading their retarded ideas.

[Mikko]

Post by Mario Petrinovic

Post by Mikko

Post by Pandora

Post by Primum Sapienti
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.

Perhaps the climat at the time of Sahelanthropus was closer to climat at
the time of early Homo than the climat between those times.

My advice to you would be, if you want to understand the past,
whenever you see the world "climate", or "climate change", just stop
reading, and put this book/paper you are reading into garbage can.
Because, those who don't know anything, when they are asked to explain
something, they just use words "climate change". Climate changes every
year. Maybe not in Finland, but in my country (Croatia), we have warm
summers and cold winters. Look at that, "climate change".

That climate changes every year is a consequence of the practical definition
that climate is a 30 year average. But climate now differes from the climate
20 000 years ago by much more than the short term variations during the last
150 years covered by modern measurements, and the climate 2 million years
ago it differed even more.

[Mario Petrinovic]

Post by Mikko

Post by Mikko

Post by Pandora

Post by Primum Sapienti
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.

Perhaps the climat at the time of Sahelanthropus was closer to climat at
the time of early Homo than the climat between those times.

        My advice to you would be, if you want to understand the past,
whenever you see the world "climate", or "climate change", just stop
reading, and put this book/paper you are reading into garbage can.
Because, those who don't know anything, when they are asked to explain
something, they just use words "climate change". Climate changes every
year. Maybe not in Finland, but in my country (Croatia), we have warm
summers and cold winters. Look at that, "climate change".

That climate changes every year is a consequence of the practical definition
that climate is a 30 year average. But climate now differes from the climate
20 000 years ago by much more than the short term variations during the last
150 years covered by modern measurements, and the climate 2 million years
ago it differed even more.

Yes, I know exactly how was the climate when humans lived 20 kya, and
when humans lived 2 mya. I know that climate changes, and I also know
that the only thing that climate change isn't the only thing that
affects life. People mention climate change without even trying to
define how and why, they just say "climate change". This term is used
because it *can* be used as an explanation, the only problem is, is it
the valid explanation? Who is right, me, or somebody who has higher
degree than me? It could be that he is right, but why and how? Just
because of the higher degree? Hm, I see the lack of arguments here. And
this is especially wrong, if you do have arguments, but the prevailing
idea of people who don't have arguments is this only one idea. This is
why I said this to you, for whatever there is in our past, you will
always read the only one explanation, "climate change". This is the
standard explanation, easily "understood" by every idiot, so my
arguments cannot compete with something which every idiot 'understands".

[Mario Petrinovic]

Post by Mikko

Post by Mikko

Post by Pandora

Post by Primum Sapienti
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.

Perhaps the climat at the time of Sahelanthropus was closer to climat at
the time of early Homo than the climat between those times.

        My advice to you would be, if you want to understand the
past, whenever you see the world "climate", or "climate change", just
stop reading, and put this book/paper you are reading into garbage
can. Because, those who don't know anything, when they are asked to
explain something, they just use words "climate change". Climate
changes every year. Maybe not in Finland, but in my country
(Croatia), we have warm summers and cold winters. Look at that,
"climate change".

That climate changes every year is a consequence of the practical definition
that climate is a 30 year average. But climate now differes from the climate
20 000 years ago by much more than the short term variations during the last
150 years covered by modern measurements, and the climate 2 million years
ago it differed even more.

        Yes, I know exactly how was the climate when humans lived 20
kya, and when humans lived 2 mya. I know that climate changes, and I
also know that the only thing that climate change isn't the only thing
that affects life. People mention climate change without even trying to
define how and why, they just say "climate change". This term is used
because it *can* be used as an explanation, the only problem is, is it
the valid explanation? Who is right, me, or somebody who has higher
degree than me? It could be that he is right, but why and how? Just
because of the higher degree? Hm, I see the lack of arguments here. And
this is especially wrong, if you do have arguments, but the prevailing
idea of people who don't have arguments is this only one idea. This is
why I said this to you, for whatever there is in our past, you will
always read the only one explanation, "climate change". This is the
standard explanation, easily "understood" by every idiot, so my
arguments cannot compete with something which every idiot 'understands".

