I queued it up for you:
https://youtu.be/FlR22hcjp_w?feature=shared&t=121
I know he's not talking about Aquatic Ape but this is
the sort of thing, if not the actual thing, that sent me
onto the Aquatic Ape path.
HINT: It illustrates the point that Homo needed a
means AND a motive for traveling across their world.
Aquatic Ape provides both the means and the motive.
They were picking stuff up, eating and then moving
along as the pickings grew slim.
"Pretty sneaky, sis."
-- --
https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/732929985731493888
That alternative died long before we had the extant population genetics
RonO wrote:
That alternative died long before we had the extant population genetics
Your model, or what you pretend is a model, for how our DNA got this
way is a proven fraud.
It doesn't fit other species, it doesn't even fit all the human evidence.
It's just plain wrong.
-- --
https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/732973247328583680
Lying about
RonO wrote:
Lying about
As I pointed out in the past -- knowing I was wasting my time but, what
the hay? -- just look at dogs. Look at New World breeds or the Pharaoh
Hound in Egypt. Going by your idiocy, these are brand new breeds that
go back no further than European colonizers. But we know for a fact
that's sheer idiocy. We have ancient depictions showing us the dogs
existed, and in some cases the physical remains of the dog.
This is because DNA "Evidence" doesn't work the way that drool
soaked mouth breathers, such as yourself, insist.
The Chromosome 11 insert, the famous LM3 insert: It proves that
billions of people -- literally BILLIONS -- can trace their heritage to an unknown population. And without that lucky mutation, the copying
of mtDNA to the nuclear DNA, there could not be a shred of evidence
for this.
According to you jackasses this means that the billions descended
from these archaic humans are not descended from archaic humans...
You're not interested in understanding. You just want to memorize
what some headline told you and pretend that's understanding. And
that is hilarious.
JTEM is my hero <jte...@gmail.com> wrote:
You're not interested in understanding. You just want to memorize
what some headline told you and pretend that's understanding. And
that is hilarious.
Clearly more works needs to be done to support the "Out of Australia"| hypothesis.
On Fri, 10 Nov 2023 22:50:01 -0800 (PST)
JTEM is my hero <jte...@gmail.com> wrote:
RonO wrote:
Lying about
As I pointed out in the past -- knowing I was wasting my time but, what the hay? -- just look at dogs. Look at New World breeds or the Pharaoh Hound in Egypt. Going by your idiocy, these are brand new breeds that
go back no further than European colonizers. But we know for a fact
that's sheer idiocy. We have ancient depictions showing us the dogs existed, and in some cases the physical remains of the dog.
This is because DNA "Evidence" doesn't work the way that drool
soaked mouth breathers, such as yourself, insist.
The Chromosome 11 insert, the famous LM3 insert: It proves that
billions of people -- literally BILLIONS -- can trace their heritage to an unknown population. And without that lucky mutation, the copying
of mtDNA to the nuclear DNA, there could not be a shred of evidence
for this.
According to you jackasses this means that the billions descended
from these archaic humans are not descended from archaic humans...
You're not interested in understanding. You just want to memorize
what some headline told you and pretend that's understanding. And
that is hilarious.
Clearly more works needs to be done to support the "Out of Australia"| hypothesis.
On Saturday, November 11, 2023 at 5:21:36 AM UTC-5, Kerr-Mudd, John wrote:
Clearly more works needs to be done to support the "Out of Australia"| hypothesis.
Are you trying to satirize JTEM's position? Don't you know that there is no evidence of larger mammals (much smaller than humans, but larger than rats, to be precise) crossing the Wallace line before ca. 40,000 years ago?
By that time, the invasion of Homo sapiens sapiens was a done deal,
having penetrated a goodly part of Asia.
The great peninsula of Sunda, that existed during the last Pleistocene glaciation,
where the eastern half of Indonesia and Malaysia now stands,
was where humans stopped. Homo erectus, Homo florensis ("Hobbit man,") and other
species of Homo were present there hundreds of thousands of years ago.
Ask JTEM about some of them. Although he is generally dismissed as a kook, I've seen more good scientific facts from him than I've seen from you so far.
Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
University of South Carolina
https://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos
On Saturday, November 11, 2023 at 5:21:36 AM UTC-5, Kerr-Mudd, John wrote:
On Fri, 10 Nov 2023 22:50:01 -0800 (PST)
JTEM is my hero <jte...@gmail.com> wrote:
RonO wrote:
Lying about
As I pointed out in the past -- knowing I was wasting my time but, what the hay? -- just look at dogs. Look at New World breeds or the Pharaoh Hound in Egypt. Going by your idiocy, these are brand new breeds that
go back no further than European colonizers. But we know for a fact that's sheer idiocy. We have ancient depictions showing us the dogs existed, and in some cases the physical remains of the dog.
This is because DNA "Evidence" doesn't work the way that drool
soaked mouth breathers, such as yourself, insist.
The Chromosome 11 insert, the famous LM3 insert: It proves that
billions of people -- literally BILLIONS -- can trace their heritage to an
unknown population. And without that lucky mutation, the copying
of mtDNA to the nuclear DNA, there could not be a shred of evidence
for this.
According to you jackasses this means that the billions descended
from these archaic humans are not descended from archaic humans...
You're not interested in understanding. You just want to memorize
what some headline told you and pretend that's understanding. And
that is hilarious.
Clearly more works needs to be done to support the "Out of Australia"| hypothesis.
Are you trying to satirize JTEM's position? Don't you know that there is no
evidence of larger mammals (much smaller than humans, but larger than rats, to be precise) crossing the Wallace line before ca. 40,000 years ago?
By that time, the invasion of Homo sapiens sapiens was a done deal,
having penetrated a goodly part of Asia.
The great peninsula of Sunda, that existed during the last Pleistocene glaciation,
where the eastern half of Indonesia and Malaysia now stands,
was where humans stopped. Homo erectus, Homo florensis ("Hobbit man,") and other
species of Homo were present there hundreds of thousands of years ago.
Ask JTEM about some of them. Although he is generally dismissed as a kook, I've seen more good scientific facts from him than I've seen from you so far.
On Wed, 15 Nov 2023 16:32:55 -0800 (PST)
"peter2...@gmail.com" <peter2...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Saturday, November 11, 2023 at 5:21:36 AM UTC-5, Kerr-Mudd, John wrote:
On Fri, 10 Nov 2023 22:50:01 -0800 (PST)
JTEM is my hero <jte...@gmail.com> wrote:
RonO wrote:
Lying about
As I pointed out in the past -- knowing I was wasting my time but, what
the hay? -- just look at dogs. Look at New World breeds or the Pharaoh Hound in Egypt. Going by your idiocy, these are brand new breeds that go back no further than European colonizers. But we know for a fact that's sheer idiocy. We have ancient depictions showing us the dogs existed, and in some cases the physical remains of the dog.
AIUI, there aren't any New World dog lines remaining.
This is because DNA "Evidence" doesn't work the way that drool
soaked mouth breathers, such as yourself, insist.
The Chromosome 11 insert, the famous LM3 insert: It proves that billions of people -- literally BILLIONS -- can trace their heritage to an
unknown population. And without that lucky mutation, the copying
of mtDNA to the nuclear DNA, there could not be a shred of evidence for this.
According to you jackasses this means that the billions descended
from these archaic humans are not descended from archaic humans...
You're not interested in understanding. You just want to memorize
what some headline told you and pretend that's understanding. And
that is hilarious.
Clearly more works needs to be done to support the "Out of Australia"| hypothesis.
Are you trying to satirize JTEM's position? Don't you know that there is noWell erm, Yes!
evidence of larger mammals (much smaller than humans, but larger than rats,Yes.
to be precise) crossing the Wallace line before ca. 40,000 years ago?
By that time, the invasion of Homo sapiens sapiens was a done deal,
having penetrated a goodly part of Asia.
The great peninsula of Sunda, that existed during the last Pleistocene glaciation,
where the eastern half of Indonesia and Malaysia now stands,
was where humans stopped. Homo erectus, Homo florensis ("Hobbit man,") and other
species of Homo were present there hundreds of thousands of years ago.
Ask JTEM about some of them. Although he is generally dismissed as a kook, I've seen more good scientific facts from him than I've seen from you so far.
I'm mostly a spectator here, I'm not out there brandishing exciting new "theories".
