PB666 Posted January 29, 2018 Share Posted January 29, 2018 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28957509 Quote Furthermore, based on in-depth simulations, we conclude that a divergent MUC7 haplotype likely originated in an unknown African hominin population and introgressed into ancestors of modern Africans. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28675384 Quote Hohlenstein-Stadel (HST) cave in southwestern Germany. HST carries the deepest divergent mtDNA lineage that splits from other Neanderthals ∼270,000 years ago, providing a lower boundary for the time of the putative mtDNA introgression event. We demonstrate that a complete Neanderthal mtDNA replacement is feasible over this time interval even with minimal hominin introgression. The highly divergent HST branch is indicative of greater mtDNA diversity during the Middle Pleistocene than in later periods. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27638212 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4478293/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22412940 These papers tell a story about the human population in variable ways. Again the point to be made here is that the population of Africa, with a number of hominims was competitive on a global scale, and was a source of repeated geneflow from Africa and some gene flow back to Africa. To some degree the composite population of Africa and the fracturing within Africa were two mechanisms of maintaining diversity. It is likely that the OoA population was the largest of these and tended to create more flux (see other posts) into other Africa populations after 200 kya, prior to that it is hard to know the spatial distribution of the ancestors of that population. But as defined that Both Neanderthals and Denisovans had marked foot print of DNA derived from Africans. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PB666 Posted January 29, 2018 Share Posted January 29, 2018 4 minutes ago, Green Baron said: But you agree that the Jebel Faya stone tools are typical for modern humans, that these came rather out of Africa then from anywhere else, and the dating of the sediments is credible ? Furthermore you don't accuse the guys of messing things up ? Well, Africa, in general is the source of most relevant variation. Its the source of Homo, its the source of heidelbergensis/rhodesiensis. If you read the paper I presented 3 posts up, Africa drives evolution in Asia though a sort of episodic gene flow. In that context all of SW Asia is in its wake. If you want a more informative responses I need aDNA samples, both in and outside of Africa. Other wise we just handwave a generic African into existence for whatever purpose we want to use him for. From my point of view its about a set of problems. How to create a model where outliers to the OoA (c. 60 to 80 kya) exodus/(4 to 6% N introgression). I like to create placeholder for variants and put genes into them and wait for the community to find out how the variants evolved, generic morphological entities don't help. In a generic model genes can flow from anywhere to anywhere without cause, because genes are distributed evenly across isoquants in the population and flow from their origin to the destinations. If I am looking at the B*48 haplotype in East Asia and I say gee how did this come to be here, the generic answer is that some generic African spread in some generic manner to East Asia and interbred with humans. A rather non-informative answer. I wouldn't except that answer for OoA genes, I would be doing haplotype analysis, modeling recombination of known starting alleles, etc. I know sounds like babble. The point is that I want information that resolves possibilities into multiple specific possibilities in which I can select the best. If you say similar to MSA, then I know immediately the bounds of your argument you are talking about Quote The MSA is associated with both anatomically modern humans (Homo sapiens) as well as archaic Homo sapiens And in that there can be no disagreement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Green Baron Posted January 29, 2018 Share Posted January 29, 2018 I take this as a yes to the first and a no to the second part and can go to bed with a calm conscience. :-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James Kerman Posted January 30, 2018 Share Posted January 30, 2018 @PB666 You would not be the first person to shudder when considering my logic. The comment you quoted was simply my personal opinion (I am not well educated but I always try to learn more) and your posts have expanded my thinking, although it will take me a few days to fully understand them. @Diche Bach I know what you mean, Mate. As I've been reading about the topic I have come across many theories that seem to fly in the face of conventional thinking including, but not limited to; Australia was the cradle of humanity, the Kow swamp People artificially altered themselves (what could you do artificially that would produce the biggest teeth ever found in a hominid?) and that they regressed as a result of climate change. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PB666 Posted January 30, 2018 Share Posted January 30, 2018 6 minutes ago, James Kerman said: @PB666 You would not be the first person to shudder when considering my logic. The comment you quoted was simply my personal opinion (I am not well educated but I always try to learn more) and your posts have expanded my thinking, although it will take me a few days to fully understand them. I was quoting from the Wikipedia and concerned about the conclusions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PB666 Posted February 2, 2018 Share Posted February 2, 2018 (edited) I was going to put this in the other thread but after some thought decide it was more appropriate here. I want this to be more of a backdrop of sensing when science is correct or not just in the results but the way it proceeds. To give a sense of how to assess I want to create a logical context of sampling, and the simplest example that I can give is this You have a patio that is 10 meters by 10 meters. Its recently been painted with a medium grey color and has a course satin finish that shows rain drops pretty well. So that at a given time, how many raindrops need to fall on that patio before you can assess whether the number of Raindrops are falling at the same rate or different rate at a given confidence range (say +/-50% relative variation) Here is the formula.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poisson_distribution By this definition you will have to bracket off both blocks (say 1 x 1 square meters) and your sampling will be over a discrete time interval, which is arbitrary, but the smaller the time period the more accurate the sampling. So that to assess the variance over time you now have discrete blocks in a 3 dimensional (2 spatial dimension and 1 temporal dimension) construct. So that for any discrete element in the matrix the first drop that falls, basically you have a relative variation that is much larger than your average, as more raindrops fall the average moves higher and the relative confidence tightens. OK so we are talking about hominid evolution, really a period bracketed by the last 10 M years (we don't know that when we start the experiment). We have some semi-discrete areas (Africa, Europe, East Asia, S.Asia, SE Asia, Australia, Americas). We also have in the late 19th century the work of Charles Darwin which specifies that morphologically similar species likely have common ancestry going backwards in time, these evolve. And the geology points very roughly to the fact that the surface of the Earth has changed weathering exposures over time (more or less 20th century work). Before the study of radioactivity in the Early 20th century precise dating was more or less non-existent. Each of these drops (finds) represents a study, it begins with the discovery and then proceeds over time, in the context we can analyze if or how science has corrected errors that occurred at previous dates in time. There are entirely too many finds to deal with all the errors. So this is the backdrop for paleontology of humans, lets take a look at the raindrops. Now we know what human skeletal morphology was, the British had a love for raiding graveyards and stealing bodies for various and sundry purposes, and these could be compared with remains in the catacombs elsewhere in Europe. They also loved snatching people (e.g. bizarre morphologies, to them, of people living in S. Africa - common curiosities in Europe). The year is 1833 at this point in time Homo sapiens (linneaus) is a species description with essentially no delineators. The first raindrop that hits is from SE Belgium and represents part of a calvaria that has a configuration different from known morphologies. Without any knowledge it was called "modern". Again we have to remember that almost no or no paleontology is being conducted by Europeans in any part of the world at this point, because prior to darwin it was just assumed that this would have been destroyed by god prior to the creation of adam and eve (dating could never be made that was considered by all to be heretical). So basically this raindrop was ignored for religious reasons and due to the lack of a background. Missassumption one - god determines when or where species evolved. For the most part this specimen has been lost to science. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gibraltar_1 skull found at Forbes' Quarry in Gibraltar in 1848. Never dated, the soils in the surrounding region have been dated to between 24,000 and 35,000 years ago, making the cave the latest point in Europe in which Neandertals are known to survive. However that date has been contested in the Literature. " Its discovery predates that of the original Neanderthal discovery but no one realised its importance at the time and it lay forgotten in a cupboard for years" " The original find was done in a time where the palaeontological dating was still in its infancy, and no stratigraphic information was supplied with the skull, making dating at best guesswork."-https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gibraltar_1. Again, see below, particularly with regard to charcoal which is known for binding gases and dissolved organic compounds, dating carbon older than 20,000 years has to be done only when it is absolutely certain that the layer in which the charcoal was deposited has not been disturbed. Any disturbance after the fact could mean that the charcoal has been contaminated with more recent 14C and it may not be possible to extract all that 14C from the charcoal. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Activated_carbon. Activated charcoal is not hard to produce, just produce charcoal and its activated, don't do anything to it and it remains activated. The second drop, 1858, Neander Valley in Germany, Feldhofer 1 as it is now designated . " Examination of the skeleton, namely the skull, revealed the individual belonged to the tribe of the Flat Heads, which still live in the American West and of which several skulls have been found in recent years on the upper Danube in Sigmaringen." - Johann Carl Fuhlrott. This was the original description of Feldhofer 1 and its pretty revealing of the bias at the time. Later descriptions reveal that the material was of a pre-Modern tribe that existed at the time of Cave Bears, but before moder humans arrived, however this went along with "...the immutability of species which is considered a law of nature by most researchers, has not yet been proven" . In 1991 some 133 years later the bones were radiocarbon dated to 39,900 ± 620; however we have to question the confidence interval in the date, because at 40,000 years carbon-14 (T1/2 = 5,730) has gone through 6.933 and any bone that has been exposed to carbon dioxide during the modern age (i.e. after the bikini atoll tests) is expected to have some high level of contaminating carbon. The residual C-14 is 1/122.2 the starting carbon and the amount of C-14 in is a tiny fraction. The normal rate of C-14 production is 16,400 and 18,800 atoms per meter of surface per second. If we consider that atmosphere is 101,300 kPa per meter. Then 101,300 / 9.8 = mass = 10, 336 kg per meter.\ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Vostok_Petit_data.svg As we can see CO2 varies with respect to time, and C-14 is made from Nitrogen-14 which is created by cosmic radiation. So that the ratio of C-14 to C-12 varies with time. The graph above was made after the feldhofer 1 dating. But lets do the calculations anyway based on 250 ppmv (Volume) To do this we need to convert the 10,336 to volume, any volume will do. 1 mole per liter is 28.95 grams per liter. Thus at this 10366 kg/meter squared x 1000 gm/kg / 28.95 gram/liter = 10,366,000 grams/ meter squared/ 28.95 grams per mole = 356,000 liters of gas at one mole per liter per square meter. Again, this is not atmospheric pressure on the ground, the gas is in a column extending 100 km up so we don't really know what the average pressure or volume is, nor do we care. To calculate the moles of CO2 we then have to multiply this by 250/1000000 = 89.26 moles of CO2. We therefore know the amount of carbon per square meter. How many moles is 17,000 atoms/sec then we can calculate how many atoms are produced in a half-life of 5720 years is ~ 3 x 1015 (2.96036E+15 to 3.39358E+15)/half life of carbon. However since these are produced at a steady rate we can surmise that during that period only 1/4th have decayed . . . . so that the equilibrium level of Carbon-14 is basically 4.40584 x 1015 to 5.0506 x 1015 atoms per air column that is a meter squared at Earth's surface. The air column 40,000 years ago, assuming the data was correct has 210 PPM of carbon in it, we don't expect the total volume has change then we use 79.28 x 6.0223 x 1023 = 4.774 x1025 therefore the ratio of carbon atoms in atmosphere at the time was 6.427 x 10-1114C:(12C+13C). The amount of carbon remaining after 40,000 years is 6.427 x 10-11 * 0.5^(39,900/5720) = 5.107 x 10-1314C:(12C+13C). 28% of the bone is collagen of that 3400 C per Collagen (~80,000 MW) which means per gram of bone there are 2.078 x 1018 molecules of collagen with 3400 C per molecues is 7.068 x 1021 atoms of carbon per gram. 70% of bone is hydroxyapetite, however only 1.24% is carbon thus 0.86% in carbon, in whole bone this constitutes 4.31x 1020 In total around 8 x 1021 atoms of carbon are expected per gram of bone, so that we now know how many 14C atoms are expected per gram about 4 x 109. It does not take many carbon then to throw off the dating by 1%. The sampling is done with "A few small cylinders 2.5 mm in diameter and 2 to 3 mm in length were removed from each bone with a crown drill"-https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC130635/pdf/pq2002013342.pdf Ok so . So I calculated this as ~14 mg. of material, they do extract collagen which is good, but some of the collagen remains part of the insoluble fraction so ~3 x 109 per gram would be the max and the mass it 0.014gram and so we are talking about 42,000,000 atoms of 14C counted. Sigma associated with this number of counts would be small, less than a 0.1% and we might feel confortable with the dating. This might not seem to bad but would not complete collagen purification (not just extraction) been better. In other studies, when exposure related carbon absorption has been noted, the dating of purified collagen has been found to have an earlier date than extracted collagen. Other than Feldhofer 1 calvaria been treated with a preservative containing carbon, it was not adequately protected in a sealed (CO2 free) environment over its life. The other samples (retrieved in the 1990s) were recovered from "these specimens were thrown down an approximately 20-m rock face and subjected to breakage by subsequent quarrying activity while on the valley floor."