PB666

For the amateur molecular anthropologist out there here are some resources mentioned today. Here is European bioinformatics institute. (EBI) hooray Europeans! https://www.ebi.ac.uk/ipd/imgt/hla/ https://www.ebi.ac.uk/ipd/imgt/hla/allele.html http://allelefrequencies.net/default.asp The Neanderthal genome browser, currently 5 (and growing) https://bioinf.eva.mpg.de/jbrowse/?loc=1%3A99696709..149546833&tracks=&highlight= Run you fingers through some Neandertal DNA (pretty boring unless you know what you are looking for).

IKR?

Zilhoa tends to think so, but he is in the Trinkhaus camp. [snip] we are talking specifically about European Neanderthals, [snip] My point was specifically made below that it was unlikely purely European Classic Neandertals and more likely what was called stage three or Levantine Neanderthals. What they refer to in the first article is Denisovan, which sophisticated molecular genetics handled separately, and BTW, given the reference that started this thread, more than one place with Denisovan. Denisovans are a particularly early branch of Neanderthal, which you might compare with Arago or Early Sima de los heucos. http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/deadthings/2018/03/15/interbreeding-denisovans/#.WqsdGech2Ul http://www.ox.ac.uk/news/2018-03-21-oldest-dna-africa-offers-clues-ancient-cultures http://www.cell.com/cell/abstract/S0092-8674(18)30175-2 [snip] There is a full article about the recent corroboration between Eastern Neandertals and human here. You have to remember this tempers the argument why there is 4 to 6% Neandertal contribution in Koreans and Japanese and 2% in Iberia. Again this was predicted many years ago, not the beast, but that there was probably another beast out there and it goes now by the name Denisovan. While you may not see it this is how actually the issue of admixture gets worked out. People make predictions and eventually the predictions are tested, it helps however if the prediction has a basis. As I stated there is substantial evidence from Iberia from the second, gene flow that after the LGM spread into the rest of Europe. In order to understand the problem you need to first read this paper. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24162011 This informs as well reducing the African genes that are also given by Non-African hominim contribution (excluding the pygmy contribution, which Tishkoff deals with in another paper). From this again depending on where and how much the introgression could have been in Africa. Tishkoffs analysis is through, but she cannot model what cannot be seen and the flux in super-equitorial Africa is particularly an unseen quality.