For example, I don't know if you know about "Vallesian crisis". This
is a major shift in characteristics of mammals on a large scale. The
explanation is, "climate change". But, how and why? You see, this
happens all over the Mediterranean, north and south, east and west,
every coast of Mediterranean is completely affected. Yet, the
Tusco-Sardinian island in the very middle of Mediterranean Sea isn't
affected at all. Only when it touches the mainland, only then it becomes
completely affected. I would say that this means that the change goes on
foot, not by air. Yet, I can talk about this for edges, "climate change"
will remain the accepted cause, because every idiot accepts this without
even thinking, and my argument demands the process of thinking.
Scientists didn't earn a degree by the way of thinking, but by the way
of memorizing. Good old copy-paste process.

[Mario Petrinovic]

Post by Mikko

Post by Mikko

Post by Pandora

Post by Primum Sapienti
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.

Perhaps the climat at the time of Sahelanthropus was closer to climat at
the time of early Homo than the climat between those times.

        My advice to you would be, if you want to understand the
past, whenever you see the world "climate", or "climate change",
just stop reading, and put this book/paper you are reading into
garbage can. Because, those who don't know anything, when they are
asked to explain something, they just use words "climate change".
Climate changes every year. Maybe not in Finland, but in my country
(Croatia), we have warm summers and cold winters. Look at that,
"climate change".

That climate changes every year is a consequence of the practical definition
that climate is a 30 year average. But climate now differes from the climate
20 000 years ago by much more than the short term variations during the last
150 years covered by modern measurements, and the climate 2 million years
ago it differed even more.

         Yes, I know exactly how was the climate when humans lived 20
kya, and when humans lived 2 mya. I know that climate changes, and I
also know that the only thing that climate change isn't the only thing
that affects life. People mention climate change without even trying
to define how and why, they just say "climate change". This term is
used because it *can* be used as an explanation, the only problem is,
is it the valid explanation? Who is right, me, or somebody who has
higher degree than me? It could be that he is right, but why and how?
Just because of the higher degree? Hm, I see the lack of arguments
here. And this is especially wrong, if you do have arguments, but the
prevailing idea of people who don't have arguments is this only one
idea. This is why I said this to you, for whatever there is in our
past, you will always read the only one explanation, "climate change".
This is the standard explanation, easily "understood" by every idiot,
so my arguments cannot compete with something which every idiot
'understands".

        For example, I don't know if you know about "Vallesian crisis".
This is a major shift in characteristics of mammals on a large scale.
The explanation is, "climate change". But, how and why? You see, this
happens all over the Mediterranean, north and south, east and west,
every coast of Mediterranean is completely affected. Yet, the
Tusco-Sardinian island in the very middle of Mediterranean Sea isn't
affected at all. Only when it touches the mainland, only then it becomes
completely affected. I would say that this means that the change goes on
foot, not by air. Yet, I can talk about this for edges, "climate change"
will remain the accepted cause, because every idiot accepts this without
even thinking, and my argument demands the process of thinking.
Scientists didn't earn a degree by the way of thinking, but by the way
of memorizing. Good old copy-paste process.

And, BTW, this period is extremely important for our evolution. You
know, we had Miocene apes. They all went extinct during Vallesian crisis
except us. We emerged out of Vallesian crisis.
Now, scientists know that fire is what made the change, and they think
that the source of that fire was so-called Monsoon climate. But why? And
how? Everybody neglects the solid fact that we are the species that live
in symbiosis with fire, and it is exactly this species that emerged out
of Vallesian crisis.
See, I gave you a ton of arguments, and what is the argument of
scientists? "Climate change", plain and simple. Circular argument. They
don't know why it happened. At first it was the rise of Himalayas, but
later it was found out that Himalayas raised later than this. Ok, no
argument for climate change, no evidence. To use Vallesian crisis as
"the evidence" is a circular thinking, like, Vallesian crisis is the
evidence that climate change causing Vallesian crisis happened, and this
is the only evidence. And that's it, goodbye. Nobody listens to real
arguments.

[JTEM]

        My advice to you would be, if you want to understand the past,
whenever you see the world "climate", or "climate change", just stop
reading, and put this book/paper you are reading into garbage can.

That's excellent advise. It automatically tells you that it's a
political piece and not science.

It's imposing today's political narrative onto the past.

Because, those who don't know anything, when they are asked to explain
something, they just use words "climate change".

