I can't find it anymore -- it contradicted the social program
that is paleo anthropology -- but I had a great cite about
a gene believed to have originated in Asia, maybe China,
more than a million years ago, and was carried all the way
to Africa by back migrations.

Somehow here probably either has more knowledge or a
better memory on the subject than I...

I don't like "Molecular Dating." In fact I reject it.

If you believe in evolution, after all, you believe that DNA
is under SELECTIVE PRESSURE. Changes don't accumulate
with clock like regularity. When there's a great deal of pressure
they happen rapidly, when there's no pressure they don't seem
to happen at all.

Look at the LM3 insert.

Mitochondrial DNA is under selective pressure, it's changed a
great deal over time, spawned many new lines, but then you
look over the bit that got copied over to the nuclear DNA, the
LM3 insert, where there's no selective pressure, and it's
excessively well preserved! The enormous variation that would
have to exist within DNA a great deal older than any imagined
"mtDNA Eve." if the molecular clock were real, just isn't there.

So I just plain reject molecular dating. It's a dumb idea as
misused/abused over the years...

So this cite I had, the one on the topic of DNA which was
carried to Africa as part of a back migration, was always
problematic for me. To a point.

Whether it was a lot older or younger than claimed, does
that really alter the fact of the migration?

Well. When I say "Migration" I mean the DNA itself, not
necessarily any people. They just had to have occasional
sex with neighboring populations in order to move DNA
from one side of the world to the other. So genes can
travel even if populations do not. DNA can "Migrate."

But people can also migrate. And Aquatic Ape is a highway
that moves both ways. A population can follow the coast,
consuming resources before moving on, and that very
same population (or others) can follow the coast back in
the other direction.

Doing the Google, I see it take three to four years for clams
to grow to current "Market" sizes. So if they allowed a stretch
of beach to lie "Fallow" for at least that long, it would be
replenished. They could turn around and go back the way they
came...

So even if the dating of so called back migrations has to be
wrong, there's still the fact that DNA did migrate. And that's
interesting. It's some pixels within our greater image. We need
to fit them in. And then...

China? Why not Sundaland?

But China also seems to be the evolutionary origins of many
of our most famous dinosaurs and even birds. Could it be
the caldron of evolution for so long? If so, why? Where in
particular, under what conditions would we find all this
evolution?

The recent "Dragon Man" talk is probably adding to my
vexation here...

I don't have answers, only questions. If anyone knows about
any of this, has cites or ideas, please let the world know.




-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/673214686682054656

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Wednesday, January 12, 2022 at 6:28:57 PM UTC-5, I Envy JTEM wrote:

I can't find it anymore -- it contradicted the social program
that is paleo anthropology -- but I had a great cite about
a gene believed to have originated in Asia, maybe China,
more than a million years ago, and was carried all the way
to Africa by back migrations.

Somehow here probably either has more knowledge or a
better memory on the subject than I...

I don't like "Molecular Dating." In fact I reject it.

If you believe in evolution, after all, you believe that DNA
is under SELECTIVE PRESSURE. Changes don't accumulate
with clock like regularity. When there's a great deal of pressure
they happen rapidly, when there's no pressure they don't seem
to happen at all.

Look at the LM3 insert.

Mitochondrial DNA is under selective pressure, it's changed a
great deal over time, spawned many new lines, but then you
look over the bit that got copied over to the nuclear DNA, the
LM3 insert, where there's no selective pressure, and it's
excessively well preserved! The enormous variation that would
have to exist within DNA a great deal older than any imagined
"mtDNA Eve." if the molecular clock were real, just isn't there.

So I just plain reject molecular dating. It's a dumb idea as
misused/abused over the years...

So this cite I had, the one on the topic of DNA which was
carried to Africa as part of a back migration, was always
problematic for me. To a point.

Whether it was a lot older or younger than claimed, does
that really alter the fact of the migration?

Well. When I say "Migration" I mean the DNA itself, not
necessarily any people. They just had to have occasional
sex with neighboring populations in order to move DNA
from one side of the world to the other. So genes can
travel even if populations do not. DNA can "Migrate."

But people can also migrate. And Aquatic Ape is a highway
that moves both ways. A population can follow the coast,
consuming resources before moving on, and that very
same population (or others) can follow the coast back in
the other direction.

Doing the Google, I see it take three to four years for clams
to grow to current "Market" sizes. So if they allowed a stretch
of beach to lie "Fallow" for at least that long, it would be
replenished. They could turn around and go back the way they
came...

So even if the dating of so called back migrations has to be
wrong, there's still the fact that DNA did migrate. And that's
interesting. It's some pixels within our greater image. We need
to fit them in. And then...

China? Why not Sundaland?

But China also seems to be the evolutionary origins of many
of our most famous dinosaurs and even birds. Could it be
the caldron of evolution for so long? If so, why? Where in
particular, under what conditions would we find all this
evolution?

The recent "Dragon Man" talk is probably adding to my
vexation here...

I don't have answers, only questions. If anyone knows about
any of this, has cites or ideas, please let the world know.

-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/673214686682054656

This is probably a few levels too high for Jerm, but the idea that Homo wiped out their marine littoral food resources so they just moved along the coast a bit, then reversed at the endpoint, means the route back was under starvation conditions, thus
extinction.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Jerm, DD'eDeN aka note/nickname/alas_my_loves wrote:

This is probably a few levels too high for Jerm,

Now for something incredibly stupid...

but the idea that Homo wiped out their marine littoral food resources so they just moved along the coast a bit,
then reversed at the endpoint, means the route back was under starvation conditions

Well if you knew anything at all about the subject, and weren't just some barely literate
mouth breather, you'd have to know about the glacial/interglacial cycle, the changes to
sea level, the (geologically) regular submersion of coastline...

It's been a topic raised & revisited countless times, so you no doubt missed it between,
what, you lack of reading comprehension and zero retention...

Please stop trying to be clever. You're embarrassing yourself. Instead, when you have
nothing to say you could try saying nothing.







-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/673214686682054656

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)