|
Post by ibra on Dec 25, 2005 5:29:53 GMT -5
The thing about parrots is that they are blessed with a great voice box like humans; utter garbage to them, and they will repeat it back at you. For example, “Poly want a cracker”, or in your case “M173 disproves OOA”. Does M173 really disproved OOA, as the website says; a parrot can’t look at this critically, can you?
Yes, I took high school math, but I have to admit that I didn’t get much out of it. In high school, you are simply thought how to do math, and accept things the way they are given. Reconstructing structures from the bare Axioms, and proving theorems is the core of real mathematics. I form my own arguments from simpler ones; I am my own man and not a Parrot. Are you going to state your true views, or hide behind that site like a coward? In light of this:
Which type of fool are you?
1. Hates Africans, rejects OOA 2. A Creationist 3. A Multiregional
Don’t be afraid to show your true self, but I suspect you are number 1.
If, not, why don’t you start your own arguments, as to why Sapiens originated in Eurasia and not Africa?
|
|
|
Post by galton on Dec 25, 2005 6:19:02 GMT -5
The thing about parrots is that they are blessed with a great voice box like humans; utter garbage to them, and they will repeat it back at you. For example, “Poly want a cracker”, or in your case “M173 disproves OOA”. Does M173 really disproved OOA, as the website says; a parrot can’t look at this critically, can you? Yes, I took high school math, but I have to admit that I didn’t get much out of it. In high school, you are simply thought how to do math, and accept things the way they are given. Reconstructing structures from the bare Axioms, and proving theorems is the core of real mathematics. I form my own arguments from simpler ones; I am my own man and not a Parrot. Are you going to state your true views, or hide behind that site like a coward? In light of this: Which type of fool are you? 1. Hates Africans, rejects OOA 2. A Creationist 3. A Multiregional Don’t be afraid to show your true self, but I suspect you are number 1. If, not, why don’t you start your own arguments, as to why Sapiens originated in Eurasia and not Africa? You're a narrow minded individual because you equate a multiregional hypothesis with superstition and bigotry. What kind of foolishness is this? No wonder you didn't learn geometry very well, you don't think critically, judging from the quoted response. But you do criticize. I surmise that your simplistic equating of the multiregional hypothesis with bigotry and superstition is convenient thinking for you since you can't argue very well the "African Eve" hypothesis on its own scientific merit. Rather it is much easier for an individual such as yourself to argue against superstition and bigotry, hence arguing against bigotry and superstition is an argument against the multiregional hypothesis in your mind. Why don't you simply explain why you prefer the "African Eve" hypothesis over the multiregional hypothesis? Who knows. Maybe you'll be convincing. All I meant was that the multiregional hypothesis is more credible to me based on what I think I know or understand of both hypothesis'.
|
|
|
Post by galton on Dec 25, 2005 6:31:29 GMT -5
I meant there are certain nationalists who like to think people originated from their land. For example I read an article by a Chinese about how people originated from China. I am Iranian. I have also read articles about how man evolved in Iran, the greatest land on earth, blah, blah I did NOT mean you in particular. If ur views are backed scientifically, which they are, then it is perfectly okay to have different views. I understand your intention, I think. However, Eurasia isn't a country. It's a geographical region that has a unique history of climatic change and effect on hominids. China and Iran are countries and they're nationalities. However, if an Iranian asserted that the origin of man is in the Iranian region, he/she wouldn't be far off the mark in my opinion. Iran is in the Eurasian region or at least very close. A Chinese person asserting the origin of man is China wouldn't be as close as the Iranian, but close enough because the climatic history of both countries are similar, but not exactly. Certainly more similar to each than either one to Africa. Africa's climatic history is very different from the Eurasia and Asian regions.
