Skip to main content

TR Memescape

  • Talk Rational: Be strong

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - Alfonso Bivouac

1
Done much scienting today Doug?
2
He surely cannot be this ignorant?  Oh wait, the < 10K years thing.  yes he can.
3
If you think this is a crazy idea, remember that two very prominent world leaders - Jesus and Gandhi - were both men who are not afraid to get their hands dirty.

Both also got murdered.
And neither of them grew their own food.
but they did equally astonishing things like spin their own cotton for clothing and not have a home.

Or not grow food but contribute to a cure for cancer.  Like that?
4
uncool has gone to the trouble to count mutations. How many mutations would the Out of Africa theory require for some given European?
Anyone can contribute on this.

Great!  When are you going to start?
5
For reference:

Let's say that the Nile sites were older than the Levant sites. Would people be saying that the Nile sites were irrelevant? And be listing a bunch of "yes but" excuses for ignoring the Nile sites?
We all know the answer to this.
Face it folks. I am the only one who is even raising the issue about the Levant sites being older than the Nile sites. There is nothing published on this issue.
This means that the humans in the Levant did not arise from a migration out of Africa. People just cannot acknowledge that. To get out of this stage requires someone to be honest. Then they or someone else can move on to the "so what" stage.
The Levant sites are older than the Nile sites. That contradicts the Northern route idea that humans migrated from Africa into the Levant. If people choose to ignore that then so be it. The straightforward parsimonious explanation is that humans migrated from the Levant into Africa.

Yes, I choose to ignore an unreferenced, unlinked, un-copied and un-pasted opinion of a crazed B&B owner.
6
As a sidenote: I have learned from experience that it is pointless to address the "yes but" excuses. The argument on each one goes on forever and in the end just leads to even more "yes but" excuses. People here are simply biased to the Out of Africa theory so the "yes but" excuses go on forever.

Yes.  But.
7
For reference:

Let's say that the Nile sites were older than the Levant sites. Would people be saying that the Nile sites were irrelevant? And be listing a bunch of "yes but" excuses for ignoring the Nile sites?
We all know the answer to this.
Face it folks. I am the only one who is even raising the issue about the Levant sites being older than the Nile sites. There is nothing published on this issue.
This means that the humans in the Levant did not arise from a migration out of Africa. People just cannot acknowledge that. To get out of this stage requires someone to be honest. Then they or someone else can move on to the "so what" stage.

Socrates, whenever you write "someone" or "you people", why do you not write what you mean and say "world's leading scientists in this field".

Therefore:

"This means that the humans in the Levant did not arise from a migration out of Africa. People The world's leading scientists in this field just cannot acknowledge that. To get out of this stage requires they or someone else the world's leading scientists in this field to be honest. Then they or someone else the world's leading scientists in this field can move on to the "so what" stage."

Does this then look like the rantings of an ill informed idiot.  It does to me.
8
And how do the engineering teams in the quantum plenum fit into any of this?

Are people pretending?
9
Quote
L4
Age: 78,996.2 ± 7,353.1; CI=95% (Behar et al., 2012b)
Origin: Undetermined
Mutations: T195C! G5460A T16362C
Parent Branch: L3'4
Descendant branch(s): L4a L4b

Background
Haplogroup L4 is a branch on the maternal tree of human kind. Its age is between 71,600 and 86,300 years (Behar et al., 2012b).
It is interesting that if we use the later dating for L3 we find that it is later than L4.
This must come as a shock since everybody "knows" that L3 is the end of the line. It is difficult to accept that it may be the beginning of the line.
Everything changes when you use the later dating for L3.
The later dating comes from this reference
https://academic.oup.com/mbe/article/24/3/757/1243814
I have already said I do not know how they came up with that. If anyone can tell us that would be great.

I told one of the other Socrates.  Didn't they tell you?
10
So the evidence indicates there was a migration of L3 into Africa which accounts for the presence of L3 in Africa. But what are we to make of the other L haplogroups in Africa?
I have proposed that they evolved from L3. That the differences between for example L3 and L4 developed in a progression from L3 to L4.
What is the evidence on behalf of and against this proposal?
The first thing is to see what would be involved in this scenario.
The first thing is to determine the changes that would be involved:
As far as I can see the changes from L3 to L4 are:
 G769A  G1018A  T16311C
This is not rocket science. It is just a matter of determining what this scenario would be like.

As usual VoxRat is intimating something. Perhaps someday he will let us know.
Anybody else?
 
