tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post6520312715233283320..comments2024-01-04T04:11:55.717+02:00Comments on Dienekes’ Anthropology Blog: Direction of gene flow (to or from Neanderthals, or ...?)Dienekeshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02082684850093948970noreply@blogger.comBlogger37125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-12845238073413742042010-05-14T05:16:12.335+03:002010-05-14T05:16:12.335+03:00http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20627603.600...http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20627603.600-neanderthals-not-the-only-apes-humans-bred-with.htmlSkorpionhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04002199941837028311noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-21763623700422272312010-05-14T00:24:17.259+03:002010-05-14T00:24:17.259+03:00This thought is kind of peripheral to the whole di...This thought is kind of peripheral to the whole discussion on Neandertals, but it does have new relevance in light of the recent findings:<br /><br />Why do While People Smell Like Wet Dogs When They Come Out of the Rain?<br /><br />http://www.amazon.com/<br />White-People-Smell-Like-Dogs/dp/0967597102<br /><br />If you're white, try smelling your kids' hair sometime.Marniehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10850856778953207810noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-12806636234313607332010-05-13T11:14:16.808+03:002010-05-13T11:14:16.808+03:00"Yes but even small to macerate colonies can ..."Yes but even small to macerate colonies can and do overwhelm native populations when other factors cause the native populations to be reduced or eliminated".<br /><br />But such other factors, such as supervolcano catastrophes, are not common. I'd ask for specific evidence of such catastrophic decline that so far I can only conceive, if anything, in relation to Toba and Campania super-volcanoes (74 and 40 Ka ago respectively).Majuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12369840391933337204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-65706464705628709342010-05-13T11:07:11.691+03:002010-05-13T11:07:11.691+03:00"but even small to macerate colonies can and ..."but even small to macerate colonies can and do overwhelm native populations when other factors cause the native populations to be reduced or eliminated. that has occurred many times". <br /><br />But don't forget, so has mixing. Many times.terrythttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17327062321100035888noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-51555259065702046102010-05-13T07:48:04.258+03:002010-05-13T07:48:04.258+03:00"We need to understand that demic movements a..."We need to understand that demic movements are affected by patterns very similar to fluids' mechanics and that demic pressure itself is a barrier to penetration, which instead spreads much easier where there is no such pressure "<br /><br />Yes but even small to macerate colonies can and do overwhelm native populations when other factors cause the native populations to be reduced or eliminated. that has occurred many times.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10064974858744314873noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-42054572657055266562010-05-13T03:57:12.825+03:002010-05-13T03:57:12.825+03:00"The point is about structure between AMH pop..."The point is about structure between AMH populations, or even AMH and non-AMH Homo within Africa. It's about deeper structure, i.e., remnants of Homo in Africa that were separate from our main ancestral population."<br /><br />Why would these remnants be located in Africa if the existence of this "deep substructure" is attested in Eurasian populations?German Dziebelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10703679732205862495noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-41239221384619525402010-05-13T02:12:50.602+03:002010-05-13T02:12:50.602+03:00Honest question. How could one distinguish back mi...<i>Honest question. How could one distinguish back migration into East Africa (which has been documented by other means to be statistically significant at a population genetic level) statistically from your scenario?</i><br /><br />The so-called "Neandertal" DNA would have recent common ancestors in East Africans and West Asians (long chunks of identical or near-identical sequence at regions identified as candidates for Neandertal introgression).<br /><br />In my scenario, however, in addition to such sequences (due to back-migration from West Asia), you would have older common ancestors which won't be explainable by West Asians crossing the Red Sea a few thousand years ago, thus evidence for "Neandertal" DNA that is a feature of native East Africans.