A Denisovan girl’s fossil tooth may have been unearthed in Laos
A molar adds to suspicions that the mysterious hominids inhabited
Southeast Asia's forests
"Analyses of the tooth’s internal structure and protein makeup indicate that the molar
came from a girl in the Homo genus. She died between the ages of 3½ and 8½, paleoanthropologist Fabrice Demeter of the University of Copenhagen
and colleagues
say."
Primum Sapienti wrote:
A Denisovan girl’s fossil tooth may have been unearthed in Laos
A molar adds to suspicions that the mysterious hominids inhabited
Southeast Asia's forests
"Analyses of the tooth’s internal structure and protein makeup indicate
that the molar
came from a girl in the Homo genus. She died between the ages of 3½ and
8½, paleoanthropologist Fabrice Demeter of the University of Copenhagen
and colleagues
say."
Honestly. They won't publish anything pertaining to paleo anthropology unless the writer has first consumed BUCKETS of paint chips...
The picture humans spreading like a ball where they begin at Point-A then pack up everything and walk to Point-B.... a ball rolling along a lane...
No.
Think of it as pouring out a large can of paint. The people, THE GENETICS spread like that. And all future populations? Well they're not waltzing forward,
pushing the ball ahead of them. No, it's more like they're stepping on wet paint, and carrying it where ever they go.
This doesn't just explain how Denisovan DNA and wind up HERE or THERE,
it explains Denisovans! After all, they began as one and the same population as Neanderthals. After maybe 300 or 400 thousand years they were not only distinct from Neanderthals but apparently groups of so called Denisovans
were just as distinct from each other!
You can claim this all resulted from evolving in isolation but we all know that
isn't true. They weren't isolated. There were people living in all the lands they
ever reached and they absorbed that DNA....
Think of it as pouring out a large can of paint. The people, THE GENETICS spread like that. And all future populations? Well they're not waltzing forward,
pushing the ball ahead of them. No, it's more like they're stepping on wet paint, and carrying it where ever they go.
This doesn't just explain how Denisovan DNA and wind up HERE or THERE,
it explains Denisovans! After all, they began as one and the same population
as Neanderthals. After maybe 300 or 400 thousand years they were not only distinct from Neanderthals but apparently groups of so called Denisovans were just as distinct from each other!
What is your data for all that?
Why are you arguing with the paper?
They collected the data and did the
analysis.
Primum Sapienti wrote:
Think of it as pouring out a large can of paint. The people, THE GENETICS >>> spread like that. And all future populations? Well they're not waltzing forward,
pushing the ball ahead of them. No, it's more like they're stepping on wet >>> paint, and carrying it where ever they go.
This doesn't just explain how Denisovan DNA and wind up HERE or THERE,
it explains Denisovans! After all, they began as one and the same population
as Neanderthals. After maybe 300 or 400 thousand years they were not only >>> distinct from Neanderthals but apparently groups of so called Denisovans >>> were just as distinct from each other!
What is your data for all that?
I'm sorry, and you think you're saying... what?
You are unaware of any data? You think that the slate is empty, nobody has ever
done DNA research?
I'm describing a model that EXPLAINS the data. Your model does not.
"Replacement" is stupid. It's disproven.
https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-35595661
There. No "Out of Africa" aka "Replacement" can explain that.
Out of Africa/Replacement can't explain Denisovans. It can't explain the Denisovan
DNA carried by modern human populations. It can't explain Mungo Man or even the A00 y chromosome found in modern humans:
https://www.cell.com/ajhg/fulltext/S0002-9297(13)00073-6
Your model doesn't work. Linear models NEVER worked.
Why are you arguing with the paper?
I'm not. Your models are stupid. They don't work. They are self refuting.
They collected the data and did the
analysis.
It's not about the data, rabbit dropping eating buffoon, it's about EXPLAINING
It. It's about constructing a model on which the data fits and no linear model
works or has ever worked.
Period.
I Envy JTEM wrote:
I'm sorry, and you think you're saying... what?
