| View previous topic :: View next topic |
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
 |
|
The AE position agrees entirely with you. There is simply not enough evidence to draw any kind of lineage among the higher primates, and it is only the fact that human beings (and their jackel-masters, the palaeoanthropologists) 'need for answers' that has led to the present situation.
Your point about not knowing the situation vis a vis us and chimps sums up the whole situation. We have perfect information (genes, morphology, ecology, lab experiments etc) about both species and yet still we can't say anything definite about their relatedness (aside from both being higher primates) and yet we are asked to believe that the palaeo-industry can map the entire hominid branch plus ourselves on the basis of the wispiest zephyrs of evidence.
Good point about Tierrans and Tasmanians. They really oughtn't to have forgotten such important stuff, ought they? I'll put it behind my ear for later. But can you re-check your sources to ensure these are not Travellers Tales that have got in the academic backdoor?
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
Xerxes
In: The Forest of Dean
|
|
|
|
We don't need to check travellers' tales about the land of fires and the land of no fires. The point I was making can be illustrated (at the risk of appearing racist) by reference to the poor old Australian Abos, or the Gurami Indians or the Inuit or any of the modern humans who don't quite fit the Cro-Magnon whizz-kid image, building Pyramids, atom bombs, moon rockets and other cool stuff. A racial bigot (not me Gov!) might suggest that they actually sound a bit like the Neanderthals who just sat around doing a bit of hunting, whittling the odd spear and scratching their arses for tens of thousands of years.
You know, in this debate we may be perilously close to being forced to define what being human actually means, before we ditch the Neanderthals.
Still, in a more positive frame of mind I decided to bone up on the sexy Cro-Magnons. Now where did they come from? Three possibilities:
-- 'Evolved' from one of the no-hoper hominids. (I think we've already ruled that one out).
-- Divine intervention. ('Oh my God' I groan......)
-- Alien/Extra terrestrial intervention. (This roll-up fag is really good.......)
OK, so we'll never know, which is comforting, as it means we won't have to put up with another creation myth.
Feeling quite buoyant by now, I went on to hunt for earliest fossils. There seem to be some dodgy 'Early Modern Humans' in Ethiopia as far back as nearly 200,000 yrs BP. Cor blimey!
But it's OK, the first remains of our Cro-Magnon Superman are dated spot on to the fabled 100,000yrs BP. What luck! And where were these precious remains of the ultimate ancestors of the entire human race found? Skhul and Cazfah. Sorry, where are these? Wait for it............ They are in Israel!
Of course! Stupid of me. I should have known. I could have guessed.
I've lost interest now. I can cope with a fair amount of bullshit, provided I've got a shovel handy, but I really do object to piss taking.
Maybe I'll try cosmology next.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
DPCrisp
In: Bedfordshire
|
|
|
|
| when sea levels were over 100m lower than present levels, it must have been pretty cold? |
Actually, no, that doesn't follow. For the sea level to fall, a lot of water needs to be stuck on land (coz floating ice doesn't affect the water level), presumably frozen (so it doesn't run off). For that it needs to get into the air first, so it can subsequently fall as snow and build up some glacier. To get a lot of water into the air, it needs to be warm.
| So cold, in fact, that the NS would have been part of the very glaciations that were locking up all the water. |
It's no good saying "would have been" without being specific. As it is, the evidence is that the ice caps did not simply grow larger and reach farther south: Ice Age ice is reckoned to have been asymmetrical. The North Sea would still be dry if the water was somewhere else: wherever else the evidence says it was.
| The story goes that the people living on the floor of the NS were mammoth hunters, and many mammoth remains have been found there. So at the height of the ice ages mammoths were roaming about on the NS floor. Fair enough, and I, like many of my age, recall the schoolbook artist's impressions of mammoths in bleak snow-covered tundra being hunted by Neanderthal-like humans. OK, I can believe that, but WHAT DID THE MAMMOTHS EAT? |
Yeah, that's the artist's impression for ya. How many mammoths would there have been? In what season(s)? How many people could have lived off them? What if mammoth steaks were just an occasional thing?
