Path: ...!2.eu.feeder.erje.net!feeder.erje.net!newsfeed.CARNet.hr!Iskon!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Mario Petrinovic <mario.petrinovic1@zg.htnet.hr>
Newsgroups: sci.anthropology.paleo,sci.bio.paleontology
Subject: Re: The taxonomy of Sahelanthropus tchadensis from a craniometric
 perspective
Date: Mon, 5 Aug 2024 21:03:52 +0200
Organization: Iskon Internet d.d.
Lines: 105
Message-ID: <v8r7mo$o95$2@sunce.iskon.hr>
References: <v878po$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>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 78-0-169-139.adsl.net.t-com.hr
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Trace: sunce.iskon.hr 1722884632 24869 78.0.169.139 (5 Aug 2024 19:03:52 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: abuse@iskon.hr
NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 5 Aug 2024 19:03:52 +0000 (UTC)
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <ttadnW2AG7vMSS37nZ2dnZfqlJ8AAAAA@giganews.com>
Bytes: 7951

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.