On Thursday, November 16, 2023 at 5:41:40 AM UTC-5, Kerr-Mudd, John wrote:
On Wed, 15 Nov 2023 16:32:55 -0800 (PST)
"peter2...@gmail.com" <peter2...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Saturday, November 11, 2023 at 5:21:36 AM UTC-5, Kerr-Mudd, John wrote:
On Fri, 10 Nov 2023 22:50:01 -0800 (PST)
JTEM is my hero <jte...@gmail.com> wrote:
RonO wrote:
Lying about
As I pointed out in the past -- knowing I was wasting my time but, what
the hay? -- just look at dogs. Look at New World breeds or the Pharaoh
Hound in Egypt. Going by your idiocy, these are brand new breeds that
go back no further than European colonizers. But we know for a fact that's sheer idiocy. We have ancient depictions showing us the dogs existed, and in some cases the physical remains of the dog.
The indigenous people brought they're dogs with them. There were also plenty of native wolves inAIUI, there aren't any New World dog lines remaining.That's a fascinating possibility that never occurred to me, because the dog was the main beast of
of the indigenous people of USA and Canada before the horse supplanted it.
However, aren't you forgetting about the Inuit? Aren't some sled dogs
of today on New World dog lines? Also, what about Chihuahuas and related breeds like the Mexican Hairless?
This is because DNA "Evidence" doesn't work the way that drool soaked mouth breathers, such as yourself, insist.
The Chromosome 11 insert, the famous LM3 insert: It proves that billions of people -- literally BILLIONS -- can trace their heritage to an
unknown population. And without that lucky mutation, the copying
of mtDNA to the nuclear DNA, there could not be a shred of evidence for this.
According to you jackasses this means that the billions descended from these archaic humans are not descended from archaic humans...
You're not interested in understanding. You just want to memorize what some headline told you and pretend that's understanding. And that is hilarious.
Clearly more works needs to be done to support the "Out of Australia"| hypothesis.
Are you trying to satirize JTEM's position? Don't you know that there is noWell erm, Yes!
evidence of larger mammals (much smaller than humans, but larger than rats,Yes.
to be precise) crossing the Wallace line before ca. 40,000 years ago?
By that time, the invasion of Homo sapiens sapiens was a done deal, having penetrated a goodly part of Asia.
The great peninsula of Sunda, that existed during the last Pleistocene glaciation,
where the eastern half of Indonesia and Malaysia now stands,
was where humans stopped. Homo erectus, Homo florensis ("Hobbit man,") and other
species of Homo were present there hundreds of thousands of years ago. Ask JTEM about some of them. Although he is generally dismissed as a kook,
I've seen more good scientific facts from him than I've seen from you so far.
I'm mostly a spectator here, I'm not out there brandishing exciting new "theories".However, you could take a more active role, like you do in this post.
Even if your idea of New World dog lines is shot down, at least
you've given me something interesting to think about.
And this is a talk* group, not a sci* group, so we don't need to be
too careful about sharing ideas with others.
Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
Univ. of South Carolina at Columbia
http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos
On Thursday, November 16, 2023 at 11:01:42 AM UTC-8, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thursday, November 16, 2023 at 5:41:40 AM UTC-5, Kerr-Mudd, John wrote:
On Wed, 15 Nov 2023 16:32:55 -0800 (PST)
"peter2...@gmail.com" <peter2...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Saturday, November 11, 2023 at 5:21:36 AM UTC-5, Kerr-Mudd, John wrote:
On Fri, 10 Nov 2023 22:50:01 -0800 (PST)
JTEM is my hero <jte...@gmail.com> wrote:
RonO wrote:
Lying about
As I pointed out in the past -- knowing I was wasting my time but, what
the hay? -- just look at dogs. Look at New World breeds or the Pharaoh
Hound in Egypt. Going by your idiocy, these are brand new breeds that
go back no further than European colonizers. But we know for a fact that's sheer idiocy. We have ancient depictions showing us the dogs existed, and in some cases the physical remains of the dog.
AIUI, there aren't any New World dog lines remaining.That's a fascinating possibility that never occurred to me, because the dog was the main beast of
of the indigenous people of USA and Canada before the horse supplanted it.
However, aren't you forgetting about the Inuit? Aren't some sled dogs
of today on New World dog lines? Also, what about Chihuahuas and related breeds like the Mexican Hairless?
Even if your idea of New World dog lines is shot down, at least
you've given me something interesting to think about.
And this is a talk* group, not a sci* group, so we don't need to beThe indigenous people brought they're dogs with them. There were also plenty of native wolves in
too careful about sharing ideas with others.
Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
Univ. of South Carolina at Columbia
http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos
New World (coyotes are small wolves), and they interbred with imported dogs. Dog domestication
took place in the Old World, probably in several places and several times.