[snip] I am no longer following archaeology to any degre and haven't for a decade, I think i stated that. And you 'false claim' argument was neither explicit or clear. At that time the favored hypothesis is that it was settled from Greece. The post you made previous was so cluutered i missed the link, rather than have me go search through the garbage just repost it and state your argument clearly without the false claim perjorative. The modern human occupation of Iberia I considered unsettled science, so I am not bringing that into the debate, im only looking at a bit of evidence. My point was that humans could have and probably did overlap with N in Iberia, but they probably favored different areas. Does this constitute a geographic barrier, its hard to say. The point was this, [snip]The paper stated that 5 new European, plus the existing and i think two altai Neandertals have been sequenced not counting the Denisova type specimen. This is a body of evidence. While it is not comprehensive evidence for no evidence of directional mixing into Classical stg4 Neandertals it is a a very good running hypothesis that deserves at least tentative recognition. Secondarily, the point is that there is a meshing of African and European traits in Iberia that precede prehistory. One African trait is a genomic anomoly (its posseses the longest identifyable run of homozygosity in the human genome), and because of this its evolution can be dated and roughly placed in Iberia, that date was published to 20 ky and is highly identifyable as a Western European Haplotype. Even if you disregard the 70 to 150 kya date, there is a problem that arises in Iberia. Here is the genetic problem in total. The bits and pieces that form A1B8DR17DQ2 all appear to come from NW africa and these bits are strewn in the coastal population all the way down to the Bubi. IOW not only did this haplotype probably form in iberia, but the bits and pieces that formed it were in Iberia before it formed, probably 1000s of years before. So here we have a problem in that there is a relatively confined space, you have a gently declining backward probability that humans were present before 20 kya in iberia carrying classical SSA markers, and directly from Africa. The closest two points are Gibralter and the tip of Morooco on the other side. Then there is a gently falling with forward probability gradient that Neandertals survived starting around 26kya and sloping to zero at some unknown point before the end of the LGM. In that context we do not see any higher indication of admixture in peoples that carry the A1..Dq2 haplotype in higher frequencies. OK so no evidence of admixture specific to Iberia, what about elsewhere in Europe. Again looking at the evidence it is diificult to see any specific place in Europe or western Eurasia that is a mode of Neandertal introgression. Again one can draft an alternative hypothesis, but then one is bucking the genetics. So the best running hypothesis that it occurred at one place and time, with one type of Neandertal and not later with another type but that this does not rule out admixture at later times, in other places, with other types. Just the one type appears to be barred. Taken together, the lack of evidence, despite lots of data, of introgression either population into the other population the best running hypothesis is that a barrier should have existed. Next we can move on to the last aDNA paper. This paper stipulates that around 20kya there were migrations across the southern mediterranean. This is not new, there is evidence as early as 8 kya ovids were being move from SW Asia to Iberia via Africa, including evidence of one african bovid mtDNA. But this particular referenced genetic evidence is considerably before the Iberia mesolithic/neolithic boundary and before wavey-line poterry cultures in Africa. This indicates that human populations were in flux in North Africa. So what, this creates several contradictions, or do they. Here i present evidence of migrations into Europe from north Africa >20kya and later migration fro W. Africa into Sardinia, apparently much later, and in between we have migrations into the morroco from the middle east. So thats the North African complexity. If we repeat these motions in N. Africa for long periods of time and admixture occurred in Africa between Neandertals (generic argument) could we later detect a node. From 70 kya, no, actually using immune genes its difficult to find cohesive modes that are even 20ky. So if it looks African or middle eastern admixture preference only depends on one thing, average flux. If the average flux is from Asia to Africa, the the mode sharpens in North or NW Africa assumming SSA is a barrier, if its from SSA to Asia, then later Iberia, then the mode dulls and disappears. This is why I postulate there are models of admixture in Africa that flush into Asia. This does not rule out that some early stage4 N went to Africa or middle east and mixed, but it does make it extremely unlikely that what mixed 70 to 150 kya was a 'full blooded' European Neandertal, and more likely a mixtures with hominimes that lived in the region. Oddly this probability has been roughly the same for since the Tishkoff suggested the migration of low 100s of people back in the 90s. The current level of suggested admixture is roughly the tolerance limits of admixture into a migrating expanding population in which outcome mtDNA and Y are human and evidence of admixture is ambiguous (and thus controvertable between many studies). So that some of the 'bad' molecular studies werent bad, just recombination is a tempest when relative contributions are quantizable. The problem was that the number of sampled sites in any given study were two few to be conclusive. And that which was being sample was uncharacterized in terms of the form of evolution. So what is the global meaning in this? The meaning is this, 20 years ago there was mtDNA, Y, X-linked, autosomal, HLA studies . . . . as takahata concluded there was a certain inevitability to Out of Africa and he was right mostly. But there were also leaks in the bulwork, and potential leaks, if they exist, create significant contribution. But wait, thats a model. its a kind of null hypothesis, we assumme that everything has the same origin (africa) and if in testing the hypothesis fails then we can test specific datasets (many local genomes sequenced and compared with others). If that then also fails the null hypothesis we have grounds for further analysis, including looking into aDNA comparisons of specific hominimes. Thats the way to approach the problem and avoid the errors of the past.

