Reconstruction of early spread of modern humans outside Africa

[Meteorologist]

Popular Archaeology
http://popular-archaeology.com/issue/september-2011/article/aboriginal-australians-descended-from-early-migration-of-modern-humans-out-of-africa-study-says

Please see map at end of article.

[JTEM]

Meteorologist <dchristain...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Popular Archaeology
> http://popular-archaeology.com/issue/september-2011/article/aborigina...

>
> Please see map at end of article.

I'll tell you right now that it's inaccurate.

For starters, Australia might've been inhabited by
humans for, say, 60K years, but nobody seems
to be related to the Australians of even 40K years
ago.

Google: Mungo Man.

Secondly, the very idea that moderns humans
popped up fully formed, and then spread across
the planet, is idiotic. We know that isn't the case.
We know of hybridization, for example. The current
gene data linking non African populations to
Neanderthals confirms that much. We weren't
us until our ancestors did the nasty with Neanderthals,
according to all the data.

The morphological evidence had been super
strong for years -- decades even. And now the
DNA evidence is on board...

[Lee Olsen]

On Sep 23, 10:20 pm, JTEM <jte...@gmail.com> wrote:
>  Meteorologist <dchristain...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Popular Archaeology
> >http://popular-archaeology.com/issue/september-2011/article/aborigina...
>
> > Please see map at end of article.
>
> I'll tell you right now that it's inaccurate.
>
> For starters, Australia might've been inhabited by
> humans for, say, 60K years, but nobody seems
> to be related to the Australians of even 40K years
> ago.

http://www.donsmaps.com/mungo.html
"Our results showing a shared mtDNA lineage between Indians and
Australian Aborigines provides direct genetic evidence that Australia
was populated by modern humans through south Asia following the
"Southern Route".

>
> Google:  Mungo Man.

Why?

>
> Secondly, the very idea that moderns humans
> popped up fully formed, and then spread across
> the planet, is idiotic.

Who claimed that, do you have a reference?

> We know that isn't the case.
> We know of hybridization, for example. The current
> gene data linking non African populations to
> Neanderthals confirms that much.
> We weren't
> us until our ancestors did the nasty with Neanderthals,
> according to all the data.

So Africans aren't us?

Hybridization at 5%, of only certain populations, didn't effect modern
human evolution as a whole.
"non African populations" do not make up the entire planet's
population, nor the original 95% source
population.

>
> The morphological evidence had been super
> strong for years -- decades even.

But only for a small percent of the whole.

[JTEM]

Lee Olsen <paleoc...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> On Sep 23, 10:20 pm, JTEM <jte...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > I'll tell you right now that it's inaccurate.
>
> > For starters, Australia might've been inhabited by
> > humans for, say, 60K years, but nobody seems
> > to be related to the Australians of even 40K years
> > ago.
>
> http://www.donsmaps.com/mungo.html
> "Our results showing a shared mtDNA lineage between Indians and
> Australian Aborigines provides direct genetic evidence that Australia
> was populated by modern humans through south Asia following the
> "Southern Route".

According to the mtDNA evidence, so-called moderns
and Neanderthals never interbred. In fact, mtDNA is
probably the worst "Evidence" you could ever look at.

Secondly, Mungo Man isn't part of any such lineage, which
was my point. According to the best evidence he is not
part of any modern lineage what so ever.

> > Google:  Mungo Man.
>
> Why?

See above.

You are erroneously including Mungo Man with the
group "australians." What they are doing is comparing
the present population of the two continents, while what
I was doing is pointing out that the population of
Australia tens of thousands of years ago left no
descendents that we can detect.

> > Secondly, the very idea that moderns humans
> > popped up fully formed, and then spread across
> > the planet, is idiotic.
>
> Who claimed that, do you have a reference?

Yeah, the very cite I was replying to. That one.

Fancy that....

> > We know that isn't the case.
> > We know of hybridization, for example. The current
> > gene data linking non African populations to
> > Neanderthals confirms that much.
> > We weren't
> > us until our ancestors did the nasty with Neanderthals,
> > according to all the data.
>
> So Africans aren't us?

They are a separate population, if that's what you're asking.

> Hybridization at 5%, of only certain populations, didn't effect modern
> human evolution as a whole.

In the case of Neanderthals, pretty much the entire planet
outside of sub Saharan Africa...

> "non African populations" do not make up the entire planet's
> population, nor the original 95% source
> population.

They are everyone outside of Africa, actually. Everyone.

Seriously, what on earth are you arguing?

[Lee Olsen]

On Sep 25, 5:44 pm, JTEM <jte...@gmail.com> wrote:
>  Lee Olsen <paleoc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Sep 23, 10:20 pm, JTEM <jte...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > I'll tell you right now that it's inaccurate.
>
> > > For starters, Australia might've been inhabited by
> > > humans for, say, 60K years, but nobody seems
> > > to be related to the Australians of even 40K years
> > > ago.
>
> >http://www.donsmaps.com/mungo.html
> > "Our results showing a shared mtDNA lineage between Indians and
> > Australian Aborigines provides direct genetic evidence that Australia
> > was populated by modern humans through south Asia following the
> > "Southern Route".
>
> According to the mtDNA evidence, so-called moderns
> and Neanderthals never interbred.

http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/genetics/ancient-dna-and-neanderthals
or
http://tinyurl.com/6avsxkb
"Neanderthals have contributed approximately 1% to 4% to the genomes
of non-African modern humans."

> In fact, mtDNA is
> probably the worst "Evidence" you could ever look at.

The fact is you are wrong.

>
> Secondly, Mungo Man isn't part of any such lineage, which
> was my point.

http://www.donsmaps.com/mungo.html
"Our results showing a shared mtDNA lineage between Indians and
Australian Aborigines provides direct genetic evidence that Australia
was populated by modern humans through south Asia following the
"Southern Route".

>According to the best evidence he is not
> part of any modern lineage what so ever.

http://www.donsmaps.com/mungo.html
"Our results showing a shared mtDNA lineage between Indians and
Australian Aborigines provides direct genetic evidence that Australia
was populated by modern humans through south Asia following the
"Southern Route".


>

> > > Google:  Mungo Man.
>
> > Why?
>
> See above.

http://www.donsmaps.com/mungo.html
"Our results showing a shared mtDNA lineage between Indians and
Australian Aborigines provides direct genetic evidence that Australia
was populated by modern humans through south Asia following the
"Southern Route".

>

> You are erroneously including Mungo Man with the
> group "australians."

You are erroneously leaving him out.

> What they are doing is comparing
> the present population of the two continents,

Wrong.

>while what
> I was doing is pointing out that the population of
> Australia tens of thousands of years ago left no
> descendents that we can detect.

Reference?

>
> > > Secondly, the very idea that moderns humans
> > > popped up fully formed, and then spread across
> > > the planet, is idiotic.
>
> > Who claimed that, do you have a reference?
>
> Yeah, the very cite I was replying to. That one.

So you don't have a reference.

>
> Fancy that....
>
> > > We know that isn't the case.
> > > We know of hybridization, for example. The current
> > > gene data linking non African populations to
> > > Neanderthals confirms that much.
> > > We weren't
> > > us until our ancestors did the nasty with Neanderthals,
> > > according to all the data.
>
> > So Africans aren't us?
>
> They are a separate population, if that's what you're asking.

And "we" originated where *they*are now. And Neandertahs had nothing
to do with anymore than a tiny fraction of our whole :
http://tinyurl.com/6avsxkb
"Neanderthals have contributed approximately 1% to 4% to the genomes
of non-African modern humans."
IOW, almost nothing.

>
> > Hybridization at 5%, of only certain populations, didn't effect modern
> > human evolution as a whole.
>
> In the case of Neanderthals, pretty much the entire planet
> outside of sub Saharan Africa...

But only
"Neanderthals have contributed approximately 1% to 4% to the genomes
of non-African modern humans." of it.

That makes you about 96% African and about 4% Neandertal, if that.

>
> > "non African populations" do not make up the entire planet's
> > population, nor the original 95% source
> > population.
>
> They are everyone outside of Africa, actually. Everyone.

But at best it is a small amout of the total.

>
> Seriously, what on earth are you arguing?

I'm not arguing anything, I'm correcting your misconceptions.

JTEM: "We weren't us until our ancestors did the nasty with
Neanderthals"

If the Neandertals never existed, we would all still be us.

Hawks explains it better here:
http://johnhawks.net/weblog

[JTEM]

Lee Olsen <paleoc...@hotmail.com> wrote:


> > Secondly, Mungo Man isn't part of any such lineage, which
> > was my point.
>
> http://www.donsmaps.com/mungo.html
> "Our results showing a shared mtDNA lineage between Indians and
> Australian Aborigines provides direct genetic evidence that Australia
> was populated by modern humans through south Asia following the
> "Southern Route".

I explained. They are comparing TODAY'S population of Australia to
the Indian subcontinent, not Mungo Man. Mungo Man carried an
extinct mtDNA lineage, one that is not carried by anyone today.

http://www.convictcreations.com/aborigines/images/tree.gif

Your idiot <ahem> "Cite" gets around this by saying it's
irrelevant. Which is weird, because they base everything on
mtDNA "Evidence," as they say here:

: Our results showing a shared mtDNA lineage between Indians

: and Australian Aborigines provides direct genetic evidence that
: Australia was populated by modern humans through south
: Asia following the "Southern Route".

So everything they're saying is based on mtDNA, and Mungo
Man has an extinct lineage completely separate from any
living population.

Just. Like. I. Said.

Now, please, do us all a favor and STOP responding. You do
not understand the things you are reading, and you are
not mature enough to admit your errors.

[JTEM]

, Lee Olsen <paleoc...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> JTEM <jte...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > According to the mtDNA evidence, so-called moderns
> > and Neanderthals never interbred.

"Lee" proves me right:

>
> http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/genetics/ancient-dna-and-neandert...
> orhttp://tinyurl.com/6avsxkb

> "Neanderthals have contributed approximately 1% to 4% to the genomes
> of non-African modern humans."

From the cite:

: ...the two Neanderthal mtDNA sequences were distinct from
: those of modern humans. These results confirmed the earlier
: findings that showed that Neanderthals were unlikely to have
: contributed to the modern human genome.

Of course, this was being written AFTER that conclusion was
disproved. Previous to that, back when morons were STILL
waving around mtDNA as if it meant anything, the wording
was much stronger:

: New evidence from mitochondrial DNA analyses indicates
: that the Neanderthal hominid was not related to human
: ancestors.
http://www.accessexcellence.org/WN/SUA10/neander797.php

> > In fact, mtDNA is
> > probably the worst "Evidence" you could ever look at.
>
> The fact is you are wrong.

In addition to the cite you provided which supports my
statement -- and makes you look like an idiot -- there
is the other cite you presented which supports me.

The Mungo Man cite which bases all of it's conclusions
on mtDNA yet Mungo Man has a totally unique mtDNA
sequence.

I pointed out it here:

> > Secondly, Mungo Man isn't part of any such lineage, which
> > was my point.
>
> http://www.donsmaps.com/mungo.html
> "Our results showing a shared mtDNA lineage between Indians and
> Australian Aborigines provides direct genetic evidence that Australia
> was populated by modern humans through south Asia following the
> "Southern Route".

Ironically, I had previously pointed out your error. That, for some
reason or another you're looking at MODERN mtDNA and thinking
this somehow disputes what I said about Mungo Man's mtDNA.

What the hell? I mean, HOW can you make such a dumb error
even once, let alone repeatedly?

> >According to the best evidence he is not
> > part of any modern lineage what so ever.

(Note: This includes your cite, which admits
that his mtDNA does not belong to any known
lineage)

> http://www.donsmaps.com/mungo.html
> "Our results showing a shared mtDNA lineage between Indians and
> Australian Aborigines provides direct genetic evidence that Australia
> was populated by modern humans through south Asia following the
> "Southern Route".

See what I mean about you repeatedly making the same
incredibly stupid mistake? Even AFTER I pointed out
your error?

I mentioned Mungo Man's mtDNA and ysu think this idiotic
cite -- which only looks at MODERN mtDNA -- is capable
of refuting me? The cite itself AGREES with me!

> http://www.donsmaps.com/mungo.html
> "Our results showing a shared mtDNA lineage between Indians and
> Australian Aborigines provides direct genetic evidence that Australia
> was populated by modern humans through south Asia following the
> "Southern Route".

In a single post you've already misunderstood this cite three
times. Incredible.

Any ordinary idiot can make a mistake, but you were corrected,
your error was explained to you, and you come right back and
make the same monstrously stupid mistake in triplicate...

> > You are erroneously including Mungo Man with the
> > group "australians."
>
> You are erroneously leaving him out.

As I pointed out, and your cite agrees, he carries a
completely extinct mtDNA lineage, one not shared
by any modern population.

> > What they are doing is comparing
> > the present population of the two continents,
>
> Wrong.

Um, no, I'm not wrong. Read it again, this time with
an adult helping you.

> >while what
> > I was doing is pointing out that the population of
> > Australia tens of thousands of years ago left no
> > descendents that we can detect.
>
> Reference?

Your own cite. Your own goddamn cite -- the one
written by an idiot -- which spells it out for you.

Mungo Man was part of a unique mtDNA line, one that
has no known descendents.

> > > > Secondly, the very idea that moderns humans
> > > > popped up fully formed, and then spread across
> > > > the planet, is idiotic.
>
> > > Who claimed that, do you have a reference?
>
> > Yeah, the very cite I was replying to. That one.
>
> So you don't have a reference.

Yes, actually, the cite I was responding to. The one posted
in the very first article.... Sheesh!

> > > So Africans aren't us?
>
> > They are a separate population, if that's what you're asking.
>
> And "we" originated where *they*are now.

No. *I* originated in the Americas.

Seriously, don;t play semantics. It'll only make you
look dumber.

> And Neandertahs had nothing
> to do with anymore than a tiny fraction of our whole :http://tinyurl.com/6avsxkb
> "Neanderthals have contributed approximately 1% to 4% to the genomes
> of non-African modern humans."
> IOW, almost nothing.

Which, by some estimates, is more than the differences between
individual humans.... usually placed at around 2% or so.

> But only
> "Neanderthals have contributed approximately 1% to 4% to the genomes
> of non-African modern humans." of it.

Which is a SIGNIFICANT amount, actually. 4% is something
more than half the difference between humans and chimps.

> That makes you about 96% African and about 4% Neandertal, if that.

Which is enormous. No two Europeans are separated by
4% of their genes. The usual figure given is that we share
99.9%, but more recent studies say it's closer to 99%.

> > > "non African populations" do not make up the entire planet's
> > > population, nor the original 95% source
> > > population.
>
> > They are everyone outside of Africa, actually. Everyone.
>
> But at best it is a small amout of the total.

No. Not at all. It's only one-sixth of the people, and I
do believe even that figure includes north Africa, which
is mostly Berber....

> I'm not arguing anything, I'm correcting your misconceptions.

Man, I hope for your sake you feel really, Really foolish.

> JTEM: "We weren't us until our ancestors did the nasty with
> Neanderthals"

You just proved I was right.

> If the Neandertals never existed, we would all still be us.

No. We would be something else.

[VtSkier]

While Lee and JT are busy sniping at each other, I found
this page:
http://www.convictcreations.com/aborigines/prehistory.htm
It is a bit political (but what isn't?). It is a discussion
of possibilities based on the facts as they are known.

1. No MtDNA from Neanderthal in modern humans.

2. 1% to 4% Neanderthal DNA in non-African modern
humans from male side only.

3. Homo Erectus traveled VERY widely. May have been
nomadic.

4. Slight possibility that HSS developed/evolved
over a wider area than just Africa. See discussion
of Mungo Man who is morphologically modern human
but possesses a genetic lineage which is extinct.
If his ancestors were from Africa within the last
200,000 years this could not have been the case.

Interesting arguments and conclusions. I would like
to see similar discussions elsewhere.

Is Mungo's DNA results from an anomaly or contamination?

and so on...

[Lee Olsen]

On Sep 25, 5:44=pm, JTEM <jte...@gmail.com> wrote:
> =A0Lee Olsen <paleoc...@hotmail.com> wrote:

>
> > On Sep 23, 10:20=pm, JTEM <jte...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > I'll tell you right now that it's inaccurate.
>
> > > For starters, Australia might've been inhabited by
> > > humans for, say, 60K years, but nobody seems
> > > to be related to the Australians of even 40K years
> > > ago.

>

> >http://www.donsmaps.com/mungo.html
> > "Our results showing a shared mtDNA lineage between Indians and
> > Australian Aborigines provides direct genetic evidence that Australia
> > was populated by modern humans through south Asia following the
> > "Southern Route".
>

> According to the mtDNA evidence, so-called moderns
> and Neanderthals never interbred.

http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/genetics/ancient-dna-and-neanderthals
or
http://tinyurl.com/6avsxkb
"Neanderthals have contributed approximately 1% to 4% to the genomes
of non-African modern humans."

> In fact, mtDNA is
> probably the worst "Evidence" you could ever look at.

The fact is you are wrong.