<br /><br />If that is the case, then we will know that it's not really of "Neandertal" origin.Dienekeshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02082684850093948970noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-6433467376204598452010-05-13T01:28:24.454+03:002010-05-13T01:28:24.454+03:00"The Neandertal-admixture scenario would pred..."The Neandertal-admixture scenario would predict "no Neandertal" admixture in East Africans (because of demography and location of admixture outside Africa). My scenario predicts pseudo-"Neandertal" admixture in East Africans."<br /><br />Honest question. How could one distinguish back migration into East Africa (which has been documented by other means to be statistically significant at a population genetic level) statistically from your scenario?Andrew Oh-Willekehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02537151821869153861noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-86009314481277603862010-05-12T20:25:03.476+03:002010-05-12T20:25:03.476+03:00Regarding the chunks of Neandertal DNA and their a...Regarding the chunks of Neandertal DNA and their age:<br /><br />We're waiting.<br /><br />I think there's not point in debating this. If there is a way to look at this, in East African populations, in Middle Eastern population, in Asian populations, etc., then I hope and expect that someone is doing that.Marniehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10850856778953207810noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-8163415829075775082010-05-12T15:55:31.386+03:002010-05-12T15:55:31.386+03:00"The point is about structure between AMH pop..."The point is about structure between AMH populations, or even AMH and non-AMH Homo within Africa. It's about deeper structure, i.e., remnants of Homo in Africa that were separate from our main ancestral population".<br /><br />Food? ;D<br /><br />Seriously: there's nothing to support any such structure. It's a mere speculation. <br /><br />"The point isn't that the Neanderthalized but rather that they admixed with other Homo in Africa that didn't belong in the sapiens-Neandertal clade".<br /><br />The whole point of the issue is that we, Eurasians, differ from Yorubas much less in the overall genome than in these few specific 'Neanderthal' blocks. <br /><br />If Yorubas were admixed with some other species/subspecies of Homo, the difference would be smaller or even inverted. So such hypothetical Yoruba admixture would have to:<br /><br />1. Be impossible to detect using Neanderthal-specific alleles (as this hypothetical other species would be equally distant from Sapiens and Neanderthals, or closer to Sapiens but never to Neanderthals).<br /><br />2. Be exactly the same between Yoruba and San but smaller among Eurasians, in spite of these and Yorubas being more closely related than the San. <br /><br />Think about it because it's really indefensible. You are building on thin air.Majuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12369840391933337204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-31618615570047369662010-05-12T13:20:11.957+03:002010-05-12T13:20:11.957+03:00There is some deep structure in Africa but it divi...<i>There is some deep structure in Africa but it divides Khoisans (population A hereafter) from the rest, including Eurasians (pop. B1). To a lesser extent it also affects Pygmies (pop B2). </i><br /><br />The point is about structure between AMH populations, or even AMH and non-AMH Homo within Africa. It's about deeper structure, i.e., remnants of Homo in Africa that were separate from our main ancestral population.<br /><br /><i>Yorubas are pretty much a good representative of the B1 population from which proto-Eurasians spawned. If this B1 population was "Neanderthalized" in Africa that should be evident among Yorubas. </i><br /><br />The point isn't that the Neanderthalized but rather that they admixed with other Homo in Africa that didn't belong in the sapiens-Neandertal clade.<br /><br /><i>Genuine East Africans like Dinka or Hadza for sure, less clearly for those populations affected by the Eurasian back-flows like most Ethiopians and such.