[snip] When i point the finger at PA i am pointing the finger at their interpretation. not neccesarily at the data but this may include the comparative techniques that they use. When does one find impetus to redate a sample, is it often not done because of critiques. . . . . .remember LM3. Critique is good as long as you dont take it personally. Thirne may have not been right but he convinced Bowler to redate LM3 which resulted in an earlier dating of LM3. If you want an abstract critique of the problem I can make the point like this. There is a progression of natural events and the interpretation of those events. What archaeology does is gather information that places data points. For example you go to Jamestown virginia and knowing the history you can provide further interpretation. In an example like Sardinia, you can interpret the first evidence of occupation, but this should not be interpreted as the first occupation. But unfortunately this is what archaeology does. For example pottery usage can be traced along the mediterranean, but the problem is that pottery use is associated with certain contexts, mostly cultivation and animal husbandry. What is the consideration of cultures that are purely coastal foragers? So here in lies the problem, and its multifold. The First of the two problems is the stand. In Sardinia very old cultures will tend not to leave evidence if they were coastal foragers. The second problem is if they used largely soft tools for hunting and gathering they might also not leave much evidence. A third issue is how they buried the dead, if the dead were not intered, were cremated or dearticulated they may nit leave remains. If they buried their dead in acidic soils, the acids might dissolve and soften the bones into mush. It takes alot of things to go right to uncover the remains of ancient humans. Then there is the 'gee we didn't know' phenomena in which PA assumes a certain kind of progression, ans for instance in the New World finds multiple old skulls that have more adrican/melanesian features than Native American/siberian features. So what happened in Sardinia, the archaeology offers an North central and eastern mediterranean origin. Again, the key word is archaeology. When one looks at the immune genes, and particular 6p21.3 about 35% of the population carry DR3DQ2, which is not particularly an eastern European or Italian hap, as a matter of fact its under negative selection in the Eastern mediterranean for the last 8000 years. This frequency may not seem important, but its very high for a class II haplotype. And somthe question is, genetically, how did this come to be. The second problem is that DR3 splits DR17 (irish and norwegion are two mjor nodes in Europe) and DR18. Sardinians carry DR18, which tends to be found at highest frequencies in west africa. Then the next problem is more severe DR3DQ2 elongates with A30B18. The A30 is A*30:02. This is one of the highest/longest if not the highest geographically defined haplotype frequency in Europe possibly the world. This allele is in almost complete linkage disequilibrium in Europe, it is only found in the Basque and right along the italian/ french coasts at much lower frequencies and almost always in A30B18. It is not found in the greeks. So then what is the origin of A3002; that is to say what place in the world has the highest observed recombination. That place is West Africa. Oddly despite the high frequency of the type there is scant evidence of other West Africa types in Sardinia, and only N. African types to the degree one expects with transmediterranean migration, a low smattering of haplotypes not of any particular remarkable frequencies. All the data can be found at www.allelefrequencies.net . . . . so no particular secrets there. For all to see. How does an allele from a cryptic source become so predominant relative to other haplotyes with such a long run of homozygosity. The answer any population geneticists knows, a regimen of inbredding or an acute population constriction can result in fixation, including immune gen fixation, over long enough time. How then does it become so cryptically predominant. . . . . .founder effect. So what does this say for the first occupation, either a complete replacement of a nascent founder effect. Again, this is a prediction that based on these long haplotypes that N.Mediterraneans were not the first to settle Sardinian although they are the majority of the gene representation now, the contributor of the predominant 6p21.3 alleles for each locus are African. This represents the complexity of PA but not neccesarily visible the interpretation of physical anthropologist and archaeologist. There is a medical connotation to this also persistent chronic inflammatory diseases in Sardinia were some of the lowest in Europe, but as the modernization of Sardinia occurred these rates shot up very quickly, notably some of thr African DR3 effects seen in other populations that bear the varient. . . . .why i care about this issue, i used to study one of the 'caused' diseases. As I pointed out above when certain immune genes fix, people tend to get autoinflammatory disease when exposed to autoinflammatory agents (these are suprisingly ubiquitous and ignored in Western society), they may live absolutely happily eating fish and diving for clams, then overtime culture changes. Overtime i learned to not waste my time trying to figure out what archaeology got wrong; i assume its misinterpreted and then look for parsimony. In other instances people just asked me, you dont accept the ideas of Wolpoff or Brace, is there any reason you might believe in multiregionalism might exist. I have to remind people that i am not against admixture or multiregionalism. I am against interpretations that are not supported by a large perspective of supported facts. There were, even before N/H comparisons adequate evidence that admixture occurred, just not the way they said it occurred or to the degree they said it occurred. So when i was asked I used they same available databases, allelefrequenies link. I went to the EBI databse, took every allele, took them apart and traced their origins back to africa. All alleles could be traced back to Africa, with general zero or one change. Afew could be explain by a couple synonous small changes or a major change. But there was a handful of types that did not easily fit a recent African model. I did not search these out to show anyone up, I was asked to look privately by friends who agreed with me about W&B but thought MR may still be acting in other specific areas. I looked, and i presented and then left the issue more than a decade ago. . . . my work in inflammation also done, left more than a year ago Take these words or leave them, but similar advanced interpretations of molecular anthropology will still march on indifferent of antiquated perspectives. The decision you have to make is whether you want to be up to date with evidence or live in some past era where physical anthropology went unchallenged to the point it could not correct serious errors in perspective (i.e. Eurocentrism, ladder-like evolution, ape theories)

RL10b-2 then.