On Thu, 16 Nov 2023 14:35:01 -0800 (PST)
erik simpson <eastside.erik@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thursday, November 16, 2023 at 11:01:42 AM UTC-8, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thursday, November 16, 2023 at 5:41:40 AM UTC-5, Kerr-Mudd, John wrote:
On Wed, 15 Nov 2023 16:32:55 -0800 (PST)That's a fascinating possibility that never occurred to me, because the dog was the main beast of
"peter2...@gmail.com" <peter2...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Saturday, November 11, 2023 at 5:21:36 AM UTC-5, Kerr-Mudd, John wrote:
On Fri, 10 Nov 2023 22:50:01 -0800 (PST)
JTEM is my hero <jte...@gmail.com> wrote:
RonO wrote:
Lying about
As I pointed out in the past -- knowing I was wasting my time but, what >>>>>>> the hay? -- just look at dogs. Look at New World breeds or the Pharaoh >>>>>>> Hound in Egypt. Going by your idiocy, these are brand new breeds that >>>>>>> go back no further than European colonizers. But we know for a fact >>>>>>> that's sheer idiocy. We have ancient depictions showing us the dogs >>>>>>> existed, and in some cases the physical remains of the dog.
AIUI, there aren't any New World dog lines remaining.
of the indigenous people of USA and Canada before the horse supplanted it. >>>
However, aren't you forgetting about the Inuit? Aren't some sled dogs
of today on New World dog lines? Also, what about Chihuahuas and related >>> breeds like the Mexican Hairless?
[]
Sure. But I'd read that the New World people abandoned their breeds inEven if your idea of New World dog lines is shot down, at leastThe indigenous people brought they're dogs with them. There were also plenty of native wolves in
you've given me something interesting to think about.
And this is a talk* group, not a sci* group, so we don't need to be
too careful about sharing ideas with others.
Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
Univ. of South Carolina at Columbia
http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos
New World (coyotes are small wolves), and they interbred with imported dogs. Dog domestication
took place in the Old World, probably in several places and several times. >>
favour of Old World ones, once the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Columbian_exchange
got going.
OK, seems it's the original gene line that's gone, but some
parts of it are incorporated in dogs breeds found in Alaska and Peru
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peruvian_Hairless_Dog#DNA_evidence
On 17/11/2023 12:47, Kerr-Mudd, John wrote:We'll probably never untangle the lineages of dogs, since they hybridize so readily. Domestic
On Thu, 16 Nov 2023 14:35:01 -0800 (PST)
erik simpson <eastsi...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thursday, November 16, 2023 at 11:01:42 AM UTC-8, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thursday, November 16, 2023 at 5:41:40 AM UTC-5, Kerr-Mudd, John wrote:
On Wed, 15 Nov 2023 16:32:55 -0800 (PST)That's a fascinating possibility that never occurred to me, because the dog was the main beast of
"peter2...@gmail.com" <peter2...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Saturday, November 11, 2023 at 5:21:36 AM UTC-5, Kerr-Mudd, John wrote:
On Fri, 10 Nov 2023 22:50:01 -0800 (PST)
JTEM is my hero <jte...@gmail.com> wrote:
RonO wrote:
Lying about
As I pointed out in the past -- knowing I was wasting my time but, what
the hay? -- just look at dogs. Look at New World breeds or the Pharaoh
Hound in Egypt. Going by your idiocy, these are brand new breeds that
go back no further than European colonizers. But we know for a fact >>>>>>> that's sheer idiocy. We have ancient depictions showing us the dogs >>>>>>> existed, and in some cases the physical remains of the dog.
AIUI, there aren't any New World dog lines remaining.
of the indigenous people of USA and Canada before the horse supplanted it.
However, aren't you forgetting about the Inuit? Aren't some sled dogs >>> of today on New World dog lines? Also, what about Chihuahuas and related >>> breeds like the Mexican Hairless?
[]
Sure. But I'd read that the New World people abandoned their breeds in favour of Old World ones, once the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Columbian_exchangeEven if your idea of New World dog lines is shot down, at leastThe indigenous people brought they're dogs with them. There were also plenty of native wolves in
you've given me something interesting to think about.
And this is a talk* group, not a sci* group, so we don't need to be
too careful about sharing ideas with others.
Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
Univ. of South Carolina at Columbia
http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos
New World (coyotes are small wolves), and they interbred with imported dogs. Dog domestication
took place in the Old World, probably in several places and several times.
got going.
