Skip to main content

TR Memescape

  • Talk Rational: Or don't. Whatever.

Topic: Oldest Human Remains (Read 17972 times) previous topic - next topic

uncool, Dean W (+ 1 Hidden) and 6 Guests are viewing this topic.
Re: Oldest Human Remains
Reply #1550
There were modern humans in the Middle East as early as 125,000 years ago.
Two things:
There is no fossil evidence whatsoever that these modern humans migrated from Africa
There is no reason to not think that they expanded across the world


Nobody at any time has given any fossil evidence whatsoever that these modern humans migrated from Africa.
It is a pure just-so story intended to salvage the Out of Africa theory.
Nobody here (or anywhere) even tries to offer any fossil support for that story.
I tell you what I find funny. The Out of Africa people claimed that the first humans migrated out of Africa around 60 kya. So when the Skhul, Qafzeh etc fossils appeared (125,000 kya) the Out of Africa folk said that they just went extinct or retreated to Africa. Very humorous.
All just to salvage the Out of Africa theory.
I get a kick out of all the stories they have made up, to prop up the Out of Africa theory.
For example, how many times do they have them mating with Neanderthals? And where?
I see all the required keys work.  So, are you too gutless or too stupid to pick a tree?  Hmmm?
  • Last Edit: March 17, 2018, 05:38:03 PM by Dean W

  • socrates1
Re: Oldest Human Remains
Reply #1551
There were modern humans in the Middle East as early as 125,000 years ago.
Two things:
There is no fossil evidence whatsoever that these modern humans migrated from Africa
There is no reason to not think that they expanded across the world


Nobody at any time has given any fossil evidence whatsoever that these modern humans migrated from Africa.
It is a pure just-so story intended to salvage the Out of Africa theory.
Nobody here (or anywhere) even tries to offer any fossil support for that story.
I tell you what I find funny. The Out of Africa people claimed that the first humans migrated out of Africa around 60 kya. So when the Skhul, Qafzeh etc fossils appeared (125,000 kya) the Out of Africa folk said that they just went extinct or retreated to Africa. Very humorous.
All just to salvage the Out of Africa theory.
I get a kick out of all the stories they have made up, to prop up the Out of Africa theory.
For example, how many times do they have them mating with Neanderthals? And where?
Every time they see things aren't working out, they add another mating.

Re: Oldest Human Remains
Reply #1552
Avoiding DNA with a vengeance, I see.  You're funny when you know you're beaten and try to lamely soldier on.  Very amusing.

Re: Oldest Human Remains
Reply #1553
Avoiding DNA with a vengeance, I see.  You're funny when you know you're beaten and try to lamely soldier on.  Very amusing.

Come on up.  Pick a tree, any tree.

  • socrates1
Re: Oldest Human Remains
Reply #1554
There were modern humans in the Middle East as early as 125,000 years ago.
Two things:
There is no fossil evidence whatsoever that these modern humans migrated from Africa
There is no reason to not think that they expanded across the world


Nobody at any time has given any fossil evidence whatsoever that these modern humans migrated from Africa.
It is a pure just-so story intended to salvage the Out of Africa theory.
Nobody here (or anywhere) even tries to offer any fossil support for that story.
I tell you what I find funny. The Out of Africa people claimed that the first humans migrated out of Africa around 60 kya. So when the Skhul, Qafzeh etc fossils appeared (125,000 kya) the Out of Africa folk said that they just went extinct or retreated to Africa. Very humorous.
All just to salvage the Out of Africa theory.
I get a kick out of all the stories they have made up, to prop up the Out of Africa theory.
For example, how many times do they have them mating with Neanderthals? And where?
Every time they see things aren't working out, they add another mating.
How many are they up to now?

Re: Oldest Human Remains
Reply #1555
It's over Doug.  Please stop embarrassing yourself.  Why not just "move on"?  Isn't that your MO in these situations.  If it's any consolation, I take no joy in your humiliation.  But you brought it on yourself.

Re: Oldest Human Remains
Reply #1556
Now Doug's hypothesis rests on his incredulity that humans like to fuck.  How does he think this DNA gets passed on?

Re: Oldest Human Remains
Reply #1557
Perhaps he will bring hammerhead sharks into the discussion as a means of defense.

Re: Oldest Human Remains
Reply #1558
No tree yet.  Just checking.