There must be an engine tucked back there somewhere?

[snipping rambling retort to last weeks topic] As i said suit yourself. The molecular genetics will inevitably win the day and peal backs decades of false assumptions, some will still refuse to accept the conclusion, due to their past allegiances, but then isnt the cycle of life and death the way humans evolve.

lol, you know that the oregon news article was linked as a joke. I can think of oth r places it would be funny to crash into if you like, assuming it stays together during reentry (it wont so dont write five posts about it). What if it landed on OCISLY, would it be considered a landing failure at spaceX? What if it landed at an airport, would it be considered as a crash landing. What if it landed in the Indian ocean and crashed into Zuma? What if it landed onto N Kor guided missile launchers. What if it crashed one of Putins publicity stunts.

http://www.ox.ac.uk/news/2018-03-21-oldest-dna-africa-offers-clues-ancient-cultures Late stone age of Morocco, ancient DNA sequence.

You are bored aren't you. Lets see we have had dog astronauts, chimp astronauts, female and male so . . . . . . . .

Early on, yeah, alot, but since then things have markedly improved, namely if you publish crap people will call you out and fast for it. Most of MPI sequence data is online, I have a fair amount of the early stuff. Now a days, if you publish 5 genomes, there is so much data that these types of errors that might lead to marked misinterpretation are rare. But lets compare the two, molecular anthropology started in 1975, the first credible paper in 1980, lots of crap in the 90s alot of reform at the turn of the millennium. And just to point, these were not errors it took 10 years to find, we found the errors immediately, reported them immediately. Top dog published a paper in 1995 and you did something not kosher, in a month the bbs were hopping with critiques. Paleoanthropology started out with immense bias, fraud, frauds that persisted for almost a half a century, bias based upon fraud, assumptive dating techniques . . . . . . Its no wonder that molecular genetics turned it upside down. There is almost no comparison between the two fields. Anyway suit yourself, the molecular genetics is only going to strengthen its case, as it is doing.

Buy! . . use flightsim.com This is my DL folder looked like, haven't FS in years. Like the DC6 the best. Its got a Concorde, MSFS discontinued the Concorde so you have to find a different version. I had more craft files but I ditch the ones I didn't like over time. MOst of these came off of flightsim.com. Just register (they may charge now.). The Boeings I used to fly when real weather was up, we used to fly around in the middle of the night looking for thunderstorms to land in the middle of, even a couple of hyrricanes down on the gulf. One wheel landings are always fun.