You are unaware of any data? You think that the slate is empty, nobody has ever
done DNA research?
Then you should have no problem
"Replacement" is stupid. It's disproven.
https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-35595661
There. No "Out of Africa" aka "Replacement" can explain that.
No mention of Denisovans there.
Primum Sapienti wrote:
I Envy JTEM wrote:
I'm sorry, and you think you're saying... what?
You are unaware of any data? You think that the slate is empty, nobody has ever
done DNA research?
Then you should have no problem
Look. I'm not some highly trained, paid professional whose job it is to be patient
and understanding with the likes of you.
If you are NOT pretending that there is no "Data," if you are NOT pretending that
as far as you know nobody has ever looked for/researched the DNA, shut the fuck up. You are demanding that I "Prove" a settled matter.
So either figure out what you REALLY want to say here or shut the fuck up. I will
not coddle you.
"Replacement" is stupid. It's disproven.
https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-35595661
There. No "Out of Africa" aka "Replacement" can explain that.
No mention of Denisovans there.
I know you're insane and not just intellectually challenged but, if you had reading comprehension, which you don't, I produced the cite to demonstrate that "Out of Africa" aka "Replacement" is wrong, and you imagined some
crazy Denisovan claim...
True, that Denisovans along with ALL extant populations -- extant during the evolutionarily significant period we speak of -- are indeed part of the mosaic
that Out of Africa and official interpretations of the DNA evidence are unable
to account for, but once you were shown the inadequacies of your model
there was no need to go into further specifics. Put in a way that even an idiot
can grasp though you surely will not: Once you establish that the Titanic has sunk it is pointless to establish that the Titanic's gymnasium or kitchen or dinning room also sank.
Please work hard at thinking, at discerning what your own goddamn position is, before further disgracing yourself.
Primum Sapienti wrote:waltzing forward,
Think of it as pouring out a large can of paint. The people, THE GENETICS
spread like that. And all future populations? Well they're not
on wetpushing the ball ahead of them. No, it's more like they're stepping
has everpaint, and carrying it where ever they go.
This doesn't just explain how Denisovan DNA and wind up HERE or THERE,
it explains Denisovans! After all, they began as one and the same population
as Neanderthals. After maybe 300 or 400 thousand years they were not only
distinct from Neanderthals but apparently groups of so called Denisovans
were just as distinct from each other!
What is your data for all that?
I'm sorry, and you think you're saying... what?
You are unaware of any data? You think that the slate is empty, nobody
done DNA research?
I'm describing a model that EXPLAINS the data. Your model does not.
"Replacement" is stupid. It's disproven.
https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-35595661
There. No "Out of Africa" aka "Replacement" can explain that.
Out of Africa/Replacement can't explain Denisovans. It can't explainthe Denisovan
DNA carried by modern human populations. It can't explain Mungo Man or even the A00 y chromosome found in modern humans:
https://www.cell.com/ajhg/fulltext/S0002-9297(13)00073-6
Your model doesn't work. Linear models NEVER worked.
Why are you arguing with the paper?
I'm not. Your models are stupid. They don't work. They are self refuting.
EXPLAININGThey collected the data and did the
analysis.
It's not about the data, rabbit dropping eating buffoon, it's about
It. It's about constructing a model on which the data fits and nolinear model
works or has ever worked.
Period.
Still waiting for you to back up your claim...
Primum Sapienti wrote:nobody has ever
I Envy JTEM wrote:
I'm sorry, and you think you're saying... what?
You are unaware of any data? You think that the slate is empty,
be patientdone DNA research?
Then you should have no problem
Look. I'm not some highly trained, paid professional whose job it is to
and understanding with the likes of you.pretending that
If you are NOT pretending that there is no "Data," if you are NOT
as far as you know nobody has ever looked for/researched the DNA, shut the fuck up. You are demanding that I "Prove" a settled matter.up. I will
So either figure out what you REALLY want to say here or shut the fuck
not coddle you.during the
"Replacement" is stupid. It's disproven.
https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-35595661
There. No "Out of Africa" aka "Replacement" can explain that.