>

> Secondly, Mungo Man isn't part of any such lineage, which
> was my point.

http://www.donsmaps.com/mungo.html
"Our results showing a shared mtDNA lineage between Indians and
Australian Aborigines provides direct genetic evidence that Australia
was populated by modern humans through south Asia following the
"Southern Route".

>According to the best evidence he is not
> part of any modern lineage what so ever.

http://www.donsmaps.com/mungo.html
"Our results showing a shared mtDNA lineage between Indians and
Australian Aborigines provides direct genetic evidence that Australia
was populated by modern humans through south Asia following the
"Southern Route".


>

> > > Google: Mungo Man.
>
> > Why?
>
> See above.

http://www.donsmaps.com/mungo.html
"Our results showing a shared mtDNA lineage between Indians and
Australian Aborigines provides direct genetic evidence that Australia
was populated by modern humans through south Asia following the
"Southern Route".

>

[Lee Olsen]

On Sep 27, 1:18 am, JTEM <jte...@gmail.com> wrote:
> , Lee Olsen <paleoc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >  JTEM <jte...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > According to the mtDNA evidence, so-called moderns
> > > and Neanderthals never interbred.
>
> "Lee" proves me right:

The subject of this thread proved you wrong.

>
>
>
> >http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/genetics/ancient-dna-and-neandert...
> > orhttp://tinyurl.com/6avsxkb
> > "Neanderthals have contributed approximately 1% to 4% to the genomes
> > of non-African modern humans."
>
> From the cite:
>
> : ...the two Neanderthal mtDNA sequences were distinct from
> : those of modern humans.

"two are not all that have been sequenced, so you are still wrong.
Nice try however.

> These results confirmed the earlier
> : findings that showed that Neanderthals were unlikely to have
> : contributed to the modern human genome.
>
> Of course, this was being written AFTER that conclusion was
> disproved.

No, nothing has been disproved:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/07/science/07neanderthal.html

> Previous to that, back when morons were STILL
> waving around mtDNA as if it meant anything, the wording
> was much stronger:
>
> : New evidence from mitochondrial DNA analyses  indicates
> : that the Neanderthal hominid was not related to human
> : ancestors.http://www.accessexcellence.org/WN/SUA10/neander797.php

Out of date.

>
> > > In fact, mtDNA is
> > > probably the worst "Evidence" you could ever look at.
>
> > The fact is you are wrong.
>
> In addition to the cite you provided which supports my
> statement -- and makes you look like an idiot -- there
> is the other cite you presented which supports me.

Nothing supports the claims you have made.

>
> The Mungo Man cite which bases all of it's conclusions
> on mtDNA yet Mungo Man has a totally unique mtDNA
> sequence.

Mungo has nothing to do with anything, see below.

>
> I pointed out it here:
>
> > > Secondly, Mungo Man isn't part of any such lineage, which
> > > was my point.
>
> >http://www.donsmaps.com/mungo.html
> > "Our results showing a shared mtDNA lineage between Indians and
> > Australian Aborigines provides direct genetic evidence that Australia
> > was populated by modern humans through south Asia following the
> > "Southern Route".
>
> Ironically, I had previously pointed out your error.

The only errors are the ones you have made.

> That, for some
> reason or another you're looking at MODERN
> mtDNA and thinking
> this somehow disputes what I said about Mungo Man's mtDNA.

Sorry, but "MODERN" dna carries ancient mtDNA. A point you don't seem
to understand.

>
> What the hell?  I mean, HOW can you make such a dumb error
> even once, let alone repeatedly?

Sorry, but the error is yours, "MODERN" dna carries ancient mtDNA. A
point you don't seem to understand.

>
> > >According to the best evidence he is not
> > > part of any modern lineage what so ever.
>
> (Note:  This includes your cite, which admits
> that his mtDNA does not belong to any known
> lineage)

Yep, one lineage doesn't make a species. A fact that totally escapes
you. Name calling is the only argument you will ever have.

>
> >http://www.donsmaps.com/mungo.html
> > "Our results showing a shared mtDNA lineage between Indians and
> > Australian Aborigines provides direct genetic evidence that Australia
> > was populated by modern humans through south Asia following the
> > "Southern Route".
>
> See what I mean about you repeatedly making the same
> incredibly stupid mistake?  Even AFTER I pointed out
> your error?

You didn't point out any error at all, you only repeated your own
error.

>
> I mentioned Mungo Man's mtDNA and ysu think this idiotic
> cite -- which only looks at MODERN mtDNA -- is capable
> of refuting me?  The cite itself AGREES with me!

No it doesn't. Mungo Man has nothing to do with the lastes findings.
A group can go extict, but the modern species is still here, and they
had ancestors.

>
> >http://www.donsmaps.com/mungo.html
> > "Our results showing a shared mtDNA lineage between Indians and
> > Australian Aborigines provides direct genetic evidence that Australia
> > was populated by modern humans through south Asia following the
> > "Southern Route".
>
> In a single post you've already misunderstood this cite three
> times. Incredible.

I wonder how long it will take you to figure this out?

Mungo Man has nothing to do with the lastes findings.
A group can go extict, but the modern species is still here, and they
had ancestors.

>
> Any ordinary idiot can make a mistake, but you were corrected,
> your error was explained to you, and you come right back and
> make the same monstrously stupid mistake in triplicate...

Name calling is all you have, keep it up.
No it doesn't. Mungo Man has nothing to do with the lastes findings.
A group ("lineage") can go extict, but the modern species is still
here, and they had ancestors.

>
> > > You are erroneously including Mungo Man with the
> > > group "australians."
>
> > You are erroneously leaving him out.
>
> As I pointed out, and your cite agrees, he carries a
> completely extinct mtDNA lineage, one not shared
> by any modern population.

Mungo Man has nothing to do with the lastest findings.
A group can go extict, but the modern species is still here, and they
had ancestors.

>
> > > What they are doing is comparing
> > > the present population of the two continents,
>
> > Wrong.
>
> Um, no, I'm not wrong. Read it again, this time with
> an adult helping you.

Mungo Man has nothing to do with the lastest findings.
A group can go extict, but the modern species is still here, and they
had ancestors.
Not too difficult is it?

>
> > >while what
> > > I was doing is pointing out that the population of
> > > Australia tens of thousands of years ago left no
> > > descendents that we can detect.
>
> > Reference?
>
> Your own cite. Your own goddamn cite -- the one
> written by an idiot -- which spells it out for you.
>
> Mungo Man was part of a unique mtDNA line, one that
> has no known descendents.

Mungo Man has nothing to do with the lastest findings.
A group can go extict, but the modern species is still here, and they
had ancestors.

>
> > > > > Secondly, the very idea that moderns humans
> > > > > popped up fully formed, and then spread across
> > > > > the planet, is idiotic.
>
> > > > Who claimed that, do you have a reference?
>
> > > Yeah, the very cite I was replying to. That one.
>
> > So you don't have a reference.
>
> Yes, actually, the cite I was responding to. The one posted
> in the very first article....  Sheesh!

Mungo Man has nothing to do with the lastes findings.
A group can go extict, but the modern species is still here, and they
had ancestors.

>
> > > > So Africans aren't us?
>
> > > They are a separate population, if that's what you're asking.
>
> > And "we" originated where *they*are now.
>
> No. *I* originated in the Americas.

You, as an individual may have, but that isn't where your mtDNA
originated.
YOU did have ancestors in the Pleistocene, right?

>
> Seriously, don;t play semantics. It'll only make you
> look dumber.

I'm sorry, but you mtDNA did not originate in the Americas.

>
> >  And Neandertahs had nothing
> > to do with anymore than a tiny fraction of our whole :http://tinyurl.com/6avsxkb
> > "Neanderthals have contributed approximately 1% to 4% to the genomes
> > of non-African modern humans."
> > IOW, almost nothing.
>
> Which, by some estimates, is more than the differences between
> individual humans.... usually placed at around 2% or so.

Which proves my claim.

>
> > But only
> > "Neanderthals have contributed approximately 1% to 4% to the genomes
> > of non-African modern humans." of it.
>
> Which is a SIGNIFICANT amount, actually. 4% is something
> more than half the difference between humans and chimps.

No it's not, it's 4%.

>
> > That makes you about 96% African and about 4% Neandertal, if that.
>
> Which is enormous. No two Europeans are separated by
> 4% of their genes. The usual figure given is that we share
> 99.9%, but more recent studies say it's closer to 99%.

Still doesn't make you a Neanderthal, and I'm giving you a break.

>
> > > > "non African populations" do not make up the entire planet's
> > > > population, nor the original 95% source
> > > > population.
>
> > > They are everyone outside of Africa, actually. Everyone.
>
> > But at best it is a small amout of the total.
>
> No. Not at all. It's only one-sixth of the people, and I
> do believe even that figure includes north Africa, which
> is mostly Berber....
>
> > I'm not arguing anything, I'm correcting your misconceptions.
>
> Man, I hope for your sake you feel really, Really foolish.

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/early/2011/09/21/science.1211177.abstract
"We present an Aboriginal Australian genomic sequence obtained from a
100-year-old lock of hair donated by an Aboriginal man from southern
Western Australia in the early 20th century. We detect no evidence of
European admixture and estimate contamination levels to be below 0.5%.
We show that Aboriginal Australians are descendants of an early human
dispersal into eastern Asia, possibly 62,000 to 75,000 years ago. This
dispersal is separate from the one that gave rise to modern Asians
25,000 to 38,000 years ago. We also find evidence of gene flow between
populations of the two dispersal waves prior to the divergence of
Native Americans from modern Asian ancestors. Our findings support the
hypothesis that present-day Aboriginal Australians descend from the
earliest humans to occupy Australia, likely representing one of the
oldest continuous populations outside Africa."

>
> > JTEM: "We weren't us until our ancestors did the nasty with
> > Neanderthals"
>
> You just proved I was right.
>
> > If the Neandertals never existed, we would all still be us.
>
> No. We would be something else.

So Africans are something else and you are a Neanderthal, according to
your thinking?

[JTEM]

Lee Olsen <paleoc...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> > > > For starters, Australia might've been inhabited by
> > > > humans for, say, 60K years, but nobody seems
> > > > to be related to the Australians of even 40K years
> > > > ago.

This is actually established by your own cite, many, many
time.

Here, I quote your own cite:

: The extinct DNA means Mungo was one version of modern
: man who developed from more primitive human forms
: independent from those in Africa.

Just use your browser's search or find function to look for "The
extinct DNA"

> > According to the mtDNA evidence, so-called moderns
> > and Neanderthals never interbred.

This is true, and your second cite supported me....

> http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/genetics/ancient-dna-and-neandert...
> orhttp://tinyurl.com/6avsxkb

> "Neanderthals have contributed approximately 1% to 4% to the genomes
> of non-African modern humans."

Here's the part you didn't quote, the relevant part:

: ...the two Neanderthal mtDNA sequences were distinct from

: those of modern humans. These results confirmed the earlier

: findings that showed that Neanderthals were unlikely to have
: contributed to the modern human genome.

Wow, imagine that! The very part that actually has some
bearing on what I said proves me right and you wrong. I
guess that's why you had to misunderstand a different
part...

> > In fact, mtDNA is
> > probably the worst "Evidence" you could ever look at.
>
> The fact is you are wrong.

Your quote from your first cite was forced to ignore the
mtDNA evidence from Mungo Man, while your quote
from the second cite completely contradicts the mtDNA
conclusions.

You've done an excellent job of disproving yourself, once
again.

> > Secondly, Mungo Man isn't part of any such lineage, which
> > was my point.
>
> http://www.donsmaps.com/mungo.html
> "Our results showing a shared mtDNA lineage between Indians and
> Australian Aborigines provides direct genetic evidence that Australia
> was populated by modern humans through south Asia following the
> "Southern Route".

Instead of repeatedly misunderstanding the above, why not ask an
adult to help you scan the cite: What does it actually say about
Mungo Man's mtDNA? Because it doesn't say that it matches anyone
in India, or is even similar to anyone in India OR AUSTRALIA. In fact,
it says:

: The extinct DNA means Mungo was one version of modern
: man who developed from more primitive human forms
: independent from those in Africa.

Hmmmm.... "Extinct." Meaning, "There are no living members of
Mungo Man's mtDNA lineage. None. Not in Australia, not in
India. Not a single one. Extinct."

Moron.

> >According to the best evidence he is not
> > part of any modern lineage what so ever.
>
> http://www.donsmaps.com/mungo.html
> "Our results showing a shared mtDNA lineage between Indians and
> Australian Aborigines provides direct genetic evidence that Australia
> was populated by modern humans through south Asia following the
> "Southern Route".

It's amazing that any can be so intensely stupid as you,
compulsively re-re-re-re-re-posting something that is
not only wrong, but your error has been repeatedly
pointed out to you....

> http://www.donsmaps.com/mungo.html
> "Our results showing a shared mtDNA lineage between Indians and
> Australian Aborigines provides direct genetic evidence that Australia
> was populated by modern humans through south Asia following the
> "Southern Route".

See above, you nut job.

> > You are erroneously including Mungo Man with the
> > group "australians."
>
> You are erroneously leaving him out.

Same thing. They tested is mtDNA and there are no
living members of his line, not anywhere.

> > What they are doing is comparing
> > the present population of the two continents,
>
> Wrong.

No, actually. That is exactly what your cherry picked
and posted out of context cite is telling you, and that's
something that should be clear even with you cherry
picking it and posting it out of context.


You are deranged. You are severely disordered. Seek help.

[JTEM]

Lee Olsen <paleoc...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> The subject of this thread proved you wrong.

No, honey. The quote you cherry picked looked
at MODERN mtDNA, not ancient, and none of
it matches Mungo Man.

This has been repeatedly explained to you.

: The extinct DNA means Mungo was one version of modern
: man who developed from more primitive human forms
: independent from those in Africa.

The above comes from your cite, your own cite. Do a
search on the first three words, you spazz.

[JTEM]

VtSkier <VtSk...@nospam.net> wrote:

> 1. No MtDNA from Neanderthal in modern humans.

Yes. And for many years these results were touted
as proof that so-called "moderns" and Neanderthals
never interbred.

> 2. 1% to 4% Neanderthal DNA in non-African modern
> humans from male side only.

A rather significant contribution, actually.

> 3. Homo Erectus traveled VERY widely. May have been
> nomadic.

Almost certainly was. A recent statistic I heard: Hunter
gatherers need about one square mile of land per every
two people. The United States is 3.8M square miles, and
that's counting plenty of unproductive land, not just the
land that could support hunter gatherers. Which means
that it can support more than 300M modern people but
couldn't even support 2M hunter gatherers. Our Indians
had to discover (or import) agriculture just to get that
large of a population....

Humans, our ancestors had to spread.

> 4. Slight possibility that HSS developed/evolved
> over a wider area than just Africa. See discussion
> of Mungo Man who is morphologically modern human
> but possesses a genetic lineage which is extinct.
> If his ancestors were from Africa within the last
> 200,000 years this could not have been the case.

I disagree. Like I said, mtDNA is horrible, it's the
absolute worst excuse for "Evidence."

> Interesting arguments and conclusions. I would like
> to see similar discussions elsewhere.

I personally think it's a no brainer: At the end of the
last ice age sea level rose, coastlines were submerged,
many whole islands went under and in places all over
southeast Asia the land-to-people ratio shrunk. About
the only place that was handy, livable and could
accommodate the overflow was Australia. Hence, a
massive swarm of new arrivals fighting, carrying
new diseases and interbreeding with the original
population until dumb markers like mtDNA simply
vanished.

We know for a fact that something similar happened
with Neanderthals. Why not apply what we know
here, instead of pretending that we haven't any ideas?

> Is Mungo's DNA results from an anomaly or contamination?

The best science says no, that it's his actual mtDNA.

[G Horvat]

On 9/27/2011 7:00 AM, VtSkier wrote:

> Is Mungo's DNA results from an anomaly or contamination?

Neither. Prior to the year 2000, researchers were primarily comparing
partial mtDNA sequences and often checking a few locations in the
remainder of the genomes to ensure correct classification. After 2000,
the retrieval of complete sequences became much more important as this
made it possible to make some corrections in the mtDNA tree and,
generally, make more accurate classifications. Many 'ancient' mtDNA
sequences are still partial ones and that applies to all of the ones
determined by Adcock 2001. They run from position no. 16078 to 16387
while a complete sequence runs from 1 to 16569. So, we are missing a
lot of information... If we knew the remainder of the nucleotide sites,
it seems likely Mungo man's sequence would fit into to the known
phylogeny. It just can not be classified yet.

When a sequence is unique in just hypervariable region I (HVR I), it is
not anomalous. A sequence would have to be unique throughout to be
anomalous.

Much more is known about the mtDNA genome now than was known in 2001.
See if you can find any references to LM3 in recent genetic articles.

Gisele

[Lee Olsen]

On Sep 27, 10:40 am, JTEM <jte...@gmail.com> wrote:
>  Lee Olsen <paleoc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > The subject of this thread proved you wrong.
>
> No, honey. The quote you cherry picked looked
> at MODERN mtDNA, not ancient,

The mtDNA is ancient, It didn't pop out of a hat, nor did yours
originate in the
"Americas", so you were wrong about that also.

