NOVA new update on NEANDERTHAL but no mention of HACNS1 gene #185 Rockthrowing theory book

[Archimedes Plutonium]

NOVA tonight showed another episode of Neanderthal research. A lot of
good new information, but overall it was a disappointing update
because of the total lack of discussion of the central and key gene
involved-- HACNS1.

What do you call it in mathematics, or logic or science when you
should talk about the key issue, but never talk about the key issue?
Is it irresponsible? Is it illogical? Is it being a incompetent
scientist?

In this episode, one of the lead researchers, Svante Paabo is seen as
more irresponsible rather than a logical scientist, for his constant
incessant focus on FOXP2 gene for language, when a better scientist
would have said, "drop that gene" and focus on HACNS1 gene as what
made humanity and extincted the Neanderthals.

Perhaps the NOVA crew and Paabo realize that rockthrowing extincted
the Neanderthals and are trying to soften that horrible and ugly
extinction by painting the Neanderthal as having interbred with the
Homo sapiens.

There probably was some interbreeding, but the main idea is that the
Neanderthals throwing abilities were so inferior to Homo sapiens that
Homo neanderthals were extincted by the constant throwing attacks upon
them. Some of the Neanderthal women were probably carried away and
interbred, but the men, who could not throw as well as the Homo
sapiens were all mercilessly stone thrown to death. Maybe we never
want to admit our horrible and grisly past even when the facts come in
as such. But that is not responsible science. Science must always tell
the truth and full truth.

Instead of focusing on the genes of language and speech or the genes
of immunology, the HLA immune system genes, it is irresponsible of
Svante Paabo to discuss Neanderthal and neglect the HACNS1 gene.

When your ideas turn out to be false in science, you should have at
least the grace to indicate where the major difference is between the
Neanderthal and the Homo sapiens-- and that difference is in throwing.
So forget about the FOXP2 gene and talk about the HACNS1 gene.

I recommend that Paabo never again have a spot in NOVA on Neanderthal
and instead interview Noonan as to the latest information on HACNS1
gene.

The last time I wrote on this textbook was March of 2011
and now it is January of 2013. Looks like I need to do a new edition
of this book Rockthrowing for it consolidates and unifies the entire
science of Anthropology.

Newsgroups: sci.anthropology.paleo, sci.anthropology, sci.math,
sci.physics
From: Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archime...@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 7 Mar 2011 13:24:33 -0800 (PST)
Local: Mon, Mar 7 2011 3:24 pm
Subject: Homo sapiens has 16-13 = 3 mutations on HACNS1 that
Neanderthal does not have #183 Rockthrowing theory book
(snipped)

Newsgroups: sci.math, sci.physics
From: Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archime...@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 9 Mar 2011 13:29:32 -0800 (PST)
Local: Wed, Mar 9 2011 3:29 pm
Subject: Physics and Math completes the science of Anthropology with
its HACNS1 ; book #184 Rockthrowing theory (sic)
Reply | Reply to author | Forward | Print | Individual message | Show
original | Remove | Report this message | Find messages by this author
Newsgroups: sci.anthropology.paleo, sci.anthropology, sci.math,
sci.physics
From: Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archime...@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 7 Mar 2011 13:24:33 -0800 (PST)
Local: Mon, Mar 7 2011 3:24 pm
Subject: Homo sapiens has 16-13 = 3 mutations on HACNS1 that
Neanderthal does not have #183 Rockthrowing theory book
Reply | Reply to author | Forward | Print | Individual message | Show
original | Remove | Report this message | Find messages by this
author
Now my math and physics counting abilities offers me the fact that 16
subtract 13 is 3, for 
3 mutations or alterations. Now maybe Messr
Noonan and Paabo have 
some 
different sort 
of mathematics when they
are doing anthropology? 
Last time I spoke on this subject was 2010,
 Aug 4, 1:27 am to this 
book of Rockthrowing 
as the central theory
for evolving the human 
species out of the ape 
ancestors. I spoke of
how the science of 
Anthropology was a science in closure or the last
phases of finding 
out 
its history, where the main parts are solved
and only details 
remain 
to tell the story. The main parts being, of
course that some 8 
to 10 
million years ago some ape had a
proclivity 
of picking up 
rocks and throwing them for his advantage.
Advantage in 
gaining more 
food and mates and thus more children who
had the same 
proclivity of 
throwing stones and rocks. 
As these
rockthrowers increased in numbers 
there genetic mutations 
favoring
even better 
abilities of throwing 
caused them to become bipedal and
more focused 
on even better 
throwing. 
In the end, these
rockthrowers extincted all other human 
type species 
such as the
Neanderthals who although were able to 
throw, just failed 
to have
enough throwing abilities 
of Cro Magnon 
that would become Homo
sapiens. Neanderthal genetics 
were inferior to 
the 
throwing
genetics of CroMagnon. 
It was a long time in coming for 
the
Neanderthal Genome was reported: 
--- quoting from
http://genome.cshlp.org/content/20/5/547.full 
Neanderthal genomics
and the evolution of modern humans 
James P. Noonan 
(B) Value of
Neanderthal genome sequence for dating functionally 
relevant human-
specific substitutions, using the HACNS1 enhancer as 
an 
example.
(Top) HACNS1 is located in an intron of AGAP1 and downstream 
of GBX2
on human chromosome 2. (Bottom) The 13 human-specific 
substitutions
implicated in the human-specific gain of function in 
this element.
--- end quoting of Noonan --- 
Now maybe I am not understanding the
report, but from what I gather 
from these reports 
of 16 mutations
of 
Homo sapiens compared to only 13 mutations on 
Neanderthal for
the 
HACNS1: 
        1.      Comment on "Human-Specific Gain of
Function 
in a 
Developmental ...by L Duret - 2009 - Cited by 13 -
Related 
articles 
        2.      Feb 6, 2009 ... Second, among the
16 
substitutions in 
HACNS1 there 
are 14 AT → GC substitutions , 2
GC → 
CG substitutions, but not a 
single GC → AT ... 
        3.    
 www.sciencemag.org/lookup/resid/323/5915/714c?view=full&uritype...
  
      4.      Human-Specific Gain of Function in a Developmental
Enhancer ...by 
S Prabhakar - 2008 - Cited by 52 - Related articles
  
      5.      Sep 5, 2008 ... Although the 16 human-specific
substitutions 
within the 546 ... 
        6.    
 www.sciencemag.org/ 
content/321/5894/1346.full

Show 
more results
from sciencemag.org 
  
      7.      HACNS1Human-specific gain of
function in the HACNS1 
enhancer ... 
it has experienced 16 human-
specific nucleotide changes 
in the ~6 
million years since humans
and ... The cluster of 13 human- 
specific 
substitutions in 81 bp is
also indicated. ... 
        8.   
   www.yale.edu/noonanlab/
Noonan_Lab/HACNS1.html - Cached 
- Similar 
        9.      [PDF] DOI:
10.1126/science.1165848 , 714c (2009); 323 
Science et 
al ...File
Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat - Quick View 
        
10.     by L Duret -
2009 - Cited by 13 - Related articles 
        
11.     Feb 6,
2009 ... Second, among the 16 substitutions in 
HACNS1 
there are 14
AT → GC substitu- tions, 2 GC → CG substitutions, but 
not 
a
sin- ... 
        12.     pbil.univ-lyon1.fr/members/duret/.../ 
PDF/
2009- 
DuretGaltier.Science.pdf 
        13.     Brief 
communication:
Population data support the 
adaptive 
nature ...by T 
Hünemeier -
Related articles 
        14.     Aug 17, 2010 ... 
Thirteen of these
16 mutations are 
found within 
an 81-bp 
functional .... 2010) shows
that 8 of the 13 human specific 
HACNS1 
substitutions ... 
       