  • socrates1
Re: Oldest Human Remains
Reply #1559
There were modern humans in the Middle East as early as 125,000 years ago.
Two things:
There is no fossil evidence whatsoever that these modern humans migrated from Africa
There is no reason to not think that they expanded across the world


Nobody at any time has given any fossil evidence whatsoever that these modern humans migrated from Africa.
It is a pure just-so story intended to salvage the Out of Africa theory.
Nobody here (or anywhere) even tries to offer any fossil support for that story.
I tell you what I find funny. The Out of Africa people claimed that the first humans migrated out of Africa around 60 kya. So when the Skhul, Qafzeh etc fossils appeared (125,000 kya) the Out of Africa folk said that they just went extinct or retreated to Africa. Very humorous.
All just to salvage the Out of Africa theory.
I get a kick out of all the stories they have made up, to prop up the Out of Africa theory.
For example, how many times do they have them mating with Neanderthals? And where?
Every time they see things aren't working out, they add another mating.
How many are they up to now?
People seem shy. How many matings in how many areas (in this "parsimonious" Out of Africa theory)?
  • Last Edit: March 17, 2018, 07:22:52 PM by socrates1

Re: Oldest Human Remains
Reply #1560
There were modern humans in the Middle East as early as 125,000 years ago.
Two things:
There is no fossil evidence whatsoever that these modern humans migrated from Africa
There is no reason to not think that they expanded across the world


Nobody at any time has given any fossil evidence whatsoever that these modern humans migrated from Africa.
It is a pure just-so story intended to salvage the Out of Africa theory.
Nobody here (or anywhere) even tries to offer any fossil support for that story.
I tell you what I find funny. The Out of Africa people claimed that the first humans migrated out of Africa around 60 kya. So when the Skhul, Qafzeh etc fossils appeared (125,000 kya) the Out of Africa folk said that they just went extinct or retreated to Africa. Very humorous.
All just to salvage the Out of Africa theory.
I get a kick out of all the stories they have made up, to prop up the Out of Africa theory.
For example, how many times do they have them mating with Neanderthals? And where?
Every time they see things aren't working out, they add another mating.
How many are they up to now?
People seem shy. How many matings in how many areas (in this "parsimonious" Out of Africa theory)?

Are you talking about dogging?

Re: Oldest Human Remains
Reply #1561
mtDNA.  Doug fucked himself over bigtime.  Now look at his pathetic whining.

Pick a tree, you fraud.  Oh, that's right.  Your hypothesis is so full of shit you can't even conceive of a tree that fits it, not even if every single option is laid out for you on a silver platter.  What a simpering fool you are.  Keep it up though, I'm laughing at you so hard right now my sides hurt.  But it's a nice pain.

Re: Oldest Human Remains
Reply #1562
Come on Doug, go out on a limb and show that your hypothesis can even exist in the real world.

N   garden variety neandertal

N*  hypothetical Middle Eastern neandertal whose sister is on the line you think led to modern humans.

L3   member of haplogroup L3

L0   member of haplogroup L0

Here's every possible way a BLAST tree could come out if we compared their sequences.  In other words, every possible way they could be related.  One of them has to fit your hypothesis, if it can be correct in our dimension.

Give us the letter that matches it.



Gimme an A!  Gimme a B!  Gimme some letter between A and O, cause that's all there is in the real universe!

Re: Oldest Human Remains
Reply #1563
I bet Doug is waxing nostalgic for his "ugly flying creatures" days, before he removed all doubt what an ignorant pissant he is.

Re: Oldest Human Remains
Reply #1564
Then again, what difference would it make?  DNA doesn't lie, and it doesn't care what hypothesis is being considered.  Facts are facts, which is unfortunate for a posturing fool who puts on airs of mediocrity.  Pairwise comparisons for the win.



Re: Oldest Human Remains
Reply #1565
Doug, you've had your head handed to you over DNA and fossils, revealed your white supremacist motivation for all your bullshit claims, and now have been reduced to bleating plaintively and pointlessly about introgression.  You've really hit rock bottom this time.  It must have seemed so promising to you 63 pages ago.  Well, that's the way the cookie crumbles.

Re: Oldest Human Remains
Reply #1566
The only possible "problem" I can see is if you are attempting to allege racism.

Is that the "problem"?

I didn't see that one coming, but that is Socrates seems to be doing: trying to associate the L0 haplogroup more closely to the apes than the other L haplogroups, to intimate something about "race".

Socrates, I am by no means an expert on this subject, but from what I have read I conclude that Mitochondrial Eve, the matrilineal most recent common ancestor (MRCA) of all currently living humans, is situated at the divergence of macro-haplogroup L into L0 and L1-L6. That is what the chart shows.