-https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC130635/pdf/pq2002013342.pdf IOW over the last 150 years they have been exposed to the elements, to infiltration of animal excrement, pollution and soot from campfires, etc. For such a very early dating in radiocarbon range (which with perfect carbon dates only to 3.5 halflives earlier-60 kya) and given the small amount of sample. This could be a problem. We have to remember that 14C in the atmosphere spiked in the 1960s at twice the level of pre-1960s and has only slowly fallen since. The percentage of loss of 14C from the sample is 99.3% therefore it would only take a small addition of modern carbon, less that 0.05% to markedly change the date. When we look at other work, such as the original work done by Bowler (originally dated to 30kya, then later redated to 42 kya) using charcoal, and the work done on Oase 1, it is reasonable to assume that for such early dating using radiocarbon dating, one has to do everything perfectly, you cannot guess on how pure ancient the sample is. While mtDNA genome was extracted, the specimen lacked adequate quality of DNA to undergo full genome sequence (which requires magnitudes more DNA). It is likely older than 40ky but not greatly older, because in this case its unlikely that any of the DNA would be preserved, we could set an arbitrarily early date at 60ky as the upward time bracket. Feldhofer 1 is an amazing fossil in one regard, despite poor to horrific treatment over the last 150 years it still managed to produce some credible data, but as other studies will reveal, being handled by modern trained hands does no guarantee that good science will be done. Edited February 2, 2018 by PB666 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Green Baron Posted February 2, 2018 Share Posted February 2, 2018 (edited) The description of the Feldhofer specimen is from Prof. Herrmann Schaaffhausen, University of Bonn, Fuhlrott was a local scolar who identified the bones as significant, translated them to Schaaffhausen and participated in the analysis. The "tribe of the flathead" ("gehört ... zum Geschlechte der Flachköpfe") is from a newspaper journalist and was published without the approval of Fuhlrott or Schaaffhausen(*). This is important to correct as it sheds a wrong light on the descriptions and it is incorrect to attribute these words to Fuhlrott. I dont have the time for a full analysis, too many words. (*) https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neandertal_1 It may be a problem that almost all original literature on neandertals is in German or French ... Edit, ok ... ... i mean, if you want to question the dating and methods of the finds in Gibraltar, why not contact Finlayson ? If you address him courteously he'll surely share his knowledge with you. For the modern excavations in the remains of the Feldhofer cave, Ralf Schmitz is the right one. I know him well, he is a nice guy and an incredible source of information on everything Neandertal. Edited February 2, 2018 by Green Baron Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PB666 Posted February 2, 2018 Share Posted February 2, 2018 4 hours ago, Green Baron said: The description of the Feldhofer specimen is from Prof. Herrmann Schaaffhausen, University of Bonn, Fuhlrott was a local scolar who identified the bones as significant, translated them to Schaaffhausen and participated in the analysis. The "tribe of the flathead" ("gehört ... zum Geschlechte der Flachköpfe") is from a newspaper journalist and was published without the approval of Fuhlrott or Schaaffhausen(*). This is important to correct as it sheds a wrong light on the descriptions and it is incorrect to attribute these words to Fuhlrott. I dont have the time for a full analysis, too many words. (*) https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neandertal_1 It may be a problem that almost all original literature on neandertals is in German or French ... Edit, ok ... ... i mean, if you want to question the dating and methods of the finds in Gibraltar, why not contact Finlayson ? If you address him courteously he'll surely share his knowledge with you. For the modern excavations in the remains of the Feldhofer cave, Ralf Schmitz is the right one. I know him well, he is a nice guy and an incredible source of information on everything Neandertal. With regard to the he said/she said stuff . . . . . .what I will be able to demonstrate is the original wrong notions that were brought into the argument did not disappear, but in fact many of these notions persisted until it was shown that these notions were wrong. And what you will see is that only the subset that were proved wrong fade, but other wrong notions continue to persist even until recently. Archaeology did not release its biases easily, some of the changes were well fought over. You don't quite get the point, you don't have the Marx brothers come in and do archaeology for 100 years