tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post8052163396736021174..comments2024-01-04T04:11:55.717+02:00Comments on Dienekes’ Anthropology Blog: Y chromosome diversity, human expansion, drift, and cultural evolution (Chiaroni et al. 2009)Dienekeshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02082684850093948970noreply@blogger.comBlogger190125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-34675879610080805362010-01-18T17:42:33.762+02:002010-01-18T17:42:33.762+02:00Here is a site with huge Information On Pregnancy ...Here is a site with huge Information On Pregnancy Diseases And Genetic Testing. You can find information regarding Chromosomes in: http://www.geneticsofpregnancy.com/Encyclopedia/Chromosomes.aspx?pid=2Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17806381951816034749noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-64968099748973348472009-12-09T11:00:02.274+02:002009-12-09T11:00:02.274+02:00(cont.)
How many times have you cited things that...(cont.)<br /><br /><i>How many times have you cited things that is detrimental to your cause?</i> -<br /><br />First, I don't have any cause but Truth. Second the paper is not detrimental to my thesis (which anyhow is flexible and should be able to adapt to new data - or be discarded if such data invalidates it): it is informative and helps to understand the whole arch of related technologies that were arising at that time in West Eurasia, precisely at the time of colonization by Homo sapiens of that area. The timing and the pattern is virtually the same and hence the process must be the same too, more or less. <br /><br /><i>I know you get a fat check every month from the Castillians</i>.<br /><br />I wish (as long as they don't ask for something in return). I always welcome free donations to "my cause" of survival. <br /><br />If you are sooo knowledgeable (and I know you are up to a point where irrationality and misanthropy blind you totally), why don't you quit your ad hominem attacks and begin dealing with the substance of the matter. Thesis-antithesis>synthesis: that's how science (and reality) move on. Discussion and different serious opinions, contrasting factual data, etc. are good for the debate. But with you it is impossible because you don't deal with the matter but with the person.<br /><br />In other words: you are an erudite troll. Would this be a forum and I a neutral moderator, you'd already got pass your life-long allowance of warnings for personal attacks (ok, "quit drugs" may also be taken as PA but I'm fencing off, so guess it's ok). <br /><br />I don't even know why I bother discussing with you anyhow. It's just (unjustified) insult after insult, just pausing to read something that is insultingly patronizing. Sorry but that's why I left your forum and will never go back.<br /><br />Anyhow, here comes the only part of your four posts that matters, as far as I can tell:<br /><br /><i>You missed the point. UP industries develop gradually from the Mousterian, if we believe these authors. If the UP develops from the Neanderthal Mousterian, then for practical matters the Neanderthals developed Levallois and not incoming Moderns, right?</i> -<br /><br />That's what a lot of research seems to suggest, not just in Altai but also in Palestine. But the fact is that at one point there are Neanderthals and at the next there are Homo sapiens. Neanderthals anyhow did not use blade tech in most cases, certainly not with Mousterian, so guess this is the crux of the matter. <br /><br />However you might have a point in the sense that there was some cultural creolization and that West Eurasian UP arose in a context of interaction with Neanderthals by peoples who already knew of the blade technology. Hard to tell.Majuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12369840391933337204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-3269223807562676502009-12-09T10:59:49.000+02:002009-12-09T10:59:49.000+02:00these all shared initial UP characteristics (rathe...<i>these all shared initial UP characteristics (rather an inevitable)</i>...<br /><br />Actually not. There were blades before UP and there were cultures without blades after UP. Unless you define UP in West Eurasian terms (very classical but not valid outside West Eurasia - and Eurocentric anyhow) there is no correlation between UP and blades. <br /><br />Levallois is MP anyhow. It's very old and pre-dates human expansion OoA. From Wikipedia (as it seems you don't know):<br /><br />"The technique is first found in the Lower Palaeolithic but is most commonly associated with the Neanderthal Mousterian industries of the Middle Palaeolithic. In the Levant, Levallois methods were also in use in the Upper Palaeolithic and later".<br /><br />Levallois can also be used for flake and other technologies and is not even specifically any Homo sapiens thing. It might have something to do with some Erectus migration or even have been invented independently in several places. <br /><br /><i>The Russians have already passed through Brandenburg Gate</i>.<br /><br />WTF are you talking about? Quit drugs or whatever you are into. <br /><br /><i>You assume Central Asian or Altai initial UP is like "Western" UP</i>.<br /><br />I don't. My memory is pretty decent and I recall well that it was YOU who claimed first of all that Altai "Aurignacian" (as you called it happily) was the precise origin of European true Aurignacian. Altai pseudo-Aurignacian is not in fact more related to true Aurignacian than Bohunician, proto-Aurignacian or Dabban are. All are related of course but the origin should be searched for in West Asia, logically (or maybe even in South Asia?)