PB666

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dilithium In later Star Trek it would be meta-Francium. You can't really compare Star Trek tech with Gravity. Star Trek was completed before there was an ISS and a man on the moon. If we don't forget many of the plot devices now have real world analogs.

Actually it didn't land the rocket, it watered it.

Dogs talk to you in their tongue, we mostly don't understand what they are saying. Human are very sight and sound oriented. Dogs are used to communication by action, smell and touching. Dogs of course cannot speak or speak in any kind of complex language. Have you ever notice that if you do something your dog does not expect, it often shakes its head, like its trying to throw off fleas or get water out of its ears . . .rotating head in brief two part motion = "what?" or "what happened?" or "Why did you do that?". Thats a reaction. They do it in the same way that people fiddle with their brow when someone does something unexpected. An action is, for example you scold your dog for doing something the dog doesn't think is wrong, it may go to someone else in the family and make a lowish-tone howl-bark, thats an action "He/she was mean to me, I was wronged". Its the equivalent on someone cursing after someone did something bad to them. Different ways of complaining mean different things, one complaint means feed me, and other one means 'Im bored lets do something'. Dogs actually have a better understanding of our language than we do of there's. Complex grammar and communication require facilities within the brain to create logic, in human the areas involved in tool construction and building are located proximal, the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Broca's_area These areas are larger in human per lean body mass relative to any other species on the planet. Just about all hominims after homo erectus show some enlargement of the calvaria in this area. This indicates and increased facility for complex language, the prefrontal areas of the brain assist in this function. You dog, it it had cranial implants, would never design a Saturn V rocket, it might show you how to pick spots to bury a bone in your yard or spot is would like to mark around your neighborhood.

What? You mean we are not going to have 4 or 5 pages and a new thread created to describe the mysterious disappearance of a spy satellite that the government really doesn't want anyone know where it is. How can you be sure it went smoothly . . . .that's CIA, KGB . . .fake news . . . .? I suppose I should put a smiley face on here somewhere . . . .

You can have quantum teleportation, but you would have a computer larger than the Enterprise to do it. The problem quantum teleportation is that you have to have a device, a computer on both ends, not just to destroy the original copy, but you also have to provide the matter that has been teleported. So basically you cannot teleport to a hole inside a planet. Nor can you do a cryptic teleport to another ship (say a klingon ship in the The Search for Spock). The second point is that teleporting someone is essentially violating two laws, you can't kill someone or assist in their suicide, and you can't clone someone. So lets say your transporter fails, you just murdered someone. And there is nothing to stop me from making two or three clones (although QM prevents this you could make two slightly lower resolution, but in the case of molecular assemblies if you had the resolution to build a clone to begin with you are working at the 10-13 meter level anyway. So you could basically get some of the information and then get some more information. You must kill the original copy, but once they are in the pattern buffer you could make 10 captain kirks and 10 spocks.

I need to make one defense for Star Trek (series 1). In 1967 (51 years ago if you are counting) certain idiosyncrasies in QM had not been fully worked out, there were still some deviations in the equations used for QED just 15 years previous. It might not, in the context of 1960s physics, be wrong to suggest FTL travel or time travel as a plausibility. For 1967 the time traveling episode would have been much less of a violation of what was plausible versus SG1 series or series later (like Star Trek Voyager) that use worm holes.

Salt water will not damage a rocket that is going to be recycled for scrap. Not over a few day period

no yes

Oh man, that one hurts, . . . . . . "I'm endeavouring, Ma'am, to construct a mnemonic memory circuit using stone-knives and bear-skins." Spock to Edith Keeler,[in "The City On the Edge of Forever"]. What geek doesn't remember that.

Because space is harsh, its not touchy-feely or the place to take your kids on a picnic. If anything shows from the first series to 'reach out and explore' is very dangerous for the new 'guy' on the set (although they do seem to recycle the guy who dies over an over again in different roles). Its stupid (looking at TNG) to have living quarters the size of a basketball course when you are pressing the laws of physics beyond the extreme. And android does not a room, all he needs is a tube to slide into that has something he can plug into. Doesn't even need a video screen. BTW, when you had kids in the first series, invariably they were doing very bad things. If you have kids on an interstellar ship, you are not going to announce your presence to anyone.