and then say geeze now we are going to do the serious stuff. What you have to say in the paper is to start this is how the samples were manhandled (not bury that fact deep in the text) and these are the things we could and could not do. Critics need details, what was the nature of the preservative placed on the calvaria? Was any means taken to characterized the chert and other material in which the bone fragments were recovered (how disturbed were they after deposition). And of the things we could do this is how we avoided all the created risk. The null hypothesis is that the dating is indeterminate, in all circumstances its up to the authors to prove that in the mess that they have adequately cleaned the sample, the critics responsibility is to point this out if they haven't. I should also point out that at a certain point in the purification, because the dating is so close to the limit of Carbon-14, that each step needs to be conducted from CO2 (from ancient carbonates that are acid treated to release gas)) purging of buffers and then degassing CO2 purified such that the CO2 itself is tested for 14C and found to contain none. (IOW all gasses used need to be completely free of radioactivity, N-15, C-14 . . . .) I will deal with this problem later, it is not possible in all cases to get high count on the AMS dating. Another point here I will make later, even if the researchers are extremely careful, a cave is not dead, over the life of a cave, animals will come and go, bats, cave arthropods, etc. In detail it needs to be certain with testing as excavation proceeds that the indicators of recent activity (mtDNA and other markers) have not accumulated in the soil. But in the case of Feldhofer I we are beyond that because the context was lost, so one has to assume for the sake of research that the sample was contaminated and then take the appropriate measures to remove that contamination. As I said we have other reasons to believe that Feldhofer I was not greatly older than 40k because of the issues regarding the mtDNA persistence, and given the post disruption exposure to the elements we are lucky to have any DNA left in that sample, so it is reasonably to imply that the dates are close, but this really is 'in the ballpark' analysis. But getting the correct result may just be a matter of luck and the next time you may not be so lucky with the same technique. I will deal with this later with Oase 1. I should point out that the first three raindrops that fall all represent some type of ill informed sampling bias. None of the first 3 are accurately dated, there is extreme bias toward the discovery of European fossils (which would lay the framework for the next period of ___________________________[to be shown]). And essentially no effort or questioning about how these fossils fit into the broader framework of ape evolution, other than the spurious incorrect assertions that they are related to south americans. The same types of assertions were made concerning Coobol creek in Australian, and again, were wrong minded. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Green Baron Posted February 2, 2018 Share Posted February 2, 2018 Answer over in your thread because it is unfriendly to derail the thread of another person. I don't want this one to be locked. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PB666 Posted February 2, 2018 Share Posted February 2, 2018 (edited) Alright so the next bits start in the 1880s and proceeds to present. 1880 - Spika cave (what is now czech republic) Mousterian tools found in the context of a hominim, presumbably Neandertal <-- first finds with context (No dates) 1888 - Two sets of remains which form a better picture of Neandertals, and and also archaeological context. A third find from the site (no publication). 1899 - Krapina (Croatia). Excavations in this area would eventually provide the most useful samples for molecular anthropology in Europe. 1908 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/La_Chapelle-aux-Saints_1 you can read. Like all the other sites except Krapina, the dating is uncertain. The archaeology was not done conservatively creating unanswerable questions about behavior. This particular site in Europe stands out be almost every Neanderthal find in Europe represents individuals of youthful disposition. The age at death would indicate the maximum longevity of Neanderthals to about 40 years in age (a guess). Neanderthals of similar or greater age are only seen in Iraq. And with this there is a point to be driven, the shorter lived Neanderthals appear to, without the presence of humans, have lived rather stressful lives. One researched noted that typical injuries are similar to those experience by rodeo riders. There has been speculation that Neanderthals matured 30% earlier than humans, had children at younger ages and died earlier. This may have been a response to the stressful conditions of Europe during the Ice Age. The hypothesis has not been followed up. 1912- Marcellin Boule publishes his now discredited influential study of Neanderthal skeletal morphology based on La Chapelle-aux-Saints 1. -wikipedia. We should note that while we have a dozen or so finds from Europe, nothing in the way of African archaeology has been done, and by and large the archaeology done in Europe is of poor quality, by anyone's standard it amounts to alchemy. Things don't get better, they get worse. 