No mention of Denisovans there.
I know you're insane and not just intellectually challenged but, if you had reading comprehension, which you don't, I produced the cite to demonstrate that "Out of Africa" aka "Replacement" is wrong, and you imagined some
crazy Denisovan claim...
True, that Denisovans along with ALL extant populations -- extant
evolutionarily significant period we speak of -- are indeed part of themosaic
that Out of Africa and official interpretations of the DNA evidence areunable
to account for, but once you were shown the inadequacies of your modelan idiot
there was no need to go into further specifics. Put in a way that even
can grasp though you surely will not: Once you establish that the Titanic has sunk it is pointless to establish that the Titanic's gymnasium orkitchen
or dinning room also sank.
Please work hard at thinking, at discerning what your own goddamn position is, before further disgracing yourself.
Primum Sapienti wrote:waltzing forward,
Think of it as pouring out a large can of paint. The people, THE GENETICS
spread like that. And all future populations? Well they're not
on wetpushing the ball ahead of them. No, it's more like they're stepping
has everpaint, and carrying it where ever they go.
This doesn't just explain how Denisovan DNA and wind up HERE or THERE,
it explains Denisovans! After all, they began as one and the same population
as Neanderthals. After maybe 300 or 400 thousand years they were not only
distinct from Neanderthals but apparently groups of so called Denisovans
were just as distinct from each other!
What is your data for all that?
I'm sorry, and you think you're saying... what?
You are unaware of any data? You think that the slate is empty, nobody
done DNA research?
I'm describing a model that EXPLAINS the data. Your model does not.
"Replacement" is stupid. It's disproven.
https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-35595661
There. No "Out of Africa" aka "Replacement" can explain that.
Out of Africa/Replacement can't explain Denisovans. It can't explainthe Denisovan
DNA carried by modern human populations. It can't explain Mungo Man or even the A00 y chromosome found in modern humans:
https://www.cell.com/ajhg/fulltext/S0002-9297(13)00073-6
Your model doesn't work. Linear models NEVER worked.
Why are you arguing with the paper?
I'm not. Your models are stupid. They don't work. They are self refuting.
EXPLAININGThey collected the data and did the
analysis.
It's not about the data, rabbit dropping eating buffoon, it's about
It. It's about constructing a model on which the data fits and nolinear model
works or has ever worked.
Period.
https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-35595661
Op zaterdag 30 juli 2022 om 04:42:03 UTC+2 schreef I Envy JTEM:
https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-35595661
Thanks!
1) Hn & Hs interbred.
2) Hn was unmistakenly semi-aquatic (wading+diving).
1+2) implies our aquatic past was not >5 Ma as Elaine & Hardy thought, but lasted until late-Pleistocene
(in fact, some Hs are ?still semi-aquatic, e.g. Polynesians).
Still waiting for you to
Then you should have no problem backing up your claim.
I did not propose a model. I posted references to articles.
"Replacement" is stupid. It's disproven.
https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-35595661
There. No "Out of Africa" aka "Replacement" can explain that.
No mention of Denisovans there.
All Polynesians, Moken, Bajau, Ama sleep in constructed shelters, never in water.
https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-35595661
Thanks!
1) Hn & Hs interbred.
2) Hn was unmistakenly semi-aquatic (wading+diving).
1+2) implies our aquatic past was not >5 Ma as Elaine & Hardy thought, but lasted until late-Pleistocene
(in fact, some Hs are ?still semi-aquatic, e.g. Polynesians).
All Polynesians, Moken, Bajau, Ama sleep in constructed shelters, never in water.
Sysop: | Keyop |
---|---|
Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
Users: | 303 |
Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
Uptime: | 76:19:42 |
Calls: | 6,805 |
Calls today: | 1 |
Files: | 12,327 |
Messages: | 5,400,170 |