Well for that matter if star fleet in the 27th century can go back in time to tell Enterprise how to fight the Zendi, how come they can go back and time and remove all the spatial-distortion orbs from Zendi space that started the whole phenomena. If you can truly go back in time you say go to Newton and explain to him that the speed of light is constant and the geometry of space and time is not. HHGTTH got it right though, if you have ultimate time travel capability, you go back to the beginning of the Universe, get rid of the quantum space-time instability, and the universe never occurs. The ultimate paradox. If time travel was possible anywhere in the universe, someone nefarious disgruntled postal worker in the time travelers mail room would have already done this, and we wouldn't be here talking about it . . . . .unless we are the first. Worse than that I don't see any real difference in SG1 between a Zero-point Energy device and Infinite energy density, why shouldn't I be able to create a quantum singularity. I should be able to spawn a universe with the device.

If antimatter represents a collection of vectors that are orthogonal to matter, then red matter's are orthogonal to both, and green matter's is also orthogonal to red matter, antimatter and matter. And then if you combine red matter and green matter you get dark matter. If you combine antimatter and matter you get an explosion (white energy). There I explained it. ROFL See with quantum mechanics an n-dimensional states you can create any excrement and make it fly the number of possible complex vectors you can use is infinite. Here: δ(x-y) = 0 at all values except when x = y and at x=y the [integral of δ(x-y) over x=y] = 1. That means the difference between x-y =0 and the amplitude at x=y is infinity. This idea is the reasoning behind heisenberg uncertainty, the momentum of a particle is a continuous function and the position of a particle is infinitely discrete, bam and you have infinity x zero = 1. This goes on until someone comes up and tells you something is missing. For example, "Oh Mr. Newton can you explain to me how gravity is pulling that apple to the Earth, what is the description of the demon that is pulling it". And despite all his calculus and math he could not describe the demon. Nor could he describe why light shot strait down at a piece of glass always reflects a tiny bit of light, or the banding pattern when looking. So finally you get to the point where you've created a whole new type of math and physics and you can explain everything (i.e. the theory of everything) and if the math allows it, it can happen, and if the math doesn't you create imaginary elements and vectors and matrices, and then if that does not explain it then it cannot exist. What I found true with modern physics is that you see a behavior and you create something mathematical that explains, and if that doesn't work well enough you create some that violates mathematics. For example you create Zero, then negative numbers, then imaginary numbers. Then imaginary dimensions, and if you create enough of these imaginary things you can explain anything, and then you can say 'we never seen any phenomena that violates it'. So what they are missing is the description are is a set of imaginary vectors that when added to current QM explains 'red matter'. Thats all they need. Oh I forgot to add, red matter combined with green matter is always dark. You have to capture dark matter with quantum space time and at certain density red matter and green matter will separate, at which point you can collect the red matter and use it to coerce other forms of matter, like hydrogen in space. How about that psuedoscience technobabble. does it make anyone actually feel better.

Star Trek FG - like, its got nostalgic value Lost in Space - a space comedy if you get into that angle, otherwise awful, without Dr. Smith it would have been complete garbage. Barbarella - Really liked and disliked. Jane Fonda still looks good at 80. Who would ever have thought to put a deep shag carpet as the crew quarter in a space ship. Star Wars - Mostly like, novelty. Star Trek Movie - Mostly dislike, cool graphics in many places Star Wars Empire strikes back - Nah, I really started cooling on the whole franchise Star Trek, Wrath of Khan - Like, but Shattner goes into his overacting phase of his career. This was the epitome of the FG Star Trek, NG - parts I like and dislike, like Troy, Giordi, Data, Worf - the ship is too cushy. I like the Borg they are cool, the Borg ships are cool, the new enterprise not so cool. DS9 - same as NG Voyager - too touchy-feely. Would have liked it better if 7o9 became captain force everyone to wear implants. Enterprise - Best series in the franchise they draw out stories over many episodes, right now Im wathcing the Vulcan episodes (4 part). Like the ship. Discovery - From what I have seen I like. Recent Star Trek movies - Too much SE no good plots (no one can replace Nemoy as Spock) Also too much boom and bang. In space there is no sound. Original Martian - Nope HHGTG - Rocks! I like the guy who plays, whats his name Smaryfartbast or something, funny. Dune - didn't like Interstellar - refuse to watch SG1 - OK SG1-series- LIke, mostly except the last 2 seasons. later SG Movies - Thumbs down. Battlestar Gallactica (original) - when it came out i liked, but its too much period cast and so its loses its appeal over time. SG-Universe - like but they cancelled it, didn't get into some of the touchy-feely stuff. Really liked the ship and the basic story line. What I didn't like is the time it took to cross between two galaxies (too short). Martian (recent) - refuse to watch Red Dwarf - Its the kind of show you can get into watching at 1 am in the morning and want to go to sleep, sort of Nostaligic. Doctor Who - dislike (seriously spend a bit more money on special effects - using an upside down garbage can as the main villian across several series, silly) Original HHGTH series - OK. Forgot to add B5 - like, the plot, also liked the first captain, sorry had to leave. B5 movies mostly liked.