<br /><br /><i>Maju, we've been there done that. As soon as I find something that vaguely suggests that the Altai Aurignacianoid should be considered Eastern moving west, a foreign element to your West Eurasian, you start to violently protest/argue that the Aurignacianoids are unrelated</i>.<br /><br />I tell you: quit drugs. You hold your hypothesis and I look to the facts. The only animosity I have against a hypothetical Altaian origin for Aurignacian is your commitment to it (because I hate you and the way you like to patronize people). But I can withstand that and I can look at the details and even at the blanks of information and build up my own opinion, which I believe is consistent. <br /><br /><i>you fall back on narratives about wayward West Eurasians lost in East Asia, bringing fire and saving the locals</i>.<br /><br />What locals? The only reference for pre-existant populations in the area I know of are Neanderthals, who obviously were not "saved" but found their doom. <br /><br />Anyhow, you are implying ethnocentric imperialist intent in my reasoning and, well, sincerely, while such a distant possible relation with Native Americans might stimulate maybe one or two "romantic" neurones in the less rational parts of my brain (as would any other remote connection probably) I can assure you that otherwise I couldn't really care. <br /><br />However that is, sadly enough, your emotional and manipulative way of reasoning: attacking the person and not really dealing with his or her arguments. Pathetic!<br /><br />(cont.)Majuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12369840391933337204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-43196340581084883932009-12-09T09:39:46.348+02:002009-12-09T09:39:46.348+02:00Maju wrote, quoting from his link, "do not co...Maju wrote, quoting from his link, "do not conform to western Eurasian typological expectations of the Initial Upper Paleolithic".<br /><br />You assume Central Asian or Altai initial UP is like "Western" UP.<br /><br />Maju wrote, "It's ok either way."<br /><br />Maju, we've been there done that. As soon as I find something that vaguely suggests that the Altai Aurignacianoid should be considered Eastern moving west, a foreign element to your West Eurasian, you start to violently protest/argue that the Aurignacianoids are unrelated.<br /><br />And as soon as you convince yourself the Altai is in some West Eurasia world, you fall back on narratives about wayward West Eurasians lost in East Asia, bringing fire and saving the locals. So lost.<br /><br />Maju wrote, "But unlike in other regions, West Eurasian initial UP is already very homogeneous in this aspect. West Eurasian genetics are also very homogeneous, so it's fair to assume that both elements are related: a relatively homogeneous population generated this colonization process."<br /><br />Phylogeography now seems to suggest otherwise, both in the late introduction of P as well as in mtDNA patterns. But I let you stew.<br /><br />Maju wrote, "How come? AFAIK the oldest Levallois artifacts are African and there were never any Neanderthals in Africa. But whatever."<br /><br />You missed the point. UP industries develop gradually from the Mousterian, if we believe these authors. If the UP develops from the Neanderthal Mousterian, then for practical matters the Neanderthals developed Levallois and not incoming Moderns, right? I mean who cares if Homo erectus invented what in Africa. Even if you argue that way, Neanderthals are closer in form in many ways to erectus than we are, right?renhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04377460204421275833noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-9688917202512224202009-12-09T09:38:13.794+02:002009-12-09T09:38:13.794+02:00Maju wrote, "But unlike in other regions, Wes...Maju wrote, "But unlike in other regions, West Eurasian initial UP is already very homogeneous in this aspect. West Eurasian genetics are also very homogeneous, so it's fair to assume that both elements are related: a relatively homogeneous population generated this colonization process."<br /><br />Phylogeography now seems to suggest otherwise, both in the late introduction of P as well as in mtDNA patterns. But I let you stew.<br /><br />Maju wrote, "How come? AFAIK the oldest Levallois artifacts are African and there were never any Neanderthals in Africa. But whatever."<br /><br />You missed the point. UP industries develop gradually from the Mousterian, if we believe these authors. If the UP develops from the Neanderthal Mousterian, then for practical matters the Neanderthals developed Levallois and not incoming Moderns, right? I mean who cares if Homo erectus invented what in Africa. Even if you argue that way, Neanderthals are closer in form in many ways to erectus than we are, right?renhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04377460204421275833noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-52638533599136900652009-12-09T09:27:58.500+02:002009-12-09T09:27:58.500+02:00Ok, I clicked on your link. It's actually the ...Ok, I clicked on your link. It's actually the first paper on UP Asia I gave you to read. <br /><br />How many times have you cited things that is detrimental to your cause? You are something else, Maju, this habit of not bothering to read a full paragraph of your own sources. Is this Attention Deficit Disorder, or Mania, or some sort of personality disorder? I'm not kidding or trying to insult you. I know you get a fat check every month from the Castillians.renhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04377460204421275833noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-17466831232528190002009-12-09T09:16:55.236+02:002009-12-09T09:16:55.236+02:00Maju wrote, quoting from his link, "do not co...Maju wrote, quoting from his link, "do not conform to western Eurasian typological expectations of the Initial Upper Paleolithic".