I forget his name, and I'm too lazy to look but one man in a video I
cited talked about WEATHER as opposed to the climate. That, they
could see changes to the weather, most likely, from the evidence
retrieved at their digs, but to see changes to the CLIMATE they'd need
to see the same sort of evidence dug from around the world.

[Pandora]

Post by Mikko

Post by Pandora

Post by Primum Sapienti
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.

Perhaps the climat at the time of Sahelanthropus was closer to climat at
the time of early Homo than the climat between those times.

        My advice to you would be, if you want to understand the past,
whenever you see the world "climate", or "climate change", just stop
reading, and put this book/paper you are reading into garbage can.
Because, those who don't know anything, when they are asked to explain
something, they just use words "climate change". Climate changes every
year. Maybe not in Finland, but in my country (Croatia), we have warm
summers and cold winters. Look at that, "climate change".

Climate change refers to long term changes in averages, such as
temperature, locally or globally, with regard to some reference period
(e.g. 1850-1900):

Loading Image...

Of course climate is an important aspect of the ecology of an organism.
That's why a chimp can't live in the arctic and a polar bear can't
survive in the tropics. When local climate changes, species have to
adapt, move, or go extinct.
That's why we have ecogeographic rules such as Allen's rule and
Bergmann's rule:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allen%27s_rule
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bergmann%27s_rule

That's what's happening as a result of global warming.
See for example:

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/ele.13434

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2023.109911

[Pandora]

Post by Pandora

Post by Mikko

Post by Pandora

Post by Primum Sapienti
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.

Perhaps the climat at the time of Sahelanthropus was closer to climat at
the time of early Homo than the climat between those times.

         My advice to you would be, if you want to understand the
past, whenever you see the world "climate", or "climate change", just
stop reading, and put this book/paper you are reading into garbage
can. Because, those who don't know anything, when they are asked to
explain something, they just use words "climate change". Climate
changes every year. Maybe not in Finland, but in my country (Croatia),
we have warm summers and cold winters. Look at that, "climate change".

Climate change refers to long term changes in averages, such as
temperature, locally or globally, with regard to some reference period
https://www.carbonbrief.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/07/daily-average-heatmap-2024-07.png
Of course climate is an important aspect of the ecology of an organism.
That's why a chimp can't live in the arctic and a polar bear can't
survive in the tropics. When local climate changes, species have to
adapt, move, or go extinct.
That's why we have ecogeographic rules such as Allen's rule and
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allen%27s_rule
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bergmann%27s_rule
That's what's happening as a result of global warming.
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/ele.13434
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2023.109911

With regard to the climate niche of Homo sapiens this paper might also
be of interest:

https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1910114117

[JTEM]

Post by Pandora
Climate change refers to

If you are claiming here, if you actually are daring to "Argue"
that the term "Climate Change" isn't triggering, that it hasn't
been hammered into the skulls of generations at this point,
that it isn't always a very bad thing and by using it here it's
affirming the brainwashing then you're either dumber than I have
previously described Out of Africa purists or you're trolling.

[JTEM]

Post by Mikko
Perhaps the climat at the time of Sahelanthropus was closer to climat at
the time of early Homo than the climat between those times.

When did the desert form?

The Sahara just plain isn't that old.

[JTEM]

Post by Pandora
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.

[Pandora]

Post by JTEM

Post by Pandora
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?

[Mario Petrinovic]

Post by Pandora

Post by JTEM

Post by Pandora
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
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?

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.

[Pandora]

Post by Pandora

Post by JTEM

Post by Pandora
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
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?

        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

[Mario Petrinovic]

Post by Pandora

Post by Pandora

Post by JTEM

Post by Pandora
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
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?

         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
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

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.

[Mario Petrinovic]

Post by Pandora

Post by Pandora

Post by JTEM

Post by Pandora
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
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?

         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
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

        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.

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.

[Mario Petrinovic]

Post by Pandora

Post by Pandora

Post by JTEM

Post by Pandora
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
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?

         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
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

         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.

        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.

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.

[Mario Petrinovic]

Post by Pandora

Post by Pandora

Post by JTEM

Post by Pandora
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
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?

         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
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

         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.

         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.

        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.

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):

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.

[Mario Petrinovic]

Post by Pandora

Post by Pandora

Post by JTEM

Post by Pandora
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
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?

         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
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

         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.