</i><br /><br />There are ways to determine whether chunks of "Neandertal" DNA are due to recent admixture or to admixture taking place tens of thousnads of years ago. If East Africans have "Neandertal" DNA chunks that share recent (as in a couple thousand years) origins with East Eurasians, then you can dismiss it as backflow.Dienekeshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02082684850093948970noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-16410586733925656252010-05-12T13:14:45.591+03:002010-05-12T13:14:45.591+03:00"then you have to concede that admixture in a..."then you have to concede that admixture in a structured African population is every bit as good an explanation as admixture with Neandertals". <br /><br />But much of ther admixture in Africa is a result of the Bantu migration, relativley recent. <br /><br />"The Neandertal-admixture scenario would predict 'no Neandertal' admixture in East Africans (because of demography and location of admixture outside Africa)". <br /><br />It's quite possible there's a lot of Neanderthal admixture in east Africa. Movement from Eurasia into East Africa is shown by the Eurasian haplogroups present there. And what about Y-hap R1b as far as West Africa? <br /><br />"Unfortunately I have had to start moderating comments because of the appearance of certain trolls" <br /><br />Unfortuante all right. The rapid conversations possible on your blog have made the commnets section fascinating.terrythttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17327062321100035888noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-36486000932916767432010-05-12T12:09:45.281+03:002010-05-12T12:09:45.281+03:00(part 2)
"You should say "not in Yoruba...(part 2)<br /><br />"You should say "not in Yorubans and San", rather than not in Africa."<br /><br />Yorubas are pretty much a good representative of the B1 population from which proto-Eurasians spawned. If this B1 population was "Neanderthalized" in Africa that should be evident among Yorubas. <br /><br />"The Neandertal-admixture scenario would predict "no Neandertal" admixture in East Africans"...<br /><br />Genuine East Africans like Dinka or Hadza for sure, less clearly for those populations affected by the Eurasian back-flows like most Ethiopians and such.<br /><br />We'll see, of course. But Yorubas are sufficiently 'East African' genetically (Y-DNA E, mtDNA L2"6... or L3 if you are nit-picky) for that structure you hypothesize about to be present in them at very noticeable levels, if not fully. Yorubas, as close cousins of Eurasians are, so far, excellent evidence that Neanderthal admixture and not any hypothetical structure is the answer. Both are essentially derived from that B1 population I mentioned before.Majuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12369840391933337204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-83802879206480732532010-05-12T12:09:45.280+03:002010-05-12T12:09:45.280+03:00(part 1)
I think I was affected by that accidenta...(part 1)<br /><br />I think I was affected by that accidental deletion. Let's see if I can re-create my reply.<br /><br />"If you are not saying that about Africans, then you have to concede that admixture in a structured African population is every bit as good an explanation as admixture with Neandertals".<br /><br />There is some deep structure in Africa but it divides Khoisans (population A hereafter) from the rest, including Eurasians (pop. B1). To a lesser extent it also affects Pygmies (pop B2). <br /><br />That structure does not justify your theory but rather debunks it because Yorubas are as B1 as Eurasians. <br /><br />You'd be hypothesizing a third pop. C in North Africa and Palestine. While this may be justified by the archaeological record, it is not by the genetic one. In other words: there's no trace of any such pop. C in modern day humans. <br /><br />If this hypothetical distinct population C is at the source of the Neanderthal admixture or noise (false admixture signal), Eurasians should have much more than 1-4% of them (as this is identified unmistakably as Neanderthal-specific), maybe 20 or 40%. That high level of admixture between populations B1 and C should have left some other genetic trace but that does not seem to be the case. <br /><br />So I conclude that these C people either went totally extinct or were just a subgroup of the main population B1, from which both Yorubas and Eurasians stem. <br /><br />"Actually it's better, because I still don't see how Out-of-Africans following the coastal route to Asia would end up with the same "Neandertal" admixture as Western Eurasians whose ancestors co-existed with Neandertals far longer".<br /><br />We don't know for sure if the migrant OOA population took the South Arabian route or if it did so exclusively. In fact, this bit of Neanderthal admixture at the very root of Eurasians adds some weight in favor of the Crescent Fertile route, though as I have mentioned elsewhere, it may well be just a parallel route or the admixture event could have happened not in Palestine but rather towards Iran. <br /><br />Also we don't know for sure that early West Eurasians lived side by side with Neanderthals for longer than the migrant group. For instance: between L3 (Africa) and M (South Asia) there are three CR mutations, while from R (South Asia) to H (rapid expansion in Europe) there are 4 coding mutations. This tells me that the times of the OOA