<br /><br />You assume Central Asian or Altai initial UP is like "Western" UP.<br /><br />Maju wrote, "It's ok either way."<br /><br />Maju, we've been there done that. As soon as I find something that vaguely suggests that the Altai Aurignacianoid should be considered Eastern moving west, a foreign element to your West Eurasian, you start to violently protest/argue that the Aurignacianoids are unrelated. <br /><br />And as soon as you convince yourself the Altai is in some West Eurasia world, you fall back on narratives about wayward West Eurasians lost in East Asia, bringing fire and saving the locals.<br /><br />So lost.renhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04377460204421275833noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-48547318513431419062009-12-09T08:47:27.832+02:002009-12-09T08:47:27.832+02:00Maju, Maju... You are a hopeless case.
How can I ...Maju, Maju... You are a hopeless case.<br /><br />How can I disprove the relationship between Dabban and Aurignacian when it's a non-issue? How can I disprove the relationship between Dabban and Martian rocks? Is there an article that addresses this issue? And I keep telling you proto-Aurignacian and Aurignacian are unrelated phenomena. This is not news, and it basically states it in your own source in that post of your blog about the peopling of Europe.<br /><br />As for the relationship between Altai and Sibero-Mongolian/North China/northern Asia UP, it should be in your own link, linking the the common use of Levallois and or blade technology, and hence inconveniently termed West Eurasian to be used manically by you. You have the habit of citing things that actually contradict your own claims, as if you don't bother to read your own sources. It's rather unbecoming.<br /><br />As for commonalities.. Yes, these all shared initial UP characteristics (rather an inevitable) of transition from MP as distinguished from your Aurignacian or Gravettian. As for this beating of the dead horse of a Greater West Eurasia lebensraum that includes UP western India and Central Asia, you'd think by now you'd see what is in front of your eyes. The Russians have already passed through Brandenburg Gate.renhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04377460204421275833noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-64597413443100439842009-12-06T11:23:13.331+02:002009-12-06T11:23:13.331+02:00As I said to Mathilda (the comment is still awaiti...As I said to Mathilda (the comment is still awaiting moderation) Paabo is precisely the one who has smashed the hybridation hypothesis. He still thinks that there was sex but was inconsequential.Majuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12369840391933337204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-58521953579231039062009-12-06T11:12:09.385+02:002009-12-06T11:12:09.385+02:00"And what do you want me to do? To finance an..."And what do you want me to do? To finance an archaeological expedition to attempt to solve the issue?" <br /><br />That would be nice. <br /><br />"We just don't understand well the transition well". <br /><br />You seem very sure of the transition: Modern humans simply replaced Neanderthals. I maintain that we don't understand the transition yet, but it was far more complicated than the way you see it. <br /><br />"I am not sure anymore if you're arguing in favor of hypothetical hybridation or in favor of long Sapiens presence in the area or what?" <br /><br />Either one, but both probably involve hybridization, the latter involving much earlier hybridization than the latter. Interestingly eastern Neanderthals are not as extremely 'Neanderthaloid' as are western ones. And have you seen this at Mathilda's: <br /><br />http://mathildasanthropologyblog.wordpress.com/2009/12/04/neanderthals-%e2%80%98had-sex%e2%80%99-with-modern-man/terrythttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17327062321100035888noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-84520950019812562212009-12-04T05:51:25.177+02:002009-12-04T05:51:25.177+02:00"Phase 2: transition, no specific remains, &#...<i>"Phase 2: transition, no specific remains, 'continuity'".<br /><br />That's the problem I've been trying to discuss, but you keep dodging it</i>.<br /><br />And what do you want me to do? To finance an archaeological expedition to attempt to solve the issue? I wish I was that rich... <br /><br /><i>And that logical explanation involves either the people were Neanderthals or they were already modern human. I actually plump for the latter, but am open to the former (but that simply shifts the Neanderthal/modern transition problem back a little)</i>.