15.     onlinelibrary.wiley.com › ... › 
Journal Home › Vol 143 
Issue
3 › 
Abstract 
--- end quoting Google 
hits talking about 16
mutations, whereas 
Neanderthal had only 
13 
mutations --- 
The
conclusion I draw, which maybe wrong, and someone 
should correct 
me
if wrong, is that 
Homo sapiens had 16 total 
alterations in the
HACNS1 gene whereas 
Neanderthal had only 
13 
alterations, meaning
that Neanderthal was a different species than 
Homo sapiens because of
those 3 alterations, but that the alterations 
missing in Neanderthal
implies CroMagnon was superior in Throwing 
whether throwing rocks or
stones or spears. And that 
superiority of 
throwing is the likely
cause of extinction of 
Neanderthal. 
It is 
likely that the last
places on Earth for Neanderthal were the 
caves 
in Spain of high
ground, so the higher ground could have 
sheltered 
them longer from
the superior throwing 
of the encroaching CroMagnon. 
To throw down
from higher ground tends 
to equalize a superior 
throwing opponent.
Now I think that Mr. Paabo and Mr. Noonan should 
have made more
fanfare over the differences of the Neanderthal 
(Neandertal) HACNS1
variation and spoken out more on that 
difference. Perhaps they were
silent about HACNS1 because they seemed 
to have favored 
the FOXP2
gene which deals with speech and language. 
So why the silence over
the fact that Neanderthal had 3 mutations 
different from CroMagnon
with the HACNS1 gene? Why the silence in the 
Anthropology community?
One would think 
they should by happy and 
dancing and celebrating
that their science 
is 
nearly closed and the 
first major science to
be closed. I guess some 
people just do not 
like to close their
science.

--
Google's archives are top-heavy in hate-spew from search-engine-
bombing. Only Drexel's Math Forum has done a excellent, simple and
fair archiving of AP posts for the past 15 years as seen here:

http://mathforum.org/kb/profile.jspa?userID=499986

Archimedes Plutonium
http://www.iw.net/~a_plutonium
whole entire Universe is just one big atom
where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies

[benj]

On Wed, 09 Jan 2013 23:33:28 -0800, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:

> NOVA tonight showed another episode of Neanderthal research. A lot of
> good new information, but overall it was a disappointing update because
> of the total lack of discussion of the central and key gene involved--
> HACNS1.
>
> What do you call it in mathematics, or logic or science when you should
> talk about the key issue, but never talk about the key issue?
> Is it irresponsible? Is it illogical? Is it being a incompetent
> scientist?

It's called "politics", Archie.

[Archimedes Plutonium]

Not often do I start a post off with a joke, but many NOVA shows are
becoming science jokes.

Recently I read a good joke in sci.math that went similar to this:

Physicist, mathematician, logician were travelling in a tour bus in
CERN countryside where the Higgs boson is pursued. And the
physicist notices a black cow on the hillside and says "all the cows
of CERN are black". The mathematician corrects the physicist by saying
"there exists one cow of all the CERN cows that is black". The
logician chimes into the conversation by saying, "There exists one cow
of all the CERN cows whose one side is solid black."

Now we laugh at that because the logician has it correct, even though
it seems a bit trite, but it points out the huge ways of mistakes that
the physicist and even the mathematician have opened up for
themselves. Because if we visit the other side of the cow and find out
it has white blotches with black, then the logician was the only
correct answer. And the above points out all the silly nonsense of
Higgs boson theory at CERN with its ten thousand assumptions hunting
down some ephemeral particle.

But let me talk about how NOVA science programs have become dreadfully
absent of logical reasoning. Can you even have science if logic is
poor or absent? I would say no. That if you have holes in logic, that
the performance is not science but perhaps art or drama, but not
science.

And this new NOVA show "Decoding Neanderthals" fails in logic. I say
that because the earlier shows of Neanderthals by NOVA some year or
two ago showed the facts that Neanderthal was not the same species as
Homo sapiens, that Paabo had found 3 mutations that signifies
Neanderthal was a different species. But in this program, Paabo and
Green deflect the earlier conclusion of different species and is
wanting us to take in the idea that Neanderthals were breeding left
and right with the incoming Homo sapiens. And where is the logic in
that? If you are different species, you cannot be doing this
interbreeding.

So in the earlier NOVA shows of Neanderthal, Paabo had determined they
were different species, and in this show they are saying Neanderthal

interbred with the Homo sapiens.

That cannot be true. Either the Neanderthals were of the same species
but a different race and thus could interbreed, or, Neanderthals were
a different species and interbreeding would not be viable.

So NOVA has serious problems of logic in these Neanderthal programs.
But the problems of logic run deeper through many of the NOVA programs
and suggests that they have no editor in charge of seeing whether the
programs are logically sound.

Perhaps the most silly logic of any NOVA show to date is the program
that wanted its viewers to believe that the Easter Island statues were
moved upright many kilometers away from the quarry.

Another silly logic NOVA show was a alpine lake in Colorado that was a
death trap for prehistoric animals, and instead of offering the
obvious scenario of too many animals on the ice and the ice broken
through that enmasse drowning, yet this NOVA show tried to foster this
quicksand collapse due to earthquakes.

If NOVA continues with these illogical shows, maybe they should change
their name to that of the Bugs Bunny Looney Tunes show.

[Jim McGinn]

On Jan 9, 11:33 pm, Archimedes Plutonium
<plutonium.archime...@gmail.com> wrote:

> . . . some 8 
to 10 
million years ago some ape had a

> proclivity 
of picking up 
rocks and throwing them for his advantage.

Vague. What was the "advantage?" Why did it emerge as an advantage
when and where it emerged?

Although we can assume that rock-throwing was a preadaptive behavior
in the earliest ape-like hominids (because it is evident in extant
apes) they are pretty bad at it. It's about impossible to imagine
them successfully hunting with rocks and sticks.

You keep it vague because you really don't have anything.

Our earliest ape-like hominid ancestors couldn't possibly have been
successful at hunting with rock throwing. You're just pissing into
the wind to pretend otherwise. You will, of course, pretend to ignore
this obvious discrepancy and continue to wallow in vagueness.

[Archimedes Plutonium]

On Jan 10, 6:18 am, benj <b...@iwaynet.net> wrote:
> On Wed, 09 Jan 2013 23:33:28 -0800, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:

>
> It's called "politics", Archie.

Do not overlook the intrusion of religion in Neanderthal research.

