It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

multi regional or replacement (out of africa 2) hypothesis which one do you believe and why

page: 3
3
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 25 2017 @ 04:46 PM
link   
a reply to: luthier

The oldest DNA that has been sequenced is from about 430k years back. DNA requires specific conditions to survive that long, and it requires a LOT of work to extract and analyse it when it is that old.

Thus I'm not sure how many genomes have been sequenced from sub Saharan archaic Homo sapiens the conditions are not great for DNA surviving thousands let alone hundreds of thousands of years there. Recently there has been some progress (but not in the time period you are after) .

They way this works is you look at the level of variance in the extant population. You find the most variation in the Sub Saharan population. That implies it is the oldest, and thus that infers that this is where Homo sapiens first originated.

I get that is not enough for you. Yet you admit to being a "layperson" with regards to this.

I will talk about the other questions WHEN you start trying to understand the material .




posted on Oct, 25 2017 @ 04:49 PM
link   
a reply to: Noinden

Why do you think I don't get the material?

How well does old DNA from the tropical rainforest hold up?

Do you understand the probability of a finding changes with environment?

What role does information have on human evolution. Instant learned information like fire?


I think you may not understand what I meant by the op or I wrote it hastily.

I should have said we should change the title of ooa.
edit on 25-10-2017 by luthier because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 25 2017 @ 04:55 PM
link   
a reply to: Phantom423

Human is another term that is indistinct.

Do you mean are they Homo sapiens (so Homo sapies neanderthalensis) or are they their own species (so Homo neanderthalensis)? Looking at the genomes we have sequenced, it is the latter. So it could be a "NO they are not human (if you mean just Homo sapiens ) or yes they are because they acted pretty much like us, could breed with us etc.

Easiest answer is they are fellow hominids. Same genus.

They evolved from Homo erectus which wandered out of Africa into Eurasia sometime around 1.8 million years ago. On the way to Homo neanderthalensis we probably have evolution too Homo heidelbergensis, though some suggest that Homo antecessor is where we and the neanderthals split. That is the problem with fossils, you can build a story one way or the other. DNA is nicer, but less robust (you can only find DNA of a certain age our younger).

Some of us share DNA with mr Neandethal (and the Denisovians) depending where our ancestry is. The fact that Sub Saharan people have none (assuming no back migration, or colonial mixing recently) tells us also that sapiens were from Africa first.



posted on Oct, 25 2017 @ 05:01 PM
link   
a reply to: luthier

Tropical DNA is even worse, its why Homo floresiensis is being debated so much, the DNA degraded, and the places it might be (dentene, deep in bones) is fragile, and the act of drilling it out causes it to degrade even more.

You appear to be mistaking biological evolution with social evolution. Fire? Ok then how does that mutate the genome to a certain trait? (This is why I question you getting the material).

I will give you an example. Lactose tollerance (Lactose persistence) . It is NOT the natural state. You find that Lactose tollerance is most prevalent in Cattle herding peoples (say the Indo-European migrations) and can be dated to roughly the time period we were beginning to domesticate cattel for milk, not meat. That was not instant/. There is no INSTANT changes beyond a mutation, which is passed on.

Information is a meme not a gene, thus not involved in evolution. It might over time guide it. But only something profound, and more profound than fire.

IF your OP is so unclear, rewrite it.



posted on Oct, 25 2017 @ 05:11 PM
link   
a reply to: Noinden

How does fire mutate a gene? Uh food? Like how we eat where we can survive and thousands of years of time?

I think your jumping to conclusions on what I know or don't know.


Your incredibly incorrect about information.

How does stress effect the genes of offspring?

How does information effect survival?

And obviously tropical climate destroys genes so a lot of territory has artifacts that can't be studied.
edit on 25-10-2017 by luthier because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 25 2017 @ 05:21 PM
link   
a reply to: luthier

Ok no. Cooking the food will not induce a mutation (thats not how it works). Humans were using fire for a long time, before we "learned to harness (make) it". So a social change (and this is a social change) is just that. So you need to illustrate how this affects evolution.