If you try to isolate the MRCA with only L0, to say L0 is closest to the apes, that is no longer a monophyletic group (a clade). If you want to have a clade that includes the MRCA of humans, where humans diverged from the apes, you must include all of the L haplogroups, that is L0 and L1-L6. When you do that, the L0 haplogroup is no closer to the apes than any of the other L haplogroups.

Having said that, I do have a question for the real experts here: Since the Oldest branch point in the mtDNA tree is between Haplogroup L0 and its sister group L1'5, would it be fair to say that Chronologically (but not genetically) the L0 haplogroup is the closest to the great apes? Maybe that is what Socrates is trying to say? Or is that also wrong?

I'm not a geneticist,

Yes you are! :yes:


but I'll take a stab a this.

Much appreciated.


People today with the L0 haplotype are no closer to the great apes than anyone else, chronologically or otherwise.  That's why the similarity percentages of people today with chimpanzees are virtually identical.  All humans have had the same amount of time to acquire mtDNA mutations since the human-human MRCA, no matter where one's particular lineage diverged from any other.  For that matter, chimpanzees have had the same amount of time as humans to acquire mtDNA mutations since the human-chimpanzee MRCA, so they are no closer to the human-chimpanzee MRCA than we are.

That all makes perfect sense


As to chronology, the first divergence was between the original L0 and the ancestor of the future L1-6.  Those two women were chronologically and genetically equidistant from the MRCA.  Later, when the second divergence between the original L1 and the ancestor of the future L2-6 occurred, all living L0s at the time, the original L1 and the ancestor of the future L2-6 were chronologically and genetically equidistant from the MRCA.  And so on up to the present.


OK, that all follows on from your first paragraph. If I may rephrase for my own understanding: All humans in the phylogenetic tree, with respect to any particular point in time, are always chronologically and genetically equidistant from the MRCA despite the fact that not all humans have taken the exact same genetic path (hence different haplogroups)

The original transition from the great apes to the MRCA happened closer to the original L0 than to L1-L6, making the original L0 the most basal, but that has nothing to do with the origin of the races*. No race of people living today is any closer to the great apes or to the MRCA than any other race.

•   * I understand that "race" is a loaded word these days and racial classification is a complex issue involving politics as much as science. So, to avoid argument, just consider that I am using the word to reflect historical classifications rather than how the word is used, or not used, today.

Specifically, notions that Caucasians evolved from chimpanzees, Blacks from gorillas and Asians from orangutans, which at one time were actual theories**, are racially motivated nonsense and have been debunked and discarded.

•   ** A theory held by Gustav Schwalbe, an early 20th century German racial theorist. IOW A Nazi, basically.

Re: Oldest Human Remains
Reply #1567
Come on Doug, go out on a limb and show that your hypothesis can even exist in the real world.

N  garden variety neandertal

N*  hypothetical Middle Eastern neandertal whose sister is on the line you think led to modern humans.

L3  member of haplogroup L3

L0  member of haplogroup L0

Here's every possible way a BLAST tree could come out if we compared their sequences.  In other words, every possible way they could be related.  One of them has to fit your hypothesis, if it can be correct in our dimension.

Give us the letter that matches it.



Gimme an A!  Gimme a B!  Gimme some letter between A and O, cause that's all there is in the real universe!

Why are there 15 combinations and not 16? I'm just thinking with 4 variables the number of combinations is n^2

  • uncool
Re: Oldest Human Remains
Reply #1568

Why are there 15 combinations and not 16? I'm just thinking with 4 variables the number of combinations is n^2

Try it with 3. You should find that there are only 3 trees, not 9. Or more trivially, that there is only one tree with 2.

The formula for the number of rooted trees with n specimens is (2n-3)!!, where the !! means "double factorial", that is, the product where each step decreases by 2, and you stop when you reach either 1 or 0. For example, 7!! = 7*5*3*1 = 105, so there are 105 rooted trees with 5 specimens. 75 of them have a single specimen split off from the others, while 30 of them split into 3 and 2. Note that this doesn't make sense if you have only one specimen.

For unrooted trees (which is all that can be recovered if you have no outgroup and don't assume equidistant star-like radiation), this becomes (2n-5)!!. For example, if you have 3 specimens, you can't recover anything about their relationship (without assuming equidistant star-like radiation), which I noted in an example to socrates earlier. Note that this doesn't make sense if you only have two specimens.