I can't watch Star Wars, to get into the plot line you have to forget about the filmography, and it's just such a violation of the law of physics it stays in my head the entire movie.

The hydrogen from space tends to blacken the surface. micrometeorite impacts. Apollo 11's tanks were nearly expended, so not to much there. Chemicals are nasty to humans and the environment, metals, I don't think there is a problem.

Big earth killing asteroids or Wall-E pollution make nice excuses for launching people into space. BTW, I would not make too much fun of sci-fantasy . . . . . . . . I mean if we whack all future tech off at the knees, then eventually we're a space-faring civilization that never finds a way to leave the solar system

Nah, if you manage to plan your launch sit on Earth carefully when you go to Mars your landing site would be matched up, begin the counter burn early enough and allow extra acceleration for the land. Again this is ludicrous because there is no human that can survive 4 g acceleration for a day (unless they were inside of some kind of rotating device, the blood cells would start to settle out in the peripheral circulatory system.) and there is no current source of power that could do this, its a fantasy but relativistic. To travel at ~0.9c you need 1 g of acceleration for 1 year. This is only 1/100th of that level of acceleration.

Oh I'm glad you brought the topic up. That's not actually the chronology. In 1997 krings et al published the HVR1 regions (partially truncated). I was there then, I had analyzed the sequence practically before the paper copy was published ( I was at the time doing mtDNA analysis on human HVR1 and actually I have a completely alligned list now of 50 or so mammalian mtDNA, it clocks the mdts between two sequences). It was a spectacular accomplishment, but as with any spectacular accomplishment there were flaws. Paabo later talks about he avoided the problem of cytosine deamination while others were not so lucky. This is not true actually, when I examined the sequence I found an excess of T-T in the sequence which were at unexpected sites, these were likely flaws. And in the later mt genome sequence these were removed ( I have all the mtDNA genomes of Neanderthal laid out in MS Excel if you want them, lol). https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9230299 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10318927 Following this Paabo published I thing 8 years later the genomic sequence. I have the revised this on my computer. there are numerous errors in the sequence and there are not near enough passes. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17108958 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17110569 After this study the claimed that there was the presence of modern human genome in Neandertals. So some researchers, I believe at UC SB or Stanford poured over the sequences and found a stastical improbability that all the human sequences in Neandertal were in fact longer than the short peices of N DNA and they concluded that the Neanderthal DNA had been contaminated. A maximum likelihood study was done and it was found that the likelihood that humans had interbreed with Neandertals was next to zero. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17937503 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18304371 The group later verified this. More mitochondiral genomes were published and it found something rather odd, the TMRCA of Neandertals was about 50-75,000 years before they went extinct which the population size was really small, even before humans arrived. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20336068 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19608918 By about 2009 we see the skies basically open and we start see useful information coming along https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21179161 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22936568 And more refined analysis and better error detection regimes more completed African genomes allowed the elucidation of elements in the Eurasian genomes. Finally we obtained an answer that was suitble for most. It was a beautiful period in molecular anthropology, no illuminating data was gathered so quickly in such a short period of time. Anecdotally, the period involved begins with alot of molecular studies making conclusions, many very poor conclusions, many fragmented studies (the X-chromosomal studies were broken into a dozen or so papers each with their own conclusion) and papers with no or really bad statistics. We had mtDNA papers that were all over the place from 50 kya constriction exit to TMRCA in the 400,000 year time frame. Once the genome standard had been set, these poor statistical papers began to fade into the background, and finally Africa began to become a focus of deep study (where study should have begun with). At the end of this 15 year period the bar had been raised, not a little, but by magnitudes, now it was expected that comparisons studies would be far more involved and have much better statistics. We have to remember that prior to 1997 we had many physical anthropologist claiming that >75% of human evolution occurred locally, there models claimed genes only flowed slowly from Africa over 100,000s of years, that most of the evolution in Eurasia of the last 200,000 years was regional. On the other side we had people like Stringer claiming weird things like humans left Africa 40,000 ago and that language (the name Klien rings a bell) saying that language appeared 40,000 years ago. There was no middle ground, you were either in one camp (clique) or the other. It was a nasty time. When the Neandertal genomes were complete these voices started to act with reason. The battle peaked in Australia in 1999 between two researchers, the elder Bowler had originally dated LM3 to around 30 kya, his colleague Thorne redated with a variety of techniques to 62.5 kya (40 to 80 kya) and basically argued . . .look . . .LM3 could not be possibly solely OoA human. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16468208 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=Thorne+LM3 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10799262 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10799263 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11209053 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12594511 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14580590 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27274055 There was a flurry of papers and arguments in the Journals between supporters and detractors of each group. You take it for granted now that we are talking about exit times from Africa in the 60 to 80 ky period, the first mitochondrial genome was radical proposing exit times of 52.5 kya +/- 29 ky. While eventually the MREH crowd would lose the arguments magnitude, as with the argument surrounding Homo floresiensis (Flores hobbit; another battle that played out in the Journals) that effort regarding LM3 really pushed at the door of these incredibly late dates for human occupation in Asia and Oceania. You like to look at things like someone forced Paabo to accept regional contribution, that was not problem. The MPI crowd had their problem; MCRE receptor debacle is one example where they made liberal assumptions about the dating, later proven to be wrong. People representing molecular studies were complaining about the blind usage of outdated calibration. But the bigger story was the demise of MREH its extreme form, along with some of the crazy bigoted ideas that went along with it. I think from the point of view of what happened was the MREH crowd was, based on the anthropology that they had, were way to overzealous in their interpretation of regional variation, as a consequence a fair amount of backlash was created. Any objective outside viewer, could, applying just scientific principles would have realized they were way out on a limb. The writing was on the wall, and those with proper foresight would have been backing of into the 'maybe 10%' contribution range. Stringer took them on in his way. They needed absolute and convincing proof, because so much see-rap was being flung around. I was the same way about the Neandertal genome and Denisovan, we are in no hurry, lets let the critics have their say and then see where things fall. Things have settled and this stuff is now part of the record. Some of us learned a lesson in all of this, wait for the dust to settle and then see who is right, the first volley in any fight cannot predict the outcome of a war (See above) I watched a few unveil.

