Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Humanity's Common Ancestor Only ~3500 Years Old

Collapse
X
Collapse
 
  • Page of 10
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 10 template Next
  • #46
    Originally posted by Ramo
    Again, you still don't understand what this study is saying. Some guy or gal in Burma 3500 years ago had descendents who crossed the Berring Straits and some descendents who made it into South Africa.
    I think I've got it right. They have a model of how it could have happened. What I doubt is that it happened the way their model carries them.

    There were barriers to interbreeding that were as much cultural as based on distance, maybe more.

    Have I got them wrong?
    (\__/)
    (='.'=)
    (")_(") This is Bunny. Copy and paste bunny into your signature to help him gain world domination.

    Comment

    • #47
      They say that they modeled these factors. I'll take a rigorous model that survived the scrutiny of Nature, over hand-wavy arguments.
      "Beware of the man who works hard to learn something, learns it, and finds himself no wiser than before. He is full of murderous resentment of people who are ignorant without having come by their ignorance the hard way. "
      -Bokonon

      Comment

      • #48
        I think I've got it right.


        I was talking to Speer.
        "Beware of the man who works hard to learn something, learns it, and finds himself no wiser than before. He is full of murderous resentment of people who are ignorant without having come by their ignorance the hard way. "
        -Bokonon

        Comment

        • #49
          Well, I don't know how they accopmlished that. I freely admit that. Put it this way, I am skeptical about their model as applied to history. I am not skeptical about their model extending into the future. That I can see.
          (\__/)
          (='.'=)
          (")_(") This is Bunny. Copy and paste bunny into your signature to help him gain world domination.

          Comment

          • #50
            Originally posted by Ramo
            They say that they modeled these factors. I'll take a rigorous model that survived the scrutiny of Nature, over hand-wavy arguments.
            Did Nature report on Cold Fussion?
            (\__/)
            (='.'=)
            (")_(") This is Bunny. Copy and paste bunny into your signature to help him gain world domination.

            Comment

            • #51
              Remember, scientist can be wrong. They predicted that quake in California 11 years off.
              Don't drink and drive, smoke and fly.
              Anti-bush and anti-Bush.
              "Who's your Daddy? You know who your Daddy is, huh?? It's me! Yeah.. I'm your Daddy! Uh-huh! How come I'm your Daddy! 'Coz I did this to your Mama? Yeah, your Mama! Yeah this your Mama! Your Mama! You suck man, but your Mama's sweet! You suck, but your Mama, ohhh... Uh-huh, your Mama! Far out man, you do suck, but not as good as your Mama! So what's it gonna be? Spit or swallow, sissy boy?" - Superfly, joecartoon

              Comment

              • #52
                Did Nature report on Cold Fussion?




                It was submitted to Nature. IIUC, they didn't publish it (though may be mistaken). However, the first paper that showed why P&F's claims were erroneous were published in Nature.

                But yes, the paper could be wrong. I'm just saying that there's no real reason to think it is.
                "Beware of the man who works hard to learn something, learns it, and finds himself no wiser than before. He is full of murderous resentment of people who are ignorant without having come by their ignorance the hard way. "
                -Bokonon

                Comment

                • #53
                  Well, as a social 'scientist' I have plenty of reason to doubt the accuracy of a mathematical model of migration of genetic material. Humans don't boil down to numbers very well. They're persnickity beasts and they do all sorts of things that you never expected.

                  I'd love to see genetic samples be the basis of such a claim. I am skeptical of a computer program that predicts it.
                  (\__/)
                  (='.'=)
                  (")_(") This is Bunny. Copy and paste bunny into your signature to help him gain world domination.

                  Comment

                  • #54
                    This is as bad as the evangelicals who try to prove that the earth is only 6000 years old. In both cases it's ideology masquerading as science.
                    ...people like to cry a lot... - Pekka
                    ...we just argue without evidence, secure in our own superiority. - Snotty

                    Comment

                    • #55
                      Originally posted by pchang


                      I don't think you understand the meaning of the article. People existed before 1500BC, but if you go back to 1500BC we most likely all have at least one common relative.
                      I'm well aware that there were humans that existed before Homo Sapiens, thank you very much.