         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.

         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.

        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
http://youtu.be/0QVPUIRGthI
        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.

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.
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
Like I am living in 15th century, for gods sake.

[John Harshman]

Post by Pandora

Post by Pandora

Post by JTEM

Post by Pandora
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
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?

         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
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

         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.

         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.

         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.

         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
http://youtu.be/0QVPUIRGthI
         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.

        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.
        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
        Like I am living in 15th century, for gods sake.

Don't be shy. Just say what you mean. Preferably in a single post.

[Mario Petrinovic]

Post by John Harshman

Post by Pandora

Post by Pandora

Post by JTEM

Post by Pandora
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
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?

         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
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

         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.

         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.

         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.

         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
http://youtu.be/0QVPUIRGthI
         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.

         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.
         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
         Like I am living in 15th century, for gods sake.

Don't be shy. Just say what you mean. Preferably in a single post.

Well, this is how I work, I cannot work any other way, :) . Besides,
it is so hard to explain something which isn't standard. For people who
follow standard views it is easy, they just hint onto something with two
words (like "climate change"), and everything is "understandable" to
everybody. But, whoever wants to show that those two words are just a
BS, well, he has a hard time. first, there is no vocabulary already set
for him, secondly, nobody believes him.

[Mario Petrinovic]

Post by John Harshman
Don't be shy. Just say what you mean. Preferably in a single post.

While we are at that, I will not be shy and I will ask you a question
I always wanted to clear it up.
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?

[John Harshman]

Post by John Harshman
Don't be shy. Just say what you mean. Preferably in a single post.

        While we are at that, I will not be shy and I will ask you a
question I always wanted to clear it up.
        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.

[Mario Petrinovic]

Post by John Harshman

Post by John Harshman
Don't be shy. Just say what you mean. Preferably in a single post.

         While we are at that, I will not be shy and I will ask you a
question I always wanted to clear it up.
         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.

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.
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.
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.
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.
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.

[Mario Petrinovic]

Post by John Harshman

Post by John Harshman
Don't be shy. Just say what you mean. Preferably in a single post.

         While we are at that, I will not be shy and I will ask you a
question I always wanted to clear it up.
         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.

        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.
        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.
        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.
        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.
        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.

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.
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.

[John Harshman]

Post by John Harshman

Post by John Harshman
Don't be shy. Just say what you mean. Preferably in a single post.

         While we are at that, I will not be shy and I will ask you
a question I always wanted to clear it up.
         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.

         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.
         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.
         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.
         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.
         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.

        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.
        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?

[Mario Petrinovic]

Post by John Harshman

Post by John Harshman

Post by John Harshman
Don't be shy. Just say what you mean. Preferably in a single post.

         While we are at that, I will not be shy and I will ask you
a question I always wanted to clear it up.
         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.

         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.
         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.
         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.
         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.
         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.

         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?

I am just contemplating this.

Post by John Harshman

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.
         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?

Who is it? Gregor Mendel and his followers.
Why am I so arrogant? Because I am 62.

[John Harshman]

Post by John Harshman

Post by John Harshman

Post by John Harshman
Don't be shy. Just say what you mean. Preferably in a single post.

         While we are at that, I will not be shy and I will ask
you a question I always wanted to clear it up.
         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.

         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.
         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.
         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.
         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.
         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.

         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?

        I am just contemplating this.

Post by John Harshman

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.
         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?

        Who is it? Gregor Mendel and his followers.
        Why am I so arrogant? Because I am 62.

Gregor Mendel is way older than you, so should be even more arrogant.

[Mario Petrinovic]

Post by John Harshman

Post by John Harshman

Post by John Harshman

Post by John Harshman
Don't be shy. Just say what you mean. Preferably in a single post.

         While we are at that, I will not be shy and I will ask
you a question I always wanted to clear it up.
         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.

         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.
         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.
         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.
         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.
         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.

         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?

         I am just contemplating this.

Post by John Harshman

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.
         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?

         Who is it? Gregor Mendel and his followers.
         Why am I so arrogant? Because I am 62.

Gregor Mendel is way older than you, so should be even more arrogant.

Gregor Mendel is idiot and liar.

[John Harshman]

Post by John Harshman

Post by John Harshman

Post by John Harshman

Post by John Harshman
Don't be shy. Just say what you mean. Preferably in a single post.