If you have relativistic speed you don't need a Hohmann. Essentially you accelerate at 1 g toward a point just before the planet, then begin decelerating after you get close and you if you are lucky going to to a - burn to land. Technically if humans could survive 4 g acceleration and once you pass MaxQ you basically burn to your destination, whatever that direction it is and you will stop burning half way and begin your deceleration to descent. Lets say the destination is 80,000,000,000 meters away and acceleration is 4 g. Hlaf the distance is 40,000,000,000 therefore 40,000,000,000 = 1/2 39.2 t2 . . .so you burn half a day toward mars 1.8x 106dV, then you reverse it for half a day once again using about 2 million dV. The 10 or so minutes required to break orbit and land don't make that much difference. Where does the dV come from, you have Yoda sitting on the navigation panel so you really don't care.

They should only be allowed to break one physics rule per movie, lol.

Yes, and it also eliminates Star-gates also, all they are is programmable worm holes.

You can't go through a wormhole, the best you can do is have two people jump into very large entangled black holes separated by immense distance, the cross the event horizon have a spot to tea and discuss politics suddenly realize that their motion is time-like and about plank's time later blink. You can communicate across a worm hole maybe, in which case the worm hole is destroyed and it requires communication around the worm hole at the same time so whats the point.

So the recent discussion in the Paleo thread brings to light a difference in opinion based on perspective. And the question that comes to mind sometimes is why would someone with a molecular anthrpology background have such a difference in interpretation versus someone with a cultural anthropology or archaeology background. In general they are trying to solve to very different problems which overlap in some area of physical anthropology. In molecular anthropology its generally not by choice, the discipline needs anchors and it needs aDNA and both require some sort of fossils or well preserve ancient bone. Why do we care, why should we care. To know when a gene evolved you tend to follow the development of internal markers in that gene, SNPs (called snips) over time. The question is the time, to do that you have to have some guess about the rate, and the rates per nucleotide are in the 10-19/sec range. You are not going to be able to estimate the long term rate of evolution looking at cells in a laboratory, you could try but you will find most mutations that are produced in real time rapidly disappear from the population (there are disease studies that look at that, but these are generally not common diseases). So alternatively we need to have surrogate. And the surrogates are the rate of evolution between two species, say a chimp and a human. So that period covers k*3.15x 1013 seconds were k is a measure in millions years. So that we have got a horrendously low mutation rate to a point where we can expect a mutation across 10,000 base pairs. Some areas evolve faster or slower. So basically now if you know when say species 1 and 2 branched then you can expect mutations in the vicinity of your gene which you can clock (or not depending on the rate of recombination). What is the interest here, is it academic or is there some more nefarious reason for making archaeologists life difficult by throwing in facts that are difficult for them to understand. For example a forensic anthropologist might be looking for a specific allele that maps potential suspects to a given area of origin, a medical geneticist may want to link all members of a large family backward in time to the origin of that disease for example to find an notify all potential carriers. There could be a variety of reasons medically for have useful sets of markers based on ancestral origins that allow us to link people together by genes. But there are even deeper and more abstract reasons for wanting to know the evolutionary history of a population in a medical context. So let me state what complex Evolution is, to do that we need a simple evolution model. In this simple model a proto-species moves into an area, it adapts through both evolution and adaptive behaviors (some of which are learned) over time the rate at which many genes, for example non-synonymous sites in mtDNA, slow down and this allows the population to expand, over time if the species remains in that habitat it can undergo formal speciation and will lose the ability to intermix with descendants along other branches, this could take 100ky or 100my, we don't care. So a more complex model of evolution is actually the reality for most species. Kimura identified this in the 1950s or so replacing our idea of genetic drift with variable