1912 - Piltdown Man - As most everyone knows now, piltdown man was a fraud, however this was not discovered until 41 years after the fact. One of the obvious failings of paleoanthropology is largely the fault that the researchers were unfamiliar with the way evolution works or the nature of trait evolution (for example an female gorilla jaw is not a trait, its a composite of various traits). But the impact of Piltdown Man was to create a Eurocentric view of human evolution. That is to say that chimps and gorillas and Africans were these weird offshoots of the branch that evolved in Europe. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piltdown_Man Quote The Piltdown Man hoax succeeded so well because, at the time of its discovery, the scientific establishment believed that the large modern brain preceded the modern omnivorous diet, and the forgery provided exactly that evidence. It has also been thought that nationalism and cultural prejudice played a role in the less-than-critical acceptance of the fossil as genuine by some British scientists.[7] It satisfied European expectations that the earliest humans would be found in Eurasia, and the British, it has been claimed,[7] also wanted a first Briton to set against fossil hominids found elsewhere in Europe. -wikipedia. Up to this point the typonometric analyses are largely dominated by bias. If we look at these from a poisson point of view, we are already drawing conclusions about the rate at which drops fall per unit of time with both an obscuring of most of the survey area (about 90% of the land-surface of the Earth is not surveyed) and the context that would eventually result in the timings are also very lose to non-existent. Worse because of the careless preservation and disturbance at many sites the precise datings are obviated. And yet conclusions are already being drawn about human evolution based on a statistical analysis that is all-but worthless. And so it would be that in 1921 the discovery of a Neandertal (Broken hill, Rhodesia) in a very odd place would largely be ignored. No serious investigation was to be conducted at the site. Edited February 2, 2018 by PB666 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Green Baron Posted February 2, 2018 Share Posted February 2, 2018 So far, you are conveniently ignoring 100s if not thousands of studies, papers, analyses, essays, opinions, .... ... and lumping Homo rhodesiensis and Neandertals. But lets see what the point will be :-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PB666 Posted February 2, 2018 Share Posted February 2, 2018 (edited) 3 hours ago, Green Baron said: So far, you are conveniently ignoring 100s if not thousands of studies, papers, analyses, essays, opinions, .... ... and lumping Homo rhodesiensis and Neandertals. But lets see what the point will be :-) S. Woodward lumped them . . . .Im using his designation. Once upon a time i deemed it important . . . . .but in discussion with African paleontologist I gradually came to realize it could be 750 kya or a recent variant there is no way to tell them apart. Which gets to the point that some effort to have characterize the site as soon after its discovery, maybe even collecting a soil sample from the site, could have been useful. Again he supported a designation of Piltdown man, but also failed to investigate to any degree homo rhodesiensis, which was an opportunity lost. It is true the many archaeologist and anthropologist disputed certain commonly held points of view, but this is not the point, the arrogant bias the permeated human paleontology. From my point of view the focus on European paleontology put a very important discovery as more or less a * in paleontology. You here the word Kabwe, Broken hill, Homo rhodensiensis type specimen being tossed about in the literature, but thats basically the limit in its importance. . .an opportunity lost. One has to take the conservative position. You might have an insight that variant X existed, you don't know what or where existed until you have some pejorative information (which my point about AMH I also apply to my own thinking). The problem in Africa is this, if you can imagine a wall and I take a shotgun and fire gameload with painted pellets at the wall, would that random colored pattern make any less sense than Africa paleoanthropology. And while you could have an indefinite number of pop/subpopulations living all over the place, in the context of population sizes and forces that shaped internal and external African evolution would necessarily make some of these undetectable except in very fortuitous circumstances (like the discovery of recently dated iso-variants in S. Africa). This is where things will stand for the foreseeable future. To be certain, to know, you need context, and the lack of context in many sites means you don't know much. And in the case of human evolution to know means you need genetic context, and if the context only appears as fragmented DNA sequences over time attached to some odd primative remain. . . .then also you don't know