Mistakes of logic by Svante Paabo and Ed Green #187 Rockthrowing
theory book

Now I was looking for the transcript because I remember there was a
third scientist involved and confused with logical reasoning. The
third scientist layed out some red beads on the geography table and
piled the beads up in Tuscany Italy saying that the Tuscany is the
hotbed of Neanderthal and Homo sapiens interbreeding.

Now the logical flaws of Paabo and Green are very evident in that they
focused on just one gene FOXP2 and when they found the gene identical
in Sapiens and Neanderthal, they could no longer support their pet
belief that the difference between the two species was communication,
that the Neanderthal did not have a robust communication.

So then, what does Paabo and Green do? Well, they then go on a
interbreeding escapade for the Neanderthals with the Sapiens.

Trouble is that, earlier Paabo had shown the world audience that
Neanderthal was a different species than Sapiens, but now, here that
FOXP2 was not changed, Paabo with Green go on an interbreeding binge.

So how can biology scientists of Paabo and Green one year claim
different species and when their pet theory falls apart, they then
embrace the contradiction of interbreeding, yet they are different
species.

So the importance of what the third scientist (was it Hawks?) the one
that showed red beads piled on Tuscany Italy. The importance of that,
is that the genes proffered as different from sapiens genes and
different from African genes, is that Paabo, Green, and Hawks (if it
was Hawks since the transcript is not available). The trouble with
their silly assertion that those were Neanderthal
interbreeding genes, is that the obvious is more likely to have
happened. That in the long years of Africans moving north into
Neanderthal territory, that some of those groups or tribes developed
mutations in those 10,000 years which was located near Tuscany Italy
and that those mutations are what we now see as different from the
African homo sapiens.

So the mistake of Paabo and Green and (Hawks if it was Hawks) is that
they are thinking those genetic changes were due to Neanderthal
interbreeding when in all likely hood, those new genes were mutations
of the Homo sapiens around Tuscany and not due to any Neanderthal
interbreeding.

But the biggest and gravest mistake of Paabo and Green is that once
they realized FOXP2 was identical in Neanderthal and Sapiens, they
should have dropped their silly and stupid theory of communication and
focused on the major important gene-- HACNS1 which directs the ability
of rock throwing.

Noonan is a better qualified scientist than is Paabo or Green to speak
about Neanderthal in future NOVA shows.

Perhaps people do not like to be told that our ancestors were horrible
and merciless killers of another species, and how they mercilessly
stone thrown to death the Neanderthals. People of religion probably do
not like the idea that
what made us human was killing of other animals by means of throwing
rocks and stones. People like Paabo and others want to sanitize and
cleanse the ancestors of humans as communication species, but that is
not science, that is not the truth and not what happened. What did
happen was that an ape, some 8 to 10 million years ago started
throwing rocks and stones that conferred superb advantage to that
individual in killing rivals, in killing food and having more mates
and more offspring.

Give the job of spokesman for the next NOVA on Neanderthal, give that
to Noonan to be the lead researcher for we need to know about HACNS1,
not the pathetic FOXP2.

[Claudius Denk]

On Jan 11, 8:12 pm, Archimedes Plutonium

<plutonium.archime...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jan 10, 6:18 am, benj <b...@iwaynet.net> wrote:

<snip>

> . . . what made us human was killing of other

> animals by means of throwing rocks and

> stones. <snip> What did happen was that an

> ape, some 8 to 10 million years ago started
> throwing rocks and stones that conferred
> superb advantage to that individual in killing
> rivals, in killing food and having more mates
> and more offspring.

<snip>

How in the world do you expect such a complex species to emerge from
such a simplistic scenario? Your approach to evolutionary theory is
extremely amateurish.

[Archimedes Plutonium]

Subject: HACNS1 gene; huge mistakes of logic by NOVA "Decoding
Neanderthals" #188 Rockthrowing theory book

I do not recall the biology term, when one species is invaded by a
similar species and where the one species is extincted and then the
invading species begins to evolve genes that help it survive the new
territory and environment that it finds itself. These new genes
identical in large part to the genes that the extincted species
carried to ward off bad health.

Now some biologists would be incorrect to assume the two species
interbreeded as to how the invading species received those immunology
genes. But that is a false assumption and rather, the better
hypothesis is that the environment has a tendency for the new invading
species to mutate to those better immunology genes.

So for example, Homo sapiens invades Europe where the different
species of Homo neanderthal lives. They are two different species and
cannot interbreed. The Homo sapiens is superior in rock throwing genes
of HACNS1, and in almost all engagements of fighting between sapiens
and neanderthal leaves the superior throwing in favor of
sapiens.

Within 10,000 years, every neanderthal is extincted from Europe. And
within 10,000 years is a long enough period of time for that 1 to 3
percent of genes to become acclimated to the new environment of Europe
with genes to help in immunology. Not because of any interbreeding,
but rather, because natural small mutations would have constantly
occurred in that 10,000 years to make the invaders acclimatized.

Any Evidence?

I have some evidence from the bubonic plague that hit Europe in the
last 2,000 years where some groups of Europeans had a mutated gene
that they were immune to the bubonic plague, and when the plague
struck at different time periods, these immune genes flourished, so
that Europe was rather immune to the devastation of bubonic plague to
a 4% or more of all the European people. So the bubonic plague shows
us how in 2,000 years that a large population can have mutations to
where 4% of that population has immune genes. And since in the NOVA
show, the one scientist pointed out that Tuscany Italy seemed to be
the center to where Homo sapiens mutated into this 4% immunology.

Another piece of evidence is the actual extinction of the Neanderthal.
Many Neanderthal lived near the Middle East, not Tuscany Italy, so
that one would think that if interbreeding were the answer, that the
Middle East would have the largest percentage.
And if I remember correctly the last hold-out of the Neanderthal
species was in Spain, the caves of Spain and Spain is far closer to
Tuscany than Tuscany is to the where Africans migrated into Middle
East. What that indicates is that interbreeding was not the means of
acquiring the immunology genes but rather that Homo sapiens had a
permanent large settlement in Tuscany and where they were mutating to
a 4% immunology gene.

What is that term where the environment is a pressure on the mutation
of genes of similar species to converge to a similar mutation of
benefit? For example, if you moved a lot of black Africans up North in
Europe where they stayed for 10,000 years and only bred among
themselves, that after 10,000 years their skin color would not be as
black as their
cousins in Africa. And the reason is obvious in that the environment
selects for a lighter skin color to get more vitamin D as a health
benefit since the Sun is not as bright in Europe as it is in Africa.

[Paul Crowley]

On 11/01/2013 18:08, Jim McGinn wrote:

> Although we can assume that rock-throwing was a
> preadaptive behavior in the earliest ape-like hominids
> (because it is evident in extant apes) they are pretty bad at it.
> It's about impossible to imagine them successfully hunting
> with rocks and sticks.

[..]

> Our earliest ape-like hominid ancestors couldn't possibly
> have been successful at hunting with rock throwing. You're
> just pissing into the wind to pretend otherwise. You will, of
> course, pretend to ignore this obvious discrepancy and
> continue to wallow in vagueness.

Before recent times, human ancestors could
NOT have engaged in 'endurance hunting; or
'rock throwing' or stealing prey from large
carnivores.