selection. Variable selection applies not only to static circumstances but a wide variety of circumstances where the selection coefficient on genes is difficult to determine. This can also break into heterozygous selection, cyclical selection, .It is because of Kimura that we care about effective individuals (Ne) and population constrictions and all that technobabble. . . . . . In the more complex model of evolution then selection changes as time progresses and in reference to the coordinate system (as individuals or groups move around). Secondarily we do not assume that an isolate speciates, it can with regard to another subspecies, but the assumption is that under various condition that under some condition distal isolates can mix. Then they are free to go about the evolution of crossed genes (either positive or negative). It is only after the fact, for example, we want to ask the question why two genetically defined groups did not mate and one went extinct (usually the case in hominids), what was their limiting incompatibility. From about 1980 (really 1995) to 2008 this appeared not to be the case in humans, even though there were some slight indicators to the alternative. Some of these indicators were immune function genes. There is a whole class of diseases in our society that are low penetrance. And many of you would think that the penetrance is due to other genes and that is true, but there are examples of disease where penetrance can be linked to environment. For example type II diabetes is linked to environment and maybe some genes. But type II diabetes is not the only form of diabetes. Rheumatoid arthritis is common to just about every population on earth, and there are known environmental causes (smoking, dental problems). But for many of you it might come as a surprise that it has a genetic risk (other than being female), in fact relatively high so that an individual who carries a particular gene alternatives has 5 fold more risk than someone who does not. But even more surprising is there is a city in Africa in which people sometimes carry the genes, but there is no rheumatoid arthritis, not a single case has been recorded in the indigenous population. Another example, the end of WWII and the cold war split a community in half the genetic makeup is insignificantly different, on one side of the border the people are at risk X for juvenile onset diabetes, on the other side the risk is 0.1X. In general, RA being the exception, inflammatory disease risk is increasing, and increasing quite rapidly for some diseases. The disease risk is evolving over time. There is a big expensive study going on in Europe right now called DAISY that is trying to parse out what those obviously environmental risk are, and to largely no avail. The epidemiology is not easy, it gets easier if you can factor groups into genetically defined risk categories. These are extreme examples, but scattered about our genome are genes that give benefit under environment X and are negatively selective under environment Y. Before I move on we need to first ask the question why should we care about this. . . .We know smoking is bad, and we should brush teeth, too much sugar is bad. What I seek to inform here is that moving, just the act of moving from one place to another is sufficient enough to vary selection in unpredictable ways. That is to say making a change of living circumstances from one location or a dramtaic change of culture in the same location in which there is no obvious risks differences still creates risk. Our genes are in a dynamic equilibrium of risk and benefit creation, if they even move a little bit in any direction from the lowest risk/highest benefit state then diseases can appear. So what is space travel, if it not anything its traveling and it is exposing humans to risk and we tend to look at short term risk, but what about long term risk. . . .for example if you knew a given population of humans was particularly resistant to ionizing radiation, you might want to encourage them to travel in space. What about genes that lower risk for certain issues that arise in space (bone reduction, muscle reduction, blood pressure, eye problems, etc). But then we have to talk about settling, what about the risk of breathing 'Moon' dusts, or the infection/inflammation risk increased by exposure to atopic irritants. The you have situations like psoriasis, another genetically linked disease, also inflammatory, whereby the most cost effective treatment is exposure to sunlight at dawn or dusk in a humid environment. Natural synthesis of vitamin D close to the skin appears to lower risk in psoriasis and diabetes, and so in space its difficult to completely remove risk in a completely sheltered environment. As we can imagine humans coming into to contact and mixing cultures and genes, now we have to imagine