migration and the West Eurasian colonization were probably similar (some 10-20 Ka). <br /><br />Additionally, there could have been a second migrant group, probably surviving from the Skhul/Qahfez migration and intense interaction with Neanderthals, who were the ones to interbreed and would have been absorbed by the main migrant group. If they were at levels of 12% Neanderthal admixture, the apportion between the merging groups would have been of 4-1, if they were at levels of 25%, of 8-1, etc. <br /><br />Of course the simplest explanations would be either (1) that the whole migration happened via Fertile Crescent or (2) that South Arabian migrants met 'sexy' Neanderthals in Iran but it's not necessarily the correct one. In any case, we lack of archaeological evidence to support either hypothesis and genetics is of little help here.<br /><br />(continues)Majuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12369840391933337204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-18081483966454500762010-05-12T11:19:16.589+03:002010-05-12T11:19:16.589+03:00If you posted a comment on this yesterday it may h...If you posted a comment on this yesterday it may have been lost in a moderation accident. Unfortunately I have had to start moderating comments because of the appearance of certain trolls, but I deleted a bunch of comments by accident when I meant to delete a single one. So, if it's not too much trouble, post your comment again.Dienekeshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02082684850093948970noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-17157058788224968922010-05-12T05:40:14.519+03:002010-05-12T05:40:14.519+03:00@Daniel
OMG you dumb mfer there actually is some ...@Daniel<br /><br />OMG you dumb mfer there actually is some substance to what you were saying. "gene lateral transfer" is something I literally came across today by accident in a science blog/ news. Its not just a prediction but has been observed. <br /><br />The article was talking about how a fish species has contains 15 genes that were transferred to it from a parasitic worm. The scientist notes, as I suspected, that it is especially rare for this transfer to happen in multicellular animals. <br /><br />I'm not sure how the transfer took place though. as far as how it relates to this blog one must consider the rarity of the transfer, the amount, and the fact that a parasitic worm is in having a lot of exchanges with its host, and probably some co-evolution, unlike humans and Neanderthals. (no DS jokes either!). You would be right in saying this mechanism must make us rethink evolution.princenuadhahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02165977957244158593noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-74490133677278961042010-05-11T17:03:36.219+03:002010-05-11T17:03:36.219+03:00Nobody is saying that about Africans. Khoisans are...<i>Nobody is saying that about Africans. Khoisans are a very good example of how radically divided Africa was, even with no major barriers in between and with Sapiens legs and metabolism. </i><br /><br />If you are not saying that about Africans, then you have to concede that admixture in a structured African population is every bit as good an explanation as admixture with Neandertals.<br /><br />Actually it's better, because I still don't see how Out-of-Africans following the coastal route to Asia would end up with the same "Neandertal" admixture as Western Eurasians whose ancestors co-existed with Neandertals far longer.<br /><br /><i>For exactly the same reason it's not in Africa. Even the actual large backflow from Eurasia only made a minor impact in Africa and there was never a second OOA migration which caused any major impact in Eurasia either. </i><br /><br />You should say "not in Yorubans and San", rather than not in Africa. We'll see how this research holds up when East Africans are sampled. <br /><br />The Neandertal-admixture scenario would predict "no Neandertal" admixture in East Africans (because of demography and location of admixture outside Africa). My scenario predicts pseudo-"Neandertal" admixture in East Africans.<br /><br />We'll see who's right.Dienekeshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02082684850093948970noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-29307384047250106172010-05-11T16:44:10.819+03:002010-05-11T16:44:10.819+03:00Btw, Dienekes: just found that there is a copy of ...Btw, Dienekes: just found that there is a copy of this post of yours, without any attribution, <a href="http://genetics2.medicalcenterinfo.com/2010/05/10/direction-of-gene-flow-to-or-from-neanderthals-or/" rel="nofollow">at this site</a>. I imagine you'd like to know.Majuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12369840391933337204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-60434560369069852952010-05-11T16:38:25.194+03:002010-05-11T16:38:25.194+03:00(part 2)