> and none of
> it matches Mungo Man.

Here is where you are in error.

Sep 25, 5:44 pm
JTEM:

> > We know that isn't the case.
> > We know of hybridization, for example. The current
> > gene data linking non African populations to
> > Neanderthals confirms that much.

> > We weren't

> > us until our ancestors did the nasty with Neanderthals,
> > according to all the data.

LO:

> So Africans aren't us?

JTEM

>>They are a separate population, if that's what you're asking.

> > Google: Mungo Man.


JTEM:

"You are erroneously including Mungo Man with the

group "australians." What they are doing is comparing
the present population of the two continents, while what
I was doing is pointing out that the population...."


Mungo Man is not a "population". The recently tested hair is not a
population either,
but the person with the hair *did have ancestors* linked to Asia.


JTEM again:

> of
>Australia tens of thousands of years ago left no
>descendents that we can detect."

Just because the Mungo Man (singular) didn't leave any ancestors is
irrelevant for the same reason you claimed: "They are a separate
population,..."

The Ice Man, Otzi, didn't leave descendents either, so what? The Hss
species is still here and Africans are just as much "us" as you are,
in spite of being born in the Americas.

>
> This has been repeatedly explained to you.

Your explanation is bogus for the exact same reason you claimed for
Africans.

>
> : The extinct DNA means Mungo was one version of modern
> : man

>: who developed from more primitive human forms
> : independent from those in Africa.
>

> The above comes from your cite, your own cite. Do a
> search on the first three words, you spazz.

LO:

> So Africans aren't us?

Look at your own words, "They are a separate population,..."

See where you are making your mistake?

From a biological standpoint, you are also ca. 25% banana, and about
95% chimp, but that doesn't make you a banana or a chimp does it? So
your analogy that 2% Neanderthal is a large number is also incorrect,
it has nothing to do with our evolution as a whole.

[Lee Olsen]

On Sep 27, 6:00 am, VtSkier <VtSk...@nospam.net> wrote:
> While Lee and JT are busy sniping

Liar, JTEM is doing the snipping (name calling), not me. Try learning
to read before getting involved with something you know nothing
about.

> at each other, I found
> this page:http://www.convictcreations.com/aborigines/prehistory.htm

Good God, they guy can't even spell "Anchient" correctly and that is
your reference?

> It is a bit political (but what isn't?). It is a discussion
> of possibilities based on the facts as they are known.
>
> 1. No MtDNA from Neanderthal in modern humans.

-----------Mungo Man
____!
!
-------------modern humans
Most "anchient" (ROFL) Australians.


MOST, got it?


Least he spelled Australians correctly.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/early/2011/09/21/science.1211177.abstract
"We present an Aboriginal Australian genomic sequence obtained from a
100-year-old lock of hair donated by an Aboriginal man from southern
Western Australia in the early 20th century. We detect no evidence of
European admixture and estimate contamination levels to be below 0.5%.
We show that Aboriginal Australians are descendants of an early human
dispersal into eastern Asia, possibly 62,000 to 75,000 years ago. This
dispersal is separate from the one that gave rise to modern Asians
25,000 to 38,000 years ago. We also find evidence of gene flow between
populations of the two dispersal waves prior to the divergence of
Native Americans from modern Asian ancestors. Our findings support the
hypothesis that present-day Aboriginal Australians descend from the
earliest humans to occupy Australia, likely representing one of the
oldest continuous populations outside Africa."

Since neither one of you have put up one iota of evidence to refute
this paper, what are you doing here?

>
> 2. 1% to 4% Neanderthal DNA in non-African modern
> humans from male side only.



>
> 3. Homo Erectus traveled VERY widely. May have been
> nomadic.
>
> 4. Slight possibility

"anchient" still laughing.

> > No. We would be something else.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

[Lee Olsen]

On Sep 27, 10:38 am, JTEM <jte...@gmail.com> wrote:
>  VtSkier <VtSk...@nospam.net> wrote:
> > 1. No MtDNA from Neanderthal in modern humans.
>
> Yes. And for many years these results were touted
> as proof that so-called "moderns" and Neanderthals
> never interbred.

No, that wasn't what was said, you made that up. They didn't claim
"proof". That is the reason you can't give a reference.
What was actually said was, since they hadn't decoded the entire
sequence at the time, they said they couldn't
find any Neandertal dna in the SECTION of the sequence they had at the
time. But now they do have the entire
sequence, so:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/07/science/07neanderthal.html
"Signs of Neanderthals Mating With Humans"
Which is in accordance with Wolpoff and Frayer's morphology arguments.

>
> > 2. 1% to 4% Neanderthal DNA in non-African modern
> > humans from male side only.
>
> A rather significant contribution, actually.

Do you know what the term "one drop" means?
You are ca. 95% chimp, but you don't claim to be a chimp, right?

[JTEM]

Lee Olsen <paleoc...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> "We present an Aboriginal Australian genomic sequence obtained from a
> 100-year-old lock of hair

Great. That's modern. That's as modern as it gets. The
issue with the hair is not age, it's that they wanted
assurances that there was no chance of european
DNA, you imbecile.

Seriously, you have no reading comprehension. Things
simply do not say what you think they say.

> Since neither one of you have put up one iota of evidence to refute
> this paper, what are you doing here?

The paper doesn't refute anything I've said. In fact,
it confirms it: I spoke of Mungo Man's DNA and
you're talking about modern DNA samples.

You appear to be unaware of the difference.

[JTEM]

, Lee Olsen <paleoc...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> > No, honey. The quote you cherry picked looked
> > at MODERN mtDNA, not ancient,
>
> The  mtDNA is ancient,

No, honey, the oldest DNA you cited is 100 years
old, while Mungo Man is on the order of 40,000
years old.

Ironically, you're off by 40,000%.

That's not a little error, not even by Obsessive
Compulsive Personality Disorder standards...

[VtSkier]

On 09/27/2011 02:40 PM, Lee Olsen wrote:
> On Sep 27, 6:00 am, VtSkier<VtSk...@nospam.net> wrote:
>> While Lee and JT are busy sniping
>
> Liar, JTEM is doing the snipping (name calling), not me. Try learning
> to read before getting involved with something you know nothing
> about.

I quite frankly would say calling me a "Liar" is
name calling. Also you two are sniping at each
other not snipping.

>
>
>> at each other, I found
>> this page:http://www.convictcreations.com/aborigines/prehistory.htm
>
> Good God, they guy can't even spell "Anchient" correctly and that is
> your reference?

He's an Australian.

>
>
>> It is a bit political (but what isn't?). It is a discussion
>> of possibilities based on the facts as they are known.
>>
>> 1. No MtDNA from Neanderthal in modern humans.
> -----------Mungo Man
> ____!
> !
> -------------modern humans
> Most "anchient" (ROFL) Australians.
>
>
> MOST, got it?
>
>
> Least he spelled Australians correctly.

As I said he's Australian.

> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> http://www.sciencemag.org/content/early/2011/09/21/science.1211177.abstract
> "We present an Aboriginal Australian genomic sequence obtained from a
> 100-year-old lock of hair donated by an Aboriginal man from southern
> Western Australia in the early 20th century. We detect no evidence of
> European admixture and estimate contamination levels to be below 0.5%.
> We show that Aboriginal Australians are descendants of an early human
> dispersal into eastern Asia, possibly 62,000 to 75,000 years ago. This
> dispersal is separate from the one that gave rise to modern Asians
> 25,000 to 38,000 years ago. We also find evidence of gene flow between
> populations of the two dispersal waves prior to the divergence of
> Native Americans from modern Asian ancestors. Our findings support the
> hypothesis that present-day Aboriginal Australians descend from the
> earliest humans to occupy Australia, likely representing one of the
> oldest continuous populations outside Africa."
>
> Since neither one of you have put up one iota of evidence to refute
> this paper, what are you doing here?

Having a discussion. What are you doing here?

The article I cited talks about a single migration as the
above suggests as opposed to multiple migrations which
further evidence suggests. See Mungo man morphology,
Kow Swamp people morphology and modern Aborigine
morphology (gracile/robust/gracile). Notice that there
is nothing that disagrees with the evidence that modern
Aborigines carry genes from the earliest arrivals.

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>>
>> 2. 1% to 4% Neanderthal DNA in non-African modern
>> humans from male side only.
>
>
>
>>
>> 3. Homo Erectus traveled VERY widely. May have been
>> nomadic.
>>
>> 4. Slight possibility
>
>
> "anchient" still laughing.
>
>> that HSS developed/evolved
>> over a wider area than just Africa. See discussion
>> of Mungo Man who is morphologically modern human
>> but possesses a genetic lineage which is extinct.
>> If his ancestors were from Africa within the last
>> 200,000 years this could not have been the case.
>>
>> Interesting arguments and conclusions. I would like
>> to see similar discussions elsewhere.
>>
>> Is Mungo's DNA results from an anomaly or contamination?
>>
>> and so on...
>>

(snip)

[Lee Olsen]

On Sep 27, 12:01 pm, JTEM <jte...@gmail.com> wrote:
> , Lee Olsen <paleoc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > No, honey. The quote you cherry picked looked
> > > at MODERN mtDNA, not ancient,
>
> > The  mtDNA is ancient,
>
> No, honey,

JTEM: Snip snip snip

> the oldest DNA you cited is 100 years
> old, while Mungo Man is on the order of 40,000
> years old.

Sorry, but "MODERN" carries ancient mtDNA. A point you don't seem
to understand. The age of the hair has nothing to do with with the
mtDNA.

>
> Ironically, you're off by 40,000%.

Nope, you simply don't understand basic mtDNA 101.

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/early/2011/09/21/science.1211177.abstract
"We present an Aboriginal Australian genomic sequence obtained from a
100-year-old lock of hair donated by an Aboriginal man from southern
Western Australia in the early 20th century. We detect no evidence of
European admixture and estimate contamination levels to be below 0.5%.
We show that Aboriginal Australians are descendants of an early human
dispersal into eastern Asia, possibly 62,000 to 75,000 years ago. This
dispersal is separate from the one that gave rise to modern Asians
25,000 to 38,000 years ago. We also find evidence of gene flow between
populations of the two dispersal waves prior to the divergence of
Native Americans from modern Asian ancestors. Our findings support the
hypothesis that present-day Aboriginal Australians descend from the
earliest humans to occupy Australia, likely representing one of the
oldest continuous populations outside Africa."


>

> That's not a little error, not even by Obsessive
> Compulsive Personality Disorder standards...

I suggest you take a beginning class in biology.

[Lee Olsen]

On Sep 27, 3:41 pm, VtSkier <VtSk...@nospam.net> wrote:
> On 09/27/2011 02:40 PM, Lee Olsen wrote:
>
> > On Sep 27, 6:00 am, VtSkier<VtSk...@nospam.net>  wrote:
> >> While Lee and JT are busy sniping
>
> > Liar, JTEM is doing the snipping (name calling), not me. Try learning
> > to read before getting involved with something you know nothing
> > about.
>
> I quite frankly would say calling me a "Liar" is
> name calling.

Not if true.

>Also you two are sniping at each
> other not snipping.

Oh wow, the guy who cites a reference that can't spell "anchient"
is now whining about my mine?

>
>
>
> >> at each other, I found
> >> this page:http://www.convictcreations.com/aborigines/prehistory.htm
>
> > Good God, they guy can't even spell "Anchient" correctly and that is
> > your reference?
>

> He's an Australian.....

and his peer-reviewed paper to refute this is where?

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/early/2011/09/21/science.1211177.abstract
"We present an Aboriginal Australian genomic sequence obtained from a
100-year-old lock of hair donated by an Aboriginal man from southern
Western Australia in the early 20th century. We detect no evidence of
European admixture and estimate contamination levels to be below 0.5%.
We show that Aboriginal Australians are descendants of an early human
dispersal into eastern Asia, possibly 62,000 to 75,000 years ago. This
dispersal is separate from the one that gave rise to modern Asians
25,000 to 38,000 years ago. We also find evidence of gene flow between
populations of the two dispersal waves prior to the divergence of
Native Americans from modern Asian ancestors. Our findings support the
hypothesis that present-day Aboriginal Australians descend from the
earliest humans to occupy Australia, likely representing one of the
oldest continuous populations outside Africa."




>
>
>
>
>
>
>

> >> It is a bit political (but what isn't?). It is a discussion
> >> of possibilities based on the facts as they are known.
>
> >> 1. No MtDNA from Neanderthal in modern humans.
> >         -----------Mungo Man
> > ____!
> >         !
> >         -------------modern humans
> >                      Most "anchient" (ROFL) Australians.
>
> > MOST, got it?
>
> > Least he spelled Australians correctly.
>
> As I said he's Australian.

So was the guy from Don's Maps and he did spelled ancient correctly on
his web site.


>
>
>
>
>
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------­--
> >http://www.sciencemag.org/content/early/2011/09/21/science.1211177.ab...

> > "We present an Aboriginal Australian genomic sequence obtained from a
> > 100-year-old lock of hair donated by an Aboriginal man from southern
> > Western Australia in the early 20th century. We detect no evidence of
> > European admixture and estimate contamination levels to be below 0.5%.
> > We show that Aboriginal Australians are descendants of an early human
> > dispersal into eastern Asia, possibly 62,000 to 75,000 years ago. This
> > dispersal is separate from the one that gave rise to modern Asians
> > 25,000 to 38,000 years ago. We also find evidence of gene flow between
> > populations of the two dispersal waves prior to the divergence of
> > Native Americans from modern Asian ancestors. Our findings support the
> > hypothesis that present-day Aboriginal Australians descend from the
> > earliest humans to occupy Australia, likely representing one of the
> > oldest continuous populations outside Africa."
>
> > Since neither one of you have put up one iota of evidence to refute
> > this paper, what are you doing here?
>
> Having a discussion. What are you doing here?
>
> The article I cited talks about a single migration as the
> above suggests as opposed to multiple migrations which
> further evidence suggests. See Mungo man morphology,
> Kow Swamp people morphology and modern Aborigine
> morphology (gracile/robust/gracile). Notice that there
> is nothing that disagrees with the evidence that modern
> Aborigines carry genes from the earliest arrivals.

So did you have a point about something?

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >> 2. 1% to 4% Neanderthal DNA in non-African modern
> >> humans from male side only.
>
> >> 3. Homo Erectus traveled VERY widely. May have been
> >> nomadic.
>
> >> 4. Slight possibility
>
> > "anchient" still laughing.
>
> >> that HSS developed/evolved
> >> over a wider area than just Africa. See discussion
> >> of Mungo Man who is morphologically modern human
> >> but possesses a genetic lineage which is extinct.
> >> If his ancestors were from Africa within the last
> >> 200,000 years this could not have been the case.
>
> >> Interesting arguments and conclusions. I would like
> >> to see similar discussions elsewhere.
>
> >> Is Mungo's DNA results from an anomaly or contamination?
>
> >> and so on...
>

> (snip)- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

[VtSkier]

On 09/27/2011 07:04 PM, Lee Olsen wrote:
> On Sep 27, 3:41 pm, VtSkier<VtSk...@nospam.net> wrote:
>> On 09/27/2011 02:40 PM, Lee Olsen wrote:
>>
>>> On Sep 27, 6:00 am, VtSkier<VtSk...@nospam.net> wrote:
>>>> While Lee and JT are busy sniping
>>
>>> Liar, JTEM is doing the snipping (name calling), not me. Try learning
>>> to read before getting involved with something you know nothing
>>> about.
>>
>> I quite frankly would say calling me a "Liar" is
>> name calling.
>
> Not if true.
>
>
>> Also you two are sniping at each
>> other not snipping.
>
> Oh wow, the guy who cites a reference that can't spell "anchient"
> is now whining about my mine?

ad hom attacks do not an argument make. I'm trying to
learn something here and all it seems you are doing
is attacking others who just might have something to add.

I'm not a particular fan of JTEM. He seems sometimes to
pursue a political agenda at the expense of science. You,
sir, are positively repugnant in your name-calling and
ad-hom attacks. These two tactics make it so that any
facts you might have at your disposal are difficult at
best and unintelligible at worst.

>
>
>>
>>
>>
>>>> at each other, I found
>>>> this page:http://www.convictcreations.com/aborigines/prehistory.htm
>>
>>> Good God, they guy can't even spell "Anchient" correctly and that is
>>> your reference?
>>
>> He's an Australian.....
>
> and his peer-reviewed paper to refute this is where?

I don't know that anyone is trying to refute this. I
certainly don't have the wherewithal to do so and neither
do I think the article I cited is trying to refute this.
Simply put this is not all there is to the story.

62,000 to 75,000 years cannot be summed up in one paragraph.

Oh, god, deliver us from the grammar/spelling police.
Somebody forgets to turn on his spell checker and people
like you are all over him. Knock it off.

There you go again.