OK, seems it's the original gene line that's gone, but some
parts of it are incorporated in dogs breeds found in Alaska and Peru
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peruvian_Hairless_Dog#DNA_evidence
I looked at bits of WikiPedia. In several places they cite a study that
says that the pre-Columbian American dog lineages are extinct. But they
also mention some native ancestry in the Peruvian Hairless Dog, the
Mexican Hairless Dog, the Chihuahua and especially the Carolina Dog. It might be better to say that the pre-Columbian American dog lineages have been genetically swamped by Eurasian breeds.
Reading between the lines, the Canadian Eskimo/Greenland Dog, is pre-Columbian, but a relatively recent introduction associated with the Thule culture. The Malamute would seem to be an Alaskan development of
sled dogs from eastern Siberia.
--
alias Ernest Major
On Friday, November 17, 2023 at 7:01:43 AM UTC-8, Ernest Major wrote:
On 17/11/2023 12:47, Kerr-Mudd, John wrote:We'll probably never untangle the lineages of dogs, since they hybridize so readily. Domestic
On Thu, 16 Nov 2023 14:35:01 -0800 (PST)I looked at bits of WikiPedia. In several places they cite a study that
erik simpson <eastsi...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thursday, November 16, 2023 at 11:01:42 AM UTC-8, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thursday, November 16, 2023 at 5:41:40 AM UTC-5, Kerr-Mudd, John wrote:
On Wed, 15 Nov 2023 16:32:55 -0800 (PST)That's a fascinating possibility that never occurred to me, because the dog was the main beast of
"peter2...@gmail.com" <peter2...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Saturday, November 11, 2023 at 5:21:36 AM UTC-5, Kerr-Mudd, John wrote:
On Fri, 10 Nov 2023 22:50:01 -0800 (PST)
JTEM is my hero <jte...@gmail.com> wrote:
RonO wrote:
Lying about
As I pointed out in the past -- knowing I was wasting my time but, what
the hay? -- just look at dogs. Look at New World breeds or the Pharaoh
Hound in Egypt. Going by your idiocy, these are brand new breeds that >>>>>>>>> go back no further than European colonizers. But we know for a fact >>>>>>>>> that's sheer idiocy. We have ancient depictions showing us the dogs >>>>>>>>> existed, and in some cases the physical remains of the dog.
AIUI, there aren't any New World dog lines remaining.
of the indigenous people of USA and Canada before the horse supplanted it.
However, aren't you forgetting about the Inuit? Aren't some sled dogs >>>>> of today on New World dog lines? Also, what about Chihuahuas and related >>>>> breeds like the Mexican Hairless?
[]
Sure. But I'd read that the New World people abandoned their breeds inEven if your idea of New World dog lines is shot down, at leastThe indigenous people brought they're dogs with them. There were also plenty of native wolves in
you've given me something interesting to think about.
And this is a talk* group, not a sci* group, so we don't need to be
too careful about sharing ideas with others.
Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
Univ. of South Carolina at Columbia
http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos
New World (coyotes are small wolves), and they interbred with imported dogs. Dog domestication
took place in the Old World, probably in several places and several times. >>>>
favour of Old World ones, once the
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Columbian_exchange
got going.
OK, seems it's the original gene line that's gone, but some
parts of it are incorporated in dogs breeds found in Alaska and Peru
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peruvian_Hairless_Dog#DNA_evidence
says that the pre-Columbian American dog lineages are extinct. But they
also mention some native ancestry in the Peruvian Hairless Dog, the
Mexican Hairless Dog, the Chihuahua and especially the Carolina Dog. It
might be better to say that the pre-Columbian American dog lineages have
been genetically swamped by Eurasian breeds.
Reading between the lines, the Canadian Eskimo/Greenland Dog, is
pre-Columbian, but a relatively recent introduction associated with the
Thule culture. The Malamute would seem to be an Alaskan development of
sled dogs from eastern Siberia.
--
alias Ernest Major
dogs seem to have originated from a line of wolves that is "extinct", but I'm not sure what
that means, since Canis familiaris is so widespread.