First, off MPI has typically used a late C/H LCA as a reference point, so when they say greater than 70 you have to keep that in mind. Yes, 150ky does sound a bit early, but the confidence range is rather encompassing (which is what confidence ranges should be, encompassing). My assessment works on a different basis than theirs. As to date is appears that all the evidence for admixture has been captured in 'form' if not in substance. There will be details on the substance forthcoming as these sequence of exo-specific genes are examined. The more recent study indicating admixture in NE completes the corroboration between my own estimates and what MPI now predicts. Prior to this MPI and my interpretations were a bit out-of-synch, including their interpretation of the spread of Denisovan traits. Over time the gap has closed and now, it appears to be closed. You should interpret to mean there is very little wiggle room for significant admixture elsewhere. This is molecular genetics. Admixtures that underwent removal from the population are not a matter of concern because of the biases present in 20th century archaeology do not present a foundation for questioning and negating false hypothesis. You cannot know whether these are stable or unstable (as in persiste 1 or few generations before extreme negative selection, the barrier, takes its effect). When we talk about aDNA sequencing is you get these huge files (The denisovan sequence was 48 gb) of sequences that are aligned to create a genomic sequence. Many many passes. The first genome was actually the worst, since then marked improvements have been made in isolating good DNA and getting good aDNA sequence. Once you have a Neanderthal sequence that aligns well with others then its a matter of classifying the potential errors. In the world of a DNA sequence there are two primary errors, given the pairing of (C:G)(A:T) cytosine deamination is the predominant error that results is the conversion of deoxy cytosine with uracil, and uracil then binds deoxythymidine instead of deoxyguanine. As a result you get C->T and G->A posthumous changes in the DNA. These appeared rampantly in the first mtDNA and the first genome (which did not have that many passes). Techniques now have cleaned all that up. If you have enough sequence to derive a genome, then you probably have enough passes to root out the errors and they will be few and far between. Modern humans were not protoErectines. We DID evolve and erectines evolved, more or less separately after a given period of time ~800,000 years ago. And on top of that we have relatively precise timing telling us when modern humans left Africa and spread northward into Asia, As stated above the window was much less than 100,000 years. In the case of Homo georgiensis they have no fathom how much longer this protoErectine lineage first left Africa or how long it took for them via adaptive evolution to reach the Caucasus region, and even that is not near as severe as central European climate during a cold spat. So that is one clear logical flaw in the argument. The proto evolution of erectines is a mess, many assumptions that cannot be demonstrated. Modern humans evolved in Africa, if we had the ability to enter Europe 70-85 ky we certainly would have, as we moved into India and many points Eastward before the presence of AMH in Europe. Even if I use an extremely late timeline, say 60ky, it still takes 20ky humans to move 500 miles to the NW into Europe. Whereas within that 60 to 42kya period they would have had to have travel 6000 miles from SW asia to the Solomon islands. Thats an appreciable bias in the rate of migration and its indicative of selective preferences, simple as that. The mtDNA evidence and the evidence regarding central African admixture suggests a rather slow initial progression from E/SE Africa north and northwest in Africa. The L2/L3 mt DNA are more or less like layers on a a cake, as humans spread north they introduced another layer. Sometime shortly after L3 evolved (probably 2 or 3 thousand years) humans permanently left Africa, admixed with other archaic derivatives while dispersing in parts of SW Asia. While it is clear to others that this admixture did not occur in Africa, I have reasons to believe it might have. The evidence I draw upon are a set of human haplotypes that have been poorly studied in N.Africa. From these studies they detailed an area extending from SSA to N. Mediterranean coast. WIthin these a pattern appears that the common ancestral population of the haplotypes no longer exists (what I like to call the rosette). The by products are spread into areas to the North and West (iberia where N concentrations are lower than expected) and to the NE (where N concentrations are higher than expected). This suggests that there is at least the potential as early as human occupation of superequitorial Africa that events occurred followed by near complete dispersion. Most of the dispersed admixtures ended up in Asia, some in Africa, and non-admixed displaced the population of whatever was in NW africa. I consider just as likely as admixture in SW asia. The primary issue is relational, not chemical, that's where you need to clear your mind. We do not have a map reference for every late archaic derivative, we have only the mapped references for those whose DNA survived. So that when we do a search and ask who is the closest, its going to give an answer that is better than no answer at all but that may not be the best answer (and this part of the problem created a bias that blinded MPI for almost a decade from seeing other possibilities). That is the problem. If we ask a different question, the question I asked, what highly evolved genes do not belong in SSA-derived humans, you get a different set of answers. The first clear example comes from the region just southwest of lake Chad in Africa (verified in several steps) multiple, possible 10 admixtures and recent (<70 ky), the second comes from the region of NE Yellow sea region and sea of Japan (verified 2018). This region indicates a minimum of 3 admixture events (3 offspring introduced). The third comes from Indonesia (Verified 2012) and a minimum of 1 event. There is nothing to suggest anything in Europeans that did not come from SSA. 6-loci, 5000 variants, nothing. SO if this admixture occurred Levant or Arabia where did it go. To see how this falls out, a more detailed look at Denisovans indicated that the D content to Indonesians was not simple, but complex, that content itself appeared to be an admixture of traits not found in the Altai - Denisovan sequence (where as Altai has evidence of