[Lee Olsen]

On Sep 27, 5:16 pm, VtSkier <VtSk...@nospam.net> wrote:
> On 09/27/2011 07:04 PM, Lee Olsen wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Sep 27, 3:41 pm, VtSkier<VtSk...@nospam.net>  wrote:
> >> On 09/27/2011 02:40 PM, Lee Olsen wrote:
>
> >>> On Sep 27, 6:00 am, VtSkier<VtSk...@nospam.net>    wrote:
> >>>> While Lee and JT are busy sniping
>
> >>> Liar, JTEM is doing the snipping (name calling), not me. Try learning
> >>> to read before getting involved with something you know nothing
> >>> about.
>
> >> I quite frankly would say calling me a "Liar" is
> >> name calling.
>
> > Not if  true.
>
> >> Also you two are sniping at each
> >> other not snipping.
>
> > Oh wow, the guy  who cites a reference that can't spell "anchient"
> > is now whining about my mine?
>
> ad hom attacks do not an argument make.

That's right, so why are you adding "While Lee and JT are busy
sniping"
the smart-assed comment then?

>I'm trying to
> learn something here

Well good, try Paabo online.

> and all it seems you are doing
> is attacking others who just might have something to add.

So you start off by making smart-assed comments that have nothing to
do with the thread and you wonder why I replied
with same?

>
> I'm not a particular fan of JTEM. He seems sometimes to
> pursue a political agenda at the expense of science. You,
> sir, are positively repugnant in your name-calling

Yes, when assholes start off with lies, then what do you expect in
return, kisses?


> and
> ad-hom attacks.

Like yours you mean?

"While Lee and JT are busy sniping"

You made the accusation, prove it or shut up.

> These two tactics make it so that any
> facts you might have at your disposal are difficult at
> best and unintelligible at worst.

VT: "While Lee and JT are busy sniping"

So why don't you piss-off, tactics starter.

>
>
>
> >>>> at each other, I found
> >>>> this page:http://www.convictcreations.com/aborigines/prehistory.htm
>
> >>> Good God, they guy can't even spell "Anchient" correctly and that is
> >>> your reference?
>
> >> He's an Australian.....
>
> > and his peer-reviewed paper to refute this is where?
>
> I don't know that anyone is trying to refute this. I
> certainly don't have the wherewithal to do so and neither
> do I think the article I cited is trying to refute this.
> Simply put this is not all there is to the story.

Well, since this is a sci-forum, what is your evidence for that? Talk
is cheap.

>
> 62,000 to 75,000 years cannot be summed up in one paragraph.

That why there is a "rest" of the article. Free for anyone to read
that wants to learn something.
So read it and get back to us.

>
>
>
>
>
> >http://www.sciencemag.org/content/early/2011/09/21/science.1211177.ab...
> > "We present an Aboriginal Australian genomic sequence obtained from a
> > 100-year-old lock of hair donated by an Aboriginal man from southern
> > Western Australia in the early 20th century. We detect no evidence of
> > European admixture and estimate contamination levels to be below 0.5%.
> > We show that Aboriginal Australians are descendants of an early human
> > dispersal into eastern Asia, possibly 62,000 to 75,000 years ago. This
> > dispersal is separate from the one that gave rise to modern Asians
> > 25,000 to 38,000 years ago. We also find evidence of gene flow between
> > populations of the two dispersal waves prior to the divergence of
> > Native Americans from modern Asian ancestors. Our findings support the
> > hypothesis that present-day Aboriginal Australians descend from the
> > earliest humans to occupy Australia, likely representing one of the
> > oldest continuous populations outside Africa."
>

> >>>> It is a bit political (but what isn't?). It is a discussion
> >>>> of possibilities based on the facts as they are known.
>
> >>>> 1. No MtDNA from Neanderthal in modern humans.
> >>>          -----------Mungo Man
> >>> ____!
> >>>          !
> >>>          -------------modern humans
> >>>                       Most "anchient" (ROFL) Australians.
>
> >>> MOST, got it?
>
> >>> Least he spelled Australians correctly.
>
> >> As I said he's Australian.
>
> > So was the guy from Don's Maps and he did spelled ancient correctly on
> > his web site.
>
> Oh, god, deliver us from the grammar/spelling police.

Which is you:
"sniping"

and

You: > >> Also you two are sniping at each
> >> other not snipping.

> Somebody forgets to turn on his spell checker and people
> like you are all over him. Knock it off.

So knock it off yourself, you started it, both those comments above
were yours. Do you even remember what you write?


>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------­ï¿½--

No response.

[JTEM]

, VtSkier <VtSk...@nospam.net> wrote:

> I'm not a particular fan of JTEM. He seems sometimes to
> pursue a political agenda at the expense of science.

If you're serious about pursue an actual exchange, please
offer up examples. I would ask you to simply explain, but
that would lead me to requesting an example anyway...

Political agenda? Other than refuting Giwer's political
agenda, I'm not aware of anything "political" here or in
this group...

[JTEM]

VtSkier <VtSk...@nospam.net> wrote:

> The article I cited talks about a single migration as the
> above suggests as opposed to multiple migrations which
> further evidence suggests.

That's a bit of an over simplification, but it works as
an introduction...

> Notice that there
> is nothing that disagrees with the evidence that modern
> Aborigines carry genes from the earliest arrivals.

There's nothing that suggests it, either, except for the
shared location.

Even if the present Aborigine population was not
descended from Mungo Man's population, they
certainly shared common ancestry and most of
their genes.

[JTEM]

Lee Olsen <paleoc...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> > the oldest DNA you cited is 100 years
> > old, while Mungo Man is on the order of 40,000
> > years old.
>
> Sorry, but "MODERN"  carries ancient mtDNA. A point you don't seem
> to understand. The age of the hair has nothing to do with with the
> mtDNA.

Even if the present Aborigine population was not
descended from Mungo Man's population, they
certainly shared common ancestry and most of

their genes. The so-called "Evidence" you point to
can not nor does not demonstrate that anyone
alive is descended from Mungo Man's population.

[JTEM]

, Lee Olsen <paleoc...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> Sorry, but "MODERN"  carries ancient mtDNA.

Not necessarily in any meaningful sense, no.

The question isn't "Do Aborigines carry genes
that some ancients carried," it's, "are the present
Aborigines descended from the Australia's
inhabitants from 40,000 years ago."

There is no evidence for this.

There's the LESS THAN circumstantial evidence
in that we are capable of forming models where
such assumptions work with the facts, but this
is not itself "Evidence."

You need to know the difference.

> The age of the hair has nothing to do with with the
> mtDNA.

As it is so obvious and you should by all that is
fair be aware of it already I doubt you will
understand this, but....

Everyone is a direct descendent of SOMEONE
from 40,000 years ago, and even 1 million years
ago and THAT is all that the evidence conclusively
shows.

That's all.

It does not support the idea that today's Australian
Aborigines are descended from Mungo Man's
population.

It's a given that even if they are not, they share
common ancestry with Mungo Man, and so have
to share most of their DNA.

[JTEM]

idiot, Lee Olsen <paleoc...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> JTEM <jte...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >  VtSkier <VtSk...@nospam.net> wrote:
> > > 1. No MtDNA from Neanderthal in modern humans.
>
> > Yes. And for many years these results were touted
> > as proof that so-called "moderns" and Neanderthals
> > never interbred.

> No, that wasn't what was said, you made that up.

[JTEM]

Lee Olsen <paleoc...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> JTEM <jte...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > Yes. And for many years these results were touted
> > as proof that so-called "moderns" and Neanderthals
> > never interbred.
>
> No, that wasn't what was said, you made that up.

No, spazz, and one of your own cites confirmed
this... plus another one I dug up.

FROM YOUR OWN GODDAMN CITE:

: ...the two Neanderthal mtDNA sequences were distinct from
: those of modern humans. These results confirmed the earlier
: findings that showed that Neanderthals were unlikely to have
: contributed to the modern human genome.

And if that's less than absolute wording, keep in mind
it is a current cite, one posted AFTER interbreeding
was established and they knew for a fact that the mtDNA
data was useless.

Here's the cite I dug up from BEFORE the present
data:

: New evidence from mitochondrial DNA analyses indicates
: that the Neanderthal hominid was not related to human
: ancestors.
http://www.accessexcellence.org/WN/SUA10/neander797.php

There were many, many, many headlines like this,
coming at near regular intervals....

I await your apology for posting such intensely
ignorant claims, even after the truth was laid out
for you.

[Lee Olsen]

That's true....but

http://www.donsmaps.com/mungo.html
"But University of Sydney prehistorian Peter White says the debate
over Mungo Man's mitochondrial DNA is essentially irrelevant to
the big picture of evolution. "We're looking at one of those lines
of mitochondrial DNA that has disappeared. The fact that it is not
known in Australia is meaningless in a larger evolutionary sense."

Eve had contemporaries too, but those lines were also lost. I remember
one analogy from some early DNA paper that said it's sort of like
surnames in the novel Mutiny on the Bounty. There were just so many to
start with on the ship, none were added, and as time went by some
males didn't have sons, or were killed before they got married, so
that particular name was lost. After a lot of years, a lot of surnames
were lost, had they been marooned long enough, only one surname would
have survived, as in the case of the hypothetical Eve's mtDNA. Mungo
just happened to be one of them.

[G Horvat]

On 9/27/2011 10:28 PM, Lee Olsen wrote:
[...]

> http://www.donsmaps.com/mungo.html
> "But University of Sydney prehistorian Peter White says the debate
> over Mungo Man's mitochondrial DNA is essentially irrelevant to
> the big picture of evolution. "We're looking at one of those lines
> of mitochondrial DNA that has disappeared. The fact that it is not
> known in Australia is meaningless in a larger evolutionary sense."

The "fact that it is not known in Australia is meaningless" because
Australian aborigines are undersampled. A person requires a certain
quantity of sequences before duplicates start showing up with some
degree of regularity.

The question is where Mungo Man's sequence fits in and it WILL fit in
somewhere. Researchers can:
1) search for definitive mutations in Mungo Man's mtDNA to see if his
sequence belongs to known Australian aborigine haplogroups or
2) Locate an Australian aborigine who has similar mutations in the first
hypervariable region and determine where it belongs (on the mtDNA tree).

I really doubt that any geneticists would refer to Mungo Man's sequence
as "lost" nowadays. It's more like a sequence in limbo awaiting
classification.

All known human sequences which are not of recent African origin have
mutations indicative of one or the other major groups of haplogroups
called 'M' and 'N'. See Phylotree:

http://www.phylotree.org/tree/main.htm

As I stated earlier, Mungo Man's sequence runs from position nos 16078 -
16387 (Table 1 of Adocock et. al. 2001) but the definitive mutations are
at site nos 489, 10,400, 14,783 and 15,043 for 'M' and 8,701, 9,540,
10,398, 10,873 and 15,301 for 'N'. In order to demonstrate that Mungo
Man's sequence was NOT part of the OoA migration, researchers would have
to show that the sequence does not belong to either haplogroup cluster.

While you are looking at the tree, the mtDNA haplogroup of the
Australian in Rasmussen et al's article was 'O' which belongs to
haplogroup cluster N. The other haplogroup cluster, Group 'M, is the
Asian-specific one and so, to a certain extent, the mtDNA interpretation
is consistent with the one based upon nuclear DNA:

"We show that Aboriginal Australians are descendants of an early human
dispersal into eastern Asia, possibly 62,000 to 75,000 years ago. This

dispersal is separate from the one that gave rise to modern Asians..."
(Rasmussen, 2011).

Gisele

[Lee Olsen]

On Sep 23, 10:20 pm, JTEM <jte...@gmail.com> wrote:
>  Meteorologist <dchristain...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Popular Archaeology
> >http://popular-archaeology.com/issue/september-2011/article/aborigina...
>
> > Please see map at end of article.

>
> I'll tell you right now that it's inaccurate.

What you "tell" is data free, science free, reference free
imagination.

>
> For starters, Australia might've been inhabited by
> humans for, say, 60K years, but nobody seems
> to be related to the Australians of even 40K years
> ago.
>

> Google:  Mungo Man.

http://www.donsmaps.com/mungo.html
"But University of Sydney prehistorian Peter White says the debate
over Mungo Man's mitochondrial DNA is essentially irrelevant to
the big picture of evolution. "We're looking at one of those lines
of mitochondrial DNA that has disappeared. The fact that it is not
known in Australia is meaningless in a larger evolutionary sense."

Do you understand what "meaningless means"?

>
> Secondly, the very idea that moderns humans
> popped up fully formed,

This is a sci list, not a creationist list. You are on the wrong list.

>and then spread across
> the planet, is idiotic.

> We know that isn't the case.

We know that is the case, look at the map.

> We know of hybridization, for example.

"meaningless"

> The current
> gene data linking non African populations to
> Neanderthals confirms that much. We weren't
> us until our ancestors did the nasty with Neanderthals,
> according to all the data.

You haven't presented any data to refute the map, but instead have
made racist comment.

JTEM: "We weren't us until our ancestors did the nasty with

Neanderthals,
according to all the data."

Where is your data to show Africans aren't "us"?

>
> The morphological evidence had been super
> strong for years -- decades even. And now the
> DNA evidence is on board...

So the map has submitted evidence and you have submitted your own
nonprofessional, erroneous, opinion.

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/early/2011/09/21/science.1211177.abstract

"We present an Aboriginal Australian genomic sequence obtained from a
100-year-old lock of hair donated by an Aboriginal man from southern
Western Australia in the early 20th century. We detect no evidence of
European admixture and estimate contamination levels to be below 0.5%.

We show that Aboriginal Australians are descendants of an early human
dispersal into eastern Asia, possibly 62,000 to 75,000 years ago. This

[Lee Olsen]

On Sep 27, 11:31 pm, G Horvat <g-hor...@shaw.ca> wrote:
> On 9/27/2011 10:28 PM, Lee Olsen wrote:
> [...]
>
> >http://www.donsmaps.com/mungo.html
> > "But University of Sydney prehistorian Peter White says the debate
> > over Mungo Man's mitochondrial DNA is essentially irrelevant to
> > the big picture of evolution. "We're looking at one of those lines
> > of mitochondrial DNA that has disappeared. The fact that it is not
> > known in Australia is meaningless in a larger evolutionary sense."
>
> The "fact that it is not known in Australia is meaningless" because
> Australian aborigines are undersampled.  A person requires a certain
> quantity of sequences before duplicates start showing up with some
> degree of regularity.
>
> The question is where Mungo Man's sequence fits in and it WILL fit in
> somewhere.  Researchers can:
> 1) search for definitive mutations in Mungo Man's mtDNA to see if his
> sequence belongs to known Australian aborigine haplogroups or
> 2) Locate an Australian aborigine who has similar mutations in the first
> hypervariable region and determine where it belongs (on the mtDNA tree).
>
> I really doubt that any geneticists would refer to Mungo Man's sequence
> as "lost" nowadays.

Dictionary.com.
Lost Adjective/lôst/
1. Unable to find one's way; not knowing one's whereabouts: "they got
lost in the fog".

2. Unable to be found: "he turned up with my lost golf clubs".

>  It's more like a sequence in limbo awaiting
> classification.

OK so 'temporarily misplaced' then :-)

>
> All known human sequences which are not of recent African origin have
> mutations indicative of one or the other major groups of haplogroups
> called 'M' and 'N'.  See Phylotree:
>
> http://www.phylotree.org/tree/main.htm
>
> As I stated earlier, Mungo Man's sequence runs from position nos 16078 -
> 16387 (Table 1 of Adocock et. al. 2001) but the definitive mutations are
> at site nos 489, 10,400, 14,783 and 15,043 for 'M' and 8,701, 9,540,
> 10,398, 10,873 and 15,301 for 'N'.  In order to demonstrate that Mungo
> Man's sequence was NOT part of the OoA migration, researchers would have
> to show that the sequence does not belong to either haplogroup cluster.


>
> While you are looking at the tree, the mtDNA haplogroup of the
> Australian in Rasmussen et al's article was 'O' which belongs to
> haplogroup cluster N.  The other haplogroup cluster, Group 'M, is the
> Asian-specific one and so, to a certain extent, the mtDNA interpretation
> is consistent with the one based upon nuclear DNA:
>
> "We show that Aboriginal Australians are descendants of an early human
> dispersal into eastern Asia, possibly 62,000 to 75,000 years ago. This
> dispersal is separate from the one that gave rise to modern Asians..."
> (Rasmussen, 2011).

Right, I cited that several times in this thread already.

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/early/2011/09/21/science.1211177.abstract
"We present an Aboriginal Australian genomic sequence obtained from a
100-year-old lock of hair donated by an Aboriginal man from southern
Western Australia in the early 20th century. We detect no evidence of
European admixture and estimate contamination levels to be below 0.5%.

We show that Aboriginal Australians are descendants of an early human
dispersal into eastern Asia, possibly 62,000 to 75,000 years ago. This

dispersal is separate from the one that gave rise to modern Asians
25,000 to 38,000 years ago. We also find evidence of gene flow between
populations of the two dispersal waves prior to the divergence of
Native Americans from modern Asian ancestors. Our findings support the
hypothesis that present-day Aboriginal Australians descend from the
earliest humans to occupy Australia, likely representing one of the
oldest continuous populations outside Africa."


>

> Gisele

[JTEM]

Watch as he makes my argument again....