"It doesn't make any sense eith...(part 2)<br /><br />"It doesn't make any sense either that Neandertals would be a partitioned population across 2,000km or so within a single latitude/climate zone, but Africans AMH were not across triple the distance and across several ecological zones".<br /><br />How come Africans were not a partitioned population! They were with all likelihood, specially regarding Khoisan peoples. The rest, excepting Pygmies (another pretty much isolated branch), were surely quite concentrated at the OOA time in the Eastern Sudan/East Africa region. Yes, the fossil North African group may well have been a fourth distinct population but we are not aware of which genetic legacy it may have left, if any, and it's extremely unlikely that it'd be a Neanderthal legacy. <br /><br />I really don't understand either why you seem to think that Croatia would be better connected with Syria than with the Caucasus. <br /><br />"You can't talk Neandertal partition while at the same time affirming an African panmictic species".<br /><br />Nobody is saying that about Africans. Khoisans are a very good example of how radically divided Africa was, even with no major barriers in between and with Sapiens legs and metabolism. <br /><br />In fact it's the very ancient division of Africans before the OOA which allows us to make comparisons. We know that the ancestors of Yorubas and Eurasians were part of the same population (Y-DNA E) or the same two very closely related populations (mtDNA L3 and L2) and instead we find they are closer in this (and only in this) to Khoisans. <br /><br />That pretty much sums it up.Majuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12369840391933337204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-90242458600806873502010-05-11T16:38:25.195+03:002010-05-11T16:38:25.195+03:00(part 1)
"Briggs et al. found that Neandert...(part 1) <br /><br />"Briggs et al. found that Neandertals had one third our mtDNA diversity. Going by your logic, modern humans that have population structure have not experienced gene flow with each other".<br /><br />Not sure what you mean. Modern humans before Neolithic and specifically sailing and horse and camel domestication (not tomention globalization in the last 500 years) were more structured than today almost without doubt and had much less gene flow between all levels of regions and populations. <br /><br />A 'huge' back-flow from West Asia could have an impact, let's be adventurous, of 5% in Croatia, which would mean (at 2% admixture level with H. sapiens in West Asia) that the Croatian Neanderthals would get 0.1% of those H. sapiens genes (everything else equal). This tiny amount would not really be easily detectable at the level that the Paabo team seems to be working. <br /><br />Of course the gene flow might well have been ultimately unidirectional for a vast array of possible accidental reasons (small accidents in a small population have a huge effect) but I see no reason to think that it was not bidirectional on light of the present data. We'd need West Asian Neanderthal DNA to get a better idea, really. I wonder if Mezmaiskaya 1 will provide us with some answers in this regard in the near future. <br /><br />"It will take more than "short legs" to explain why admixture taking place in the Near East c. 100ky would not find itself into Europe 50ky later".<br /><br />For exactly the same reason it's not in Africa. Even the actual large backflow from Eurasia only made a minor impact in Africa and there was never a second OOA migration which caused any major impact in Eurasia either. <br /><br />Whatever flows between European and West Asian Neanderthal populations must have been limited because they were the same kind of animal with very similar techno-cultural level preventing each other from having a free ride in their lands. This was not apparently the case when Neanderthals colonized West and Central Asia nor when Sapiens colonized Africa and later Asia-plus. <br /><br />We need to understand that demic movements are affected by patterns very similar to fluids' mechanics and that demic pressure itself is a barrier to penetration, which instead spreads much easier where there is no such pressure (i.e. in virgin land or scattered H. erectus' territories). <br /><br />So we'd need something more than wishful thinking to allow for Neanderthal back-migration to Europe after the Neanderthal 'OOE'. And, even then, the impact would be too low to allow for H. sapiens genes to be detected. <br /><br />(continues)Majuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12369840391933337204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-66037020220291577942010-05-11T15:57:09.364+03:002010-05-11T15:57:09.364+03:00Briggs 2009 did notice a structured population amo...