erectine? no present in Indonesian admix-Denisovan sequence). There is a base assumption that humans were a species, and any reasonable doubt places a barrier between classic N and modern H. That says nothing about the between. It is apparent from the d-admixture that something in between N/D/H was capable of mxing with D, probably capable on repeat exposure of admixing with H and likely admixed with N. Of the three D appears the most distantly evolved, which means that if it could so, could have admixed with SSA-derived humans. So it appears there was a barrier between H and N living in Europe. If we type what was going on in the Levant 50,000 years prior what you probably find is an intermediate, not modern human in its content not really Neandertal and trace amounts of Denisovan. In the N. part of the range it was more Neanderthal. In the Eastern part of the range it was more Denisovan. In Africa it was more human like and forth-party-like. When human travel into NE Africa they admix, but the human content in that intermediate is invisible to us (its not subtractable), we only see that part that is different within its componentsfrom the African human population. If you move further east, finally into SW asia, more mixture, more chance at capturning N, but also more chance of hitting the barrier. In that light, we look at trait evolution in N. Africa and the Levant, and compare, based upon what we know about were modern humans (SSA primarily of origin) came most recently from we see the potential collison of two gradients, genes migrating from one direction with some admixture over time (thus these immune genes already exist in humans) and a pre-existing gradient from Europe which collide in the middle east or Arabia. So that genes, even variable genes get filtered out over time by local selection. So what is SW Arabia and the Levant more like, is it more like Europe or more like the Horn of Africa, that will determine the most likely persistent of the immune genes. Yes, there are candidate genes that might have infiltrated with this particular group, I have these genes identified and they were later successful in Europe, but they also exist in the far reaches of Africa, just much less commonly, its wishy washy. The point about Europe has been made many times in diverse papers. The immune genes of Europe have very tiny amounts of variation relative to other non-african populations, this is not something one expects on admixture. Take for instance the HLA A*02 gene, The gene is part of one of three haplotype cluster that is common to the most isolated Western Europeans the A2C5B44 hap. And yet, oddly this very old European haplotype has 3 loci-alleles that show very little variation that might be expected from a gene that persisted for a long period of time (say 200,000 years). In the Baloch part of Iran and Pakistan, there are a magnitude more A2 variants per a given sample size. This is not simply an affair of one locus or one allelegroup of one locus. Its all European loci and all variant groups at those loci look as if they recently arrived from elsewhere. Yep, but then again during very cold period Neanderthals would have needed a larger range because less biomass production (That is why I refered to the critter data, only the very most hardy critters could surive at the LGM outside of the refuges, these are animals that survive in places were even recent moderns find it very difficult to survive). [I have a ton of reviews on this stuff, I just have to dig it out of my very dusty files]. But the Neanderthals could persistently survive in Europe, the last Neanderthals were found in Europe and there was extensive overlap. https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/the-rock-of-gibraltar-neanderthals-last-refuge-42545293/ If we assume that Homo heidelbergensis is protoNeanderthal and given this and given the climate extremes of 500,000 years we cannot have a sustained presence of N in Europe and Western Asia without region specific adaptations, that's just plain silliness, human mtDNA underwent regional evolutionary adaptation traveling 10,000 years through Siberia to S.America. While their ancestors may have originated, classic Neanderthals are a West Eurasian hominid, not a equatorial African hominid. From my point of view, what I studied, is that Iberia was critical, not just as the last place of the Neanderthals, but also as a place were African immune genes were directly introduced to Europe and evolved to a unique state with a molecular clock on that state as late as 20kya. So this means that humans probably crosses the very same point where Neanderthals last existed, more or less about the same time, but there is no evidence of admixture, not in the immune genes, not in specific to the time in the genome. Again, it is very incredibly unlikely that these Gibraltar Neanderthals were the very last, that they were the only ones, and certainly other humans made it to Iberia earlier, and we know that Iberia was an Ice-age and pre YD refuge. So that both humans and Neandertals are weathering out an Ice-age end in the same place. So how exactly are they cohabitation in a confined area and not mixing. One potential explanation lies in the genes that arrived from Africa. This particular gene is maladaptive in modern times, but _seems_ (this is a guess that immunologist I know have thrown around) to have been protective for people engaging in maritime foraging activities. Humans possible traveled over, fished in Iberia, harvested clams and seaweed, other shellfish, lived near a coastline long buried by the current stand, from the paleolithic a high C-13 content in the bones and comparison between N and H suggest humans stayed near the coast, probably moved on the water to avoid bad weather and simply avoided Neanderthals who liked to hunt inland. The people in Western Eurasia who have the highest ratio of West African:East African genes typically have the lowest content of Neanderthal admix contribution, so basically these markers mark something else, a relative genetic aversion to Neanderthals. Neanderthal genes were probably most adaptive for people who hunted the interior of continents, just as Denisovan genes benefit modern Tibetans. Likewise the Eurasians that have the highest East African ratios also tend to have the Highest Admixture ratios (not necessarily Neanderthal, again a new debate has opened up in NE Asia). Time will tell, molecular genetics marches, if you find the molecular genetics troubling, and have difficult explaining cro-magnon remains, you might also consider dating problems and other issues of poor archaeology.