         While we are at that, I will not be shy and I will ask
you a question I always wanted to clear it up.
         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.

         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.
         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.
         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.
         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.
         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.

         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?

         I am just contemplating this.

Post by John Harshman

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.
         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?

         Who is it? Gregor Mendel and his followers.
         Why am I so arrogant? Because I am 62.

Gregor Mendel is way older than you, so should be even more arrogant.

        Gregor Mendel is idiot and liar.

Say what now?

[Pandora]

Post by John Harshman

         Gregor Mendel is idiot and liar.

Say what now?

Can't argue with that.
He's got you in a corner, John.

[Mario Petrinovic]

Post by Pandora

Post by John Harshman

         Gregor Mendel is idiot and liar.

Say what now?

Can't argue with that.
He's got you in a corner, John.

I always do that, :) .

[Mario Petrinovic]

Post by John Harshman

Post by John Harshman

Post by John Harshman

Post by John Harshman

Post by John Harshman
Don't be shy. Just say what you mean. Preferably in a single post.

         While we are at that, I will not be shy and I will ask
you a question I always wanted to clear it up.
         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.

         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.
         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.
         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.
         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.
         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.

         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?

         I am just contemplating this.

Post by John Harshman

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.
         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?

         Who is it? Gregor Mendel and his followers.
         Why am I so arrogant? Because I am 62.

Gregor Mendel is way older than you, so should be even more arrogant.

         Gregor Mendel is idiot and liar.

Say what now?

I won't?

[John Harshman]

Post by John Harshman

Post by John Harshman
Don't be shy. Just say what you mean. Preferably in a single post.

         While we are at that, I will not be shy and I will ask you a
question I always wanted to clear it up.
         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.

        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.

        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?

        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.
        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.
        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.

[Mario Petrinovic]

Post by John Harshman

Post by John Harshman

Post by John Harshman
Don't be shy. Just say what you mean. Preferably in a single post.

         While we are at that, I will not be shy and I will ask you
a question I always wanted to clear it up.
         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.

         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.

The definition implies less diversity for less prosperous situation. I
would say that India has more prosperous situation than Africa.

Post by John Harshman

         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?

I read what you say, if this is the right meaning for what I am doing,
don't worry about it.

Post by John Harshman

         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.
         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.
         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.

[John Harshman]

Post by John Harshman

Post by John Harshman

Post by John Harshman
Don't be shy. Just say what you mean. Preferably in a single post.

         While we are at that, I will not be shy and I will ask you
a question I always wanted to clear it up.
         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.

         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.

        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.

Post by John Harshman

         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?

        I read what you say, if this is the right meaning for what I am
doing, don't worry about it.

???

Post by John Harshman

         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.
         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.
         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.

[Mario Petrinovic]

Post by John Harshman

Post by John Harshman

Post by John Harshman

Post by John Harshman
Don't be shy. Just say what you mean. Preferably in a single post.

         While we are at that, I will not be shy and I will ask
you a question I always wanted to clear it up.
         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.

         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.

         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.

Post by John Harshman

         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?

         I read what you say, if this is the right meaning for what I
am doing, don't worry about it.

???

??? Yes, I do read you.

Post by John Harshman

Post by John Harshman

         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.
         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.
         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.

[JTEM]

        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.

[Mario Petrinovic]

Post by JTEM

         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.

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]

Post by JTEM

         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.

        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.

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.

[JTEM]

         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.

        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.

[John Harshman]

Post by JTEM

         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.

         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,
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. Nor is your account very coherent. Still, I agree that you're a
lazy fuck, too lazy to present a coherent, supported account.

[JTEM]

Post by John Harshman
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

: No, actually, it failed to address the question. That is the
: inescapable fact that you have repeatedly managed to escape.
: The "evidence" does not apply to the question. It is "evidence,"
: yes, but not evidence for or against interbreeding. As Wilson
: & Cann demonstrated (and the entire frigging scientific community
: appears to have validated), the results of the testing are not
: inconsistent with interbreeding. They are not. In fact, they
: pretty much mirror the assumptions of the competing Out-Of
: 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.