I am basing what you do or do not know, on how you interact in this thread. Its how a scientist works. Evidence shows you are not very deeply educated in evolution.

There is some evidence stress might affect genetic information (its epigenetics NOT genetics, do you know the difference?) being a living creature on the planet is stress filled. We've been at this hundreds of thousands of years, and yet here we are.

I'm not incorrect about information, you have yet to illustrate your point. This is NOT skunkworks, thus the burden of proof is in your hands.



posted on Oct, 25 2017 @ 05:26 PM
link   
a reply to: Noinden

How does information effect survival.

Are you saying the eating cooked food did not create human gene changes?

In your opinion social behavior doesn't effect mutation?

How about marriage cults?



posted on Oct, 25 2017 @ 05:33 PM
link   
a reply to: luthier

You are using conformation bias for your arguments.

You want something to be so, therefore it is.

As opposed to the data tells the story.

(a) Eating food does not induce genetic change. Its not how it works. You MIGHT have been able to build an argument based on selection of certain traits, for another thing. But cooked food? You do get not all of humanity cooks its food, or cooks its food the same way right? Yet we are a species that is very genetically similar.
(b) Social behavior does not cause mutations. Unless you know of a social group who takes various substances to do just that. Social behavior can point towards selection of traits. SO as you are wanting to use this as proof of your theory. Prove it. Don't say "how about XYZ".... show me how it did that. Again Burden of proof. You do know about that right?

No more answers, until YOU pony up some proof. That is not me not replying, but I'm done with answering your logical fallacies.



posted on Oct, 25 2017 @ 05:37 PM
link   
a reply to: Noinden

You haven't given me any answers.

Prove what? You can't prove antrying yourself.

So these people who eat raw meat do they have primate jaws or human?

Did MYH16 mutation happen after or before cooking?

Did using fire help humanity survive?

Did fire create the mutation as we didn't need it?
edit on 25-10-2017 by luthier because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 25 2017 @ 05:44 PM
link   
a reply to: luthier

When did cooking first happen? MYH16 mutation is estimated to be 2.4 million years ago or 5.3 million years ago. There were no Homo sapiens at that time.

You don't understand what I've written, thus you don't think I have given answers.

You still mistake a meme and a gene.



posted on Oct, 25 2017 @ 05:47 PM
link   
a reply to: Noinden

That's cute.

Again your failing to understand at all being laser ed focused on specifics you can't see the big picture.

What caused humans to survive. Was it information or sharp claws and teeth?

It doesn't matter which came first.

You can't evolve if your dead and human beings rely on learned information to survive.

Ps when did cooking first happen?

How would you know if something 300kya cooked? What is the likelyhood you would find that information?
edit on 25-10-2017 by luthier because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 25 2017 @ 05:58 PM
link   
a reply to: luthier

Logical Fallacy a go go, yep that is your modus operandi.

(a) The topic of this thread, one you have admitted is not succinctly written is: multi regional or replacement (out of africa 2) hypothesis which one do you believe and why. In that you have asked why we think one or the other is the answer. I answered that. I have actually crunched data (as part of my training in Bioinformatics) and concluded the best answer is, Out of Africa (coupled with interbreeding with other members of genus Homo)
(b) You don't understand what mt-Eve is about. This is amply demonstrated in your replies.
(c) You are avoiding the questions I ask. OR parroting back at me.

Oh and it is you're not your.

When you can actually form a coherent thesis. I'll take you seriously.

But you are currently a lightweight.



posted on Oct, 25 2017 @ 06:03 PM
link   
a reply to: Noinden

Your opinions do not make facts. Thanks for a pointless conversation.

Let me see if I have this right

Evolution and diet have no link

Information and survival are not important factors to human evolution.

Breeding cults can't change evolutionary paths.

Ps could you point out your logical fallacy claims. If not you have just created one.




edit on 25-10-2017 by luthier because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 25 2017 @ 06:07 PM
link   
a reply to: luthier

Scientists seriously consider whether our universe is a simulation. If it is, I presume there has to be something or someone at the helm pushing the buttons. But is it a testable hypothesis? Probably not. But there are many interesting discussions on the subject.