|
|
|
Post by ibra on Dec 25, 2005 7:44:03 GMT -5
Reread my quote. Maybe I should have added that high school math isn’t really Mathematics. If you didn’t catch the last part, I described what mathematics means at an advanced level. One begins to see the true meaning of Mathematics, especially if one majors in it. The last time I asked your opinion, you didn’t answer explicitly, so my motivation was to expel it out of you. I gave you 3 choices and as expected you answered one, so I thank you for that. Rage was the perfect ingredient for this. ;D It's a must; two scientific theories are in competition with each other. In the long run, the better one will win. You’re entitled to your opinion, just back it up. Believe me; religion plays not part in my life. There are posters on Dodona, who are experts (Abdul, Rudra etc); I’m more interested in humans and their origins. I admit, I haven’t said anything scientific thus far, but neither have you. Like I said, my objective was to make you spit it out. To be continued…
|
|
|
Post by greatness on Dec 25, 2005 14:19:25 GMT -5
I meant there are certain nationalists who like to think people originated from their land. For example I read an article by a Chinese about how people originated from China. I am Iranian. I have also read articles about how man evolved in Iran, the greatest land on earth, blah, blah I did NOT mean you in particular. If ur views are backed scientifically, which they are, then it is perfectly okay to have different views. I understand your intention, I think. However, Eurasia isn't a country. It's a geographical region that has a unique history of climatic change and effect on hominids. China and Iran are countries and they're nationalities. However, if an Iranian asserted that the origin of man is in the Iranian region, he/she wouldn't be far off the mark in my opinion. Iran is in the Eurasian region or at least very close. A Chinese person asserting the origin of man is China wouldn't be as close as the Iranian, but close enough because the climatic history of both countries are similar, but not exactly. Certainly more similar to each than either one to Africa. Africa's climatic history is very different from the Eurasia and Asian regions. hmm... My view is that non-African man originatedin Iran or somewhere very close in Eurasia. Because all Indo-European ppl speak a similar language. Also all non-Africans (i.e. Europeans, Asians, Ameridians Middle easterners) lump closer together than they do to Africans. So my personal view is originated in Africa moved to Eurasia, evolved into non-African man and then migrated respectively. now what I dont understand is why everyone has to insult eachother. As long as we are thinking about the subject and attempting to understand it, it is good by me. What I cant accept is ppl, particularly creationists who randomly take what they've been taught. and BTW abdul, yes your comment is stupid, science IS rooted in logic.
|
|
Siafu X
Full Member
Is man one of God's blunders or is God one of man's blunders
Posts: 206
|
Post by Siafu X on Dec 25, 2005 19:23:49 GMT -5
i agree with greatness i think the non-africans evolved outside of Africa and spread to throughout the world, we are all nto st8 outa africa like some ppl claim!
|
|
|
Post by galton on Dec 25, 2005 21:55:54 GMT -5
I understand your intention, I think. However, Eurasia isn't a country. It's a geographical region that has a unique history of climatic change and effect on hominids. China and Iran are countries and they're nationalities. However, if an Iranian asserted that the origin of man is in the Iranian region, he/she wouldn't be far off the mark in my opinion. Iran is in the Eurasian region or at least very close. A Chinese person asserting the origin of man is China wouldn't be as close as the Iranian, but close enough because the climatic history of both countries are similar, but not exactly. Certainly more similar to each than either one to Africa. Africa's climatic history is very different from the Eurasia and Asian regions. hmm... My view is that non-African man originatedin Iran or somewhere very close in Eurasia. Because all Indo-European ppl speak a similar language. Also all non-Africans (i.e. Europeans, Asians, Ameridians Middle easterners) lump closer together than they do to Africans. So my personal view is originated in Africa moved to Eurasia, evolved into non-African man and then migrated respectively. now what I dont understand is why everyone has to insult eachother. As long as we are thinking about the subject and attempting to understand it, it is good by me. What I cant accept is ppl, particularly creationists who randomly take what they've been taught. and BTW abdul, yes your comment is stupid, science IS rooted in logic. I'm not a creationist.
|
|
|
Post by greatness on Dec 26, 2005 0:30:46 GMT -5
I didn't say u were.