Lee Olsen <paleoc...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> > Even if the present Aborigine population was not
> > descended from Mungo Man's population, they
> > certainly shared common ancestry
> > and most of
> > their genes.

> > The so-called "Evidence" you point to
> > can not nor does not demonstrate that anyone
> > alive is descended from Mungo Man's population.

> http://www.donsmaps.com/mungo.html
> "But University of Sydney prehistorian Peter White says the debate
> over Mungo Man's mitochondrial DNA is essentially irrelevant to
> the big picture of evolution.

So mtDNA data is completely irrelevant to the
evidence which is entirely derived from mtDNA
data....

And THIS doesn't sound crazy to you?!?!?!?!?

> Eve had contemporaries too,

"Evie," huh? And this didn't sound alarm bells?

You've GOT to do a lot better with your cherry
picking for your own sake....

[JTEM]

G Horvat <g-hor...@shaw.ca> wrote:

> The "fact that it is not known in Australia is meaningless" because
> Australian aborigines are undersampled.  A person requires a certain
> quantity of sequences before duplicates start showing up with some
> degree of regularity.

So if we only sample Europeans enough then we'll
find Neanderthal mtDNA....

Mungo man is more than 10,000 years older than
some of the Neanderthal sequences.

No. It doesn't work that way.

> The question is where Mungo Man's sequence fits in and it WILL fit in
> somewhere.

A dead-end, for example.

[JTEM]

, Lee Olsen <paleoc...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> > I'll tell you right now that it's inaccurate.
>
> What you "tell" is data free, science free, reference free
> imagination.

I did depend heavily -- and mistakenly -- on you having
some basic "prior knowledge".....

> > For starters, Australia might've been inhabited by
> > humans for, say, 60K years, but nobody seems
> > to be related to the Australians of even 40K years
> > ago.
>
> > Google:  Mungo Man.

Check this out; in a debate where I said that mtDNA
was the worst kind of evidence, you try to prove me
wrong by cherry picking a quote that says mtDNA
is meaningless:

> http://www.donsmaps.com/mungo.html
> "But University of Sydney prehistorian Peter White says the debate
> over Mungo Man's mitochondrial DNA is essentially irrelevant to
> the big picture of evolution. "We're looking at one of those lines
> of mitochondrial DNA that has disappeared. The fact that it is not
> known in Australia is meaningless in a larger evolutionary sense."

The kicker? All their data is based 100% on mtDNA "evidence"!
They're literally saying that their mtDNA "Evidence" tells the
story even if mtDNA doesn't agree....

> Do you understand what "meaningless means"?

In this context? Nobody does. Because all their conclusions
are based on mtDNA, so it's impossible to understand how
mtDNA can be "meaningless."

> > Secondly, the very idea that moderns humans
> > popped up fully formed,
>
> This is a sci list, not a creationist list. You are on the wrong list.

No, honey, you;'re demented. The first post, the very first
post, is claiming that modern humans popped up all at
once and spread out of Africa as moderns.

Here, in your dementia you abruptly turn and now
disagree with yourself....

> >and then spread across
> > the planet, is idiotic.
> > We know that isn't the case.
>
> We know that is the case, look at the map.

Immediately above you were claiming that this
was a case for creationism, now you're a
believer... Spazz.

> > We know of hybridization, for example.
>
> "meaningless"

Ironically, you have that in quotes though you are
not quoting anyone or anything. You're making it
up as you go.

But the evidence DOES point to hybridization, as
in the Neanderthal evidence (both the DNA and
the morphology).

I even pointed it out....

> > The current
> > gene data linking non African populations to
> > Neanderthals confirms that much. We weren't
> > us until our ancestors did the nasty with Neanderthals,
> > according to all the data.

> You haven't presented any data to refute the map,

We both have, actually. The Neanderthal evidence
confirming multi regionalism to whatever extant, for
starters. The fact that Mungo Man doesn't appear to
be related to any present population....

> but instead have
> made  racist comment.

There's nothing racist here, and I have to laugh that
you can be so demented.

> JTEM: "We weren't us until our ancestors did the nasty with
> Neanderthals,
> according to all the data."

That is what the data says. Yes.

> Where is your data to show Africans aren't "us"?

Um the Neanderthal data you mean? The data that says
we have a genetic contribution from Neanderthals and
sub Saharan Africans do not?

What's the big deal? How is that highly diseased brain
misrepresenting this?

> > The morphological evidence had been super
> > strong for years -- decades even. And now the
> > DNA evidence is on board...

> So the map has submitted evidence and you have submitted your own
> nonprofessional, erroneous, opinion.

Um, honey, YOU agreed with this. In fact, YOU
cited this yourself:

: "Neanderthals have contributed approximately 1% to 4%

: to the genomes of non-African modern humans."

YOU posted that, repeatedly. Idiot.

> "We present an Aboriginal Australian genomic sequence
> obtained from a 100-year-old lock of hair donated by an
> Aboriginal man from southern Western Australia in the
> early 20th century. We detect no evidence of European
> admixture and estimate contamination levels to be below 0.5%.

So I;m talking about comparing 40,000 year old DNA to
modern DNA, and you're talking about comparing
modern DNA to.... to... Asians.

Now I'm going to try something but it's going to be lost
on you, you being a psychotic, but....

Pretend the same results were found in, say, France.
Pretend the exact same data was uncovered in France.
It would be hailed -- and universally accepted -- as
proof positive oif multi regionalism, which it would be.

...and we know for a fact that multi regionalism is
true to some extant, which just don't know how far.

Same data, same result but move it to a different
location and a completely different answer has to
be accepted. Everyone would be compelled to
accept it.

AND IT FITS AUSTRALIA AS WELL.

It may not be as eagerly accepted, but it fits. It
makes AT LEAST as much sense as the claims here.

AT THE VERY LEAST.

[Lee Olsen]

On Sep 28, 7:37 am, JTEM <jte...@gmail.com> wrote:
> , Lee Olsen <paleoc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > I'll tell you right now that it's inaccurate.
>
> > What you "tell" is data free, science free, reference free
> > imagination.
>
> I did depend heavily -- and mistakenly -- on you having
> some basic "prior knowledge".....

Another data free, science free, reference free response.

>
> > > For starters, Australia might've been inhabited by
> > > humans for, say, 60K years, but nobody seems
> > > to be related to the Australians of even 40K years
> > > ago.
>
> > > Google:  Mungo Man.
>
> Check this out; in a debate where I said that mtDNA
> was the worst kind of evidence,

Another data free, reference free, personal opinion comment by an
amateur.

> you try to prove me
> wrong by cherry picking a quote that says mtDNA
> is meaningless:

Says who? You "telling" something is not evidence, it is irrational
circular reasoning.

>
> >http://www.donsmaps.com/mungo.html
> > "But University of Sydney prehistorian Peter White says the debate
> > over Mungo Man's mitochondrial DNA is essentially irrelevant to
> > the big picture of evolution. "We're looking at one of those lines
> > of mitochondrial DNA that has disappeared. The fact that it is not
> > known in Australia is meaningless in a larger evolutionary sense."
>
> The kicker?  All their data is based 100% on mtDNA "evidence"!

And your "telling" is based on nothing.

> They're literally saying that their mtDNA "Evidence" tells the
> story even if mtDNA doesn't agree....

More opinion from a non-scientist.

>
> > Do you understand what "meaningless means"?
>
> In this context?  Nobody does. Because all their conclusions
> are based on mtDNA, so it's impossible to understand how
> mtDNA can be "meaningless."

What is impossible for you to understand is not an argument.

>
> > > Secondly, the very idea that moderns humans
> > > popped up fully formed,
>
> > This is a sci list, not a creationist list. You are on the wrong list.
>
> No, honey, you;'re demented.

Keep up the name calling, it's the only argument you can make (other
than snipping quotes).

> The first post, the very first
> post, is claiming that modern humans popped up all at
> once and spread out of Africa as moderns.

JTEM:

> I did depend heavily -- and mistakenly -- on you having
> some basic "prior knowledge".....

Then you, mistakenly, ought to try reading peer-reviewed journals:
http://harpending.humanevo.utah.edu/Documents/eswarCApap.pdf

Current Anthropology, December 2002
Diffusion Wave out of Africa: The Mechanism of the ModernRevolution?
by Vinayak Eswaran

>
> Here, in your dementia you abruptly turn and now
> disagree with yourself....

Ah, no, I just proved you were wrong.

>
> > >and then spread across
> > > the planet, is idiotic.
> > > We know that isn't the case.
>
> > We know that is the case, look at the map.

> Immediately above you were claiming that this
> was a case for creationism, now you're a
> believer... Spazz.

No, you are wrong again, as usual. The origin of the mtDNA that is in
your genes came from Africa, no where else, and certainly not the
Americas as you claimed.
The number of waves is irrelevant to your ignorant statement that "us"
didn't happen until we did it with Neandertals, which is total
nonsense. This leaves Africans not "us" by your racist logic.
Whether, one wave, two, ten, or difusion, we still are all us, and
even Neanderthal ancestors came from Africa originally.
So your claim that we didn't not become "us" until breeding with
Neandertals is the silliest thing I've ever heard.

>
> > > We know of hybridization, for example.
>
> > "meaningless"
>
> Ironically, you have that in quotes though you are
> not quoting anyone or anything. You're making it
> up as you go.

No, you are dishonest in snipping out the references as you go.

http://www.donsmaps.com/mungo.html
"But University of Sydney prehistorian Peter White says the debate
over Mungo Man's mitochondrial DNA is essentially irrelevant to
the big picture of evolution. "We're looking at one of those lines
of mitochondrial DNA that has disappeared. The fact that it is not
known in Australia is meaningless in a larger evolutionary sense."

You even referenced it yourself.
So either you have memory problems or you are dishonest, which is it?
And BTW, thank you for the keeper.

>
> But the evidence DOES point to hybridization, as
> in the Neanderthal evidence (both the DNA and
> the morphology).

Which has nothing to do with anything, it's "meaningless"

>
> I even pointed it out....
>
> > > The current
> > > gene data linking non African populations to
> > > Neanderthals confirms that much. We weren't
> > > us until our ancestors did the nasty with Neanderthals,
> > > according to all the data.
> > You haven't presented any data to refute the map,
>
> We both have, actually. The Neanderthal evidence
> confirming multi regionalism to whatever extant, for
> starters.

on a 1 to 4% is "meaningless" for finishers.

> The fact that Mungo Man doesn't appear to
> be related to any present population....

"meaningless"

Snip and run, eh? That's all you have at this point.

>
> > but instead have
> > made  racist comment.
>
> There's nothing racist here, and I have to laugh that
> you can be so demented.

So, we are all not "us" until Neanderthals were involved is total
ignorance on your part and shows how little you know.

>
> > JTEM: "We weren't us until our ancestors did the nasty with
> > Neanderthals,
> > according to all the data."
>
> That is what the data says. Yes.

No, it doesn't show that at all, anymore than Mungo Man means
something, it's "meaningless"

http://www.donsmaps.com/mungo.html
"But University of Sydney prehistorian Peter White says the debate
over Mungo Man's mitochondrial DNA is essentially irrelevant to
the big picture of evolution. "We're looking at one of those lines
of mitochondrial DNA that has disappeared. The fact that it is not
known in Australia is meaningless in a larger evolutionary sense."

>

> > Where is your data to show Africans aren't "us"?
>
> Um the Neanderthal data you mean?

No, Neanderthals don't have anything to do with "us" or our origins,
your comment that we didn't become "us" until we did it with
Neandertals is ignorance to the extreme.

> The data that says
> we have a genetic contribution from Neanderthals and
> sub Saharan Africans do not?

That's the hypothesis, based on data, and your telling "us" different
is not an argument.

>
> What's the big deal?

What isn't the big deal? Being a racist is no big deal to you.

>  How is that highly diseased brain
> misrepresenting this?

More name calling, that's all you have.

>
> > > The morphological evidence had been super
> > > strong for years -- decades even. And now the
> > > DNA evidence is on board...
> > So the map has submitted evidence and you have submitted your own
> > nonprofessional, erroneous, opinion.
>
> Um, honey, YOU agreed with this. In fact, YOU
> cited this yourself:

Of course, so that makes Mungo one of "us".

>
> : "Neanderthals have contributed approximately 1% to 4%
> : to the genomes of non-African modern humans."
>
> YOU posted that, repeatedly.

http://www.donsmaps.com/mungo.html

"But University of Sydney prehistorian Peter White says the debate
over Mungo Man's mitochondrial DNA is essentially irrelevant to
the big picture of evolution. "We're looking at one of those lines
of mitochondrial DNA that has disappeared. The fact that it is not
known in Australia is meaningless in a larger evolutionary sense."

idiot

Looking in a mirror?

>
> > "We present an Aboriginal Australian genomic sequence
> >  obtained from a 100-year-old lock of hair donated by an
> >  Aboriginal man from southern Western Australia in the
> > early 20th century. We detect no evidence of European
> > admixture and estimate contamination levels to be below 0.5%.
>
> So I;m talking about comparing 40,000 year old DNA to
> modern DNA, and you're talking about comparing
> modern DNA to.... to... Asians.

So, your mtDNA just poped out of a hat? You came from the "Americas"
and so did your DNA?
You had no ancestors from Africa? They were all Neandertals from the
Americas?

>
> Now I'm going to try something but it's going to be lost
> on you, you being a psychotic, but....

Oh, you are going to tell me some more of your racist facts?

>
> Pretend

Pretend? Why don't you cite evidence from a peer-reviewed journal?

[G Horvat]

On 9/28/2011 7:09 AM, Lee Olsen wrote:
> On Sep 27, 11:31 pm, G Horvat<g-hor...@shaw.ca> wrote:
>> On 9/27/2011 10:28 PM, Lee Olsen wrote:
>> [...]

>> All known human sequences which are not of recent African origin have

>> mutations indicative of one or the other major groups of haplogroups
>> called 'M' and 'N'. See Phylotree:
>>
>> http://www.phylotree.org/tree/main.htm

[...]

>> While you are looking at the tree, the mtDNA haplogroup of the
>> Australian in Rasmussen et al's article was 'O' which belongs to
>> haplogroup cluster N. The other haplogroup cluster, Group 'M, is the
>> Asian-specific one and so, to a certain extent, the mtDNA interpretation
>> is consistent with the one based upon nuclear DNA:
>>
>> "We show that Aboriginal Australians are descendants of an early human
>> dispersal into eastern Asia, possibly 62,000 to 75,000 years ago. This
>> dispersal is separate from the one that gave rise to modern Asians..."
>> (Rasmussen, 2011).
>
> Right, I cited that several times in this thread already.
>
> http://www.sciencemag.org/content/early/2011/09/21/science.1211177.abstract
> "We present an Aboriginal Australian genomic sequence obtained from a
> 100-year-old lock of hair donated by an Aboriginal man from southern
> Western Australia in the early 20th century. We detect no evidence of
> European admixture and estimate contamination levels to be below 0.5%.
> We show that Aboriginal Australians are descendants of an early human
> dispersal into eastern Asia, possibly 62,000 to 75,000 years ago. This
> dispersal is separate from the one that gave rise to modern Asians
> 25,000 to 38,000 years ago. We also find evidence of gene flow between
> populations of the two dispersal waves prior to the divergence of
> Native Americans from modern Asian ancestors. Our findings support the
> hypothesis that present-day Aboriginal Australians descend from the
> earliest humans to occupy Australia, likely representing one of the
> oldest continuous populations outside Africa."

The above excerpt which you "quoted 3 times" mainly pertains to DNA from
the nucleus. The part I quoted is consistent with the interpretation of
the source of the ***mtDNA sequence*** of the Australian. As you know
these two types of DNA are quite different. Furthermore, mtDNA is
considered to be unencumbered by recombination and, therefore, paints a
clearer picture. Therefore, it is possible to expand upon Rasmussen et
al's interpretation slightly. They say that the ancestors of Australian
aborigines left some sequences behind on their way to Australia. Based
upon mtDNA comparisons, where did these sequences end up? Europe, S.
Asia, SE Asia and eventually even America. This was reported by Ingman
(2003) as follows:

"In the NJ tree, non-African sequences are present on two major branches
(Fig. 2, labeled “1” and “2”). Branch 1 and branch 2 are delineated by
the nucleotide positions 8701, 9540, 10398, 10400, 10873, 14783, 15043,
and 15301 relative to the Cambridge reference sequence (CRS; Anderson et
al. 1981), consistent with what are sometimes referred to as haplogroups
N (branch 1) and M (branch 2). All but one of the Australian sequences
are found on branch 1, together with all European sequences, more than
half of the New Guinean sequences, all of the Polynesian sequences, and
several Asian sequences."

http://genome.cshlp.org/content/13/7/1600.long

All of the 'N' mtDNA haplogroups (refer to the tree) were derived from
the same migration out of Africa. The mtDNA sequences of Europeans are
more closely related to those of the Australian aborigines than to those
of aboriginal Siberians.