This is easy to check. Simply investigate the
nature and range of large animal bones found
at hominid sites. They will follow the pattern
seen at FLK Zinj (see below) and be very
different from those at ancient (or modern) sites
of carnivores that actually did (or do) engage in
'endurance hunting' or 'ambush hunting' any of
the usual styles. In such sites the fossil bias
is towards on prey that are old, young, or sick
or injured.

As at FLK Zinj, prey at hominid sites will lack
that bias, and will often present a higher proportion
of fit and healthy prime adults. This is because
human ancestors used distinctive methods of
'hunting'. They made traps, often consisting of
pits dug into the ground, with sharpened stakes
on which the prey animals fell.


Paul.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.eshe.eu/files/ESHE_Abstracts_2012.pdf

Bovid mortality profiles and early hominin meat-foraging
capabilities at Olduvai Gorge, Tanzania Henry Bunn,
Travis Pickering, Manuel Domínguez-Rodrigo

" . . . .If early Homo scavenged from felid kills, specifically of
lions and leopards, then mortality profiles at FLK Zinj should
match what lions and leopards are known to kill based on
modern research. Our results, however, reveal statistically
significant differences between the mortality profiles of smaller
and larger bovid mortality profiles at FLK Zinj and the profiles of
modern leopard and lion prey, respectively. Unlike leopard prey,
smaller bovids at FLK Zinj are predominantly old adult males.
Unlike lion prey, larger bovids at FLK Zinj are predominantly
prime adults. This falsifies scavenging as a viable explanation at
FLK Zinj. For larger bovids, the prime adult-dominated pattern is
also inconsistent with first-access scavenging of natural, non-
carnivore deaths, and with endurance running hunting. That
leaves selective ambush hunting by early Homo as the most
reasonable working hypothesis. . . . ."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[RichTravsky]

Pot. Kettle. Black.

[Claudius Denk]

On Jan 13, 2:01 am, Paul Crowley <dsfdsfd...@sdfsfsfs.com> wrote:
> On 11/01/2013 18:08, Jim McGinn wrote:
>
>
>
> > Although we can assume that rock-throwing was a
> > preadaptive behavior in the earliest ape-like hominids
> > (because it is evident in extant apes) they are pretty bad at it.
> > It's about impossible to imagine them successfully hunting
> > with rocks and sticks.
> [..]
> > Our earliest ape-like hominid ancestors couldn't possibly
> > have been successful at hunting with rock throwing.  You're
> > just pissing into the wind to pretend otherwise.  You will, of
> > course, pretend to ignore this obvious discrepancy and
> > continue to wallow in vagueness.
>
> Before recent times, human ancestors could
> NOT have engaged in 'endurance hunting; or
> 'rock throwing' or stealing prey from large
> carnivores.
>
> This is easy to check.  Simply investigate the
> nature and range of large animal bones found
> at hominid sites.

Well, yes, and it's not like any of this is hard to fathom. Hunting
didn't begin with hunting. it began with pest control agriculture,
the initial incentive was to keep these animals out of their garden
habitat. In the context of such it naturally evolved into ambush
hunting--and even then it was highly opportunistic, taking advantage
of animals weakened by the dry season.

> They will follow the pattern
> seen at FLK Zinj (see below) and be very
> different from those at ancient (or modern) sites
> of carnivores that actually did (or do) engage in
> 'endurance hunting' or 'ambush hunting' any of
> the usual styles.  In such sites the fossil bias
> is towards on prey that are old, young, or sick
> or injured.
>
> As at FLK Zinj, prey at hominid sites will lack
> that bias, and will often present a higher proportion
> of fit and healthy prime adults.  This is because
> human ancestors used distinctive methods of
> 'hunting'.  They made traps, often consisting of
> pits dug into the ground, with sharpened stakes
> on which the prey animals fell.

I think you are overthinking the situation to suggest they went
through the trouble to dig pits and such.

[Archimedes Plutonium]

Alright, we have the Neanderthal genome, but do we have the genome of
sapiens contemporaneous with Neanderthal to compare? Of the
Neanderthal genome that dates to 33,000 years ago, do we have the
Sapiens genome of 33,000 years ago to compare.

For it seems to me that unless we have equi-dated genomes, that much
of what Paabo and Green and Hawks discussed in Decoding Neanderthal
NOVA is just opinion.

Now do we know what genes indicate hair growth and what genes indicate
the color of skin such as black African or white European?

So can the Neanderthal genome indicate what color of skin and how much
hair?
Can we make a comparison to a Sapiens of 33,000 years ago as to what
color of skin and how much hair?

It may turn out, that what Hawks found for the Tuscany Italy genetic
indicators was the mutations of the Sapiens conferring immunology
because they were turning to a whiter skin to absorb more sunlight and
vitamin D. It maybe that Sapiens was even healthier in Europe than the
existing Neanderthals. It may turn out that Neanderthals were prone to
more sickness from the cold than the invading Sapiens from Africa.

It is puzzling as to what benefits accrued to Sapiens to go from a lot
of hair, a hairy body to a body that is less hair. Does Rock throwing
have more advantage with less hair than more hair?

The one place on the body that has no hair is the front of the hands
and hair there would be a nuisance to a rock thrower.

Hair would be important for cold climate and an advantage. So was
Neanderthal hairy or the same hair as Sapiens invading Europe?

Hair is of a disadvantage for parasites.

So we need some answers to the above from the genomes of Neanderthal
of 33,000 years ago and from Sapiens that were contemporaries of
Neanderthal.

Now there has been a theory going around as to the Swimming Sapiens as
the way Sapiens lost most of their body hair and become the hairless
ape. I do not buy that, except for one application.

How close is Tuscany to the Mediterranean Sea of 33,000 years ago?

It is possible that the African sapiens that invaded Europe and
extincted Neanderthal were clustered in Tuscany and lived close to the
Med. Sea. It is possible that they spent so much time near the Sea,
that over 10,000 years they would mutate the genes for less hair as an
advantage in swimming. How warm is the Med. Sea in winter in Tuscany?

Also, I would like to remind the reader that this theory of
Rockthrowing starts in Italy near Sardina some 8 to 10 million years
ago with a ape creature throwing rocks to a habit of throwing rocks
that conferred many advantages and increasing his mating and
offspring. This throwing ape creature would eventually migrate into
Africa, and become Orrorin. So was there a full land bridge between
Tuscany, Sardinia and Africa?

I know Gilbraltor harbors monkeys from Africa? Do monkeys somehow find
a means of crossing the Med. Sea, on perhaps logs adrift? Could
monkeys and apes some 10 million years ago have made a crossing of
Sicily into Northern Africa?
So it would be ironic that the birthplace of humanity starts in
Sardinia Italy some 8 to 10 million years ago and migrates into Africa
and then some 60,000 years ago the African Sapiens migrated back north
into Europe. So they came full circle.

[Archimedes Plutonium]

On Jan 15, 4:01 am, Archimedes Plutonium

Thinking about the above, it dawned on me that the loss of hair, as
one author in the 20th century titled his book "The Naked Ape", but
the loss of hair was not due to swimming and living near water, but
rather this logical means-- how can you have white skin and take in
sunlight for Vitamin D if your body is covered in hair?