If the North Sea was close to the glaciers but not covered by them, what must the temperature have been? In freezing conditions, the extent of the glacier would only be limited by the amount of snow dumped on it upstream. (Hmm, it must have stopped growing. I wonder why.) In balmy conditions, the extent of the glacier would be limited to the place where it melts as fast as it spreads... and a short distance away, it's... well... balmy and free of ice. I can't think of any reason why grass, trees, birds, rabbits, fish, mammoths... could not live literally up to the face of the glacier.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
DPCrisp
In: Bedfordshire
|
|
|
|
| Why do the people of northwest Europe appear to be the most genetically diverse group of humanity? |
That's a very good question. But are appearances deceptive? If it's an objective fact that we have the greatest diversity in physical appearances (phenotypes), does it follow that we have the most genetic diversity (genotypes)? They tell us Africa has that.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
DPCrisp
In: Bedfordshire
|
|
|
|
| Where do we find the descendants of Mammoths and why? |
What, elephants? Are you sure they're descended from mammoths? Or just the closest living relatives? The most startling difference being the absence of a woolly coat (and the absence of elephants trapped in ice).
|
|
| |
|
|
|
DPCrisp
In: Bedfordshire
|
|
|
|
| before Terminal 5 at Heathrow, the best way to travel around the world would be to walk around latitude 50 north |
More so after Terminal 5, apparently.
| The next steps will be to think about how the new environments exerted selection pressures on these travellers. |
Sorry, you've gone wrong already. 'The matter of scale' is a recurring theme round here and this is an example of it. 'Selection pressures exerted by the environment' and 'travellers' don't belong in the same sentence. The former is about statistics and gradual change on top of general continuity: people have to be there long enough and in great enough numbers for the mechanisms of selection to have a consistent and appreciable effect (correlatable to the environment they're still in). The latter, travel, is about individuals, choices, movement, change, escaping unwelcome 'selection pressures'...
We can run ourselves astray with wonky mental pictures just as surely as with an ill-ustration in a Ladybird book. And one way I've seen that done many times is by talking about populations in terms that apply to persons and vice versa.
| a naturally diverse population of bears were weeded out in the snow because the black and brown ones starved to death when their prey saw them (and the white ones didn't get on at all well in the northern forests). |
Gone wrong again. If dark bears couldn't live in snow, they simply wouldn't be there: the question of evolutionary advantage wouldn't get the chance to come up. Ditto the white bears in the forest. How did such diversity ever arise? It's not like black and white bears were parachuted in and then waited around for Darwin to sort them out. On the other hand, dark bears might venture into the cold... have no luck... and bugger off back to the salmon streams. The ones who had limited success at the fringes, and the palest of their descendants, will have been able to make gradual inroads...
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Xerxes
In: The Forest of Dean
|
|
|
|
Hello DP! Thanks for reviving my flagging interest. Having no more than average intelligence and education, I find it easier to look at one issue at a time and the one that I love most is the question of genetic diversity in the human race. 'They' as you say, tell us that Africa has the most GD. Well, of course, that's because Africa is the cradle of mankind and everyone knows that's why there's got to be more GD (more time for all those mutations y'know). OK, who am I to disagree? There are after all, 7ft Watutsis and 4ft 6in Pygmies on the same continent -- must be true.
See, my problem is that just as no one has ever explained (or has any interest in) the fact that the English language has about ten times more words in its vocabulary than other languages; no one ever asks why only one small section of humanity doesn't know what colour the baby's eyes are gonna be, or colour of hair, or texture of hair, or skin tone, or will there be freckles, and so on. Don't give me phenotypes -- that just begs the question of why our phenotypes are different from those of the rest of humanity.
The Watutsis and Pygmies were breeding true to type when they were left alone. Within their own groupings they don't appear to be genetically diverse. Why do we?
The stock answer is of course that northern europeans are a mongrel race. Just a great big genetic melting pot, that's us. Except if you look at other human melting pots, everyone reaches a common denominator in a few generations as recessive genes are overwhelmed by all the incoming dominants.
Any ideas? Or is this straying too far from Neanderthals? (Personally I don't think it is.)
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ishmael
In: Toronto
|
|
|
|
Yes.
I noted the same phenomenon, crudely expressed as the principle, 'All Asians really do look alike'.
To explain it, I've come up with another idea, based on observed, human sex-selection experiments. The hypothesis relies upon a single principle that I express as, 'The Longevity of Population Cohesion'.
In short, the prediction is this; The longer a population of organisms remains in genetic contact with one another, and genetic isolation from other populations, the greater the homogeneity and the lesser the diversity will be present in that population.