<br /><br />It's been mentioned before that we do have both Neanderthal remains and Sapiens remains... but in a chronological order. It's similar to what we see in Palestine or the Franco-Cantabrian region. <br /><br />We just don't understand well the transition well. But we do understand the original situation (Neanderthals with Mousterian or transitional tech) and the final one (H. sapiens with blade tech). <br /><br />I don't really know which is your point of contention. I am not sure anymore if you're arguing in favor of hypothetical hybridation or in favor of long Sapiens presence in the area or what? Neither has any evidence in favor.Majuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12369840391933337204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-28192705933916984902009-12-04T03:59:17.091+02:002009-12-04T03:59:17.091+02:00You're being deliberately obtuse, aren't y...You're being deliberately obtuse, aren't you? <br /><br />"Phase 2: transition, no specific remains, 'continuity'". <br /><br />That's the problem I've been trying to discuss, but you keep dodging it. <br /><br />"The only issue I can see is the apparent stratigraphic continuity, which must have a logical explanation". <br /><br />And that logical explanation involves either the people were Neanderthals or they were already modern human. I actually plump for the latter, but am open to the former (but that simply shifts the Neanderthal/modern transition problem back a little). <br /><br />We know modern humans had reached the Levant by 90,000 years ago, if not earlier. Of course you refuse to even consider the possibility that humans had moved so far north before the Toba-induced ice age. It messes up your nice, neat theory regarding India.terrythttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17327062321100035888noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-45552616561322688552009-12-03T10:42:37.945+02:002009-12-03T10:42:37.945+02:00It is what the data says:
Phase 1: Neanderthal, M...It is what the data says:<br /><br />Phase 1: Neanderthal, Mousterian<br />Phase 2: transition, no specific remains, "continuity"<br />Phase 3: H. sapiens, blade tech<br /><br />The only issue I can see is the apparent stratigraphic continuity, which must have a logical explanation, that will be probably clarified as research advances. <br /><br />Assuming otherwise would get us into a logical impossibility, which is what you are actually defending.Majuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12369840391933337204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-38497133952417283482009-12-03T08:52:37.260+02:002009-12-03T08:52:37.260+02:00"I see no problem with that".
It'..."I see no problem with that". <br /><br />It's fascinating that you've finished up having to argue enthusiastically that technology and genes are totally unconnected during the Middle Paleolithic (to accomodate the sameness of the tools over a wide region) yet next minute you're having to argue just as enthusiastically that technology and genes are intimately connected during the Initial Upper Paleolithic (to link blade technology only with modern humans). Something's inconsistent there.terrythttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17327062321100035888noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-77198484431846609882009-12-03T03:56:27.615+02:002009-12-03T03:56:27.615+02:00Any genes not possessed by Pygmies and Khoisans ar...<i>Any genes not possessed by Pygmies and Khoisans are possible candidates</i>.<br /><br />No. Any genes shared by real Neanderthals and parts of humankind (in particular West Eurasians) but not others, would be candidates. There is nothing of that so far (and as I don't think it's just bad luck with the first sample, I think we will be in the same situation when Paabo and colleagues release their conclusions from 5 more individuals). <br /><br /><i>But you do have to explain why there appears to be technological continuity</i>...<br /><br />Apparent stratigraphic continuity. Sure but I do not have an explanation and I don't see that the Neanderthal introgression hypothesis can be supported only on that, nor seems a good explanation for the problem. <br /><br />Recently <a href="http://averyremoteperiodindeed.blogspot.com/2008/04/all-you-ever-wanted-to-know-about.html" rel="nofollow">Zilhao argued in very harsh tones with Mellars</a> because he believes that the interstratification of Chatelperronian and Aurignacian in at least two cases (out of three) is an artifact of faulty methods. He also apparently solved the problem of La Almagra style pottery in Southern Iberia, reassigning it to the Epicardial period (and not pre-Cardial as had been argued). <br /><br />So maybe you could ask Zilhao for his opinion on the matter. Personally I will wait till archaeological clarification happens (if it ever does happen). <br /><br /><i>We have to imagine that two species, who had separated half a million years ago (at least double that in your belief system), had somehow exchanged technologies, but not genes</i>...<br /><br />I see no problem with that. In my reality people who gather to exchange technology or stories or whatever, normally don't end up sleeping together (and it's very likely that they are the of same gender anyhow, most likely guys). Most people (also foragers) marry (whatever the meaning of this word in each particular context) within their ethnic group, what does not hinder inter-ethnic relations. <br /><br />Plus there is the issue of whether both Homo species could breed at all, biologically speaking. Plus also the bio-cultural issues that must necessarily rise between two so different species (tigers and lions can breed with some problems but they tend not to because of different mating behavior for example: tigresses intimidate male lions, etc.)