I have listed the differences between L3 and L4. In the scenario I am analyzing those are the changes that would occur in an evolution from L3 to L4. That is after L3 migrated into Africa (in the Ethiopia area). A migration hypothesized in the passages I quoted above.
To use a formulation that you folks would prefer I have listed the changes between L3 and the common ancestor of L3 and L4.
For reference:


Notice the line that runs from L3 down southward in Africa. That is the line I am referring to.
And to get to the point where L4 branches off that southward line you have the changes I listed.
But if anyone thinks that would be a different set of changes, please let us know and explain why you think that.
And as I see it, the following would be the changes to get to the point where L6 branches off that southward line:
C3594T  C7256T  C13650T  C16278T
So if people see what I am getting at (it is not that difficult) then this is the scenario if L3 migrated into Africa (Ethiopia area)* and gave rise to the other L haplogroups. We can look at the dating shortly.


* as the quotes I gave earlier proposed a migration of L3 into Africa
Just to remind people of the first step:

Quote
these analyses suggest that L3 haplogroup arose in the Middle East with a subsequent back migration and expansion into Africa over the Horn-of-Africa during the lower sea levels found during the glacial period bottleneck.

Quote
fully modern human L3-carrying females are thus proposed to have back-migrated from the maternal haplogroup's place of origin in Eurasia around 70 kya along with males bearing the paternal haplogroup E, which is also thought to have originated in Eurasia.
Note that the migration was likely not around 70kya.

I begin with the idea (we see in the passages) that L3 arose in the Middle East, and that some migrated south in Arabia, and some of them migrated into Africa (Ethiopia area). You folks do not begin with that idea.
If you want to argue that, then argue it with the researchers I quoted. I am taking that as a starting point. And then analyzing how that migration of L3 humans would have evolved into the other L haplogroups. Now we can look at the dating.

How many multiple personalities (all with the same name) are there Socrates?
11
So the evidence indicates there was a migration of L3 into Africa which accounts for the presence of L3 in Africa. But what are we to make of the other L haplogroups in Africa?
I have proposed that they evolved from L3. That the differences between for example L3 and L4 developed in a progression from L3 to L4.
What is the evidence on behalf of and against this proposal?
The first thing is to see what would be involved in this scenario.
The first thing is to determine the changes that would be involved:
As far as I can see the changes from L3 to L4 are:
 G769A  G1018A  T16311C
This is not rocket science. It is just a matter of determining what this scenario would be like.

As usual VoxRat is intimating something. Perhaps someday he will let us know.
Anybody else?
 
I have listed the differences between L3 and L4. In the scenario I am analyzing those are the changes that would occur in an evolution from L3 to L4. That is after L3 migrated into Africa (in the Ethiopia area). A migration hypothesized in the passages I quoted above.
To use a formulation that you folks would prefer I have listed the changes between L3 and the common ancestor of L3 and L4.
For reference:


Notice the line that runs from L3 down southward in Africa. That is the line I am referring to.
And to get to the point where L4 branches off that southward line you have the changes I listed.
But if anyone thinks that would be a different set of changes, please let us know and explain why you think that.
And as I see it, the following would be the changes to get to the point where L6 branches off that southward line:
C3594T  C7256T  C13650T  C16278T
So if people see what I am getting at (it is not that difficult) then this is the scenario if L3 migrated into Africa (Ethiopia area)* and gave rise to the other L haplogroups. We can look at the dating shortly.


* as the quotes I gave earlier proposed a migration of L3 into Africa
Just to remind people of the first step:

Quote
these analyses suggest that L3 haplogroup arose in the Middle East with a subsequent back migration and expansion into Africa over the Horn-of-Africa during the lower sea levels found during the glacial period bottleneck.

Quote
fully modern human L3-carrying females are thus proposed to have back-migrated from the maternal haplogroup's place of origin in Eurasia around 70 kya along with males bearing the paternal haplogroup E, which is also thought to have originated in Eurasia.
Note that the migration was likely not around 70kya.

I begin with the idea (we see in the passages) that L3 arose in the Middle East, and that some migrated south in Arabia, and some of them migrated into Africa (Ethiopia area). You folks do not begin with that idea.

To be more precise.  By "you folks", you really mean every single scientist in the world who is working in this field.  They are all wrong and you are right.
12
So the evidence indicates there was a migration of L3 into Africa which accounts for the presence of L3 in Africa. But what are we to make of the other L haplogroups in Africa?
I have proposed that they evolved from L3. That the differences between for example L3 and L4 developed in a progression from L3 to L4.
What is the evidence on behalf of and against this proposal?
The first thing is to see what would be involved in this scenario.
The first thing is to determine the changes that would be involved:
As far as I can see the changes from L3 to L4 are:
 G769A  G1018A  T16311C
This is not rocket science. It is just a matter of determining what this scenario would be like.