                      What I was questioning, is if this shows that HOMO SAPIENS were not the ones who actually founded the first civilizations, but that a different Homo species did.
                      A lot of Republicans are not racist, but a lot of racists are Republican.

                      Comment

                      • #56
                        Homo sapiens existed since whenever it is that's theorized that they existed. The article is suggesting that one of the descendents of the first homo sapiens is our common ancestor at around 1500 B.C. Actually I think it's supposed to be homo sapiens sapiens. Homo sapiens was the species before, IIRC.
                        Don't drink and drive, smoke and fly.
                        Anti-bush and anti-Bush.
                        "Who's your Daddy? You know who your Daddy is, huh?? It's me! Yeah.. I'm your Daddy! Uh-huh! How come I'm your Daddy! 'Coz I did this to your Mama? Yeah, your Mama! Yeah this your Mama! Your Mama! You suck man, but your Mama's sweet! You suck, but your Mama, ohhh... Uh-huh, your Mama! Far out man, you do suck, but not as good as your Mama! So what's it gonna be? Spit or swallow, sissy boy?" - Superfly, joecartoon

                        Comment

                        • #57
                          They're persnickity beasts and they do all sorts of things that you never expected..


                          But the migration of a person's genes is probably less nonlinear than the vast majority of economic theory.

                          I'd love to see genetic samples be the basis of such a claim. I am skeptical of a computer program that predicts it.




                          They use the computer to evaluate the mathematical model. That's how it always works in any reasonably complicated system.

                          This is as bad as the evangelicals who try to prove that the earth is only 6000 years old. In both cases it's ideology masquerading as science.


                          Says the racist. And only on Poly can someone call Nature "ideology masquerading as science."
                          "Beware of the man who works hard to learn something, learns it, and finds himself no wiser than before. He is full of murderous resentment of people who are ignorant without having come by their ignorance the hard way. "
                          -Bokonon

                          Comment

                          • #58


                            What I was questioning, is if this shows that HOMO SAPIENS were not the ones who actually founded the first civilizations, but that a different Homo species did.


                            No, that has absolutely nothing to do with what the article refers to.
                            "Beware of the man who works hard to learn something, learns it, and finds himself no wiser than before. He is full of murderous resentment of people who are ignorant without having come by their ignorance the hard way. "
                            -Bokonon

                            Comment

                            • #59
                              I'm not taking any sides here, but notyoueither has a point, about the genetic material evidence. if they have it bundled with the mathematical model i'm a bit more inclined to believe the date of 1500 b.c. but without, it seems too recent a date.

                              i have no doubts that we all share a common ancestor, maybe not as old as the mitochodrial eve, but not as recent as this purely mathematical model suggest.
                              Don't drink and drive, smoke and fly.
                              Anti-bush and anti-Bush.
                              "Who's your Daddy? You know who your Daddy is, huh?? It's me! Yeah.. I'm your Daddy! Uh-huh! How come I'm your Daddy! 'Coz I did this to your Mama? Yeah, your Mama! Yeah this your Mama! Your Mama! You suck man, but your Mama's sweet! You suck, but your Mama, ohhh... Uh-huh, your Mama! Far out man, you do suck, but not as good as your Mama! So what's it gonna be? Spit or swallow, sissy boy?" - Superfly, joecartoon

                              Comment

                              • #60
                                Originally posted by Ramo
                                only on Poly can someone call Nature "ideology masquerading as science."

                                You actually believe that everyone alive today is descended from one person. Your delusion has reached new heights. It's actually pretty sad to see someone so blind.
                                ...people like to cry a lot... - Pekka
                                ...we just argue without evidence, secure in our own superiority. - Snotty

                                Comment

                                Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 10 template Next
                                Working...
                                X