much. Its also true for Asia, if you have a genetic anomaly and you don't have a reference to compare it with (like Denisovan) then you don't have a context. I read an article that B73 was probably from Denisovan admixture. But it was not found in Denisova and nor was it found in the haplotypes. B73 is not the only allele, and if the admixture was a single event as some believe . . .well . . .B73 is an odd one, so is B48 and so is B67 and so these cannot be from a single individual admixture and there mode is in the Northern Yellow Sea region, not Indonesia (Individuals can at most care 2 variants . .they cannot carry 3). In the same way I detected freaky alleles that created modes in central Africa, I also found these not to be from SSA Africans generally and over time others found similar associations. But if we never find a fossil that links a context to the region of interest, its just a guess. The Zoukoudian fossils could have been that, but they are gone now. Opportunity lost. This person that you defended J. C. Fuhlrott could have taken the initiative and fully investigated the site, securing as many fossils as possible and sheltering them away in some cold dry place, context was lost. Edited February 2, 2018 by PB666 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Green Baron Posted February 2, 2018 Share Posted February 2, 2018 (edited) If you mean Arthur Smith Woodward, he never did such a thing. He described Homo rhodesiensis. And he fell for the Piltdown fraud. A pity. One can (and many do) see a heidelbergensis in the Broken Hill skull. But even that is not a Neandertal. If you lump them together, what is your basis for doing so ? You are again and again putting words in other peoples mouths that they never said. Also i am missing a real point. Will it come ? Opportunities, opportunities ;-) I am not defending nobody, just pointing out facts everybody can read in works on science history. Oh, by the way, in his time, Fuhlrott was the only one who thought the Feldhofer Neandertal is from a different human "race" and much older than everything else concerning humans, "ante-diluvial". Schaaffhausen described the anatomic features. Revolutionary in his time. He (Fuhlrott) did not live up to see his opinion come true. The great Virchow, having a much greater influence being the most luminary anatomist of his time, always put the bones as pathological but modern human. We can, without exaggeration, see Schaffhausen and Fuhlrott as the founders of palaeoanthropology. Edited February 2, 2018 by Green Baron Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PB666 Posted February 2, 2018 Share Posted February 2, 2018 14 minutes ago, Green Baron said: If you mean Arthur Smith Woodward, he never did such a thing. He described Homo rhodesiensis. And he fell for the Piltdown fraud. A pity. One can (and many do) see a heidelbergensis in the Broken Hill skull. But even that is not a Neandertal. If you lump them together, what is your basis for doing so ? I am not defending nobody, just pointing out facts everybody can read in works on science history. Oh, by the way, in his time, Fuhlrott was the only one who thought the Feldhofer Neandertal is from a different human "race" and much older than everything else concerning humans, "ante-diluvial". Schaaffhausen described the anatomic features. Revolutionary in his time. He (Fuhlrott) did not live up to see his opinion come true. The great Virchow, having a much greater influence being the most luminary anatomist of his time, always put the bones as pathological but modern human. We can, without exaggeration, see Schaffhausen and Fuhlrott as the founders of palaeoanthropology. Look up the paper. it was described as a Neanderthal. He had a someone elaborate context but that was his choice of words. They may have been the founders but a New Zealander by the name of Wilson reformed it and made it meaningful. And if you know what that is in reference to you would be a much better paleontologist for it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Green Baron Posted February 2, 2018 Share Posted February 2, 2018 (edited) 10 minutes ago, PB666 said: Look up the paper. it was described as a Neanderthal. He had a someone elaborate context but that was his choice of words. In contrary: "In general the brain case shape is much more ordinarily human than hat of the La Chapelle aux Saint Neandertal" etc. pp. "We therefore recognize in the Rhodesian cave man a new form which may be regarded as specifically distinct from Homo neandertalensis and may be appropriately named Homo rhodesiensis". From: https://www.nature.com/articles/108371a0 You aren't exactly sly with your claims, sir ;-) Edited February 2, 2018 by Green Baron Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PB666 Posted February 2, 2018 Share Posted February 2, 2018 (edited) 3 minutes ago, Green Baron said: In contrary: "In general the brain case shape is much more ordinarily human than hat of the La Chapelle aux Saint Neandertal" etc. pp. "We therefore recognize in the Rhodesian cave man a new form which may be regarded as specifically distinct from Homo neandertalensis and may be appropriately named Homo rhodesiensis". From: https://www.nature.com/articles/108371a0 You aren't exactly sly with your claims, sir ;-) Read the entire paper from 1921. Edited February 2, 2018 by PB666 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Green Baron Posted February 2, 2018 Share Posted February 2, 2018 Just now, PB666 said: Read the entire paper. Kiss my .... sorry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PB666 Posted February 2, 2018 Share Posted February 2, 2018 Just now, Green Baron said: Kiss my .... sorry. Original nature paper to be specific. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Green Baron Posted February 2, 2018 Share Posted February 2, 2018 1 minute ago, PB666 said: Original nature paper to be specific. You mess with me. Have you seen the link i posted ? Do you think i have not read it ? I can't paste it in here because i have only paid for private access. Woodward compares the skull and in the end opens up a new taxon. @Vanamonde: this guy is not playing nice ! But i would find it a shame if this thread would be closed just because of one person playing unfair .... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PB666 Posted February 2, 2018 Share Posted February 2, 2018 (edited) 4 minutes ago, Green Baron said: You mess with me. Have you seen the link i posted ? Do you think i have not read it ? I can't paste it in here because i have only paid for private access. Woodward compares the skull and in the end opens up a new taxon. @Vanamonde: this guy is not playing nice ! But i would find it a shame if this thread would be closed just because of one person playing unfair .... I see. You can edit your posts, lol. And with fair use you can quote. http://amendez.com/Early Man Seminar Poster/EMSP Rhodesian Man-text.pdf Edited February 2, 2018 by PB666 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Green Baron Posted February 2, 2018 Share Posted February 2, 2018 (edited) 6 minutes ago, PB666 said: I see. You can edit your posts, lol. And with fair use you can quote. http://amendez.com/Early Man Seminar Poster/EMSP Rhodesian Man-text.pdf Post page two, that's where it is interesting ! Edited February 2, 2018 by Green Baron Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PB666 Posted February 2, 2018 Share Posted February 2, 2018 (edited) 13 minutes ago, Green Baron said: Post page two ! No need " it is strangely similar to the Neanderthal or Mousterian race found in Belgium, France, and Gibralter" . . . . . . . . . . . IOW more similar to Neandertals than to Humans. So do you think now you can go back and be less profane? Avoiding that ole word filter that the moderators so love to use. I should point out that Homo rhodesiensis was not closer to Neandertals, it may actually have been closer to modern humans. Ok, maybe I have overused the term Neandertal, but the point was to emphasize the fact, that given two finds, Piltdown and Kabwe, Kabwe was pushed to the back and Piltdown pushed to the front as a potential ancestor of humans. The dating he applied was all over the board, it was meaningless and 100 years later is still meaningless. You can't dress this stuff up and say it was beautiful, it was ugly science. Edited February 2, 2018 by PB666 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Green Baron Posted February 2, 2018 Share Posted February 2, 2018 (edited) 16 minutes ago, PB666 said: No need " it is strangely similar to the Neanderthal or Mousterian race found in Belgium, France, and Gibralter" . . . . . . . . . . . IOW more similar to Neandertals than to Humans. So do you thing now you can go back and be less profane? Avoiding that ole word filter that the moderators so love to use. Woodward concludes that this is NOT a Neandertal and opens up Homo rhodesiensis. Stop stealing other people's time ! This is page two, shot from my screen right now (hope that's not a cause for trouble): So, "no need", eh ? Yes, wanting need, it proves that you falsely claimed Woodward lumped rhodesiensis and neandertals. You lumped them them upthread. Care to enlighten us why ? Edited February 2, 2018 by Green Baron Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PB666 Posted February 2, 2018 Share Posted February 2, 2018 1 minute ago, Green Baron said: Woodward concludes that this is NOT a Neandertal and opens up Homo rhodesiensis. Stop stealing other people's time ! This is page two, shot from my screen right now (hope that's not a cause for trouble): lol, and it goes on to say "The newly discovered Rhodeisna man may therefore revive the idea that Neandertal man is truly an ancestor of Homo sapiens; for Homo rhodesiensis retains almost all of the Neandertal face in association with a more modern brain-case and up-to-date skeleton." You're funny when you are angry. lol. Obviously Rhodsiensis did not evolve from Neandertals and Neandertals are no similar to humans than Rhodesiensis was. but that's another discussion. "Although the new skull from the Rhodesian cave so much resembles that of Neanderthal man . . . . ." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Green Baron Posted February 2, 2018 Share Posted February 2, 2018 (edited) Man, you have a robust notion of reality ... Edited February 2, 2018 by Green Baron Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts