Skip to main content

TR Memescape

  • Talk Rational: Stupider than Ned Stark.

Topic: Oldest Human Remains (Read 26644 times) previous topic - next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
  • socrates1
Re: Oldest Human Remains
Reply #1275
Because you haven't answered for the argument about parsimony. Your continuing refusal to do so is most revealing.
About the tiny amount that L0 is better than L3 - that means nothing

Especially when it is not even based on Middle East Neanderthals

  • uncool
Re: Oldest Human Remains
Reply #1276
We can start with that. So you do admit that L0 is, explicitly, more parsimonious - even if you only think it is a "tiny amount".

Right?

  • socrates1
Re: Oldest Human Remains
Reply #1277
We can start with that. So you do admit that L0 is, explicitly, more parsimonious - even if you only think it is a "tiny amount".

Right?
I already agreed to that and it is a tiny amount. Using Middle East Neanderthals could easily overwhelm that.

  • uncool
Re: Oldest Human Remains
Reply #1278
We can start with that. So you do admit that L0 is, explicitly, more parsimonious - even if you only think it is a "tiny amount".

Right?
I already agreed to that and it is a tiny amount. Using Middle East Neanderthals could easily overwhelm that.

I hadn't understood any of your posts as agreement. That's a good start. Do you further agree that demonstrating that parsimony requires no assumption whatsoever of out-of-Africa?

  • socrates1
Re: Oldest Human Remains
Reply #1279
We can start with that. So you do admit that L0 is, explicitly, more parsimonious - even if you only think it is a "tiny amount".

Right?
I already agreed to that and it is a tiny amount. Using Middle East Neanderthals could easily overwhelm that.

I hadn't understood any of your posts as agreement. That's a good start. Do you further agree that demonstrating that parsimony requires no assumption whatsoever of out-of-Africa?
Please respond to the fact that the chart (the study) does not include any Middle East Neanderthals.

  • uncool
Re: Oldest Human Remains
Reply #1280
I will, when you answer the question.

Do you agree that the demonstration of parsimony required no assumption of out-of-Africa? That is, that it was a conclusion from the data analyzed, without using that assumption?

  • socrates1
Re: Oldest Human Remains
Reply #1281
We can start with that. So you do admit that L0 is, explicitly, more parsimonious - even if you only think it is a "tiny amount".

Right?
I already agreed to that and it is a tiny amount. Using Middle East Neanderthals could easily overwhelm that.

I hadn't understood any of your posts as agreement. That's a good start. Do you further agree that demonstrating that parsimony requires no assumption whatsoever of out-of-Africa?
Please respond to the fact that the chart (the study) does not include any Middle East Neanderthals.
Anyone?

  • uncool
Re: Oldest Human Remains
Reply #1282
I told you: I will answer your question as soon as you answer mine. I want you on the record answering whether I've shown that no out-of-Africa assumption was necessary. Is there some reason why you are avoiding that question?

  • socrates1
Re: Oldest Human Remains
Reply #1283
We can start with that. So you do admit that L0 is, explicitly, more parsimonious - even if you only think it is a "tiny amount".

Right?
I already agreed to that and it is a tiny amount. Using Middle East Neanderthals could easily overwhelm that.

I hadn't understood any of your posts as agreement. That's a good start. Do you further agree that demonstrating that parsimony requires no assumption whatsoever of out-of-Africa?
Please respond to the fact that the chart (the study) does not include any Middle East Neanderthals.
Anyone?
People might find it interesting to look at the Neanderthals that are included in the study. FM865411 is in Russia and I believe the others are in Europe. Right away you see the large difference between them.

Re: Oldest Human Remains
Reply #1284
We can start with that. So you do admit that L0 is, explicitly, more parsimonious - even if you only think it is a "tiny amount".

Right?
I already agreed to that and it is a tiny amount. Using Middle East Neanderthals could easily overwhelm that.

I hadn't understood any of your posts as agreement. That's a good start. Do you further agree that demonstrating that parsimony requires no assumption whatsoever of out-of-Africa?
Please respond to the fact that the chart (the study) does not include any Middle East Neanderthals.
Anyone?
People might find it interesting to look at the Neanderthals that are included in the study. FM865411 is in Russia and I believe the others are in Europe. Right away you see the large difference between them.

So when can we expect your chart?

  • uncool
Re: Oldest Human Remains
Reply #1285
Socrates, you seem to be avoiding the question. Do you agree that the demonstration of parsimony required no assumption of out-of-Africa? That is, that it was a conclusion from the data analyzed, without using that assumption?