Age and size of a population is not a major factor in determining the scope of its genetic diversity. What matters is whether or not the population is routinely disturbed by the influx of alien genetic material or exposed to the influence of outside population groups. The more isolated is the group, regardless of size or lineage, the more homogenous it will become.
Why?
Well, experiments have shown that human beings prefer to mate with those other human beings whose appearance most closely approximates the genetic mean for their group. When shown images of human faces, in combination with computer composites of those faces that average all features, people tend to pick the computer composites. Surprisingly then, it really is 'average' looks we seek (but by 'average', we mean of course those rare individuals who most closely approach the mean).
So each group, in isolation, will tend toward its own average.
Isolate several population groups, each consisting of a wide variety of members but in uneven distributions, and each group will eventually transform into an homogenous 'racial type' within a few generations (how few, I don't know). The longer the population remains cohesive, the more alike will become its members, regardless of the size of the population, as individuals whose features lie at the extremes for that specific population are culled from the group.
Of course, if you can create races this way then, theoretically, you can create species this way. Galapagos Finches, for example.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Xerxes
In: The Forest of Dean
|
|
|
|
Hi Ishmael! Great stuff -- makes sense, and I'm sure dog breeders and horse breeders would understand every word (although I'm not at all sure about creating new species!). Yorkies and Great Danes each breed true to type provided they are isolated from the general canine population either by preference or by restraint. This may explain Watutsis and Pygmies, but it doesn't work so well for human mongrels. Mongrels produce a sort of average of the species' characteristics. The mongrel dogs down the street, if they reproduce, are highly unlikely to give birth to a Mexican Hairless Dog or a Chow.
So what are we northern Europeans then? If we are an isolated breed then surely we should all look pretty much the same, even if different from the rest of the human race? If we are mongrels then we should look more like average humans, NOT five or six eye colours, hair colours, hair textures, skin types and an usually large variety of body shapes and sizes compared to most human races. That's the focus of my quest.
My wife and I are about as English as you can be, our joint ancestry back to the early 1700s is totally confined to a 60mile radius around Melksham in Wiltshire -- and yet we and our four children probably display more variety than you could find in the whole of China. (Briefly, we have blond, black, brown and red hair, curly and straight hair, sallow skin, fair skin and freckled skin, adult height range 5ft 2 in to 6ft, all in six individuals.)
My simple questions are: where else in the human species could this degree of variation be found, and why doesn't this amazing variety even get a mention in scientific research?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ishmael
In: Toronto
|
|
|
|
| Xerxes wrote: | | I'm sure dog breeders and horse breeders would understand every word (although I'm not at all sure about creating new species!). |
Well you see, that's the fancy bit. The process I have outlined never creates anything new. All it does is standardize a particular combination, and it does so by eliminating variation. Please note that.
So according to our own human-based experiments, nature posesses a powerful means of eliminating variation.
If a longer-necked giraffe is simply not a hit with the lady giraffes (or the male giraffes, for that matter), longer necks are not going to survive. And what the ladies prefer, apparently, is average neck length. Average for a giraffe, that is.
Sexual selection is not, therefore, a form of natural selection. It is opposed to natural selection. The purpose of sexual selection appears to be the manufacture of homogenous populations.
But nothing new ever gets made.
How do we create species then, using this system? Well... the same way the acorn makes the oak tree. Think on't.
| So what are we northern Europeans then? |
European genetic variance makes sense, according to my model, only if northern European peoples only recently united into population groups larger than villages. This makes sense only if empires and vast trading blocks were, until recently, alien to nothern Europe, while being present elsewhere (In India, for instance, and spanning Asia and North America).
The more people resemble one another genetically, the longer they have existed as an inter-breeding population group. The more diverse people are from one another, the more fragmented and unstable has been their history. That is what my model predicts.
Settle people in villages for a long time and each village will start to take on its own 'look'. Unite a people within a great empire and the entire sub-continent will take on a single visage.