<i>Briggs 2009 did notice a structured population among European Neanderthals with the Caucasus specimen (Mezmaiskaya 1) being markedly distinct from the rest. I understand from that that the West Asian and Central Asian Neanderthal populations must be at least that distant and probably quite more. </i><br /><br />Briggs et al. found that Neandertals had one third our mtDNA diversity. Going by your logic, modern humans that have population structure have not experienced gene flow with each other. <br /><br />Note that most modern humans are a few tens of thousands of years away from each other based on mtDNA. It will take more than "short legs" to explain why admixture taking place in the Near East c. 100ky would not find itself into Europe 50ky later. <br /><br />It doesn't make any sense either that Neandertals would be a partitioned population across 2,000km or so within a single latitude/climate zone, but Africans AMH were not across triple the distance and across several ecological zones.<br /><br />You can't talk Neandertal partition while at the same time affirming an African panmictic species.Dienekeshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02082684850093948970noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-41457071692237155842010-05-11T15:10:03.132+03:002010-05-11T15:10:03.132+03:00Good point. It is still perfectly possible anyhow ...Good point. It is still perfectly possible anyhow that European and West Asian Neanderthals were distinct populations because there are barriers between Syria and Croatia and population density was low enough to allow for no contacts in very long periods. <br /><br /><a href="http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/325/5938/318" rel="nofollow">Briggs 2009</a> did notice a structured population among European Neanderthals with the Caucasus specimen (Mezmaiskaya 1) being markedly distinct from the rest. I understand from that that the West Asian and Central Asian Neanderthal populations must be at least that distant and probably quite more. <br /><br />Mezmaiskaya is not farther from Vindija than Syria but they are clearly members of two different populations. Vindija clusters with other European lineages and Mezmaiskaya does not. <br /><br />Hence there was surely a marked population structure among Neanderthals, which was no doubt less dynamic than ours (legs and metabolism again).Majuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12369840391933337204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-53433190524764890482010-05-11T15:01:28.983+03:002010-05-11T15:01:28.983+03:00"1. "The uniformity of alleged Neanderta..."1. "The uniformity of alleged Neandertal admixture outside Africa is suspect, given that Neandertals were a West Eurasian species".<br /><br />This is no problem if the admixture episode happened in West Asia prior to the Eurasian Expansion as such."<br /><br />After having successfully replaced anatomically modern humans in West Asia, as archaeological evidence seems to indicate, Neandertals proceeded to contribute their genes to the next generation behaviorally modern humans who apparently barely escaped the encounter and stampeded all the way down to Australia. And all this for the sake of helping some 21 century savants make their "theories" work.German Dziebelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10703679732205862495noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-55707273228577894512010-05-11T13:34:25.542+03:002010-05-11T13:34:25.542+03:00Why would it? Neanderthals had expanded from Europ...<i>Why would it? Neanderthals had expanded from Europe to West and Central Asia but they never went really far, either into Asia or into Africa. Neanderthals were short-legged and carried lots of body weight (pure muscle) requiring of specially ample lungs and torso to keep their demanding metabolism working.</i><br /><br />Lol, you can walk from Syria to Europe even if your "legs are short". Neandertals were hunters, so they weren't exactly crippled. Besides, you don't even have to walk, you need only mate with your neighbor.<br /><br />Your other points are either irrelevant, wrong, or addressed in the text.Dienekeshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02082684850093948970noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-62949527084397446222010-05-11T13:30:19.297+03:002010-05-11T13:30:19.297+03:00Dienekes, your friend responded to your argument:
...<i>Dienekes, your friend responded to your argument:<br /></i><br /><br />This post is a reply to that, unless I'm missing something.Dienekeshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02082684850093948970noreply@blogger.com