Re: Oldest Human Remains
Reply #1286
I'm curious - how does the analysis determine where the root is? Do you know if it uses the "principle of equidistant star-like radiation"?

Parsimony shouldn't be enough to determine where the root lies, if I'm not mistaken.

Their site says BLAST arranges the humans per a secret Phylotree database and sort of randomly arranges non-humans.  No, not really.  Pairwise analysis.  I blasted the rCRS (H). L0, L3, and two neandertals, then listed the differences BLAST gave between each pair.  Then I sorted them by number of differences.




  • socrates1
Re: Oldest Human Remains
Reply #1287
We can start with that. So you do admit that L0 is, explicitly, more parsimonious - even if you only think it is a "tiny amount".

Right?
I already agreed to that and it is a tiny amount. Using Middle East Neanderthals could easily overwhelm that.

I hadn't understood any of your posts as agreement. That's a good start. Do you further agree that demonstrating that parsimony requires no assumption whatsoever of out-of-Africa?
Please respond to the fact that the chart (the study) does not include any Middle East Neanderthals.
Anyone?
People might find it interesting to look at the Neanderthals that are included in the study. FM865411 is in Russia and I believe the others are in Europe. Right away you see the large difference between them.
We would see also a large difference between Middle East Neanderthals and other Neanderthals.

  • uncool
Re: Oldest Human Remains
Reply #1288
I'm curious - how does the analysis determine where the root is? Do you know if it uses the "principle of equidistant star-like radiation"?

Parsimony shouldn't be enough to determine where the root lies, if I'm not mistaken.

Their site says BLAST arranges the humans per a secret Phylotree database and sort of randomly arranges non-humans.  No, not really.  Pairwise analysis.  I blasted the rCRS (H). L0, L3, and two neandertals, then listed the differences BLAST gave between each pair.  Then I sorted them by number of differences.




I was specifically referring to the neanderthal-less analysis (in the post just before mine) - it seems to me that that one should be unable to determine a "root" for the human tree.

ETA: Sorting by number of differences seems like it should effectively be equivalent to "principle of equidistant star-like radiation", as in the paper.
  • Last Edit: March 13, 2018, 05:53:44 PM by uncool

  • socrates1
Re: Oldest Human Remains
Reply #1289
We can start with that. So you do admit that L0 is, explicitly, more parsimonious - even if you only think it is a "tiny amount".

Right?
I already agreed to that and it is a tiny amount. Using Middle East Neanderthals could easily overwhelm that.

I hadn't understood any of your posts as agreement. That's a good start. Do you further agree that demonstrating that parsimony requires no assumption whatsoever of out-of-Africa?
Please respond to the fact that the chart (the study) does not include any Middle East Neanderthals.
Anyone?
People might find it interesting to look at the Neanderthals that are included in the study. FM865411 is in Russia and I believe the others are in Europe. Right away you see the large difference between them.
We would see also a large difference between Middle East Neanderthals and other Neanderthals.
Does everybody get it? Anyone?

  • uncool
Re: Oldest Human Remains
Reply #1290
Yes, we get it. And I'll be happy to answer your question as soon as you answer mine.

  • socrates1
Re: Oldest Human Remains
Reply #1291
We can start with that. So you do admit that L0 is, explicitly, more parsimonious - even if you only think it is a "tiny amount".

Right?
I already agreed to that and it is a tiny amount. Using Middle East Neanderthals could easily overwhelm that.

I hadn't understood any of your posts as agreement. That's a good start. Do you further agree that demonstrating that parsimony requires no assumption whatsoever of out-of-Africa?
Please respond to the fact that the chart (the study) does not include any Middle East Neanderthals.
Anyone?
People might find it interesting to look at the Neanderthals that are included in the study. FM865411 is in Russia and I believe the others are in Europe. Right away you see the large difference between them.
We would see also a large difference between Middle East Neanderthals and other Neanderthals.
Does everybody get it? Anyone?
This means that the study (chart) does not really apply to the Middle East scenario I am proposing.

  • uncool
Re: Oldest Human Remains
Reply #1292
Hahahaha no.

Answer my question and I'll tell you exactly why.

  • socrates1
Re: Oldest Human Remains
Reply #1293
We can start with that. So you do admit that L0 is, explicitly, more parsimonious - even if you only think it is a "tiny amount".

Right?
I already agreed to that and it is a tiny amount. Using Middle East Neanderthals could easily overwhelm that.

I hadn't understood any of your posts as agreement. That's a good start. Do you further agree that demonstrating that parsimony requires no assumption whatsoever of out-of-Africa?
Please respond to the fact that the chart (the study) does not include any Middle East Neanderthals.
Anyone?
People might find it interesting to look at the Neanderthals that are included in the study. FM865411 is in Russia and I believe the others are in Europe. Right away you see the large difference between them.
We would see also a large difference between Middle East Neanderthals and other Neanderthals.
Does everybody get it? Anyone?
This means that the study (chart) does not really apply to the Middle East scenario I am proposing.
I will be leaving this specific aspect of the subject shortly.

  • uncool
Re: Oldest Human Remains
Reply #1294
Sounds like you're afraid to deal with criticism of it. Do you agree that the demonstration of parsimony required no assumption of out-of-Africa? That is, that it was a conclusion from the data analyzed, without using that assumption?

Re: Oldest Human Remains
Reply #1295
I'm afraid I have to eat some crow.  In southwestern Syria, near the Lebanese border, archaeologists excavating dwellings from the early Aramaean period (circa 1100 BC) accidentally caused the floor of a house to collapse, revealing a cave beneath.  A skeleton was recovered with Neandertal features.  Its mtDNA has been sequenced and is now in the NCBI database, KC982541.  I BLASTED it with some other individuals I'd done before, and the results were stunning.

Doug, I stand corrected.

  • Last Edit: March 13, 2018, 07:07:33 PM by Dean W

  • uncool
Re: Oldest Human Remains
Reply #1296
As a note though - that is just a 954-nucleotide subsequence, from what I'm reading.

  • RickB
Re: Oldest Human Remains
Reply #1297
We can start with that. So you do admit that L0 is, explicitly, more parsimonious - even if you only think it is a "tiny amount".

Right?
I already agreed to that and it is a tiny amount. Using Middle East Neanderthals could easily overwhelm that.

I hadn't understood any of your posts as agreement. That's a good start. Do you further agree that demonstrating that parsimony requires no assumption whatsoever of out-of-Africa?
Please respond to the fact that the chart (the study) does not include any Middle East Neanderthals.
Anyone?
People might find it interesting to look at the Neanderthals that are included in the study. FM865411 is in Russia and I believe the others are in Europe. Right away you see the large difference between them.
We would see also a large difference between Middle East Neanderthals and other Neanderthals.
Does everybody get it? Anyone?
This means that the study (chart) does not really apply to the Middle East scenario I am proposing.
I will be leaving this specific aspect of the subject shortly.


So unknown evidence most be used to validate So-crates argument??

How exactly is 'unknown evidence" used to "prove" anything???

Maybe if some evidence were presented rather that an unsupported 'idea'  we could begin to evaluate this unknown, unpresented data. 

Not going to hold me breath, So-crates secret plan to eliminate all opposition.



Re: Oldest Human Remains
Reply #1298
This is typical Doug MO.  Dismiss the evidence we have on ludicrous grounds, declare that nonexistent evidence will vindicate his hypothesis, postulate illogically what that nonexistent evidence would be, and declare victory.  It works in his mind, apparently.  And in his pathetic little fantasy of Dougdom, that's enough.

Re: Oldest Human Remains
Reply #1299
BTW, has Doug posted HIS proposed tree?  No?  It's pretty silly to rage against a tree without having an alternative one.  Without an alternative tree , there's no competing hypothesis at all.  I'll help him get started, as I have countless times before.  Come on, Doug, strap on a pair and present your alternative tree.  All you have to do is replace the terminal branch letters (A - H, or some subset) with individuals of your choice that I will then BLAST against each other to test the parsimony of your tree.  What could be simpler?  All I need are some IDs from Phylotree.  It requires virtually zero effort on your part.  If you're too terrified to present a tree, we'll understand that you're still full of shit, as you've proved yourself to be since day one.

Man up, or remain the sniveling poser we all know you are.  The choice is yours.

Code: [Select]
                       l----A
                   l---l
                   l   l----B
                l--l
                l  l--------C
            l---l
            l   l-----------D
        l---l
        l   l---------------E
    l---l
    l    l------------------F
l---l
l   l-----------------------G 
l
l---------------------------H
  • Last Edit: March 13, 2018, 09:29:08 PM by Dean W