Has any anatomist researched whether other animals take in sunlight to
produce Vitamin D, or is Homo sapiens unique to taking in sunlight for
Vitamin D?

So if you had a hairy ape such as a chimpanzee or orangutan
or gorilla, could you take in sunlight and convert to Vitamin D for
health advantage?

So the logic is, that once you have the genetics that converts
sunlight to Vitamin D, then that advantage would spur the genetics for
less hair to gain more Vitamin D. Now in the Tropics of Africa, loss
of hair would mean sunburn for there is too much sunlight, so for that
to balance out, the skin genetics favored dark skin.

So here I think I found the genetic mechanism for loss of hair for
Homo sapiens to allow for Vitamin D uptake.

Now I wonder when this took place in Homo sapiens history? Was it
60,000 years ago or earlier? Did Neanderthal have less hair and
Vitamin D uptake?

[Archimedes Plutonium]

On Jan 15, 5:16 am, Archimedes Plutonium

Now I took a look at Wikipedia's entry of Vitamin D, and I do not know
what the author had in mind when he/she snuck in the word "unique" for
it makes the complex sentence obfuscating to me:

--- quoting Wikipedia on Vitamin D ---
In humans, vitamin D is unique because it can be ingested as
cholecalciferol (vitamin D3) or ergocalciferol (vitamin D2) and
because the body can also synthesize it (from cholesterol) when sun
exposure is adequate (hence its nickname, the "sunshine vitamin").
--- end quote ---

I had a search of other primates and their need of Vitamin D so the
use of the word "unique" is very vague in the above.

But I am happy over this escapade of linking the evolution of hair
loss for Homo Sapiens with that of skin color and Vitamin D uptake.

Before, I was of no opinion as to how Homo Sapiens became a "Naked
Ape". And as far as rockthrowing theory is concerned, loss of hair was
an advantage so long as the hair lost was an impediment to throwing.
Say the hair around the eyes, for if there was a lot of hair around
the eyes could be fatal in a battle with predators or another tribe of
early humans.

And I suppose the Aquatic Ape theory, that our early ancestors lived
mostly in a aquatic environment was a silly-theory to answer the hair
loss of Homo sapiens.

But now, it appears I stumbled on the correct path to explaining how
or why early Homo sapiens became the "Naked Ape".

I think there is a term in evolutionary biology of co-evolution which
means several traits evolve together, where trait A is a function of
trait B. Here the traits are 1) hair reduction 2) skin color 3)
Vitamin D uptake
4) warmth. So we have at least four factors influencing one another
and likely others not mentioned.

So we have Homo sapiens moving North into Europe some 60,000 years ago
and by 30,000 years ago all the Neanderthals gone extinct.

Now was these Sapiens moving north already having reduction of hair or
did they have mutations in Europe some 10,000 years upon arriving
there? Well the climate is colder in Europe than in Africa, so the
Sapiens would have covered up their bodies with skin hides to keep
warm. That covering would mean less sunlight and less vitamin D. And
were these Sapien invaders already having a dark skin or did they have
a lighter skin before they moved North? Let us assume they had dark
skin and after living near Tuscany Italy for 10,000 years and wearing
clothing that the advantage of reduction in hair and a whiter skin
would help in vitamin D uptake.

So let us assume that the African sapien invaders of Europe some
60,000 years ago were of dark skin and a lot more hair than modern day
sapiens. That living in Europe for many thousands of years, especially
around Tuscany that the genetic advantage accrued to those with
mutations that would be a whiter skin with reduction in hair in order
to take in more vitamin D.

Now in the NOVA show, they hacked on and on about Neanderthal
interbreeding with Sapiens to confer extra health immunity to European
diseases. One has to wonder, though, whether Neanderthal was more
white skinned than the invading sapiens? And one has to wonder whether
the Sapiens just evolved towards a whiter skin, reduction in hair
without ever any Neanderthal interbreeding.

[Archimedes Plutonium]

Origins of the white race, black race and yellow race
some 60,000 years ago

Polar bears are white and warmer latitudes the bears are black or
brown. This is due to Vitamin D and sunlight. The very same biological
evolutionary factors are at play with Homo sapiens as it was for bears
and vitamin D.

Homo sapiens is reduction of hair and the wearing of clothing to gain
warmth so in order to compensate the skin color changes from black to
that of white in the colder climates with the reduction of hair.

Now in the NOVA tv show Decoding Neanderthals they provide a timeline
of 60,000 years ago that African Sapiens migrated or invaded into
Europe, where, there already was the species Homo Neanderthal. And
within about 30,000 years upon arrival, all the Neanderthals were
extincted. Stonethrowing theory would say that Sapiens extincted the
Neanderthals because they could not throw rocks and stones as well as
Sapiens. And that there was no interbreeding for the Neanderthals were
truly a different species and the HACNS1 gene is the gene that
separates the Homo Sapiens species from the Homo Neanderthal species.
The HACNS1 gene is a throwing gene. If you had a throwing contest
between women throwers and men throwers, would be the same analogy as
having a fight to the death of Neanderthal throwers versus Sapiens
throwers.

The question on my mind today, is how and when and where did Homo
sapiens become the three races of white, black, and yellow?

The NOVA show gives us clues as to that origin. In that NOVA show they
talk about Tuscany Italy where they have a pool of genetics different
from most places. Of course, NOVA made a mistake in thinking it was
Neanderthal interbreeding. So what I am offering is a different
interpretation of the Tuscany gene pool. I am saying the Tuscany gene
pool was where the African Sapiens that migrated some 60,000 years
ago, that Tuscany is where this African sapiens became "more white in
skin color" and "lost much of its hair" in order to better uptake in
Vitamin D. So to me, the Tuscany gene pool is the start of the White
Race of Homo Sapiens.

Now the African Homo Sapiens is the Black Race of 60,000 years ago.
But the question is, what is the origin of the Yellow Race that would
settle most of Asia? Correct me if wrong, but the Yellow Race seems to
have less hair than even the white race. I suppose the greatest hair
loss would be the yellow race in the arctic such as the Eskimos. The
loss of hair is required to take in more sunlight for Vitamin D. And
the loss of hair is compensated by wearing of clothing. The change of
skin color is another factor to gain more Vitamin D.

So the question is, did this Tuscany colony that was the birthplace of
the White Race invade and migrate into Asia to become the Yellow Race,
or is the African Sapiens that crossed into Europe some 60,000 years
ago the same stock of genes that would migrate over into Asia and
become the Yellow Race of Homo Sapiens?

In that NOVA show, if I can remember correctly where Hawks placed a
huge pile of red beads on Tuscany and then further in the show it said
that Asians have more of the genetics of Tuscany than does African,
indicates that the Yellow Race of Homo sapiens came from Tuscany
rather than from Africa.

Now I need to study the geography of coming out of Africa and
migrating east into Asia versus coming out of Tuscany and migrating
east into Asia. Would it be easier to live off the land for a Tuscan
going to China than for a African going to China? Of coarse, the
Tuscan would be acclimated better for the colder weather than the
African.

