Path: ...!Xl.tags.giganews.com!local-4.nntp.ord.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 05 Aug 2024 20:38:16 +0000
Date: Mon, 5 Aug 2024 13:38:16 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Subject: Re: The taxonomy of Sahelanthropus tchadensis from a craniometric
 perspective
Content-Language: en-US
Newsgroups: sci.anthropology.paleo,sci.bio.paleontology
References: <v878po$bltf$1@dont-email.me> <gpOpO.141912$VQia.104675@fx13.ams1>
 <v8maae$3l5tm$3@dont-email.me> <A6HrO.27424$iAEf.14919@fx10.ams1>
 <v8no13$6f3$1@sunce.iskon.hr> <z8KrO.58999$XOje.6699@fx13.ams1>
 <v8odj7$md8$1@sunce.iskon.hr> <v8oe30$msh$1@sunce.iskon.hr>
 <v8oe9g$msh$2@sunce.iskon.hr> <v8ofbh$nm3$1@sunce.iskon.hr>
 <v8og1o$nm3$2@sunce.iskon.hr> <7XidnXpGidjrUDL7nZ2dnZfqlJ-dnZ2d@giganews.com>
 <v8pi1r$g69$2@sunce.iskon.hr> <FtednXwcDck1yi37nZ2dnZfqlJydnZ2d@giganews.com>
 <v8q7d4$122$1@sunce.iskon.hr> <v8qbif$3hs$1@sunce.iskon.hr>
 <ttadnW2AG7vMSS37nZ2dnZfqlJ8AAAAA@giganews.com> <v8r7mo$o95$2@sunce.iskon.hr>
From: John Harshman <john.harshman@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <v8r7mo$o95$2@sunce.iskon.hr>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-ID: <pAednaFN-KulpSz7nZ2dnZfqlJ-dnZ2d@giganews.com>
Lines: 108
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-NM5lLoF6oHO7r0P0wFRhsTTJClr5QDBHf0zxtIjtIYyzDL/7DaPusNjJmH80Mgv3TPuytCR6zVUIiuW!QG//xn9jLtMcHTDm97oeaZMZKPADH+Pd+HV2IGn1yvVa9S2V24xjkz3OV2Vgf/RwLGB22xqTBNM=
X-Complaints-To: abuse@giganews.com
X-DMCA-Notifications: http://www.giganews.com/info/dmca.html
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly
X-Postfilter: 1.3.40
Bytes: 8468

On 8/5/24 12:03 PM, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
> On 5.8.2024. 15:32, John Harshman wrote:
>> On 8/5/24 4:03 AM, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
>>> On 5.8.2024. 11:52, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
>>>> On 5.8.2024. 6:40, John Harshman wrote:
>>>>> On 8/4/24 8:48 PM, Mario Petrinovic wrote:
>>>>>> On 4.8.2024. 20:50, John Harshman wrote:
>>>>>>> Don't be shy. Just say what you mean. Preferably in a single post.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>          While we are at that, I will not be shy and I will ask 
>>>>>> you a question I always wanted to clear it up.
>>>>>>          You have two situations. In Africa you have a lot of 
>>>>>> separated small tribes, so high genetic diversity. In India you 
>>>>>> have all humans connected in one big society, so genes exchange 
>>>>>> among the whole population, and they average over time, so we have 
>>>>>> low genetic diversity. Now, the question is, in the view of 
>>>>>> geneticists is India the bottleneck?
>>>>>
>>>>> If you just waited a while before posting and thought more about 
>>>>> what you wanted to say, you wouldn't have this problem. Consider that.
>>>>>
>>>>> Meanwhile, I don't understand the question. India is not a 
>>>>> bottleneck. What bottleneck? And you misunderstand the nature of 
>>>>> African genetic diversity. Most of it is within populations, not 
>>>>> between them. Africa has much higher within-population diversity 
>>>>> than does the rest of the world.