<br /><br />So, IMO they could exchange technology and have very little sex perfectly. <br /><br /><i>Surely, therefore, either modern humans were responsible for the late Middle Paleolithic (and had reached Central Asia by at least 60,000 years ago) or we're back to hybrids</i>.<br /><br />No. We have Neanderthal remains and we have Sapiens remains. We don't have hybrids. So there was demic replacement at some point, Just that the matter has not been yet sufficiently researched. <br /><br />Take it easy.Majuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12369840391933337204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-24436756487897791862009-12-03T02:16:15.340+02:002009-12-03T02:16:15.340+02:00"And what is?"
From the abstract:
&..."And what is?" <br /><br />From the abstract: <br /><br />"during the Last Glacial Maximum, mammoth populations do not appear to have suffered an overall decline in diversity, despite differing responses on either side of the Bering land bridge". <br /><br />So we can't blame climate change. What is really interesting is that mammoths become extinct in each region soon after humans arrive. Not just mammoths in fact. Most other large and middle-sized species. And the big game in Australia died out by 45Kya. <br /><br />Could it be possible that humans, along with their spears and fires, splintered the populations, leading to their extinction? <br /><br />For Maju: <br /><br />"Oops, this is the sentence". <br /><br />Just one sentence? You really are blind. The article is full of references to, and examples of, technological continuity.terrythttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17327062321100035888noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-90497029496527775902009-12-03T02:07:19.138+02:002009-12-03T02:07:19.138+02:00"Pygmies for example did not even get blade t..."Pygmies for example did not even get blade tech until the LSA and only in vary localized cases". <br /><br />Probably introduced with Y-hap E. <br /><br />"they should not have any or almost any Neanderthal admixture". <br /><br />And for that reason that's who we should be comparing posible Neanderthal-descended populations to. Any genes not possessed by Pygmies and Khoisans are possible candidates. This would narrow the search in the Neanderthal genome. But at present the pressure has been towards emphasising the similarity between all such present-day groups. That's what's so good about Dienekes blog. He's not afraid to explore the differences. <br /> <br />"But to decide that there was genetic continuity against all available genetic evidence is just not acceptable". <br /><br />But you do have to explain why there appears to be technological continuity almost everywhere, despite the lack of evidence demonstrating genetic continuity. Very difficult. <br /><br />We have to imagine that two species, who had separated half a million years ago (at least double that in your belief system), had somehow exchanged technologies, but not genes, over much of whatever period of separation, right up until the Middle Paleolithic gave way to the Initial Upper Paleolithic, around 45,000 years ago. That's a massive problem. <br /><br />I agree that technology can, and does, spread independently of genes, but that's within just a single species. Surely, therefore, either modern humans were responsible for the late Middle Paleolithic (and had reached Central Asia by at least 60,000 years ago) or we're back to hybrids. <br /><br />"So, yes we can know". <br /><br />And may eventually do so.terrythttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17327062321100035888noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-35599164071156290552009-12-02T23:53:20.703+02:002009-12-02T23:53:20.703+02:00Because there's continuity. Can't you read...<i>Because there's continuity. Can't you read?</i> - <br /><br />I can read but not only that, I can also read the genetic data that says there is no continuity between Neanderthals and us. <br /><br />Where my family comes from there is a Paleolithic cave that has the full sequence from Chatelperronian to the Iron Age. It's apparently continuous but we do know now that this stratigraphic continuity may be misleading and that there is no genetic continuity from Neanderthals to us. <br /><br />There are a zillion cases of stratigraphic uncertainty on this matter of continuity. We know from the skeletal remains that one species replaced the other, in Altai, in Palestine and in Europe, what we don't know exactly is the fine detail of this replacement at a local level in all places. <br /><br />But to decide that there was genetic continuity against all available genetic evidence is just not acceptable. <br /><br /><i>And how do you do that?</i> -<br /><br />Finding the damn Neanderthal genes in us. So far there is nothing and our knowledge is rapidly increasing in this aspect but producing nothing that favors any sort of Neandetrhal contribution to our genome.<br /><br /><i>We have no method of separately identifying any introgressed widespread Neanderthal genes from any anciently shared genes</i>.