But if you periodically disturb the population distribution, an average genetic mean never has time to establish itself either in one village or across a vast land. The 'average' marker keeps leaping about in each place. It never stabilizes on a single genetic archetype.
| If we are an isolated breed then surely we should all look pretty much the same, even if different from the rest of the human race? |
Yes. And we do. But we are less like one another than other peoples are. We look different from them but also different from one another. We are less homogenous. That suggests (according to my model) a population distribution that has suffered periodic disturbance and displacement.
| ...where else in the human species could this degree of variation be found, and why doesn't this amazing variety even get a mention in scientific research? |
Scientists never raise questions for which they don't already have the answers.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Xerxes
In: The Forest of Dean
|
|
|
|
| We are less homogenous. That suggests (according to my model) a population distribution that has suffered periodic disturbance and displacement. |
OK, so if the people of northern Europe have suffered periodic disturbance and replacement, where did the disturbers and displacers come from?
Or are you saying that we did our own disturbing and replacing?
In which case - why were we the only humans to do self-disturbance and replacement?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ishmael
In: Toronto
|
|
|
|
I'm not sure.
I'd like to build actual computer simulations for competing scenarios: One, where the larger population is fragmented into small communities that are periodically re-mixed; another, where the larger community is generally cohesive and static.
I allege that the first scenario will generate a population that looks like Europe while the second scenario will generate a population that looks like that of Asia-North America.
Of course, even if the scenario produces the intended result, it's no proof that this is the way nature actually did it. It does lend credence to the possibility however.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Xerxes
In: The Forest of Dean
|
|
|
|
As a newcomer to AE I have to say how refreshing I find words like I'm not sure'. What a total absence of bullshit.
I guess my first incursion into the AEL is grinding to a halt now, but I'm grateful for the welcome I have received -- especially from Mick Harper who took the time to respond to my early efforts with patience and good humour.
I'm afraid I probably don't have much to offer AE. The only lessons I have learned so far stem from a strictly religious upbringing (Lesson 1 -- avoid earnest and sincere claptrap like the plague) and from spending eight years as the Communications Officer for a research establishment wot belongs to 'er Majesty (Lesson 2 -- knowledge is power, but knowledge is not always the same thing as truth: and power is usually more important than truth). By the way, the research wasn't anything exciting and yes I did sign the official secrets thing, so no tales.
I look forward to much more reading and learning in the AEL, and perhaps joining in from time-to-time. Thanks guys!
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
Been away...still catching up. Xerxes, can you enlarge on this
| But it's OK, the first remains of our Cro-Magnon Superman are dated spot on to the fabled 100,000yrs BP. What luck! |
As I/we understand it, carbon-dating can only go back to c 35,000 years and there is no other reliable way (reliable means anything-other-than-peer-review) to date stuff of this age. If you have a look at the Treasure Hunt/Origins of Mankind you'll see why this is so important.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
| 'They' as you say, tell us that Africa has the most GD. Well, of course, that's because Africa is the cradle of mankind and everyone knows that's why there's got to be more GD (more time for all those mutations y'know). OK, who am I to disagree? |
Well, in case you missed it, everyone ought to disagree. As I keep pointing out till I'm blue in the face, 'everyone' is exactly as old as everyone else. My genes have been mutating exactly as long as any Watutsi. As every Watutsi. What 'they' mean is that the Watutsis (or rather the Watutsi ancestors) have lived in Africa for longer than I (or rather my ancestors) have lived in Europe. It is interesting that apart from this spurious assumption PLUS the hominid link PLUS a dash of political correctness, all the actual evidence points the other way.
| There are after all, 7ft Watutsis and 4ft 6in Pygmies on the same continent -- must be true. |
Not merely on the same continent, their respective ranges actually touch. Doesn't this in itself explode the orthodox assumptions? I can just about give house room to the notion that staying put in one place the longest time gives rise to the most variations within this sedentary population (I say 'just about' since obviously this is itself nuts), but to show that staying in the same place gives rise to two of the most distinct populations is plain bananas if you're relying on the same assumption to show that variation between peoples is supposed to be based on distance, because distance equals time. But apparently no distance and no time (otherwise surely the Biggies would have displaced the Smallies or vice versa) also gives rise to the greatest variation.
Sorry to be confusing but their model is so weird that refuting it makes for weird arguments also. By all means someone straighten out my arguments.
| Any ideas? Or is this straying too far from Neanderthals? (Personally I don't think it is.) |
Stray away, poppet, that's what immortal threads are meant to foster. And do continue your proto-fascist musings...it's time the Thule Society started getting equal space. It's a tenet of Applied Epistemology that despised ideologies have roughly the same amount of usefulness as non-despised ones.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
The Library Index 
FAQ 
Search
Register
Profile 
Log in to check your private messages 
Log in 