This is a good general article from Scientific American:

www.scientificamerican.com...

Simulation vs a designer? Probably a semantical question right now. I don't believe in the religious notion of a designer because the idea is based on the mystical and supernatural. But physicists look at the simulation hypothesis as something scientists might have to deal with in the future. As we scientists always ask: Where's the evidence? Where's the data? Without evidence, we remain in the hypothetical stage of discovery.


edit on 25-10-2017 by Phantom423 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 25 2017 @ 06:15 PM
link   
Still reading.

But, thanks. Good to see threads like this again.



posted on Oct, 25 2017 @ 06:15 PM
link   
a reply to: luthier

You asked for opinions, then when you get them you get bent out of shape over them. QED Conformation Bias.

I said none of what you just typed. I've said YOU need to provide evidence. Indeed I provided proof of the diet one for you several posts back, you missed it
Who is in the woods looking for the forrest now?

You need to pony up proof for your suppositions. This is not the Skunk works forum.



posted on Oct, 25 2017 @ 06:18 PM
link   
a reply to: Phantom423

Correction "some scientists" that is an important distinction. Others think we are a hologram around a black hole, and others see reality as what it actually is, there here and now.



posted on Oct, 25 2017 @ 06:25 PM
link   
a reply to: Noinden




(a) Eating food does not induce genetic change. Its not how it works. You MIGHT have been able to build an argument based on selection of certain traits, for another thing. But cooked food? You do get not all of humanity cooks its food, or cooks its food the same way right? Yet we are a species that is very genetically similar.


I agree that it's not a one-to-one relationship. But how about this: We know that cancer genes like BRCA1 and 2 are considered to be defective genes which are inherited. We really don't know how or why the normal gene mutated. We assume that there was a normal gene present in a particular population that mutated into a killer. BRCA genes occur mostly in Eastern European women, particularly Jews. So the question is - was it an environmental stress that precipitated the mutation? Environmental stress can include many things - pollution from indoor fires, radiation, maybe contaminated food which was eaten over generations. And was the mutation immediately inheritable?

Think of people who smoke and/or have high risk profiles like obesity. For smokers we know that there are genetic changes in the lung which are not inheritable - they are unique to the patient. BUT, could these genes become inheritable? I think that's an open question. As to food, I guarantee that if you eat the typical American diet 24/7, you're going to get some bad-ass gene mutation. But seriously, there's really nothing to rule out a gene mutation from becoming inheritable, albeit very rare.



Gene changes that may lead to lung cancer Scientists know how some of the risk factors for lung cancer can cause certain changes in the DNA of lung cells. These changes can lead to abnormal cell growth and, sometimes, cancer. DNA is the chemical in our cells that makes up our genes, which control how our cells function. We usually look like our parents because they are the source of our DNA. But DNA also can influence our risk for developing certain diseases, including some kinds of cancer.

www.cancer.org...

edit on 25-10-2017 by Phantom423 because: (no reason given)

edit on 25-10-2017 by Phantom423 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 25 2017 @ 06:32 PM
link   
a reply to: Noinden

Well as a student of QM, I tend to think that reality has produced some shockers - things that we would have said could never happen like entanglement - and all the other weird stuff about QM. No one understands it completely or can even explain why there is a quantum world. But there it is and we have super conductors and now quantum computers because of that world. I like the open mindedness of studying QM because if you ever attend one of Leonard Susskind's lectures, you'll have a big headache if you don't!
edit on 25-10-2017 by Phantom423 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 25 2017 @ 06:37 PM
link   
a reply to: Phantom423

An anthropomorphic principle bias can be the reaons of the concept holographic universe concept. Some of the latest Fermi labs tests have come up short.

Fine tuning kind of goes like this. To avoid a push to create life we need the multiverse for enough chance to create life. We need to use math to structure reality when, we do we need many dimensions to create symmetrical equations.

Many dimensions leads to philosophy of time and space etc...

Things get weird again.




top topics



 
3
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join