<br /><br />Yes we have, unless you are claiming that all humankind was affected at the same levels by Neanderthal admixture, what is illogical. Pygmies for example did not even get blade tech until the LSA and only in vary localized cases - they should not have any or almost any Neanderthal admixture. Virtually the same applies to Khoisans and, for what I know to all people outside West Eurasia. <br /><br />We can even study the full genome of ancient humans from various places and times, which would be very interesting on its own, regardless of whatever implications re. Neanderthals. <br /><br />So, yes we can know.Majuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12369840391933337204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-53326730260432878342009-12-02T23:18:50.851+02:002009-12-02T23:18:50.851+02:00"I'm very sure that I know the cause, as ..."I'm very sure that I know the cause, as do many others. However it's not a popular conclusion, for some reason or other."<br /><br />And what is? I'm fine either way, but I'm still learning about your ideas, Terry.German Dziebelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10703679732205862495noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-1204134985210713582009-12-02T22:36:14.074+02:002009-12-02T22:36:14.074+02:00"Why do you exclude replacement".
Bec..."Why do you exclude replacement". <br /><br />Because there's continuity. Can't you read? Or do you only accept comments in scientific papers that support your own elitist concept of human evolution? <br /><br />"So how do you conciliate that there was species replacement and no cultural replacement?" <br /><br />Yes. That's what our theory demands; species replacement without cultural replacement, consistently, throughout the world. Very unlikely. Much more likely is cultural replacement without species replacement, an extremely common occurrence throughout history and much of recent prehistory. And a conclusion supported by the evidence we have so far for Northeast Asia. But a situation you are pathologically unable to accept. <br /><br />"Hybridation must be proven with genetic data, IMO". <br /><br />And how do you do that? Even humans and chimps share a huge number of genes, so humans and Neanderthals would share even more. We have no method of separately identifying any introgressed widespread Neanderthal genes from any anciently shared genes. The work you refered to above is, by definition, considering Neanderthal genes that were not advantageous for any expanding human population. <br /><br />"and died out without a known cause". <br /><br />I'm very sure that I know the cause, as do many others. However it's not a popular conclusion, for some reason or other.terrythttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17327062321100035888noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-56772664448691517022009-12-02T09:02:29.700+02:002009-12-02T09:02:29.700+02:00As far as replacement vs, hybridization goes, an i...As far as replacement vs, hybridization goes, an interesting case study to consider is that of the woolly mammoths. They first colonized America from Asia but then returned as a new species to entirely replace their old Asian and Western Beringian kin by 40K. Siberian mammoths didn't interbred with the New World newcomers and died out without a known cause.<br /><br />Out of America: Ancient DNA Evidence for a New World Origin of Late Quaternary Woolly Mammoths<br />http://www.cell.com/current-biology/abstract/S0960-9822%2808%2900970-6German Dziebelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10703679732205862495noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-88014188984122678742009-12-02T04:06:22.638+02:002009-12-02T04:06:22.638+02:00"Moreover, we hold that there is strong conti...<i>"Moreover, we hold that there is strong continuity between the regional Middle and Initial Upper Paleolithic"</i>.<br /><br />Oops, this is the sentence. <br /><br />So how do you conciliate that there was species replacement and no cultural replacement? The same happens in West Asia for what I know: Mousterian becomes UP, Neanderthals vanish and eventually all that there is is Homo sapiens. <br /><br />However no sign of hybridation anywhere.Majuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12369840391933337204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-62424755782791263732009-12-02T04:03:38.390+02:002009-12-02T04:03:38.390+02:00Terry said: "Many H. sapiens populations did ...Terry said: "Many H. sapiens populations did not originally have blade technology".<br /><br />Maju replied: "In West Eurasia? Which ones?"<br /><br />Terry replied: "The ones in the Altai, for a start". <br /><br />(...)<br /><br />"So blade technology is intrusive to the region, not indigenous. So, either the 62,200 B.P. people were Neanderthal"...<br /><br />Yes: they were Neanderthals most probably. <br /><br />"... and we have hybridization, or the pre-existing population was already modern. Take your pick".<br /><br />Why do you exclude replacement, like happened in similar conditions elsewhere in West Eurasia? There's nothing in all you mention that strictly excludes demic replacement. There's just a brief one sentence opinion on some "appearance" of non-replacements but it's hardly conclusive without further data. <br /><br />Hybridation must be proven with genetic data, IMO.Majuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12369840391933337204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-50541686861680908222009-12-02T02:32:17.083+02:002009-12-02T02:32:17.083+02:00"In West Eurasia? Which ones?"