I said I dont like creationists in general. But I thought u were a Multi-regionalist
|
|
|
Post by galton on Dec 27, 2005 2:51:43 GMT -5
Reread my quote. Maybe I should have added that high school math isn’t really Mathematics. If you didn’t catch the last part, I described what mathematics means at an advanced level. One begins to see the true meaning of Mathematics, especially if one majors in it. One must practice critical thinking in a public forum and you're not showing it. Your continued unprovoked condescension towards me makes you appear more and more childish as you continue this line of behavior. The last time I asked your opinion, you didn’t answer explicitly, so my motivation was to expel it out of you. I gave you 3 choices and as expected you answered one, so I thank you for that. Rage was the perfect ingredient for this. ;D You were and you are being childish and provocative. You're three choices leads to the same conclusion, I'm a fool. You're telling me to choose which kind of fool. It's a must; two scientific theories are in competition with each other. In the long run, the better one will win. You’re entitled to your opinion, just back it up. At the onset, you compared me to a parrot, then equated me with bigots and superstition. If the "African Eve" hypothesis is the better, you're a terrible spokesperson for it. You're responses are juvenile at best. Believe me; religion plays not part in my life. There are posters on Dodona, who are experts (Abdul, Rudra etc); I’m more interested in humans and their origins. I admit, I haven’t said anything scientific thus far, but neither have you. Like I said, my objective was to make you spit it out. You haven't said anything scientific thus far because your behavior has been childish and provocative. I've stated my preference for a multiregional hypothesis and cited a researcher's synthesis. So now start responding with something intelligent and scientific. Don't make excuses. Don't be evasive. Why do you prefer the "African Eve" hypothesis?
|
|
|
Post by ibra on Dec 27, 2005 18:54:06 GMT -5
All maternal markers in Eurasia are African derived. Haplogroups L1<L2<L3, all are found in Africa, but L is very uncommon in Asia or Europe or in any non African country. The only haplogroups found in Eurasia are M and N, both of which are derived from L3. So we have L3<M and L3<N. The M and N haplogroups branch into their own regional specific varieties, which can some times relate with human race. There is no Eurasian, who doesn’t belong to a branch of L3, as every Eurasian belongs to M and N.
Again the stories with parental markers are no different. A<B<Eurasian markers, A and B are extremely old, and only limited to some Africans, and are *not* found in Eurasians. All Eurasians belong to F, C, or D, derived from B. B<F, B<C and B<D; To this day the most common F haplogroup is K. It’s present in East Asians, Indians, Native Americans, Caucasians, Australians and Melanesians. K is described like this, B<F<K.
The age of L3 is 80,000 years in Africa. Since L3 has its greatest frequency and diversity in East Africa, it likely evolved in situ there. The age of M and N are similar at 65,000, meaning that all Eurasians can trace their ancestry back to East Africa, 65,000 years ago.
Scenario: Sapiens expanded from East Africa 65,000 years ago. They took a coastal rout passing Arabia, India, South East Asia and finally Australia. Later these human groups would expand west and east, becoming the ancestors of modern East Asians and Caucasians. They might have also inbred with Neanderthals of Europe/Middle East, Heidelbergensis of India or the Hobbits in South East Asia. Even though evidence for this doesn’t show up in mtDNA/Y-chromosomes, it might be indicated on other types of DNA. No one knows for sure, so we have to wait and see.
Africa has a notorious track-record for producing hominids. Sapiens were not the first to leave Africa, and probably not the last; the ancestors of Neanderthal did this, as did the Erectus, much earlier. The ones that stayed back in Africa continued on their way towards becoming Sapiens. 200,000 year old skulls have already been dug up, indicating a transition between archaic and modern humans. Modern humans likely evolved from a type of Heidelbergensis, who didn’t leave Africa.