On 17/11/2023 12:47, Kerr-Mudd, John wrote:
On Thu, 16 Nov 2023 14:35:01 -0800 (PST)
erik simpson <eastsi...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thursday, November 16, 2023 at 11:01:42 AM UTC-8, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thursday, November 16, 2023 at 5:41:40 AM UTC-5, Kerr-Mudd, John wrote:
On Wed, 15 Nov 2023 16:32:55 -0800 (PST)That's a fascinating possibility that never occurred to me, because the dog was the main beast of
"peter2...@gmail.com" <peter2...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Saturday, November 11, 2023 at 5:21:36 AM UTC-5, Kerr-Mudd, John wrote:
On Fri, 10 Nov 2023 22:50:01 -0800 (PST)
JTEM is my hero <jte...@gmail.com> wrote:
RonO wrote:
Lying about
As I pointed out in the past -- knowing I was wasting my time but, what
the hay? -- just look at dogs. Look at New World breeds or the Pharaoh
Hound in Egypt. Going by your idiocy, these are brand new breeds that
go back no further than European colonizers. But we know for a fact >>>>>>> that's sheer idiocy. We have ancient depictions showing us the dogs >>>>>>> existed, and in some cases the physical remains of the dog.
AIUI, there aren't any New World dog lines remaining.
of the indigenous people of USA and Canada before the horse supplanted it.
However, aren't you forgetting about the Inuit? Aren't some sled dogs >>> of today on New World dog lines? Also, what about Chihuahuas and related >>> breeds like the Mexican Hairless?
[]
Sure. But I'd read that the New World people abandoned their breeds in favour of Old World ones, once the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Columbian_exchangeEven if your idea of New World dog lines is shot down, at leastThe indigenous people brought they're dogs with them. There were also plenty of native wolves in
you've given me something interesting to think about.
And this is a talk* group, not a sci* group, so we don't need to be
too careful about sharing ideas with others.
Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
Univ. of South Carolina at Columbia
http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos
New World (coyotes are small wolves), and they interbred with imported dogs. Dog domestication
took place in the Old World, probably in several places and several times.
got going.
OK, seems it's the original gene line that's gone, but some
parts of it are incorporated in dogs breeds found in Alaska and Peru
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peruvian_Hairless_Dog#DNA_evidence
I looked at bits of WikiPedia. In several places they cite a study that
says that the pre-Columbian American dog lineages are extinct. But they
also mention some native ancestry in the Peruvian Hairless Dog, the
Mexican Hairless Dog, the Chihuahua and especially the Carolina Dog.
It might be better to say that the pre-Columbian American dog lineages have been genetically swamped by Eurasian breeds.
On Friday, November 17, 2023 at 10:01:43 AM UTC-5, Ernest Major wrote:
On 17/11/2023 12:47, Kerr-Mudd, John wrote:
On Thu, 16 Nov 2023 14:35:01 -0800 (PST)I looked at bits of WikiPedia. In several places they cite a study that
erik simpson <eastsi...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thursday, November 16, 2023 at 11:01:42 AM UTC-8, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thursday, November 16, 2023 at 5:41:40 AM UTC-5, Kerr-Mudd, John wrote:
On Wed, 15 Nov 2023 16:32:55 -0800 (PST)That's a fascinating possibility that never occurred to me, because
"peter2...@gmail.com" <peter2...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Saturday, November 11, 2023 at 5:21:36 AM UTC-5, Kerr-Mudd, John wrote:
On Fri, 10 Nov 2023 22:50:01 -0800 (PST)
JTEM is my hero <jte...@gmail.com> wrote:
RonO wrote:
Lying about
As I pointed out in the past -- knowing I was wasting my time but, what
the hay? -- just look at dogs. Look at New World breeds or the Pharaoh
Hound in Egypt. Going by your idiocy, these are brand new breeds that >>>>>>>>> go back no further than European colonizers. But we know for a fact >>>>>>>>> that's sheer idiocy. We have ancient depictions showing us the dogs >>>>>>>>> existed, and in some cases the physical remains of the dog.
AIUI, there aren't any New World dog lines remaining.
the dog was the main beast of
of the indigenous people of USA and Canada before the horse supplanted it.
However, aren't you forgetting about the Inuit? Aren't some sled dogs >>>>> of today on New World dog lines? Also, what about Chihuahuas and related >>>>> breeds like the Mexican Hairless?
[]
Sure. But I'd read that the New World people abandoned their breeds inEven if your idea of New World dog lines is shot down, at leastThe indigenous people brought they're dogs with them. There were also
you've given me something interesting to think about.
And this is a talk* group, not a sci* group, so we don't need to be
too careful about sharing ideas with others.
Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
Univ. of South Carolina at Columbia
http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos
plenty of native wolves in
New World (coyotes are small wolves), and they interbred with imported >>>> dogs. Dog domestication
took place in the Old World, probably in several places and several times. >>>>
favour of Old World ones, once the
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Columbian_exchange
got going.
OK, seems it's the original gene line that's gone, but some
parts of it are incorporated in dogs breeds found in Alaska and Peru
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peruvian_Hairless_Dog#DNA_evidence
says that the pre-Columbian American dog lineages are extinct. But they
also mention some native ancestry in the Peruvian Hairless Dog, the
Mexican Hairless Dog, the Chihuahua and especially the Carolina Dog.
Naturally, I perked up when I read that last phrase. The following excerpt from the Wikipedia article suggests that the "genetic swamping" of which
you next write might not be overwhelming in this breed:
"Three Carolina dogs in the study exhibited up to 33% pre-contact/Arctic lineage, however the study could not rule out this being the result of admixture with modern Arctic dog breeds.[27]" --https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carolina_Dog
It might be better to say that the pre-Columbian American dog lineages have >> been genetically swamped by Eurasian breeds.
The fact that Carolina dogs were feral when first discovered by Americans is cause
for speculation -- were they domesticated by Native Americans? The fact that they were not used as food argues against true domestication:
"Moore, in the course of various explorations in Florida and Georgia discovered many remains of dogs, apparently of this type. In a large
mound on Ossabaw Island, Georgia, he (1897) found several interments of
human and dog-skeletons, the latter always buried separately and entire, showing that the dogs had not been used as food. Other dog-skeletons of a similar sort were found by Moore (1899) in aboriginal mounds on the South Carolina coast ...
... Putnam considered them the same as the larger
Madisonville (Ohio) dogs.[7]"
[7] Allen, Glover Morrill (1920). "Dogs of the American Aborigines". Bulletin of the Museum of Comparative Zoology at Harvard College. LXIII (9): 137.
Allen cites the following study in the course of [7]. :
"Cope (1893) was the first to describe the jaw of this dog from a
specimen collected by Moore from a shell-mound on St. John's River,
Florida. He was struck by the fact that the first lower premolar was
missing and appeared not to have developed. He also noticed strong development of the entoconid of the carnassial".
Finally, here is a statement in [7] that stretches the meaning of the word "dog":
"Packard (1885) appears to have been influenced by Coues's belief, and
agrees with him in considering these dogs as merely tamed coyotes. In a journey through provincial Mexico he was struck b^' the general
resemblance of the native dogs to these animals, and again, in 1877, on
the upper Missouri took special note of the dogs of the Crow^ Indians, describing them as of ipvolfdike appearance, of the size and color of a co3^ote— a whitish taw^ny — but less hairy and with less bushy tails. "
Misprints are from the original.
erik simpson wrote:
We'll probably never untangle the lineages of dogs, since they hybridize so readily. Domestic
dogs seem to have originated from a line of wolves that is "extinct", but I'm not sure what
that means, since Canis familiaris is so widespread.
That means "extinct in the wild" and not a current wolf lineage.
"peter2...@gmail.com" <peter2...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Saturday, November 11, 2023 at 5:21:36 AM UTC-5, Kerr-Mudd, John wrote:
On Fri, 10 Nov 2023 22:50:01 -0800 (PST)
JTEM is my hero <jte...@gmail.com> wrote:
As I pointed out in the past -- knowing I was wasting my time but, what
the hay? -- just look at dogs. Look at New World breeds or the Pharaoh Hound in Egypt. Going by your idiocy, these are brand new breeds that go back no further than European colonizers. But we know for a fact that's sheer idiocy. We have ancient depictions showing us the dogs existed, and in some cases the physical remains of the dog.
AIUI, there aren't any New World dog lines remaining.
I'm mostly a spectator here, I'm not out there brandishing exciting new "theories".
Kerr-Mudd, John wrote:
On Wed, 15 Nov 2023 16:32:55 -0800 (PST)
"peter2...@gmail.com" <peter2...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Saturday, November 11, 2023 at 5:21:36 AM UTC-5, Kerr-Mudd, John wrote:
On Fri, 10 Nov 2023 22:50:01 -0800 (PST)
JTEM is my hero <jte...@gmail.com> wrote:
As I pointed out in the past -- knowing I was wasting my time but, what
the hay? -- just look at dogs. Look at New World breeds or the Pharaoh
Hound in Egypt. Going by your idiocy, these are brand new breeds that
go back no further than European colonizers. But we know for a fact that's sheer idiocy. We have ancient depictions showing us the dogs existed, and in some cases the physical remains of the dog.