I was joking about a local News story.

Which is why i said classic Neandertal, the only mixture to date detected is in SW asia in a period and place best qualified as Levantine. The time period is not 70, but 70 to 150, it looks like MPI has finally been fixing thier clock. Most argue 75 to 100k. The study is likely to be refined with more findings. The statistics are begiining to build. Again my best calibrations of mtDNA, which unlike other clocks, accounted for adaptive evolution of mtDNA place African exit of N at 85,000 years ago. Since that estimated was made there have been essentially no improvements on the data. What this means is if gene flow happened before that time, then it occuurred in Africa and after in SW Asia. The model in Africa is indifferent as either it was or there was backflow. Tishkoff tends to think thats it backflow. Humans were not well adapted to the climate in Europe, despite what you think, the criiter data from the LGM to the Younger dryas, consistent with imm genes indicated that people bottled up in refuges when confronted with cold, even after the LGM ended. At the time moderns arrived in Europe Neadertals were better adapted.

For those who get 'Space' feeds from Facebook . . .change is in the air. http://www.businessinsider.com/elon-musk-deletes-tesla-spacex-facebook-pages-2018-3 Many folk in tech industry treat Facebook like a new age plague, but thinks are beginning to spiral, and even some long time supporters are beginning to bail. This latest spat apparently occurred because of what FB did with peoples personal data (alot of the discussion too political to mention here). But it goes along with Facebooks longstanding problem of earning money and managing privacy (particularly personal data and third party usages).

https://phys.org/news/2018-03-track-chinese-space-station-falls.html March 31 +/- 3 days. Window will start to narrow considerably tomorrow. Anyone here live in Oregon? (I think im kidding, but who knows). Seeing how many times Chinese launch vehicles hit houses, lightning is going to get a run for its money.

Mesmiaskaya strikes again. https://arstechnica.com/science/2018/03/five-new-ancient-genomes-tell-us-about-neanderthal-tribes/ So apparently they are going to reconstruct the European Neanderthal population. Its apparent that Neandertals moved back and forth with the climate, and while humans and overlapped in Europe, the Neanderthals probably would have preferred the coldest areas, and was Europe was unusually cold, humans tended to move to the warmest areas. This may explain why AMH and European (classical) Neanderthals never intermixed. Lifestyles were incompatible.

Whoopsie, its just a little comet bender. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/speaking-of-science/wp/2018/03/23/an-alien-star-sideswiped-our-solar-system-and-sent-comets-reeling-scientists-say/?utm_term=.9e9436f898e6

Thats where your problem starts right there.

Now? Without its service module, of course, which right now is somewhere in Ohio. http://www.spaceflightinsider.com/space-centers/glenn-research-center/orion-service-module-completes-testing-nasa-plum-brook-station/ And also Lockheed Martin is trying to build two service module adaptors for the module (hopefully they will work better than those fitted on Zuma) [Some cursing coming from a bald-headed LM engineer fiddling around the back of a large white cylinder in Ohio, 'damn, this just isn't going to work, who designed this module anyway?'] Wouldn't be hilarious if they (EM-1 mission) send the launch around the moon and just drifts off into interplanetary orbit. [If you wanted to get the 'completed' version into space here is a cheapway, get an electron to do your bidding] https://www.etsy.com/listing/576805706/sls-orion-service-module-and-icps-175

ISP is specific impulse, two other current threads on the matter.

I know, I wonder if they will contract it out to other providers. [pulling hair and cursing congress] [Rolls eyes] wonder if in the next appropriations ill we can provide the site funding for the pad a boca-chica . . lol.

Dreadnaughts became very well thought of because of a fluke in history, The great war (WWI) was supposed to be the war that ended all wars, and the Dread naught was decommisioned after 14 years of use, being on the winning side but hardly a cause for victory. By second 'great' war it would have been about the same size as a heavy cruiser. But even then the high wide profile of battleships made them prime targets for attack from above and below. Either one was crippling. The Aircraft carrier centered fleet as been a mainstay of major Navies since. Even the biggest heavy hulled mega aircraft carrier produced during WWII was sunk during its sea-trials. And basically the size of ACC has not significantly increased since 1960 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Enterprise_(CVN-65), https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nimitz-class_aircraft_carrier. If you want something with sustained power.