[John Harshman]

Post by JTEM

Post by John Harshman
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.
https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/6THXu66Nn0g/m/j1xFyF4e6gsJ
:  No, actually, it failed to address the question. That is the
:  inescapable fact that you have repeatedly managed to escape.
:  The "evidence" does not apply to the question. It is "evidence,"
:  yes, but not evidence for or against interbreeding. As Wilson
:  & Cann demonstrated (and the entire frigging scientific community
:  appears to have validated), the results of the testing are not
:  inconsistent with interbreeding. They are not. In fact, they
:  pretty much mirror the assumptions of the competing Out-Of
:  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.

No, that was Chris Ho-Stuart, as you could easily have seen. Still, I
agree with what he said. Can we agree (he said, dubiously) that the
question of whether Neandertals and modern humans interbred is separate
from the question of whether they were different species? Different
species hybridize all the time, and if they don't hybridize very much,
so that there's no joining of populations and not much introgression, we
still call them separate. The mtDNA data, as well as almost all the
nuclear genomic data, show a separation of over 700,000 years. Most of
us have a little bit of Neandertal DNA, but only a little bit. Doesn't
take much hybridization for that.

Post by JTEM
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

Let's try for a coherent discussion. Start with a complete reference:
year, title, journal, volume, pages. Then an argument about what the
reference shows.

Post by JTEM
A worthless piece of shit like you should even be able to handle
it... properly medicated, of course.

The personal insults just get in the way of any argument you might be
trying to make, and of course so do all the snips.

[JTEM]

Post by John Harshman
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."

[John Harshman]

Post by JTEM

Post by John Harshman
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.

Nevertheless, it was Chris Ho-Stuart you were responding to in the post
you just quoted. And I see that now, rather than reply to me, you are
just snipping everything and launching into a stream of insults. So much
for argument.

Post by JTEM
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."

[JTEM]

Post by John Harshman

Post by JTEM
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.

[John Harshman]

Post by JTEM

Post by John Harshman

Post by JTEM
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 what your argument is supposed to be here, but it appears
to assume facts not in evidence. How about actually trying to make some
kind of point explicitly and clearly? I mean some point other than
"you're an idiot".

Let's try again. Here's your quote:

: No, actually, it failed to address the question. That is the
: inescapable fact that you have repeatedly managed to escape.
: The "evidence" does not apply to the question. It is "evidence,"
: yes, but not evidence for or against interbreeding. As Wilson
: & Cann demonstrated (and the entire frigging scientific community
: appears to have validated), the results of the testing are not
: inconsistent with interbreeding. They are not. In fact, they
: pretty much mirror the assumptions of the competing Out-Of
: Africa/Replacement fans.

What is a complete citation for Wilson & Cann? What does it show, and
how? How does it support your point, and what is your point?

[JTEM]

Post by John Harshman
I have no idea

No you don't. You're far too mentally ill.

You're a pussy and you got caught. Again.

[John Harshman]

Post by JTEM

Post by John Harshman
I have no idea

No you don't. You're far too mentally ill.
You're a pussy and you got caught. Again.

Well, so much for that.

[JTEM]

Well

You got caught. And instead of admitting anything you doubled
down on your idiocy, as you always do. And I called you on it.

[JTEM]

Post by Pandora
Actually, there's more than one individual of this taxon, from three
different localities (TM 247, TM 266 and TM 292). This additional

Where are those localities? 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...

Post by Pandora
Not too far from where another hominin taxon, Australopithecus
bahrelghazali, was discovered in 1995.

That appears to be where the 266 was found.

Post by Pandora
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.

[Pandora]

Post by Pandora
Actually, there's more than one individual of this taxon, from three
different localities (TM 247, TM 266 and TM 292). This additional

Where are those localities?  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.

Post by Pandora
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.

Post by Pandora
If you think that's the wrong place you must have some concept of what
is the right place. Where would that be?

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):

Loading Image...

That tree topology would refute your hypothesis.

[John Harshman]

Post by Pandora

Post by Pandora
Actually, there's more than one individual of this taxon, from three
different localities (TM 247, TM 266 and TM 292). This additional

Where are those localities?  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...

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/7920249
Anyway, the three Sahelanthropus sites are within an area of 0.73 km2.

Post by Pandora
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.

Post by Pandora
If you think that's the wrong place you must have some concept of
what is the right place. Where would that be?

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.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhevol.2023.103437
Their Bayesian inference analysis, with posterior probabilities for
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?