Gisele

[Lee Olsen]

On Sep 28, 12:00 pm, G Horvat <g-hor...@shaw.ca> wrote:
> On 9/28/2011 7:09 AM, Lee Olsen wrote:
>
> > On Sep 27, 11:31 pm, G Horvat<g-hor...@shaw.ca>  wrote:
> >> On 9/27/2011 10:28 PM, Lee Olsen wrote:
> >> [...]
> >> All known human sequences which are not of recent African origin have
> >> mutations indicative of one or the other major groups of haplogroups
> >> called 'M' and 'N'.  See Phylotree:
>
> >>http://www.phylotree.org/tree/main.htm
>
> [...]
>
>
>
>
>
> >> While you are looking at the tree, the mtDNA haplogroup of the
> >> Australian in Rasmussen et al's article was 'O' which belongs to
> >> haplogroup cluster N.  The other haplogroup cluster, Group 'M, is the
> >> Asian-specific one and so, to a certain extent, the mtDNA interpretation
> >> is consistent with the one based upon nuclear DNA:
>
> >> "We show that Aboriginal Australians are descendants of an early human
> >> dispersal into eastern Asia, possibly 62,000 to 75,000 years ago. This
> >> dispersal is separate from the one that gave rise to modern Asians..."
> >> (Rasmussen, 2011).
>
> > Right, I cited that several times in this thread already.
>

> >http://www.sciencemag.org/content/early/2011/09/21/science.1211177.ab...

> > "We present an Aboriginal Australian genomic sequence obtained from a
> > 100-year-old lock of hair donated by an Aboriginal man from southern
> > Western Australia in the early 20th century. We detect no evidence of
> > European admixture and estimate contamination levels to be below 0.5%.
> > We show that Aboriginal Australians are descendants of an early human
> > dispersal into eastern Asia, possibly 62,000 to 75,000 years ago. This
> > dispersal is separate from the one that gave rise to modern Asians
> > 25,000 to 38,000 years ago. We also find evidence of gene flow between
> > populations of the two dispersal waves prior to the divergence of
> > Native Americans from modern Asian ancestors. Our findings support the
> > hypothesis that present-day Aboriginal Australians descend from the
> > earliest humans to occupy Australia, likely representing one of the
> > oldest continuous populations outside Africa."
>
> The above excerpt which you "quoted 3 times"

and you once....

>mainly pertains to DNA from
> the nucleus.  The part I quoted is consistent with the interpretation of
> the source of the ***mtDNA sequence*** of the Australian.  As you know
> these two types of DNA are quite different.  Furthermore, mtDNA is
> considered to be unencumbered by recombination and, therefore, paints a
> clearer picture.  Therefore, it is possible to expand upon Rasmussen et
> al's interpretation slightly.
> They say that the ancestors of Australian
> aborigines left some sequences behind
> on their way to Australia.  Based
> upon mtDNA comparisons, where did these sequences end up?  Europe, S.
> Asia, SE Asia and eventually even America.  This was reported by Ingman
> (2003) as follows:
>
> "In the NJ tree, non-African sequences are present on two major branches

> (Fig. 2, labeled �1� and �2�). Branch 1 and branch 2 are delineated by

> the nucleotide positions 8701, 9540, 10398, 10400, 10873, 14783, 15043,
> and 15301 relative to the Cambridge reference sequence (CRS; Anderson et
> al. 1981), consistent with what are sometimes referred to as haplogroups
> N (branch 1) and M (branch 2). All but one of the Australian sequences
> are found on branch 1, together with all European sequences, more than
> half of the New Guinean sequences, all of the Polynesian sequences, and
> several Asian sequences."
>
> http://genome.cshlp.org/content/13/7/1600.long
>
> All of the 'N' mtDNA haplogroups (refer to the tree) were derived from
> the same migration out of Africa.

>  The mtDNA sequences of Europeans are
> more closely related to those of the Australian aborigines than to those
> of aboriginal Siberians.

Then in your opinion, do you think this map
http://tinyurl.com/3vgzyca
is accurate, in error, or something inbetween?

>
> Gisele

[G Horvat]

On 9/28/2011 2:09 PM, Lee Olsen wrote:
> On Sep 28, 12:00 pm, G Horvat<g-hor...@shaw.ca> wrote:

[...]

>> The mtDNA sequences of Europeans are
>> more closely related to those of the Australian aborigines than to those
>> of aboriginal Siberians.
>
> Then in your opinion, do you think this map
> http://tinyurl.com/3vgzyca
> is accurate, in error, or something inbetween?

If you've followed what I've written thus far, then you should agree
that based upon mtDNA sequence comparisons, the arrow going into Europe
should be colored "purple" rather than black. No complex calculations
are required to see that. All European haplogroups belong to Group N
(especially R). Asians have a high frequency of of haplogroups
belonging to Group M and also a few N (mainly 'R') haplogroups which
entered China from the south. If M and N are indicative of two major
migrations out of African, as is thought, then the current Han Chinese
(population chosen by Rasmussen et al. to represent East Asians) are a
product of both migrations.

Gisele

[Lee Olsen]

Thanks, but that wasn't what I asked.

Yes, no, or inbetween ?

[JTEM]

Lee Olsen <paleoc...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> > I did depend heavily -- and mistakenly -- on you having
> > some basic "prior knowledge".....
>
> Another data free, science free, reference free response.

How would you know? I said that mtDNA evidence
was the worst, and you disagreed with and posted
the following:

http://www.donsmaps.com/mungo.html
: "But University of Sydney prehistorian Peter White says the debate
: over Mungo Man's mitochondrial DNA is essentially irrelevant to
: the big picture of evolution. "We're looking at one of those lines
: of mitochondrial DNA that has disappeared. The fact that it is not
: known in Australia is meaningless in a larger evolutionary sense."

Remember: You're arguing that mtDNA is useful here...

I also mentioned the fact that multi regionalism has
been confirmed to some extant by the Neanderthal
data. Again you disagreed with me, again you posted
a cite that proved you wrong:

: "Neanderthals have contributed approximately 1% to 4%
: to the genomes of non-African modern humans."

You've posted the above repeatedly, even though it
proves me right and you wrong.

I also pointed out that Mungo Man's mtDNA has
no known descendents. You offered a cite that
proved me write but inexplicably cherry picked a
quote that doesn't even address the question.

Here's the quote you refused to post, the one
that proved you wrong:

: The extinct DNA means Mungo was one version of modern
: man who developed from more primitive human forms
: independent from those in Africa.

Again, this is from the very cite you posted, pretending
it was refuting me... Sheesh!

The final point you mindlessly argued was when I
explained to you that I was talking about comparing
Mungo Man's DNA to modern populations, and you
kept referencing a cite talking about a comparison
of modern Aborigine DNA to modern Asian DNA...
I believe you called me a "liar" over that one, didn't
you? Anyhow, here's your cherry picked quote, the
one I'm talking about:

: Our results showing a shared mtDNA lineage between Indians
: and Australian Aborigines provides direct genetic evidence that
: Australia was populated by modern humans through south
: Asia following the "Southern Route".

There. It's talking about a comparison of MODERN
Aborigine DNA to MODERN Asian DNA.

(You do know that India is part of Asia, right?)

Anyhow, I'm glad we dad this talk and I look forward
to your complete misunderstanding and misrepresentation
of it all.

[Lee Olsen]

On Sep 28, 7:47 pm, JTEM <jte...@gmail.com> wrote:
>  Lee Olsen <paleoc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > I did depend heavily -- and mistakenly -- on you having
> > > some basic "prior knowledge".....
>
> > Another data free, science free, reference free response.
>
> How would you know?

International Journal of Evolutionary Biology
Volume 2011, Article ID 615094, 17 pages
doi:10.4061/2011/615094
Review Article
Upper Pleistocene Human Dispersals out of Africa:
A Review of the Current State of the Debate
Amanuel Beyin

that paper, and many others that show you are incapable of
referencing anything but fringe online URLs.

JTEM knows how he knows:
http://www.convictcreations.com
ROFL

>  I said that mtDNA evidence
> was the worst,

> and you disagreed with and posted
> the following:
>
> http://www.donsmaps.com/mungo.html
> : "But University of Sydney prehistorian Peter White says the debate
> : over Mungo Man's mitochondrial DNA is essentially irrelevant to
> : the big picture of evolution. "We're looking at one of those lines
> : of mitochondrial DNA that has disappeared. The fact that it is not
> : known in Australia is meaningless in a larger evolutionary sense."
>
> Remember:  You're arguing that mtDNA is useful here...

Once again, you are proving you can't read or follow a thread.
Do you know what "big picture of evolution" means? No? I didn't think
so.
The fact that Mungo's sequence hasn't been found is no more relevant
in the BIG picture than the fact that anthopologists don't have
anything more than a tooth and a finger bone from Denisovans, which
now relies *solely* on DNA for their known distribution. Is DNA good
or what?

So it completely depends on who has the most evidence to support their
case, it is not a matter of which is worst.

>
> I also mentioned the fact that multi regionalism has
> been confirmed to some extant by the Neanderthal
> data.

Wrong again. The only thing demonstrated by Denisovans and Neandertals
is that the speciation process hadn't occured between so-called
Archaics and Hss. That's it, no multiregionalism, NO "us" after out of
Africa.

> Again you disagreed with me,

Yep, you are in error, that's a fact.

> again you posted
> a cite that proved you wrong:
>
> : "Neanderthals have contributed approximately 1% to 4%
> : to the genomes of non-African modern humans."

That proves me correct and you are wrong.... 1% to 5% doesn't make for
multiregionalism or a new "us" after we left Africa.

>
> You've posted the above repeatedly, even though it
> proves me right and you wrong.

That proves me correct and you are wrong.... 1% to 5% doesn't make for
multiregionalism or a new "us" after we left Africa.

>
> I also pointed out that Mungo Man's mtDNA has
> no known descendents.

How do you know that? When you answer that, you will finally
understand why you are wrong.
Hint: 1% to 5% doesn't make for multiregionalism or a new "us" after
we left Africa.

> You offered a cite that
> proved me write but inexplicably cherry picked a
> quote that doesn't even address the question.

Hint: 1% to 5% doesn't make for multiregionalism or a new "us" after
we left Africa.
BIG PICTURE

>
> Here's the quote you refused to post, the one
> that proved you wrong:
>
> : The extinct DNA means Mungo was one version of modern
> : man who developed from more primitive human forms
> : independent from those in Africa.

I cited what they had right, not what they have wrong. You need to go
back to school. Hindsight is 20-20.

>
> Again, this is from the very cite you posted, pretending
> it was refuting me...  Sheesh!

Where does it say one has to agree with every word in a reference
article? You made that up. I quoted what they had right today, which
was correct, still, today.

>
> The final point you mindlessly argued was when I
> explained to you that I was talking about comparing
> Mungo Man's DNA to modern populations, and you
> kept referencing a cite talking about a comparison
> of modern Aborigine DNA to modern Asian DNA...

> I believe you called me a "liar"

OK, just ignorant will do.
mtDNA is ancient, I can't believe you are having such a big problem
understanding a such simple fact.

>over that one, didn't
> you?  Anyhow, here's your cherry picked quote, the
> one I'm talking about:
>
> : Our results showing a shared mtDNA lineage between Indians
> : and Australian Aborigines provides direct genetic evidence that
> : Australia was populated by modern humans through south
> : Asia following the "Southern Route".

That is correct. Where is your data to refute it? Talk is cheap, your
telling it is so doesn't make it so.

>
> There. It's talking about a comparison of MODERN
> Aborigine DNA to MODERN Asian DNA.

No, mtDNA is ancient. You simply don't understand genetics, go back to
school.

>
> (You do know that India is part of Asia, right?)

>
> Anyhow, I'm glad we dad this talk and I look forward
> to your complete misunderstanding and misrepresentation
> of it all.

Here you go, read these and come back when you know something:

International Journal of Evolutionary Biology
Volume 2011, Article ID 615094, 17 pages
doi:10.4061/2011/615094
Review Article
Upper Pleistocene Human Dispersals out of Africa:
A Review of the Current State of theDebate
Amanuel Beyin

Ann Gibbons does a good job summing up where you are in error:
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/331/6016/394.summary
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/331/6016/392.summary

or

An X-linked haplotype of Neandertal origin is present among all non-
African populations
Yotova et al, 2011.

When you get done with those, I have a few more for you to read.


JTEM's reference:
http://www.convictcreations.com
ROFL

Convict creations eh? That is peer-reviewed science in your mind? You
just keep limping along, I'll reference the heavy stuff. So sit back,
get out of the way, and enjoy.

[Lee Olsen]

On Sep 27, 11:31 pm, G Horvat <g-hor...@shaw.ca> wrote:

> I really doubt that any geneticists would refer to Mungo Man's sequence
> as "lost" nowadays.  It's more like a sequence in limbo awaiting
> classification.

“...the first explanation is that there was an
ancient polymorphism among archaic popu-
lations in Africa. In that case, Neanderthals
and all humans outside of Africa would stem
from the same population whose other descen-
dants have become lost (or minor) in Africa.
The second and probably more parsimonious
scenario involves interbreeding between Nean-
derthals and modern humans. This would mean
that there was a single population of mod-
ern humans whose ancestors met (and mated)
Neanderthals somewhere in southwest Asia and
whose descendants subsequently colonized the
rest of the world outside of Africa [page 873].”

[134] J. R´ıdl, “New light on human prehistory in the Arabo-Persian
Gulf Oasis. Commentary,” Current Anthropology, vol. 51, no.
6, pp. 872–873, 2010.


Repeat: "same population whose other descen-
dants have become lost..."

Just the same, your negative argument needs to be demonstrated, not
speculated. Probably on a statistical basis it does favor " limbo",
but bad luck happens.

[JTEM]

Lee Olsen <paleoc...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> International Journal of Evolutionary Biology
> Volume 2011, Article ID 615094, 17 pages
> doi:10.4061/2011/615094
> Review Article
> Upper Pleistocene Human Dispersals out of Africa:
> A Review of the Current State of the Debate
> Amanuel Beyin
>
> that paper, and many others that show you are  incapable of
> referencing anything but fringe online URLs.

No it doesn't. You're an idiot. You have no
reading comprehension and merely project
your knee-jerk onto any convenient text.

> JTEM knows how he knows:
> http://www.convictcreations.com
> ROFL

Wait. I "know" because of a website you read,
and that's why you're subject to fits of
maniacal laughter?

You do know you're insane, right?

> >  I said that mtDNA evidence
> > was the worst,
> > and you disagreed with and posted
> > the following:
>
> >http://www.donsmaps.com/mungo.html
> > : "But University of Sydney prehistorian Peter White says the debate
> > : over Mungo Man's mitochondrial DNA is essentially irrelevant to
> > : the big picture of evolution. "We're looking at one of those lines
> > : of mitochondrial DNA that has disappeared. The fact that it is not
> > : known in Australia is meaningless in a larger evolutionary sense."
>
> > Remember:  You're arguing that mtDNA is useful here...
>
> Once again, you are proving you can't read or follow a thread.
> Do you know what "big picture of evolution" means?

No. Nobody does. Especially when the point under
discussion wasn't the "big picture of evolution," it
was in fact the quality of mtDNA "evidence," and the
assumptions surrounding it.

So, yeah, there really is no reasonable explanation
for you to defend mtDNA "Evidence" by posted a
quote insisting that mtDNA is irrelevant.

It's inexplicable.

Then again, you do know you're insane... right?

> > I also mentioned the fact that multi regionalism has
> > been confirmed to some extant by the Neanderthal
> > data.
>
> Wrong again.

Quite the opposite, actually. Not only am I right but
you obsessively posted a quote showing that I'm
right and that you are wrong. Here, this was the
quote:

> > : "Neanderthals have contributed approximately 1% to 4%
> > : to the genomes of non-African modern humans."

Yup. That __Is__ multi regionalism.

> 1% to 5% doesn't make for
> multiregionalism

Dude, what does your demented mind think is the
difference between humans and chimps?

> > I also pointed out that Mungo Man's mtDNA has
> > no known descendents.
>
> How do you know that?

Your own cite says so. It's one of the reasons it
called it "irrelevant," because Mungo Man's mtDNA
didn't jive with their claims.

Here, this quote is from your cite:

> > : The extinct DNA means Mungo was one version of modern
> > : man who developed from more primitive human forms
> > : independent from those in Africa.

See that? "Extinct." There are no known living
descendents of Mungo Man's mtDNA lineage.

None.

What's more, all the studies you cited are based
on mtDNA....

> > The final point you mindlessly argued was when I
> > explained to you that I was talking about comparing
> > Mungo Man's DNA to modern populations, and you
> > kept referencing a cite talking about a comparison
> > of modern Aborigine DNA to modern Asian DNA...
> > I believe you called me a "liar"
>
> OK, just ignorant will do.

You do know you're insane, right?

> mtDNA is ancient,

No. Your Obsessive Compulsive Personality Disorder
is at work again, refusing to all you to acknowledge
your retarded errors.

This is the fun part, where you keep digging the hole
deeper & deeper & deeper....

I didn't use the word "ancient" in the above. I used
the word "modern" and I used it to describe the
populations I was speaking of, not the DNA.