different archaic populations intermixing and sometimes exchanging culture and evolving new habits. Sometimes those admixtures had beneficial traits and sometimes they were negatively selective. So one might think that as humans moved around and entered new environments that the cognitive traits were most important, immune genes will not knap out a stone tool or half the end of a stick. But as a matter of fact, the most important genes that allow humans to be successful as they travel and that adapt as people move are the immune genes and the population size in Africa allowed humans to carry out of Africa more of those advantageous genes. This creates a different perspective on what we should be looking at and looking for. Its not as romantic as the archaeology, but it gives a better sense as to the risk that humans are exposing themselves to. And since archaics carried regionally adaptive genes we can ask questions about what human drew from these hominids during there evolution, potentially enhancing there ability to travel further, higher, colder. So that here are some papers that deal with Neanderthal and Denisovan genes more common in humans and what traits they effect. Again, I have to repeat I have no connection with these studies other than I used to publish on related materials in the field. And I have published on a collection of about 50 genes, 3 of the genes that I have published on fortuitously appear in the list (Obviously immune function genes). https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5751057/pdf/evx216.pdf The CCR3 is an immune gene and is involved in T-helper cell Immune cell interaction. (two of three SNPs are intragenic) The ORF5 multigene locus carrying multiple olfactory receptor 5 , rs12788102, is also associated with Malarial resistance. The RNH1 locus, a gene involved in weight control. (Neandertals were robust relative to human and so this is not unexpected). In East Asians these genes are more common (from Neanderthals but not Denisovans). The POU2F3 gene is involved in taste reception and may also be involved in the response to helminth infection. The gene interacts with IL25 a th-2 type T-cell factor. (East Asian and South Asia) The BCN2 is involved in keratinocyte maturation and influences skin pigmentation. (European) The OAS1 played an antiviral role against Dengue virus (Eurasians) The LARS (Native American admixtures) involved in growth and liver function. The FAP/IFIH1 involved in protection against RNA type viruses.(Peru) The CHD2 (Peru) developmentally important. Epilepsy The TLR1-6 genes involved in immune function, part of the innate immune response and protection from gut pathogens. (Eurasians) The ZFHX3 (Peru) possibly prevents prostate cancer. ---Gene possibly derived from Denisovans The LIPA (Asian and Amr) cholesterol metabolism The MUSTN1 ( S. Asian) gene is involved in collagen metabolism. This stuff is not romantic at all, there are no fancy cognition genes or genes that make one taller or more handsome or a divot in your chin. There's nothing here really that makes you look more like a Neanderthal (despite half century belief amount anthropologist that it did). If we look at the list above, about half of the genes that were selective in some population after admixture are immune function genes, 3 of the loci are commonly associated with inflammatory diseases in humans. However in addition to the positive benefits of admixture I also have to point out that there were negative benefits. One of the papers I reviewed during the last week essentially shows that the more likely a Neanderthal marker was close to a gene, the more rapidly that the marker is eliminated from the population. I will try to find the reference. So that there are some remaining questions, there are a handful of immune genes in Asia that appear not to be of OoA origin, but are not defined by the current Neanderthal sequences or Denisovan. The are tightly pocketed enough is Asian that a scenario of local introgression might have occurred. In addition it is unlikely that a Denisovan in Siberia would carry the same immune genes as an individual living in Indonesia or points in between. So more aDNA sampling is desired in both the Neanderthal and Denisovan gene clusters. While most of the late introgression of 'archaics' into Africa are localized, these are still very important, particularly when introgressed genes are positively selective within holoAfrican context. I will add to this some of my experiences with PA over the years and some of the critiques in the way the science was done that slowed things down, some of the things that made advances.

Mars positioning Satellites . . . . .problem solved.

Anyone in California want to give SpaceX the coordinates to their frontyard. Imagine the look of the neighbors when that thing parks in your driveway.