The on..."In West Eurasia? Which ones?" <br /><br />The ones in the Altai, for a start. But we can extrapolate, after a short introduction. There appears to be a connection between the Altai and the rest of Western Eurasia. From the link you provided on 'The Initial Upper Paleolithic in Northeast Asia': <br /><br />"The most striking parallels with western Eurasian sites are found with the 'flat cores' and 'cores with lateral crests' of the Bohuncian ... as well as recently excavated Initial Upper Paleolithic assemblages in Turkey ... Syria ... and the Levant ... "<br /><br />And: <br /><br />"Throughout western Eurasia there appear to be common technological trends defining this phase, including (1) blade production from cores combining elements of both Middle ans Upper Paleolithic technologies". <br /><br />But back to the Altai: <br /><br />"As in western Eurasia, the Initial Upper Paleolithic emerges in Northeast Asia sometime after 45,000 years ago and is characterized by the elaboration of blade technologies showing a mixture of Middle and Upper Paleolithic characteristics". <br /><br />The Altai site itself is described thus: <br /><br />"The Middle Paleolithic collections derive from strata 9-7 and thus have an expected age of approximately 62,200 years B.P. (calendric). The Upper Paleolithic collections derive from stratum 6 and have a corresponding radiocarbon age of 43,000 B.P." <br /><br />The transition to blade technolgies coincides with the break in deposition. But whether the population had moved away or stayed there: <br /><br />"Initial Upper Paleolithic assemblages occur stratigraphically above Middle Paleolithic industries at Kara Bom and at Tsangaan Agui (Derevianko et al. 2000a), but it appears that they do not replace them". <br /><br />And: <br /><br />"Moreover, we hold that there is strong continuity between the regional Middle and Initial Upper Paleolithic". <br /><br />So blade technology is intrusive to the region, not indigenous. So, either the 62,200 B.P. people were Neanderthal and/or descendants of Pekin man, and we have hybridization, or the pre-existing population was already modern. Take your pick. <br /><br />Your lack of knowledge regarding practical genetics obviously precludes any productive discussion concerning the subtle interplay of inbreeding and hybrid vigour that underlies the evolution of all species and subspecies.terrythttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17327062321100035888noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-63549821052813077362009-12-02T00:25:17.777+02:002009-12-02T00:25:17.777+02:00And I strongly suspect Y-hap I spread into Europe ...<i>And I strongly suspect Y-hap I spread into Europe with the Linear Pottery</i>...<br /><br />Neither haplogroup I nor Linear Pottery appear to have originated outside Europe. Anyhow, haplogroup I2a has a Cardium Pottery area spread, if anything, while I1 and I2b highest concentrations don't correlate at all with LBK either. <br /><br /><i>Many H. sapiens populations did not originally have blade technology</i>.<br /><br />In West Eurasia? Which ones?<br /><br /><i>But how brutal was that bottleneck in fact?</i> -<br /><br />IDK, brutal enough. Seals, otters and other animals have also gone through brutal bottlenecks and survived (with some human help in form essentially of of protection). Nothing of the kind is likely to have happened to humans, though it's not impossible either. The convergence (fixation) in a single haploid clade is normal in a single population that just remains stable for long. <br /><br /><i>And that is the main problem for their survival today. The geographic range becomes fragmented and inbreeding does its thing</i>.<br /><br />But that did not happen to humans. Though was possibly a factor in the demise of Neanderthals. <br /><br />For me this is another of your fetishes. If you'd be right, humankind would not exist today.Majuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12369840391933337204noreply@blogger.com