[Archimedes Plutonium]

On Jan 16, 1:56 pm, Archimedes Plutonium

Now I seem to recall there was a Peking man living in Asia some
millions of years ago, long before the African Homo sapiens moved into
Europe and extincted the Neanderthals. So the question becomes, if our
modern day Asian is a descendent of the Tuscan man that ventured into
Asia, whether this Tuscan man extincted the Homo forms living in Asia
as well as extincting the Neanderthals.

So I wonder if we can get a genome of the African Homo sapiens of
60,000 years old, the African Homo sapiens of Tuscany of 30,000 years
ago and whether we can get the genome of the Clovis man in North
America. Also, if we can get the genome of the Homo sapiens in Asia
of
30,000 years ago, because I have the feeling that the Tuscan Man is
modern day Homo sapiens. I have the feeling that the Tuscan Man had
some mutations for healthy genes, whiter skin, reduction of hair and
it is this Tuscan rootstock that gives rise to all modern day races of
Homo sapiens.

That is a lot of work of a lot of genomes, but if it can be done for
Neanderthal, there is no reason to expect it cannot be done for the
Asian Homo sapiens and the Clovis Man in Americas.

What I expect to find, if it goes well, is that the Tuscan Man is the
birthplace of all the races of Homo sapiens. And depending on the
genome of the Clovis Man, we can finally tell whether the entrance to
North America was via the Atlantic or via the Pacific Oceans.

As I said in an earlier post, Anthropology will be driven mostly by
genome science and not so much by the bones found and reconstruction
of bone anatomy. The answers of anthropology will be driven by genome
projects.

[Archimedes Plutonium]

Origin of Races of humanity and minimum size for a viable population

Now here I am thinking of the early humans in North America of the
Clovis Man, whether they came from Asia over Alaska, or whether they
came across the Atlantic somehow in the last ice age.

And I wonder about the mathematics of viable populations. For example,
suppose what came over to the Americas was 2 males and 2 females.
Pretty soon there is going to be interbreeding of similar genetics. So
my question is, at what numbers of males and females do we need for
the population to overcome the deleterious affects of the genetics
being too close and giving unhealthy offspring. Do we need something
like 100 males and 100 females
before there is a positive growth in offspring with not so harmful
health issues due to closeness of genetics?

We should have some answers from species going extinct, in that the
condors or other species is viable with 200 individuals. But there is
a species of turtle in China which has less than 10 individuals and
the offspring mating with other offspring seems to be unhealthy
offspring.

Now the reason I am asking this question is to figure out what the
size of the gene pool was for the entry of Homo sapiens into North
America for the first time that was a successful entry. Because if the
first entry was 2 males and 2 females, I doubt they could have a
viable population unless the trickle into the continent was say 4 new
individuals every year, or say a group of 200 individuals all at once.

So those kind of questions shed light on whether the Americas were
populated via the Atlantic crossing or via the Pacific crossing
through Alaska.

Of course, the main thesis of Race origins, is the thesis that Vitamin
D uptake is the driving mechanism. So that the three races of white,
black, yellow are environment driven answers to proper Vitamin D
uptake, balancing the amount of sunlight, the clothing worn, the skin
color, and reduction in hair.

Now another question that is nagging, is why did the China and Indian
subcontinents become the explosion in human population. We can safely
say that once Homo sapiens arrived in China and India some 10,000 or
more years ago, that China and India held the largest populations of
humans than anywhere else.

Now a glib answer would be that there was plenty of food and not
severe climate. But maybe the answer is more complex than that.

[pete]

Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
>
> Origins of the white race, black race and yellow race
> some 60,000 years ago
>
> Polar bears are white and warmer latitudes the bears are black or
> brown. This is due to Vitamin D and sunlight. The very same biological
> evolutionary factors are at play with Homo sapiens as it was for bears
> and vitamin D.

What color do you think that the skin of a polar bear is?

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_color_is_the_polar_bear's_skin

--
pete

[Archimedes Plutonium]

On Jan 18, 5:24 pm, Archimedes Plutonium

<plutonium.archime...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Origin of Races of humanity and minimum size for a viable population
>
> Now here I am thinking of the early humans in North America of the
> Clovis Man, whether they came from Asia over Alaska, or whether they
> came across the Atlantic somehow in the last ice age.
>
> And I wonder about the mathematics of viable populations. For example,
> suppose what came over to the Americas was 2 males and 2 females.

My mistake, of mixing cultural viewpoints with natural science.

Of course it takes just one female and male to cross into the Americas
and if the female is reproductively viable can populate the entire
continents, even though a lot of inbreeding occurs in the offspring.

Here is a case where our cultural upbringing skews our thinking of
natural science.

> Archimedes Plutoniumhttp://www.iw.net/~a_plutonium

[benj]

On Sat, 19 Jan 2013 20:02:29 -0800, Archimedes Plutonium wrote:

> Of course it takes just one female and male to cross into the Americas
> and if the female is reproductively viable can populate the entire
> continents, even though a lot of inbreeding occurs in the offspring.

Clearly USENET stands a major evidence of the one male and one female
theory for America.

[Archimedes Plutonium]

Alright, Vitamin D accounts well for the races of humanity, the
Caucasian, African and Occidental, the white, black and yellow races.
For if you look at geography and the intensity of sunlight, and the
need for vitamin D, that white is cold northern latitudes, black for
hot near the equator and yellow for in between latitudes.

So the evolutionary pressure to have Vitamin D uptake to ward off
disease and to have proper fit health would be a pressure to have
white skin in Europe, black skin in Africa and yellow skin in Asia.
The use of clothing for warmth is superior to hair for warmth and so
the skin had to become white to gain enough sunlight and yellow to
gain enough sunlight. So Vitamin D caused a color change of skin and a
reduction in body hair.

Now there is another trait of Occidental of slanted eyes, but I
researched that and slanted eyes appears in many African tribes and so
I do not see it related to vitamin D, nor hair reduction nor skin
color.

Now the origin of races via vitamin D should tell us something about
whether Tuscan Man created the Occidental race or whether the African
homo sapiens created the Occidental race?

Maybe, since the Occidental is closer in genetics to the Tuscan man,
that Tuscan man is the origin.

Now I need to know if the American Indians races are closer to that of
Occidental or closer to that of European? Because here we maybe able
to tell which land bridge was crossed, the Pacific or Atlantic?