AIUI, there aren't any New World dog lines remaining.
I knew I was wasting my time with you, and I know I'm wasting it now but, you're wrong.
These modern dogs are descended from the pre contact
dogs. It's just that the pre contact DNA has been swamped by the new arrivals. They were also probably wiped out by diseases carried in during more recent, like rabies.
You obviously can't grasp the macro scale so try to absorb it on the
micro scale: The y-chromosome and mtDNA.
A man marries a non-related women. They have three children, all
daughters. There. In a single generation his mtDNA line is gone, as is
his y-chromosome.
Now 10 or 100 or 1000 generations later it's impossible to find his
mtDNA or y-chromosome, testing the modern population. But he really
could have descendants.
That's the micro scale.
The macro scale is vastly more complicated but can hide the entire
genome the same way we just did the mtDNA and y-chromosome.
Breeding between two groups is frequently (normally?) not symmetrical. There's disparity. Wealth. Status. Power.
Numbers!
There's 300 of them and 50 of you... even if you're all equals, whose
DNA is going to get swamped over time? Can you guess?
A more likely scenario is that there's 50 of you and 5 or 10 of them.
And then another 5 or 10 of them. And another. And another. And
another. And another... they keep coming...
That's probably the more likely scenario for our New World or
Egyptian dog breeds. Or the missing DNA from the population that
gave us the chromosome-11 insert. That sort of thing.
BREEDING ISN'T RANDOM!
The more attractive partners are favored. The bigger, stronger
and richer partners are favored. In a matriarchal society the woman
are making the choices. In patriarchies the males are deciding.
Can you say "r/K selection," anyone?
There were many different POPULATIONS, different CULTURES
and it's genuinely impossible that they all followed the same
breeding strategies -- customs/traditions.
When Out of Africa nuts say "African" they lie. There were many
different populations in Africa. Africa has distinct ethnicities
right now! It was MORE not less diverse prior to the Bantu
Expansion, and that was only like 3k years ago! The so called
Out of Africa expansion was supposed to be, what? Like 60k
years ago? Typically put at that time frame...
I always suggested that the African population to "Win," to
recover first and spread out into the vacuum after events like
Toba must've been sexually selected. So their numbers
recovered the quickest, they "Won."
...would also mean that butt ugly Neanderthals were
deciding between females from a sexually selected group
and females that looked like big muscled males, but maybe
with shorter beards...
I'm mostly a spectator here, I'm not out there brandishing exciting new "theories".
Nor grasping the fundamentals.
Come on! This stuff isn't even Genetics 101 here! It's more
like Genetics 100, and still you can't understand it...
John Harshman wrote:
erik simpson wrote:
We'll probably never untangle the lineages of dogs, since they hybridize so readily. Domestic
dogs seem to have originated from a line of wolves that is "extinct", but I'm not sure what
that means, since Canis familiaris is so widespread.
That means "extinct in the wild" and not a current wolf lineage.
It is virtually impossible for there to has been only one single domestication point, and I only add "Virtually" to keep the
collective from flying into a tizzy over some laughably remote
scenario it is able to conjure out of necessity to object and
obstruct.
Did anyone think that feral dogs were only invented last week?
Or 1972? Or sometime just before WWII?
My favorite, and a very plausible, theory is that dogs became
domesticated by eating our throw aways, our garbage. The less
aggressive they were they closer they could be to humans,
interact, without humans feeling that they had to protect
themselves...
IT IS EVEN POSSIBLE that human interaction made wolves
more aggressive, by drawing off the least aggressive and
driving away the most aggressive...
The Carolina Dog was fully feral when discovered alive by
Americans. It seems to have been domesticated in pre-Columbian
times, but the majority may have remained feral, inasmuch
as some 37% were of a purely matrilineal lineage going back
to before the arrival of wolves in the Americas. See what I quoted
in my post of yesterday from:
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 376 |
| Nodes: | 16 (3 / 13) |
| Uptime: | 26:22:25 |
| Calls: | 8,036 |
| Calls today: | 6 |
| Files: | 13,034 |
| Messages: | 5,829,398 |