As usual VoxRat is intimating something. Perhaps someday he will let us know.
Anybody else?
 
I have listed the differences between L3 and L4. In the scenario I am analyzing those are the changes that would occur in an evolution from L3 to L4. That is after L3 migrated into Africa (in the Ethiopia area). A migration hypothesized in the passages I quoted above.
To use a formulation that you folks would prefer I have listed the changes between L3 and the common ancestor of L3 and L4.
For reference:


Notice the line that runs from L3 down southward in Africa. That is the line I am referring to.
And to get to the point where L4 branches off that southward line you have the changes I listed.
The line doesn't go down, it's going up.

First off, you don't use someone else's graphics showing just the opposite of what you are arguing, explaining the difference as simply they got the directions of the arrows wrong. Which is belied by the graphic itself, if one notices the legend in the lower left corner indicating the relevant dates for each major transition. Those don't go down south either. They start with "L" in Central Africa, what looks like the Lake Country and radiate out, South, East, West, North and from those directions on. Your L3 lineage is on the black portion of the line, indicated it is among the most recent migrations.

Secondly, what evidence do you offer in support of your fantasy. Evidence that you personally have developed. Not your edited versions of other peoples' research. Quote-mining, cherry-picking, redavinitioning, striking out words, editorializing, are not allowed and have no relevance. Don't bother.

But he IS a scientist!
13
So the evidence indicates there was a migration of L3 into Africa which accounts for the presence of L3 in Africa. But what are we to make of the other L haplogroups in Africa?
I have proposed that they evolved from L3. That the differences between for example L3 and L4 developed in a progression from L3 to L4.
What is the evidence on behalf of and against this proposal?
The first thing is to see what would be involved in this scenario.
The first thing is to determine the changes that would be involved:
As far as I can see the changes from L3 to L4 are:
 G769A  G1018A  T16311C
This is not rocket science. It is just a matter of determining what this scenario would be like.

As usual VoxRat is intimating something. Perhaps someday he will let us know.
Anybody else?
 
I have listed the differences between L3 and L4. In the scenario I am analyzing those are the changes that would occur in an evolution from L3 to L4. That is after L3 migrated into Africa (in the Ethiopia area). A migration hypothesized in the passages I quoted above.
To use a formulation that you folks would prefer I have listed the changes between L3 and the common ancestor of L3 and L4.
For reference:


Notice the line that runs from L3 down southward in Africa. That is the line I am referring to.
You blithertwit, that line runs up, not down. It's a continuation of the line starting with "L", a spreading pattern.



Well, to be fair to Doug, he is as mad as a box of twats.
14
Back to square one:

Quote
Haplogroup L3's exact place of origin is uncertain. According to the Recent African origin of modern humans (Out-of-Africa) theory, the clade is believed to have arisen and dispersed from East Africa between 84,000 and 104,000 years ago.[1]

An analysis of 369 complete African L3 sequences placed the maximal date of the clade's expansion at ∼70 ka. This virtually rules out a successful exit out of Africa before 74 ka, the date of the Toba volcanic super-eruption in Sumatra.[2] The Time to Most Recent Common Ancestor for the L3 lineage has also recently been estimated to be between 58,900 and 70,200 years ago, around the time as and associated with the Out-of-Africa expansion of the ancestors of non-African modern humans from Eastern Africa into Eurasia around 70,000 years ago, and also with a similar expansion within Africa from the East of the continent.[2]
Quote
The age of the youngest node containing both African and non-African sequences (node S) is 94.3 ± 9.9 kya* and represents an upper bound time estimate for an exodus out of Africa.

*104-84kya


Dismissed!
15
"You know what virtually guarantees that you won't become a true hero like those guys? Comparing yourself to those guys."

Nope.

Comparing ourselves to people like this is good because it makes us realize how far short of their standard we fall.  I am not even close to the level of self-sacrifice and love for others that I see in the life of Jesus and the life of Gandhi, but I do see progress in my life. I certainly am closer to being like them in these ways than I was say 10 years ago.

But how does being a right cunt have anything to do with being like Jesus or Gandhi?

Gandhi was a right cunt irt women.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2010/jan/27/mohandas-gandhi-women-india
And Alfonso is a right cunt toward me.

And nowhere near as much as a cunt you've been to Pingu.
16
"You know what virtually guarantees that you won't become a true hero like those guys? Comparing yourself to those guys."

Nope.

Comparing ourselves to people like this is good because it makes us realize how far short of their standard we fall.  I am not even close to the level of self-sacrifice and love for others that I see in the life of Jesus and the life of Gandhi, but I do see progress in my life. I certainly am closer to being like them in these ways than I was say 10 years ago.