[Archimedes Plutonium]

On Jan 19, 11:39 pm, Archimedes Plutonium
<plutonium.archime...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Alright,VitaminDaccounts well for the races of humanity, the

> Caucasian, African and Occidental, the white, black and yellow races.
> For if you look at geography and the intensity of sunlight, and the

> need forvitaminD, that white is cold northern latitudes, black for

> hot near the equator and yellow for in between latitudes.
>

> So the evolutionary pressure to haveVitaminDuptake to ward off

> disease and to have proper fit health would be a pressure to have
> white skin in Europe, black skin in Africa and yellow skin in Asia.
> The use of clothing for warmth is superior to hair for warmth and so
> the skin had to become white to gain enough sunlight and yellow to

> gain enough sunlight. SoVitaminDcaused a color change of skin and a

> reduction in body hair.
>
> Now there is another trait of Occidental of slanted eyes, but I
> researched that and slanted eyes appears in many African tribes and so

> I do not see it related tovitaminD, nor hair reduction nor skin
> color.
>
> Now the origin of races viavitaminDshould tell us something about

> whether Tuscan Man created the Occidental race or whether the African
> homo sapiens created the Occidental race?
>
> Maybe, since the Occidental is closer in genetics to the Tuscan man,
> that Tuscan man is the origin.
>
> Now I need to know if the American Indians races are closer to that of
> Occidental or closer to that of European? Because here we maybe able
> to tell which land bridge was crossed, the Pacific or Atlantic?
>

Most scientists fear making any mistakes in their career, but not me.
I tend to learn something new. In the case above of where I thought
the crossing from Asia or Europe to populate the Americas for Clovis
man, I thought you needed a group to cross over into the Americas
about 13 or 15 thousand years ago so as to mitigate inbreeding. But it
takes only a male female pair or a pregnant female sole cross over
into the Americas. Sort of like one pregnant snake into Hawaii is all
it takes to populate Hawaii.

So my mistake was a social cultural taught mistake that inbreeding of
brother with sister or son with mother is repulsive. But in the
Natural world inbreeding is natural course of action. In fact, I see
it all the time with cats, of brother trying to mate with sister.

But what I learned from that is a new idea about the creation of a new
species. And whether there is an accelerant to forming a new species.
Of course we have the four mechanisms of species creation-- Natural
Selection, DNA mutations, genetic recombination, geographical
reproductive isolation which is called the modern evolution synthesis.
But let me add a new one to the list above and call it an Accelerant
of species making.

Of course the Clovis man became the American Indian or the natives of
South America and were not different species than man.

But consider what if some 15,000 years ago the Clovis man was a single
male and female that gave rise to the American population. Because of
inbreeding, it accelerates mutations and genetic recombination since
lack of diversity and such, the Clovis man could easily have become a
far different species, that by the time that Columbus discovered
America, he could have been faced with a species that was different
and not able to breed with.

Neanderthal was likely a small group that interbreed and had become a
different species.

Recently a tiny midget size fossils were found in an island of Asia of
a different species than us. Here again, the likelihood of
interbreeding and isolation caused a acceleration of a different
species.

So, what I am saying is that if you take a mating pair such as insects
and isolate them so that they can only breed amoung that genes of
those starting pair, that mutations occur more rapidly and result in a
newer species because of lack of diversity.

So here we see how inbreeding accelerates the rise of a new species.
And we see it in Darwin's finches where each island had different
species. It was due to a isolated mating pair that did a lot of
inbreeding of the same genes.

[Archimedes Plutonium]

Basically I am just simply asking for what mathematical advantage for
mutations arises for inbreeding. I do not know if any biologist has
researched this question. The question of how much faster or how much
more mutations accrue when a population of a species has inbreeding.
Such as when 1 male and 1 female are stranded on a island and up to
those 2 individuals to keep their kind growing. So there is much
inbreeding. And not outside mating. So that all generations on the
island trace their ancestors back to those starting 2.

Compare that population with an equal sized population that has no
inbreeding.

I would hazard to guess that the mutations of the inbreeding
population would be far ahead of the non inbreeding population.

And I think this is how so many islands that are isolated from their
mainland have so many different species that the mainland does not
have, is because of what I call the species accelerant of inbreeding.

So that Neanderthal was two Africans that migrated north out of Africa
some 400,000 years ago and because of inbreeding ended up as different
species of the Africans who migrated enmasse some 60,000 years ago.

So that the Clovis man who migrated to the Americas, either out of
Asia or Europe some 15,000 years ago, if Clovis man had been a single
1 male and 1 female and populated the Americas, that by the time of
Columbus would have found, not the same species of Homo sapiens, but
perhaps a different species. So here we have a sort of scientific
prediction or question, of how many Clovis people migrated to the
Americas some 15,000 years ago so that their genetic stock was
sufficient to not mutate too much so that by the time Columbus
arrived, they would still be the same Homo sapiens species.

So we need some biology research into what sort of mutation rate is
increased in populations with inbreeding versus populations of
noninbreeding.

And in sociology we can recognize the problem of the American Indians
in that they needed tribal interactions with other diverse tribes
because of inbreeding.

Usually inbreeding brings out deleterious mutations, and rarely does
it bring out advantageous mutations.

Now I would be deeply surprised if no biologist has done research on
this before, of extracting a number for mutation rate in a
noninbreeding population and a mutation rate in a inbreeding
population.

So if we had such a numbers figure for this mutation accelerant and
applied that numbers to Clovis Man, we may be able to roughly estimate
how many individuals, male and female crossed over into the Americas.

[David Bernier]

[...]

Some common genetic diorders are single-gene recessive,
meaning that one good allele and one bad allele
makes for an Ok baby (a carrier), but two bad
alleles makes for a "bad" baby who exhibits or manifests
the disease linked to the "bad allele".

And two good alleles makes an Ok baby also.

That's for the genes carried on the non-sexual chromosomes.
For diseases single gene recessive on the X sexual
chromosome, one allele bad of the gene on the X-chromosome
makes for a "bad baby" if it's male, cause the male has
one X and one Y sex-chromosome. But a female baby with
two X-chomosomes and 1 good and 1 bad allele would be
an Ok baby, but still a carrier. This happens with
hemophilia, if memory serves me well.

The genes that make for a strong baby who will reproduce
with optimal number of off-spring is highly non-trivial.

Some game theory could be involved and there could be several
optimal fitness genomes; also, variation of gene pool could be
an asset for a loosely-bound tribe.

Maybe some models can say something about the optimal strategy
for an individual, like say considering marrying a second-cousin
by age 37 if all else fails. It's just speculation on my part
that such studies/simulations/models exist.

dave
--
dracut:/# lvm vgcfgrestore
File descriptor 9 (/.console_lock) leaked on lvm invocation. Parent PID
993: sh
Please specify a *single* volume group to restore.

[Archimedes Plutonium]

Hi David, now because you are holding a discussion with me in the sci.
newsgroups, I must warn you that there is a pitiful gaggle of persons
(jerks and freaks)
who will attack your email box to get you to stop talking with me.
This has been going on since 1993, where they attack everyone who
holds a conversation with Archimedes Plutonium. So be forewarned. Some
of those freaks will pretend to be me, but it is not me. So if you
see pollution in your email box, it is not me, but the hate-gaggle
crowd trying to get you to stop talking with me.

Now I need a number and a equation of biology to where inbreeding
accelerates mutation rate. In a diverse population of a gene pool, the
mutation rate is say hypothetically, 1 in a 10^6 per year. In a gene
pool of say 1 male to 1 female reproduction and reproduction only
among those parents and their offspring, the mutation rate should
increase drastically to what I am guessing is 1 in 1000 per year.

Maybe biology has already done the research and I am just not finding
the numbers. Perhaps biology was blind about inbreeding and never did
the research, because they never linked inbreeding with speeding up
mutation rate.