[Pandora]

Post by John Harshman

Post by Pandora

Post by Pandora
Actually, there's more than one individual of this taxon, from three
different localities (TM 247, TM 266 and TM 292). This additional

Where are those localities?  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...

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/7920249
Anyway, the three Sahelanthropus sites are within an area of 0.73 km2.

Post by Pandora
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.

Post by Pandora
If you think that's the wrong place you must have some concept of
what is the right place. Where would that be?

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.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhevol.2023.103437
Their Bayesian inference analysis, with posterior probabilities for
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.

[John Harshman]

Post by Pandora

Post by John Harshman

Post by Pandora

Post by Pandora
Actually, there's more than one individual of this taxon, from
three different localities (TM 247, TM 266 and TM 292). This

Where are those localities?  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...

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/7920249
Anyway, the three Sahelanthropus sites are within an area of 0.73 km2.

Post by Pandora
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.

Post by Pandora
If you think that's the wrong place you must have some concept of
what is the right place. Where would that be?

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.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhevol.2023.103437
Their Bayesian inference analysis, with posterior probabilities for
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
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.

[Pandora]

Post by John Harshman

Post by Pandora

Post by John Harshman

Post by Pandora

Post by Pandora
Actually, there's more than one individual of this taxon, from
three different localities (TM 247, TM 266 and TM 292). This

Where are those localities?  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...

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/7920249
Anyway, the three Sahelanthropus sites are within an area of 0.73 km2.

Post by Pandora
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.

Post by Pandora
If you think that's the wrong place you must have some concept of
what is the right place. Where would that be?

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.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhevol.2023.103437
Their Bayesian inference analysis, with posterior probabilities for
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
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:

Loading Image...

[John Harshman]

Post by Pandora

Post by John Harshman

Post by Pandora

Post by John Harshman

Post by Pandora

Post by Pandora
Actually, there's more than one individual of this taxon, from
three different localities (TM 247, TM 266 and TM 292). This

Where are those localities?  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...

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/7920249
Anyway, the three Sahelanthropus sites are within an area of 0.73 km2.

Post by Pandora
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.

Post by Pandora
If you think that's the wrong place you must have some concept of
what is the right place. Where would that be?

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.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhevol.2023.103437
Their Bayesian inference analysis, with posterior probabilities for
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
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
https://ars.els-cdn.com/content/image/1-s2.0-S0047248423001161-gr3_lrg.jpg

Thanks. Notice how bad those bootstrap values are. But something seems
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.

[Pandora]

Post by John Harshman

Post by Pandora

Post by John Harshman

Post by Pandora

Post by John Harshman

Post by Pandora

Post by Pandora
Actually, there's more than one individual of this taxon, from
three different localities (TM 247, TM 266 and TM 292). This

Where are those localities?  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...

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/7920249
Anyway, the three Sahelanthropus sites are within an area of 0.73 km2.

Post by Pandora
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.

Post by Pandora
If you think that's the wrong place you must have some concept
of what is the right place. Where would that be?

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.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhevol.2023.103437
Their Bayesian inference analysis, with posterior probabilities
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
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
https://ars.els-cdn.com/content/image/1-s2.0-S0047248423001161-gr3_lrg.jpg

Thanks. Notice how bad those bootstrap values are. But something seems
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:

Loading Image...

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 21 2 98
Gorilla 74 59 86
Pan 41 40 52
S. tchadensis 30 32 31
A. ramidus 68 62 75
Au. anamensis 74 73 75
Au. afarensis 63 62 63

Bayesian posteriors (%):

Pongo 100 97 80
Gorilla 93 96 98
Pan 73 77 73
S. tchadensis 86 90 84
A. ramidus 80 80 81
Au. anamensis 95 94 93
Au. afarensis 97 97 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)

[John Harshman]

Post by Pandora

Post by John Harshman

Post by Pandora

Post by John Harshman

Post by Pandora

Post by John Harshman

Post by Pandora

Post by Pandora
Actually, there's more than one individual of this taxon, from
three different localities (TM 247, TM 266 and TM 292). This

Where are those localities?  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...

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/7920249
Anyway, the three Sahelanthropus sites are within an area of 0.73 km2.

Post by Pandora
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.

Post by Pandora
If you think that's the wrong place you must have some concept
of what is the right place. Where would that be?

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.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhevol.2023.103437
Their Bayesian inference analysis, with posterior probabilities
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
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
https://ars.els-cdn.com/content/image/1-s2.0-S0047248423001161-gr3_lrg.jpg

Thanks. Notice how bad those bootstrap values are. But something seems
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
https://ars.els-cdn.com/content/image/1-s2.0-S0047248423001161-gr4_lrg.jpg
Now, how can that be?

I can't see how that would work. Again, it doesn't seem possible that a
node supported in only 2% of bootstrap replicates could be the leader in
any bootstrap consensus, no matter the data. And changing from 2 to 98?
What possible conflict could produce such a result? Something very odd
is happening.

Post by Pandora
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
Pongo          21   2  98
Gorilla        74  59  86
Pan            41  40  52
S. tchadensis  30  32  31
A. ramidus     68  62  75
Au. anamensis  74  73  75
Au. afarensis  63  62  63
Pongo         100  97  80
Gorilla        93  96  98
Pan            73  77  73
S. tchadensis  86  90  84
A. ramidus     80  80  81
Au. anamensis  95  94  93
Au. afarensis  97  97  97
What's your cut-off point (low vs high) with regard to posteriors in
Bayesian analysis?

There can't be an absolute cutoff point, but based purely on my
experience I would consider anything less than 90% to be garbage and
less than 95% dubious. Then again, maybe analyses have improved
recently, perhaps there is better mixing than in the past, and maybe
morphological analyses are different. The Bayesian posteriors change
much less among iterations than do the bootstraps. Is that a good thing
or a bad thing?

Post by Pandora
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)

Yes, I noticed that was one of the few consistently supported nodes.

[John Harshman]

Post by Pandora

Post by John Harshman

Post by Pandora

Post by John Harshman

Post by Pandora

Post by John Harshman

Post by Pandora

Post by Pandora
Actually, there's more than one individual of this taxon, from
three different localities (TM 247, TM 266 and TM 292). This

Where are those localities?  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...

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/7920249
Anyway, the three Sahelanthropus sites are within an area of 0.73 km2.

Post by Pandora
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.

Post by Pandora
If you think that's the wrong place you must have some concept
of what is the right place. Where would that be?

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.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhevol.2023.103437
Their Bayesian inference analysis, with posterior probabilities
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
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
https://ars.els-cdn.com/content/image/1-s2.0-S0047248423001161-gr3_lrg.jpg

Thanks. Notice how bad those bootstrap values are. But something seems
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
https://ars.els-cdn.com/content/image/1-s2.0-S0047248423001161-gr4_lrg.jpg

I also notice that in that analysis that the region close to Homo
entirely collapses, with the exception of Paranthropus and the H.
sapiens/rudolfensis node. How can the outgroup matter that much?

Post by Pandora
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
Pongo          21   2  98
Gorilla        74  59  86
Pan            41  40  52
S. tchadensis  30  32  31
A. ramidus     68  62  75
Au. anamensis  74  73  75
Au. afarensis  63  62  63
Pongo         100  97  80
Gorilla        93  96  98
Pan            73  77  73
S. tchadensis  86  90  84
A. ramidus     80  80  81
Au. anamensis  95  94  93
Au. afarensis  97  97  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)

[JTEM]

Post by Pandora

Post by 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

That would be the good Doctor's position. I speak of models, not
specific species. The good Doctor's model is quite good, and I do
favor it, though I'm a great deal less linear than even him.

Post by Pandora
And apparently also that the human clade originated in South-Africa.

Lol! You're an idiot!

[JTEM]

So you have no idea. Why don't you just admit it?

Post by Pandora
Anyway, the three Sahelanthropus sites are within an area of 0.73 km2.

And then...

Post by Pandora
No, the Toros-Menalla Sahelanthropus sites are about 150 km west of the
Koro-Toro australopithecine site and stratigraphically ~3.5 million
years older.

So when you say 0.73 you mean 150?

You do realize that you're off by more than 2000%. Right?

Post by Pandora
But why do you think South-Africa is the right place?

I never said it was. I've often pointed out the fact that by "Origins"
I mean an environment and not GPS coordinates.

NOTE: You are attributing the established mainstream to me even as
you defend that mainstream and attack me!

Science is consistent, you're an idiot.