But how does being a right cunt have anything to do with being like Jesus or Gandhi?

Gandhi was a right cunt irt women.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2010/jan/27/mohandas-gandhi-women-india

Well I  never.  I take that back Dave, you're a lot like Gandhi in some respects.
17
"You know what virtually guarantees that you won't become a true hero like those guys? Comparing yourself to those guys."

Nope.

Comparing ourselves to people like this is good because it makes us realize how far short of their standard we fall.  I am not even close to the level of self-sacrifice and love for others that I see in the life of Jesus and the life of Gandhi, but I do see progress in my life. I certainly am closer to being like them in these ways than I was say 10 years ago.

But how does being a right cunt have anything to do with being like Jesus or Gandhi?
18
Or just after getting back to Glen about the spider tracks.
19
Obviously they came from the quantum plenum.

Wasn't that a 50's B movie?
20


Figure 1. Map of Nubian Complex occurrences in Northeast Africa and Arabia.

Distribution of Nubian Complex sites and findspots are depicted, as well as MSA/MP sites with human remains. To account for shoreline configuration ∼100 ka, sea level is adjusted to −40 m below present levels. Nubian Complex sites include: Jebel Urayf (1), Jebel Naquah (2), Nazlet Khater (3), Abydos (4), Makhadma (5), Taramsa Hill (6), Sodmein Cave (7), Kharga Oasis (8), Bir Tarfawi (9), Bir Sahara (10), Abu Simbel (11), Jebel Brinikol (12), 1035 (13), 1038 (14), Sai Island (15), Gorgora Rockshelter (16), K'One (17), Hargeisa (18), Shabwa (19), Wadi Wa'shah (20), Aybut Al Auwal (21), Aybut Ath Thani (22), Mudayy As Sodh (23), and Jebel Sanoora (24).
Looks like all the "Early AMH remains" are in Africa, doesn't it?



This^^^^^
I expect that kind of blindness from VoxRat. The drawing does not show the AMHs in the Levant. It is cut off at the top. Or are you making some other point?

Was it blindness when you mistook a hand for a foot?
21
Wow. Watch those huge brass balls swing as David blandly and carefully avoids substantively addressing any relevant question. Such a delicate and convoluted dance.
if you're serious about having me answer questions, prove it as uncool did by picking one that's most important to you.

Why do the curves agree?
22
Yes ?
And... ?
So why wouldn't goats and sheep do well in the Amazon rain forest?

This is where the menace aspect comes in.
23

Quote
And in the consensus theory what is picked up from the common ancestor is not attributed to Neanderthal. Is that also clear?
They only attribute to the Neanderthal what evolved on the Neanderthal line after the Neanderthal branched from the common ancestor (1-4%).
Is that clear? Or do you need VoxRat to say that he knew that all along and everybody else knew it all along?
Well it seems that nobody understands this or are pretending not to understand it. Stage 1 is tedious.
I have said a few times that the only way out of Stage 1 is for someone to be honest.
I can help. In the consensus theory what is picked up from the common ancestor is not attributed to Neanderthal because it is attributed to the claimed African ancestor.
Of course it could just as easily be attributed to Neanderthal. Right?
Worth repeating.
I see a problem in the vocabulary that the researchers use. It is biased.
They talk about a common ancestor of humans and Neanderthals. That is only true if humans evolved from a lineage in Africa.
The alternative is that there was a common ancestor branching that led on one branch to Neanderthals and on the other branch to a lineage in Africa that went extinct.

I expect that everyone understands this.
Everyone understands that it's nonsense that only demonstrates your own misunderstandings. What do you think the location of human evolution has to do with the conclusion that humans and Neanderthals share common ancestry? That would be a valid conclusion of fossil and DNA evidence regardless of where on Earth the fossils were found.

And how do you think the idea that another branch in Africa went extinct even represents an alternative, let alone the alternative? Are you unaware that there were in fact multiple other branches that went extinct both in Africa and elsewhere?

Also, why do you continue to talk about an unidentified "they"? Calling them "the researchers" doesn't clear anything up. Which researchers? What study are you referring to?

I expect that everyone understands this.
24
This may help on the word "attributed":
Reworded:
In the consensus theory what is picked up from the common ancestor is not attributed to claimed to have descended from Neanderthal because it is attributed to claimed to have descended from the claimed African ancestor.

This may help on the word "They".

Just who the fuck are "They"?
25
When I say "attributed" I mean that the DNA in human is claimed to have descended from the African lineage. They attribute it to the African lineage and not the Neanderthal lineage.
Perhaps that was not clear.
I thought this was straightforward. Apparently not to the folks here.

I know.  I would have thought you would easily be able to tell us who "They" are.  Apparently not.