Now a natural first experiment would be to do it with fruit flies
since they breed rapidly. So taking a Adam and Eve pair of fruit flies
and watching them mate with inbreeding since no "new genes" were
introduced, we can get a number figure for how much more rapid is the
mutations accruing than the control group of a diverse gene pool.

Now likely the Neanderthals were a historical application of
inbreeding, in that a breeding pair wandered north from Africa into
Europe and with that pair some 400,000 years ago eventually gave the
Neanderthal species due to accelerated mutation because of inbreeding.
And when the diverse gene pool of Africans some 60,000 years ago
migrated into Europe, because they were diverse gene pool they had
superior genetics, especially HACNS1 with rock throwing superiority.
Neanderthal was a different species and so the African Homo sapiens
extincted them by rockthrowing encounters.

David, have you ever played dodge-ball in High School? It is best when
the two sides are about equal in throwing abilities. If one side is
all girls and the other all boys, the boys win in quick order. It was
the same situation some 60,000 years ago when African Homo sapiens
encountered Homo Neanderthal.

Now in human genetics with inbreeding we do glimpse the acceleration
of mutation by the European royal families and hemophilia. But that
was inbreeding with cousins. Imagine the mutations with inbreeding of
mother and son or brothers and sisters, or father and daughter.

That is what faced Neanderthal when they trekked north some 400,000
years ago. It is remarkable alone that they survived and populated
Europe, but no surprise at all that they became a distinct new species
with all that inbreeding and that they would be inferior to the Homo
sapiens that would invade 60,000 years ago.

So I need a mathematical rate of mutation with inbreeding compared to
the rate of mutation where no inbreeding occurs.

And I am rather sure that there is a huge rate increase in mutations
because one only needs to look at insect and bird species of a
mainland and the surrounding distant islands from that mainland. Those
islands usually contain different species from the mainland and
numerous different species all because inbreeding increases mutations
which then give rise to new species.

[Archimedes Plutonium]

--- quoting from Concepts of Biology: a cultural perspective, Buffaloe
& Throneberry, 1973, page 240
---

In sexual reproduction, different gene combinations may be brought
together in the formation of a new genotype. Any differences in
allelic genes depend ultimately upon mutation, of course; but, for the
new organism, its gene pattern is a result of the new combinations
brought about through sexual reproduction. We call this phenomenon
recombination, and it may be defined as the production of new
genotypes from genes that already exist. By its nature, therefore,
recombination is a secondary source of genetic variability.

--- end quote ---

The authors of this textbook define the modern theory of Evolution, a
synthesis of 4 mechanism:
1) Mutation
2) Genetic Recombination
3) Natural Selection
4) Reproductive Isolation

What I am focusing on in this review of Neanderthal and Clovis man and
human evolution, is the factor of inbreeding when a population is
isolated. I do not think a proper study of inbreeding has ever been
done and questions of whether the mutation rate increases with a
inbreeding population.

Now one can argue almost the opposite in that African Homo sapiens
mutation of the HACNS1 gene for superior throwing of rocks and stones
is a mutation that the Neanderthal did not acquire. But I surely do
not know how many mutations differing in Neanderthal genome from that
of Homo sapiens other than the definition of different species of a
minimum of 3 mutations.

I am not arguing against David's issue of increased recessiveness of
genotype or phenotype. I am arguing that increasing recessiveness
contributes to an increased mutation rate.

Now if we put animals near a source of radioactivity and increased the
radioactivity, we can easily picture an increase in mutation. But here
I am saying that if we put a species where we pluck out 1 male and 1
female and isolate them and have them start a population by
themselves, meaning a lot of inbreeding, that the mutation rate
increases. The recessive genes help to increase the mutation rate. One
way of seeing this is that some recessive genetypes allow more viral
diseases and viruses are known to carry mutagens.

Another means of increasing the mutation rate in an inbreeding
population, is that the recombination poses "points of weakness" in
the formation stages of meiosis or mitosis due to the abundance of
recessive genes.

[David Bernier]

[...]

I'm sorry I sent e-mail bombs to you when I was in Thailand.

You present the idea that higher mutation rates could be linked
to inbreeding. I think recessive gene characters show
what could be a drawback to inbreeding.

I'll defer to people in biology and paleontology on the fate
of Neanderthal man.

David Bernier

[Archimedes Plutonium]

Let me give a "baseline genetics" to the Iceland study where
inbreeding has a advantage.

--- quoting from Wikipedia on inbreeding ---

Some inbreeding may enhance fertility rate
A recent study in Iceland by the deCODE genetics company, published by
the journal Science, found that third cousins produced more children
and grandchildren, suggesting that "in spite of the fact that bringing
together two alleles of a recessive trait may be bad, there is clearly
some biological wisdom in the union of relatively closely related
people".[40] For hundreds of years, inbreeding was historically
unavoidable in Iceland due to its then tiny and isolated population.
[41]
--- end quoting ---

In animals, there are two mechanisms involved in genetics --- mitosis
and meiosis.

The theory I am proffering says that the mutation rate is highest in a
species when inbreeding occurs.

So how can we check to see if that theory is true or false.

Well, we need a baseline, and the Iceland study that 3rd cousins are
the most fertile reproduction is that baseline.

Now I need something in physics to be a analog of reproduction for
biology. So as to step through the concepts and theory more easily. I
need a model of physics to bypass much of the complexity of biology to
get at the heart of the theory, to see the mechanism in play.

In Physics, atoms are everything of physics and the last description
of atoms of quantum numbers N, L, m_L and m_ s is the m_ s, the
quantum spin. The last concept of physics and the most simple concept
of those four is m_s, the spin, whether up or down.
And in biology, we can replace spin with the concept of right handed
glove or left handed glove. Mind you, I am doing this as to get to the
heart of biology reproduction in that inbreeding increases mutation
rates.

Now in Genetic Recombination, of putting together the DNA to form a
offspring, the recombination is the fitting together of a pair, one
right handed and one left handed.

The Iceland study indicates that meiosis is controlled by the very
genes that meiosis assembles and it is found that the highest or best
fitting together of father genes with mother genes is 3rd cousin for
the highest rate of reproduction. A zone of reproduction that we would
clearly frown upon since it is inbreeding.

Now I will continue this, but I see my conclusions already, although
the path to those conclusions are somewhat vague at this moment.

The idea is that there is a baseline to where mitosis and meiosis are
at their peak-- 3rd cousins, and any more inbreeding spells a higher
mutation rate. And in the opposite direction of going away from 3rd
cousin reproduction, the diversity is larger and the mutation rate
decreases until it reaches a leveling out.

Now the reason I bring in gloves, right and left, is that during
mitosis and meiosis, to form a bond we can consider a right and left
form that bond. But there are gloves in which the glove fits either
right or left, and we can take a glove that is meant for right but
wear it on the left hand (not as well, but it will do) and take that
example of an analogy to what a mutation is. So that when I wear a
right hand glove on my left hand-- it is a mutation.

So this glove analogy is what I am going to use to breeze by, or
breeze past all the complexity of biology and show that there must be
a Baseline for reproduction and beyond that baseline is higher
mutations and below the baseline is less mutations.