....you do know you're insane, right?

[G Horvat]

On 9/29/2011 7:08 PM, Lee Olsen wrote:
> On Sep 27, 11:31 pm, G Horvat<g-hor...@shaw.ca> wrote:
>
>> I really doubt that any geneticists would refer to Mungo Man's sequence

>> as "lost" nowadays...

[...]

Their view is even bleaker than mine. They mistrust the lab work i.e.

"Many other claims remain in limbo, where a lack of appropriate methods
or replication renders them effectively meaningless, e.g. human
sequences from ‘Mungo man’ in Australia..." (Willerslev & Cooper)

http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/272/1558/3.full.pdf

Gisele

[Lee Olsen]

On Sep 29, 7:22 pm, JTEM <jte...@gmail.com> wrote:
>  Lee Olsen <paleoc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > International Journal of Evolutionary Biology
> > Volume 2011, Article ID 615094, 17 pages
> > doi:10.4061/2011/615094
> > Review Article
> > Upper Pleistocene Human Dispersals out of Africa:
> > A Review of the Current State of the Debate
> > Amanuel Beyin
>
> > that paper, and many others that show you are  incapable of
> > referencing anything but fringe online URLs.

> No it doesn't. You're an idiot. You have no
> reading comprehension and merely project
> your knee-jerk onto any convenient text.

Yawn... another data free, reference free, science free, 3rd-grade-
level reply.
Name calling is all you've got.

>
>  > JTEM knows how he knows:
>
> >http://www.convictcreations.com
> > ROFL
>
> Wait. I "know"
> because of a website you read,
> and that's why you're subject to fits of
> maniacal laughter?

That's funny too. Got any science for us yet?

>
> You do know you're insane, right?

Says who?

>
>
>
>
>
> > >  I said that mtDNA evidence
> > > was the worst,
> > > and you disagreed with and posted
> > > the following:
>
> > >http://www.donsmaps.com/mungo.html
> > > : "But University of Sydney prehistorian Peter White says the debate
> > > : over Mungo Man's mitochondrial DNA is essentially irrelevant to
> > > : the big picture of evolution. "We're looking at one of those lines
> > > : of mitochondrial DNA that has disappeared. The fact that it is not
> > > : known in Australia is meaningless in a larger evolutionary sense."
>
> > > Remember:  You're arguing that mtDNA is useful here...

Page 8
“The mitochondrial deoxyribonucleic acid (mtDNA)
has been particularly useful for studies of human evolution
and prehistoricmigrations [49, 118, 119]. Its high copy num-
ber, maternal inheritance, lack of recombination, and high
mutation rate have made mtDNA an important molecule in
tracing human descent back to several thousand years [118].”

“This means that all contemporary non-African humans
have descended from either M or N haplogroups, both
derived from the ancestral African haplogroup L3 (Amanuel Beyin
2011).”

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-14947363
Clive Finlayson, director of the Gibraltar Museum,....
"In my view, it is the field of genetics that will help
us most in clarifying matters," he told BBC News."

Neat, eh? Stick around and you will learn something besides four-
letter words.

> Especially when the point under
> discussion wasn't the "big picture of evolution," it
> was in fact the quality of mtDNA "evidence," and the
> assumptions surrounding it.

Huh? You found something wrong with the quality of the paper? Let's
here it.

Page 8
“The mitochondrial deoxyribonucleic acid (mtDNA)
has been particularly useful for studies of human evolution
and prehistoricmigrations [49, 118, 119]. Its high copy num-
ber, maternal inheritance, lack of recombination, and high
mutation rate have made mtDNA an important molecule in
tracing human descent back to several thousand years [118].”

>
> It's inexplicable.

No, it's science.

>
> Then again, you do know you're insane... right?
>

Says who?

>
> >  1% to 5% doesn't make for
> > multiregionalism
>
> Dude, what does your demented mind think is the
> difference between humans and chimps?

"But the genomic data also don't prove the classic multiregionalism
model,
which argues that a single, worldwide species of human, including
archaic
forms outside of Africa, met, mingled, and had offspring, and so
produced
Homo sapiens." Ann Gibbons [thank you Ann, good girl]

Kiss the old multiregional hypothesis goodbye.

>
> > > I also pointed out that Mungo Man's mtDNA has
> > > no known descendents.
>
> > How do you know that?
>
> Your own cite says so. It's one of the reasons it
> called it "irrelevant," because Mungo Man's mtDNA
> didn't jive with their claims.
>
> Here, this quote is from your cite:
>
> > > : The extinct DNA means Mungo was one version of modern
> > > : man who developed from more primitive human forms
> > > : independent from those in Africa.
>
> See that?  "Extinct."

Australians probably ate him for lunch.

>There are no known living
> descendents of Mungo Man's mtDNA lineage.
>
> None.

Irrelevant, Australian Aborigines were still here when the chain gang
showed up, they never left.

>
> What's more, all the studies you cited are based
> on mtDNA....

Right, evidence you can't deny:
“This means that all contemporary non-African humans
have descended from either M or N haplogroups, both
derived from the ancestral African haplogroup L3.”

>
> > > The final point you mindlessly argued was when I
> > > explained to you that I was talking about comparing
> > > Mungo Man's DNA to modern populations, and you
> > > kept referencing a cite talking about a comparison
> > > of modern Aborigine DNA to modern Asian DNA...
> > > I believe you called me a "liar"
>
> > OK, just ignorant will do.
>
> You do know you're insane, right?

Says who?

>
> > mtDNA is ancient,
>
> No. Your Obsessive Compulsive Personality Disorder
> is at work again, refusing to all you to acknowledge
> your retarded errors.

Not really much you can do but vomit obscenities.

Too bad for you:
“This means that all contemporary non-African humans
have descended from either M or N haplogroups, both
derived from the ancestral African haplogroup L3 ( Beyin 2011).”

That means your genes aren't as American as you thought they were.

>
> This is the fun part, where you keep digging the hole
> deeper & deeper & deeper....

Another data free, reference free, science-free reply. But, really,
what else would one expect?

>
> I didn't use the word "ancient" in the above. I used
> the word "modern" and I used it to describe the
> populations I was speaking of, not the DNA.

“This means that all contemporary non-African humans
have descended from either M or N haplogroups, both
derived from the ancestral African haplogroup L3 (Beyin 2011).”

Kiss Mungo goodbye, he is irrelevant in the big picture and so are
your 'one drop" Neanderthal genes.

>
>     ....you do know you're insane, right?

Says who?

[Lee Olsen]

I forgot to ask, do you need this paper or have you already seen it?

[G Horvat]

On 9/29/2011 10:55 PM, Lee Olsen wrote:
[...]

> I forgot to ask, do you need this paper or have you already seen it?
>
> Review Article
> Upper Pleistocene Human Dispersals out of Africa:
> A Review of the Current State of the Debate
> Amanuel Beyin
> International Journal of Evolutionary Biology
> Volume 2011, Article ID 615094, 17 pages
> doi:10.4061/2011/615094

Found it here:

http://www.hindawi.com/journals/ijeb/2011/615094/

OoA is really a little early for me, though.

Gisele

[G Horvat]

On 9/29/2011 11:25 PM, G Horvat wrote:
> On 9/29/2011 10:55 PM, Lee Olsen wrote:
> [...]
>> I forgot to ask, do you need this paper or have you already seen it?
>>
>> Review Article
>> Upper Pleistocene Human Dispersals out of Africa:
>> A Review of the Current State of the Debate
>> Amanuel Beyin
>> International Journal of Evolutionary Biology
>> Volume 2011, Article ID 615094, 17 pages
>> doi:10.4061/2011/615094
>
> Found it here:
>
> http://www.hindawi.com/journals/ijeb/2011/615094/

Figure 3 is right "down my alley'. I would make a couple corrections
(which are not directly related to OoA). Haplogroups B & F are derived
from 'R' as are western Eurasian "I, U, H, J/T" (see the mtDNA tree).
The former are considered to have entered China from the south and are
always referred to as "southern-prevalent haplogroups" in journals.
Australian/Melanesian haplogroup P also belongs to Group R.

It should also be mentioned that MANY Asian & Oceanic haplogroups are
not illustrated.

Again, the mtDNA haplogroup of the Australian aborigine studied by
Rasmussen et al. was 'O' which belongs to Group N.

Gisele

[Lee Olsen]

Well, they'll get back that far sooner or later. Try to think of it
like this:

I really doubt that any geneticists would refer to the OoA sequences
as "lost" nowadays. It's more like sequences in limbo awaiting
classification. :-)

http://tinyurl.com/688e9n3

[G Horvat]

On 9/30/2011 7:16 AM, Lee Olsen wrote:
> On Sep 29, 10:25 pm, G Horvat<g-hor...@shaw.ca> wrote:
>> On 9/29/2011 10:55 PM, Lee Olsen wrote:
>> [...]

> http://tinyurl.com/688e9n3

Unlike Lake Mungo3, Kostenki14 has been completely sequenced (sites 1
through 16569). The sub-haplogroup it belongs to, U2, is common in
India. In the article referenced below, U2a to U2d (& U7) are described
as "indigenous" to India.

"The first thorough study of complete mtDNA sequences from India [4]
identified numerous indigenous clades emerging directly from the roots
of superhaplogroups N, R and U, such as N5, R5-R8, R30, R31, U2a-d and
U7. West Eurasian specific haplogroups HV, JT, N1, and U (xU2a-d, U7)
occur at lower frequencies, suggesting limited but phylogeographically
well detectable gene flow into the Indian subcontinent, most probably
from west and northwest Eurasia [14]."

BMC Evolutionary Biology 2008, 8:227
Phylogeography of mtDNA haplogroup R7 in the Indian peninsula
Chaubey et al. (2008)
http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2148/8/227

Before Chaubey, Palinchamy et al. (2004) described U2a-U2c as
"autochthonous" and also wrote, "an entry of U2 in India more recent
than 40 kya is not plausible".

If Krause et al. did not miss any mutations (!), Kostenki14 falls at the
root of U2 and, therefore, precedes the Indian sequences
(phylogenetically) but we do not have any 30,000 yo Indian sequences to
compare it to.

Gisele

[G Horvat]

On 9/30/2011 10:15 PM, G Horvat wrote:

> Before Chaubey, Palinchamy et al. (2004) described U2a-U2c as
> "autochthonous" and also wrote, "an entry of U2 in India more recent
> than 40 kya is not plausible".

Correction:

Before Chaubey, Palanichamy et al. (2004) described U2a-U2c as
"autochthonous" to India...

Am J Hum Genet. 2004 December; 75(6): 966–978.
Phylogeny of Mitochondrial DNA Macrohaplogroup N in India, Based on
Complete Sequencing: Implications for the Peopling of South Asia
Palanichamy et al. (2004)

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1182158/

Gisele

[JTEM]

Lee Olsen <paleoc...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> Yawn... another data free, reference free, science free, 3rd-grade-
> level reply.

Exactly. All you did was CLAIM that a paper refuted
everything I said, and you did this only after first
proving you have no reading comprehension...

> > Wait. I "know"
> > because of a website you read,
> > and that's why you're subject to fits of
> > maniacal laughter?
>
> That's funny too. Got any science for us  yet?

Exactly. You make wild, ridiculous claims -- one
after the other -- and refuse to discuss the real
issues.

> > > >  I said that mtDNA evidence
> > > > was the worst,
> > > > and you disagreed with and posted
> > > > the following:
>
> > > >http://www.donsmaps.com/mungo.html
> > > > : "But University of Sydney prehistorian Peter White says the debate
> > > > : over Mungo Man's mitochondrial DNA is essentially irrelevant to
> > > > : the big picture of evolution. "We're looking at one of those lines
> > > > : of mitochondrial DNA that has disappeared. The fact that it is not
> > > > : known in Australia is meaningless in a larger evolutionary sense."
>
> > > > Remember:  You're arguing that mtDNA is useful here...
>
> Page 8
> “The mitochondrial deoxyribonucleic acid (mtDNA)
> has been particularly useful for studies of human evolution
> and prehistoricmigrations [49, 118, 119].

So you're proving my point: The so-called "Evidence"
they are waving around is based entirely on mtDNA,
Mungo Man's mt DNA doesn't fit this "Evidence" so they
have to claim that it's "irrelevant," which they do.

They are saying that Mungo Man's mtDNA is irrelevant
to the mtDNA data.... exactly like I said, you moron.

> “This means that all contemporary non-African humans
> have descended from either M or N haplogroups, both
> derived from the ancestral African haplogroup L3 (Amanuel Beyin
> 2011).”

Great. Mungo Man isn't one of them, and I began
my role in this thread pointing out that the mtDNA
is useless, and that according to it NOBODY alive
today is related to Mungo Man's population of
40,000 years ago. Both these facts have been
confirmed by your cites.... the one that says
that Mungo Man's lineage is extinct and that his
mtDNA is irrelevant to mtDNA data....

> Clive Finlayson, director of the Gibraltar Museum,....
> "In my view, it is the field of genetics that will help
> us most in clarifying matters," he told BBC News."

"Genetics" != "mtDNA"


Secondly, many of the same problems arise. It is
very easy to read DNA and impossible to know how
it got that way. However, this does not stop people
from believing that it they do know.... idiot.

> > Especially when the point under
> > discussion wasn't the "big picture of evolution," it
> > was in fact the quality of mtDNA "evidence," and the
> > assumptions surrounding it.
>
> Huh?

Your severe mental illness is showing again. THIS is
what you're arguing against:

: For starters, Australia might've been inhabited by

: humans for, say, 60K years, but nobody seems
: to be related to the Australians of even 40K years
: ago.
:
: Google: Mungo Man.

As your own goddamn cite showed, Mungo Man's
mtDNA lineage is extinct, there are no known
descendents.

EXACTLY as I said, and you disagreed with.

You found something wrong with the quality of the paper?

Well, let's see, it has absolutely no bearing on the facts
surrounding Mungo Man and it's based on assumptions
proven wrong by Mungo Man...

> > It's inexplicable.
>
> No, it's science.

There's nothing scientific about brushing aside
inconvenient facts, and it's even less scientific
for you to twist and turn as you are doing, trying
desperately to avoid confronting the fact that you
are wrong, Wrong, *Wrong*.

When they compare the DNA from MODERN
populations they get one answer, and when they
look at the DNA of ANCIENT populations they come
up with a different answer. By any and every
rule of logic and reason this means they have to
be wrong.

[JTEM]

G Horvat <g-hor...@shaw.ca> wrote:

> Their view is even bleaker than mine.  They mistrust the lab work i.e.
>
> "Many other claims remain in limbo, where a lack of appropriate methods
> or replication renders them effectively meaningless, e.g. human
> sequences from ‘Mungo man’ in Australia..." (Willerslev & Cooper)
>
> http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/272/1558/3.full.pdf

This isn't saying what you think it's saying. In it's original
context they name a few examples of DNA results which
have been refuted, and then they name Mungo Man and
Cheddar Gorge as examples of results which, for whatever
reasons, they are unable to verify.

They are __Not__ saying the results are wrong. Nearly
NOBODY is even disputing the results for Mungo Man.
They are simply stating that the results can not be
independently verified at the present.

[JTEM]

G Horvat <g-hor...@shaw.ca> wrote:

> Unlike Lake Mungo3, Kostenki14 has been completely sequenced (sites 1
> through 16569).  The sub-haplogroup it belongs to, U2, is common in
> India.  In the article referenced below, U2a to U2d (& U7) are described
> as "indigenous" to India.

It's also quite irrelevant, as "early modern" isn't a modern
at all, but is morphologically quite distinct from the present
population of Europe.... or anywhere else for that matter.

Secondly we already know that interbreeding with the previous
populations -- "multi regionalism" -- occurred. So this data
is clearly NOT demonstrating what you are claiming for
Australia and Mungo Man.

As a matter of fact, it is not at all clear at this point WHAT
you hoped to demonstrate....

[Lee Olsen]

On Oct 1, 12:29 am, JTEM <jte...@gmail.com> wrote:
>  Lee Olsen <paleoc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Yawn... another data free, reference free, science free, 3rd-grade-
> > level reply.
>
> Exactly. All you did was CLAIM that a paper refuted
> everything I said, and you did this only after first
> proving you have no reading comprehension...

Yawn... another data free, reference free, science free, 3rd-grade-
level reply.

Do you ever have anything to add other than, misinformation?
You were wrong right from the start and still don't get it. The only
thing you have done so far is snip and name call.

>
> > > Wait. I "know"
> > > because of a website you read,
> > > and that's why you're subject to fits of
> > > maniacal laughter?
>
> > That's funny too. Got any science for us  yet?
>
> Exactly. You make wild, ridiculous claims -- one
> after the other -- and refuse to discuss the real
> issues.

Yawn... another data free, reference free, science free, 3rd-grade-
level reply.