|
|
|
Post by galton on Dec 28, 2005 4:58:28 GMT -5
The age of L3 is 80,000 years in Africa. Since L3 has its greatest frequency and diversity in East Africa, it likely evolved in situ there. The age of M and N are similar at 65,000, meaning that all Eurasians can trace their ancestry back to East Africa, 65,000 years ago. How do scientists know how old is L3? M and N? Again the stories with parental markers are no different. A<B<Eurasian markers, A and B are extremely old, and only limited to some Africans, and are *not* found in Eurasians. All Eurasians belong to F, C, or D, derived from B. B<F, B<C and B<D; To this day the most common F haplogroup is K. It’s present in East Asians, Indians, Native Americans, Caucasians, Australians and Melanesians. K is described like this, B<F<K. How do we know that A and B are very old markers? How do we if one marker is old than another? Scenario: Sapiens expanded from East Africa 65,000 years ago. They took a coastal rout passing Arabia, India, South East Asia and finally Australia. Later these human groups would expand west and east, becoming the ancestors of modern East Asians and Caucasians. They might have also inbred with Neanderthals of Europe/Middle East, Heidelbergensis of India or the Hobbits in South East Asia. Even though evidence for this doesn’t show up in mtDNA/Y-chromosomes, it might be indicated on other types of DNA. No one knows for sure, so we have to wait and see. The underlined part of this paragraph I tend to agree with. However, doesn't this speculation contradict the "African Eve" model? I mean the manner in which you laid out the African Eve hypothesis with the genetic markers and their ordering by age and frequency seems very detailed and in order. But if early humans interbred with these regional hominids, wouldn't the genetic markers show it?
|
|
|
Post by ibra on Dec 28, 2005 7:41:32 GMT -5
They track down the mutation in the mtDNA sequence, see how many generations ago it occurred, and estimate the age in a confidence interval. We say that B is “downstream” of A. A mutated first; B is a mutation that occurred within A. If A is the trunk, then B is a branch. If I write A<B, I mean “B branched off from A”. Because of this, B couldn’t be older than A. Thats like saying that I am older than my father. Scientist sequenced Neanderthal mtDNA, it’s about 500,000 years old, and converges to the common ancestor of Sapiens and Neanderthals, who probably lived in Africa. Question: Why is non-Sapien mtDNA/Y-chromosome absent from modern Humans? IMO, two answers are possible: 1. Non-Sapiens contributed to Sapiens early on, but mild interbreeding + dominances of Sapiens or the extinction of early humans may have reduced the frequency of non-Sapien mtDNA/Y-chromosome until non-Sapien lineages became extinct. To many Scientist the similar mtDNA/Y-chromosome profile of modern humans + the absence of pre-Sapien mtDNA/Y-chromosomes indicate that we are different species. 2. The offspring of Sapien + Other Human was sterile, and he/she couldn’t procreate properly with either species. However I don’t see much evidence for this. I’m not even sure if humans and chimps could interbreed. The Chimp and Sapien are 6 million years apart, but Neanderthal and Sapien are only 500,000 years apart. If two groups of humans have a different chromosome count that could pose a problem, causing the offspring to be sterile. If no such barriers exist, I don’t see any reason, why they couldn’t interbreed generation after generation. The multi-regional hypothesis says that modern humans are derived from the Hominids that entered Eurasia 2 million years ago. In contrast the OOA hypothesis says that the bulk of modern humans are derived from Africa 200,000 years ago, entering Eurasia only recently. Even if there was interbreeding, it wouldn’t change our status as a separate species that evolved in Africa, expanded out and perhaps replaced some archaic humans. Well, here is an example of tree analogy that I talk of:
|
|
|
Post by galton on Dec 28, 2005 20:26:47 GMT -5
They track down the mutation in the mtDNA sequence, see how many generations ago it occurred, and estimate the age in a confidence interval. OK, please answer this question. How do we know L3 is older than either M or N?
|
|
|
Post by ibra on Dec 28, 2005 20:35:35 GMT -5
They track down the mutation in the mtDNA sequence, see how many generations ago it occurred, and estimate the age in a confidence interval. OK, please answer this question. How do we know L3 is older than either M or N? It’s similar to the question that you asked about A and B. M and N are downstream from L3. M and N “branched” from L3, so they are obviously younger. Likewise L1<L2<L3. Can you guess which one is the oldest?
|
|
|
Post by galton on Dec 29, 2005 1:48:26 GMT -5
So, is it safe for me to say that the age of a genetic marker equals the number of generations multiplied with the number of mutations of that marker?
|
|