Re: Oldest Human Remains
Reply #1569

Why are there 15 combinations and not 16? I'm just thinking with 4 variables the number of combinations is n^2

Try it with 3. You should find that there are only 3 trees, not 9. Or more trivially, that there is only one tree with 2.

The formula for the number of rooted trees with n specimens is (2n-3)!!, where the !! means "double factorial", that is, the product where each step decreases by 2, and you stop when you reach either 1 or 0. For example, 7!! = 7*5*3*1 = 105, so there are 105 rooted trees with 5 specimens. 75 of them have a single specimen split off from the others, while 30 of them split into 3 and 2. Note that this doesn't make sense if you have only one specimen.

For unrooted trees (which is all that can be recovered if you have no outgroup and don't assume equidistant star-like radiation), this becomes (2n-5)!!. For example, if you have 3 specimens, you can't recover anything about their relationship (without assuming equidistant star-like radiation), which I noted in an example to socrates earlier. Note that this doesn't make sense if you only have two specimens.

That is interesting!! (double factorial)

Nice to learn something new, thanks

  • uncool
Re: Oldest Human Remains
Reply #1570
It's an interesting little problem to figure out why that should be. Want me to explain, or do you want to figure it out for yourself?

Re: Oldest Human Remains
Reply #1571
It's an interesting little problem to figure out why that should be. Want me to explain, or do you want to figure it out for yourself?

I'd like to think it over for a while but feel free to place the answer in Hide so I can cheat, if I like.  :)

  • uncool
Re: Oldest Human Remains
Reply #1572
Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Re: Oldest Human Remains
Reply #1573
Doug, you have to know that your inability to specify a tree portraying your proposed relationships between modern humans and neandertals is a deathblow to your hypothesis.  I'm here to rescue you on that score.  I realize we'll have to start with baby steps and then go from there.

Here's four individuals.  Let's say all four died without leaving any children so none of them can possibly be a descendant of any of the others.

N   garden variety neandertal

N*  hypothetical Middle Eastern neandertal whose sister is on the line you think led to modern humans.

L3   member of haplogroup L3

L0   member of haplogroup L0

Here's every possible way a BLAST tree could come out if we compared their sequences.  In other words, every possible way they could be related.  One of them has to fit your hypothesis, if it can be correct in our dimension.

Give us the letter that matches it.


I do wonder if socrates believes the trees are real, and whether what he is trying to do is slowly convince people that there are no trees, no nested hierarchies, by starting from (what he thinks is) a cladistic perspective and then show how things "don't add up". Way back he was more explicit about the "great chain of being" and parallel lines all the way down. For him Neanderthal are not a side branch, but ancestors, a point on the path of striving for the Human Platonic ideal. Or perhaps on the white Human Platonic ideal line, where Africans and Asians have their own Platonic ideal and their own parallel line.
He does not tell us this explicitly because we must discover this for ourselves, like the silent invisible guest onlookers are doing.
  • Last Edit: March 18, 2018, 12:09:14 AM by Saunt Taunga

Re: Oldest Human Remains
Reply #1574
Doug, you have to know that your inability to specify a tree portraying your proposed relationships between modern humans and neandertals is a deathblow to your hypothesis.  I'm here to rescue you on that score.  I realize we'll have to start with baby steps and then go from there.

Here's four individuals.  Let's say all four died without leaving any children so none of them can possibly be a descendant of any of the others.

N   garden variety neandertal

N*  hypothetical Middle Eastern neandertal whose sister is on the line you think led to modern humans.

L3   member of haplogroup L3

L0   member of haplogroup L0

Here's every possible way a BLAST tree could come out if we compared their sequences.  In other words, every possible way they could be related.  One of them has to fit your hypothesis, if it can be correct in our dimension.

Give us the letter that matches it.


I do wonder if socrates believes the trees are real, and whether what he is trying to do is slowly convince people that there are no trees, no nested hierarchies, by starting from (what he thinks is) a cladistic perspective and then show how things "don't add up". Way back he was more explicit about the "great chain of being" and parallel lines all the way down. For him Neanderthal are not a side branch, but ancestors, a point on the path of striving for the Human Platonic ideal. Or perhaps on the white Human Platonic ideal line, where Africans and Asians have their own Platonic ideal and their own parallel line.
He does not tell us this explicitly because we must discover this for ourselves, like the silent invisible guest onlookers are doing.
I remember how he was confused by the word hierarchy, for him it is a line, minerals, plants, animals, apes, humans, angels, God. The great Chain of Being.