>>>>
>>>>          India - This is from Wikipedia: "A population bottleneck or 
>>>> genetic bottleneck is a sharp reduction in the size of a population 
>>>> due to environmental events such as famines, earthquakes, floods, 
>>>> fires, disease, and droughts; or human activities such as genocide, 
>>>> speciocide, widespread violence or intentional culling. Such events 
>>>> can reduce the variation in the gene pool of a population; 
>>>> thereafter, a smaller population, with a smaller genetic diversity, 
>>>> remains to pass on genes to future generations of offspring. Genetic 
>>>> diversity remains lower, increasing only when..." So, they say that 
>>>> India is a bottleneck, it is not me that is saying this, I know that 
>>>> India isn't a bottleneck.
>>>>          Look, I am a retired train driver (who excellently 
>>>> understood simple mathematics when he was kid), I do understand that 
>>>> in homogeneous population genes average. How come scientists have a 
>>>> complete lack of understanding of this, and why their logic is so 
>>>> simple that even kids in kindergarten would be ashamed of it, is 
>>>> beyond me. In other words, when humans are the most advanced, when 
>>>> they have multiple trading connections, when they all live *as one*, 
>>>> then they have the least genetic variation. In other words, what in 
>>>> real life is the most prosperous situation scientists describe as 
>>>> the least prosperous situation. In the most prosperous situation 
>>>> humans advance, which is only logical. But scientists postulate that 
>>>> in the least prosperous situation humans advance. How come? There is 
>>>> few people, and then comes God and does his magic, and that magic 
>>>> advances those few.
>>>>          Africa - Yes, of course, this is how variation emerges, you 
>>>> receive influxes from outside, and those influxes create genetic 
>>>> diversity. In a homogeneous population, without outside influxes, 
>>>> Actually, if those outside influxes are very small compared to your 
>>>> big size, you cannot have diversity. So, In Africa you have multiple 
>>>> (because they are separated) sources of genes, which receive, from 
>>>> time to time, influxes from other separated sources.
>>>>          In other words, more separation, more genetic diversity, 
>>>> less separation, less genetic diversity. More separation equals less 
>>>> prosperous world, less separation equals prosperous world, just like 
>>>> we have today. Scientists turned everything upside down, and there 
>>>> isn't a single one among them who understands this.
>>>>          So, to have genetic variation you got to have a lot of 
>>>> similar sizes separated gene pools. If you have a single gene pool 
>>>> there is no variation.
>>>
>>>          There is another thing those stupid scientists don't 
>>> contemplate, gene diversity doesn't necessarily mean bigger abilities. 
>>
>> Nobody says it does. Where do you get all these strawmen?
> 
>          I am just contemplating this.
> 
>>> If animals are separated in two groups, and both groups separately 
>>> acquire the same ability, this ability will be represented with 
>>> different genes among each group. In general, one big gene pool can 
>>> acquire the same ability, and it will not have gene diversity. Then, 
>>> it is the question of compatibility. An organism functions as a 
>>> complete system. If you introduce components from the outside, it 
>>> will cause friction (although it can bring new abilities) among the 
>>> existing parts. It is similar to compiling a hi-fi system from 
>>> different manufacturers. Providing the quality is the same, a hi-fi 
>>> system sounds the best if it is made by one manufacturer. The 
>>> advantage of gene mixing is introducing new abilities, the 
>>> disadvantage, though, is that the whole system functions less fluidly.
>>>          And so on, and so on, those geneticists (just like a lot of 
>>> other scientists) don't understand a lot of things, and simplify 
>>> everything (simply because only simple thinks are provable, and 
>>> scientists work only with provable things). The major problem with 
>>> them is that they are doing the reverse engineering. They are 
>>> convinced that genes are producing the changes (of course, because 
>>> the God is the one who affects the genes, in their christian view, 
>>> they want to involve God into the story, this way, or that way, this 
>>> is their only preoccupation), while the real truth is that genes are 
>>> just the reflection, the mirror image of what is going on, the 
>>> transporter of the message, not the originator.
>>
>> Sorry, but that's just incoherent. Who is it that wants to involve God 
>> in the story? Not geneticists, that's certain. What are your trying to 
>> say, and why are you so arrogant as to believe you know more than the 
>> people who actually study this stuff?
> 
>          Who is it? Gregor Mendel and his followers.
>          Why am I so arrogant? Because I am 62.

Gregor Mendel is way older than you, so should be even more arrogant.