>
>
>
>
>

> > > > >  I said that mtDNA evidence
> > > > > was the worst,
> > > > > and you disagreed with and posted
> > > > > the following:
>
> > > > >http://www.donsmaps.com/mungo.html
> > > > > : "But University of Sydney prehistorian Peter White says the debate
> > > > > : over Mungo Man's mitochondrial DNA is essentially irrelevant to
> > > > > : the big picture of evolution. "We're looking at one of those lines
> > > > > : of mitochondrial DNA that has disappeared. The fact that it is not
> > > > > : known in Australia is meaningless in a larger evolutionary sense."
>
> > > > > Remember:  You're arguing that mtDNA is useful here...
>
> > Page 8
> > “The mitochondrial deoxyribonucleic acid (mtDNA)
> > has been particularly useful for studies of human evolution
> > and prehistoricmigrations [49, 118, 119].
>
> So you're proving my point:

Wrong, the map is correct.

>  The so-called "Evidence"
> they are waving around is based entirely on mtDNA,

How do you know that since you haven't read the paper?

> Mungo Man's mt DNA doesn't fit this "Evidence" so they
> have to claim that it's "irrelevant," which they do.

Repeating your ignorance doesn't make it so.

>
> They are saying that Mungo Man's mtDNA is irrelevant
> to the mtDNA data.... exactly like I said, you moron.

No reference, you made that up. Another one of your strawman
arguments. So keep name calling, it's all you have.

>
> > “This means that all contemporary non-African humans
> > have descended from either M or N haplogroups, both
> > derived from the ancestral African haplogroup L3 (Amanuel Beyin
> > 2011).”
>
> Great. Mungo Man isn't one of them, and I began
> my role in this thread pointing out that the mtDNA
> is useless,

Liar, you can't even quote yourself correctly without distortring the
facts.
JTEM: "In fact, mtDNA is
probably the worst "Evidence" you could ever look at."

That is the silliest thing anyone on this thread has ever said.

Here are the facts:

"The mitochondrial deoxyribonucleic acid (mtDNA)
has been particularly useful for studies of human evolution

and prehistoricmigrations [49, 118, 119] (Beyin 2011)."


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-14947363

Clive Finlayson, director of the Gibraltar Museum,....

"In my view, it is the field of genetics that will help
us most in clarifying matters," he told BBC News."

and

http://tinyurl.com/6z99a5e

> and that according to it NOBODY alive
> today is related to Mungo Man's population of
> 40,000 years ago.
> Both these facts have been
> confirmed by your cites.... the one that says
> that Mungo Man's lineage is extinct and that his
> mtDNA is irrelevant to mtDNA data....

Mungo Man's sequience does not represent the entire species of Homo
sapiens, so you are wrong.
"Although there is a general consensus on African origin of early
modern humans, there is disagreement about how and when they dispersed
to Eurasia (Beyin 2011).

http://www.donsmaps.com/mungo.html
"But University of Sydney prehistorian Peter White says the debate
over Mungo Man's mitochondrial DNA is essentially irrelevant to
the big picture of evolution. "We're looking at one of those lines
of mitochondrial DNA that has disappeared. The fact that it is not
known in Australia is meaningless in a larger evolutionary sense."




>

> > Clive Finlayson, director of the Gibraltar Museum,....
> > "In my view, it is the field of genetics that will help
> > us most in clarifying matters," he told BBC News."
>
> "Genetics" != "mtDNA"

Duh....

>
> Secondly, many of the same problems arise. It is
> very easy to read DNA and impossible to know how
> it got that way.

Says who? Do you have a reference for that?

> However, this does not stop people
> from believing that it they do know.... idiot.

Just because you don't understand mtDNA is ancient is not an
argument.

>
> > > Especially when the point under
> > > discussion wasn't the "big picture of evolution," it
> > > was in fact the quality of mtDNA "evidence," and the
> > > assumptions surrounding it.
>
> > Huh?
>
> Your severe mental illness is showing again. THIS is
> what you're arguing against:

>
> : For starters, Australia might've been inhabited by
> : humans for, say, 60K years,

"might've been? Might not have been.

> but nobody seems
> : to be related to the Australians of even 40K years
> : ago.

The sequience of one person doen't make a species, so you are wrong
again.


> :
> : Google:  Mungo Man.

Why?

>
> As your own goddamn cite showed, Mungo Man's
> mtDNA lineage is extinct, there are no known
> descendents.

The sequience of one person doen't make a species, so you are wrong
again.
The mtDNA of the hair proves you are wrong.


>
> EXACTLY as I said,


What you *say* is reference free, data free, science-free nonsense.



>and you disagreed with

>
> You found something wrong with the quality of the paper?
>
> Well, let's see, it has absolutely no bearing on the facts
> surrounding Mungo Man and it's based on assumptions
> proven wrong by Mungo Man...

One link doesn't make a chain, so you are wrong. Why don't you admit
it?

>
> > > It's inexplicable.
>
> > No, it's science.
>
> There's nothing scientific about brushing aside
> inconvenient facts,

One link doesn't make a chain. Mungo is irrelevant, just as the quote
above states.

>and it's even less scientific

Since you don't understand the simplest of science, how would you
know?

> for you to twist and turn as you are doing, trying
> desperately to avoid confronting the fact that you
> are wrong, Wrong, *Wrong*.

Says the one-drop, name calling, reference snipper.

>
> When they compare the DNA from MODERN
> populations

Go back to school, mtDNA is ancient.

> they get one answer, and when they
> look at the DNA of ANCIENT populations they come
> up with a different answer.
> By any and every
> rule of logic and reason this means they have to
> be wrong.

Wrong again.



JTEM:

> > We know that isn't the case.

> > We know of hybridization, for example. The current

> > gene data linking non African populations to
> > Neanderthals confirms that much.
> > We weren't
> > us until our ancestors did the nasty with Neanderthals,
> > according to all the data.

LO:
> So Africans aren't us?

JTEM
>>They are a separate population, if that's what you're asking.
> > Google: Mungo Man.

JTEM:
"You are erroneously including Mungo Man with the
group "australians." What they are doing is comparing
the present population of the two continents, while what
I was doing is pointing out that the population...."


This is where you are making your mistake,
Mungo Man is not a "population". The tested hair is not a population
either,
but the person with the hair *did have ancestors* linked to Asia.

> of
>Australia tens of thousands of years ago left no
>descendents that we can detect.

Just because the Mungo Man (singular) didn't leave any ancetors is
irrelevant
for the same reason you claimed: "They are a separate
population,..."

No one can possibly be so ignorant as to think one drop makes a
population or represents a species as a whole.

The fact remains, this statement is correct:

http://www.donsmaps.com/mungo.html
"But University of Sydney prehistorian Peter White says the debate
over Mungo Man's mitochondrial DNA is essentially irrelevant to
the big picture of evolution. "We're looking at one of those lines
of mitochondrial DNA that has disappeared. The fact that it is not
known in Australia is meaningless in a larger evolutionary sense."

All your name calling isn't going to help you.

[JTEM]

Lee Olsen <paleoc...@hotmail.com> wrote:

>  Yawn... another data free, reference free, science free, 3rd-grade-
>  level reply.

Why do you keep posting those?

Now, getting back to what I was saying...

Mungo Man apparently has no known descendents of
his mtDNA lineage. He doesn't appear to be related
to the modern Aborigine population. YOUR OWN
GODDAMN CITE confirms this:

: The extinct DNA means Mungo was one version of modern
: man who developed from more primitive human forms
: independent from those in Africa.

Now maybe I'm granting you too much credit, maybe
you really have no clue what "Extinct" means, but YOUR
OWN CITE if confirming that Mungo Man's population
has no known living descendents.

But I also explained how useless mtDNA is. And, in a
comical twist that people might ordinarily accuse me
of making up, you post THIS cite in an attempt to
"Prove" that mtDNA is useful...

http://www.donsmaps.com/mungo.html
: "But University of Sydney prehistorian Peter White says the debate
: over Mungo Man's mitochondrial DNA is essentially irrelevant to
: the big picture of evolution. "We're looking at one of those lines
: of mitochondrial DNA that has disappeared. The fact that it is not
: known in Australia is meaningless in a larger evolutionary sense."

Keep in mind, all the data you've been quoting, all the
conclusions you've been defending have been based
on mtDNA, and here you are posting a cite saying that
the mtDNA of the actual ancient populations is irrelevant
to the mtDNA data...

Put another way: The mtDNA tells the story so long as
you ignore much of it.

But, back to what we were arguing...

I said that Mungo Man's population apparently has
no known descendents (confirmed by you) and
that mtDNA data sucks (again, conformed by your
own cite calling it "irrelevant."

This is where YOU pretend you're being mature
and scientific by refusing to own up to your
bone headed mistakes, and trying to make like
we were arguing something else.

THIS was our argument. THIS is what you were
claiming is not true: The very things you
confirmed with cites.

Take your meds, wipe your chin and FOR ONCE
admit your stupid mistakes, admit that you were
wrong.

[Lee Olsen]

On Oct 1, 12:33 pm, JTEM <jte...@gmail.com> wrote:
>  Lee Olsen <paleoc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >  Yawn... another data free, reference free, science free, 3rd-grade-
> >  level reply.
>
> Why do you keep posting those?
>
> Now, getting back to what I was saying...

What you are saying is nonsense, Mungo Man has nothing to do with the
big picture.

Original post:


Sep 25, 5:44 pm

Just because the Mungo Man (singular) didn't leave any descendents is
irrelevant
for the same reason you claimed: "They were a separate
population,..."

>
> Mungo Man apparently has no known descendents of
> his mtDNA lineage.

> He doesn't appear to be related
> to the modern Aborigine population.

JTEM "They are a separate population,..."

> YOUR OWN
> GODDAMN CITE confirms this:

YOUR OWN
GODDAMN WORDS confirms Mungo Man has nothing to do with anything.
You don't even understand what you write yourself, let alone what the
references are saying.

>
> : The extinct DNA means Mungo was one version of modern
> : man who developed from more primitive human forms
> : independent from those in Africa.

No, you cherry picked that out, I didn't cite that, you did. So if
your are going to believe EVERYTHING in that URL,
then you have to believe this also:

http://www.donsmaps.com/mungo.html
"But University of Sydney prehistorian Peter White says the debate
over Mungo Man's mitochondrial DNA is essentially irrelevant to
the big picture of evolution. "We're looking at one of those lines
of mitochondrial DNA that has disappeared.

>

> Now maybe I'm granting you too much credit, maybe
> you really have no clue what "Extinct" means,

Like the dodo bird, Mungo Manis irrelevant, "The fact that it is not

known in Australia is meaningless in a larger evolutionary sense."

> but YOUR
> OWN CITE if confirming that Mungo Man's population
> has no known living descendents.

Which disproves what you are saying and proves
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/early/2011/09/21/science.1211177.ab...

"We present an Aboriginal Australian genomic sequence obtained from a
100-year-old lock of hair donated by an Aboriginal man from southern
Western Australia in the early 20th century. We detect no evidence of
European admixture and estimate contamination levels to be below
0.5%.

We show that Aboriginal Australians are descendants of an early human
dispersal into eastern Asia, possibly 62,000 to 75,000 years ago.
This
dispersal is separate from the one that gave rise to modern Asians
25,000 to 38,000 years ago. We also find evidence of gene flow
between
populations of the two dispersal waves prior to the divergence of
Native Americans from modern Asian ancestors. Our findings support
the
hypothesis that present-day Aboriginal Australians descend from the
earliest humans to occupy Australia, likely representing one of the
oldest continuous populations outside Africa."



>

> But I also explained how useless mtDNA is.

Reference free nonsense.

Here are comments from people who understand mtDNA, you do not.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-14947363

Clive Finlayson, director of the Gibraltar Museum,....

"In my view, it is the field of genetics that will help
us most in clarifying matters," he told BBC News."

http://tinyurl.com/6z99a5e

> And, in a
> comical twist that people might ordinarily accuse me
> of making up, you post THIS cite in an attempt to
> "Prove" that mtDNA is useful...

Here are comments from people who actually understand mtDNA, you do
not.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-14947363

Clive Finlayson, director of the Gibraltar Museum,....

"In my view, it is the field of genetics that will help
us most in clarifying matters," he told BBC News."

> http://www.donsmaps.com/mungo.html
> : "But University of Sydney prehistorian Peter White says the debate
> : over Mungo Man's mitochondrial DNA is essentially irrelevant to
> : the big picture of evolution. "We're looking at one of those lines
> : of mitochondrial DNA that has disappeared. The fact that it is not
> : known in Australia is meaningless in a larger evolutionary sense."



>
> Keep in mind, all the data you've been quoting, all the
> conclusions you've been defending have been based
> on mtDNA, and here you are posting a cite saying that
> the mtDNA of the actual ancient populations is irrelevant
> to the mtDNA data...

Liar. You snipped out Beyin 2011, which is a review of all the
evidence, genetic, morpology, and archaeology.
You have been caught lying twice now.

>
> Put another way:  The mtDNA tells the story so long as
> you ignore much of it.

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/early/2011/09/21/science.1211177.ab...

"We present an Aboriginal Australian genomic sequence obtained from a
100-year-old lock of hair donated by an Aboriginal man from southern
Western Australia in the early 20th century. We detect no evidence of
European admixture and estimate contamination levels to be below
0.5%.

We show that Aboriginal Australians are descendants of an early human
dispersal into eastern Asia, possibly 62,000 to 75,000 years ago.
This
dispersal is separate from the one that gave rise to modern Asians
25,000 to 38,000 years ago. We also find evidence of gene flow
between
populations of the two dispersal waves prior to the divergence of
Native Americans from modern Asian ancestors. Our findings support
the
hypothesis that present-day Aboriginal Australians descend from the
earliest humans to occupy Australia, likely representing one of the
oldest continuous populations outside Africa."


>

> But, back to what we were arguing...
>
> I said that Mungo Man's population apparently has
> no known descendents (confirmed by you) and
> that mtDNA data sucks (again, conformed by your
> own cite calling it "irrelevant."

http://www.donsmaps.com/mungo.html
"But University of Sydney prehistorian Peter White says the debate
over Mungo Man's mitochondrial DNA is essentially irrelevant to
the big picture of evolution. "We're looking at one of those lines
of mitochondrial DNA that has disappeared. The fact that it is not
known in Australia is meaningless in a larger evolutionary sense."

The statement is correct. The fact you can't reference anything but
your own circular statements proves my point.

>
> This is where YOU pretend you're being mature
> and scientific by refusing to own up to your
> bone headed mistakes, and trying to make like
> we were arguing something else.

snip snip snip

http://www.donsmaps.com/mungo.html
"But University of Sydney prehistorian Peter White says the debate
over Mungo Man's mitochondrial DNA is essentially irrelevant to
the big picture of evolution. "We're looking at one of those lines
of mitochondrial DNA that has disappeared. The fact that it is not
known in Australia is meaningless in a larger evolutionary sense."

"Although there is a general consensus on African origin of early
modern humans, there is disagreement about how and when they
dispersed
to Eurasia (Beyin 2011).

http://www.donsmaps.com/mungo.html

"Our results showing a shared mtDNA lineage between Indians and
Australian Aborigines provides direct genetic evidence that Australia
was populated by modern humans through south Asia following the
"Southern Route".

http://tinyurl.com/6avsxkb

"Neanderthals have contributed approximately 1% to 4% to the genomes
of non-African modern humans."

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/early/2011/09/21/science.1211177.ab...

"We present an Aboriginal Australian genomic sequence obtained from a
100-year-old lock of hair donated by an Aboriginal man from southern
Western Australia in the early 20th century. We detect no evidence of
European admixture and estimate contamination levels to be below
0.5%.

We show that Aboriginal Australians are descendants of an early human
dispersal into eastern Asia, possibly 62,000 to 75,000 years ago.
This
dispersal is separate from the one that gave rise to modern Asians
25,000 to 38,000 years ago. We also find evidence of gene flow
between
populations of the two dispersal waves prior to the divergence of
Native Americans from modern Asian ancestors. Our findings support
the
hypothesis that present-day Aboriginal Australians descend from the
earliest humans to occupy Australia, likely representing one of the
oldest continuous populations outside Africa."

http://harpending.humanevo.utah.edu/Documents/eswarCApap.pdf
Current Anthropology, December 2002
Diffusion Wave out of Africa: The Mechanism of the ModernRevolution?
by Vinayak Eswaran

Ann Gibbons does a good job summing up where you are in error:
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/331/6016/394.summary
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/331/6016/392.summary

No, you are wrong all the way, you haven't gotten anything right yet.

>
> THIS was our argument. THIS is what you were
> claiming is not true:  The very things you
> confirmed with cites.

More data free, reference-free accusations.

>
> Take your meds, wipe your chin and FOR ONCE
> admit your stupid mistakes, admit that you were
> wrong.

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/early/2011/09/21/science.1211177.ab...

"We present an Aboriginal Australian genomic sequence obtained from a
100-year-old lock of hair donated by an Aboriginal man from southern
Western Australia in the early 20th century. We detect no evidence of
European admixture and estimate contamination levels to be below
0.5%.

We show that Aboriginal Australians are descendants of an early human
dispersal into eastern Asia, possibly 62,000 to 75,000 years ago.
This
dispersal is separate from the one that gave rise to modern Asians
25,000 to 38,000 years ago. We also find evidence of gene flow
between
populations of the two dispersal waves prior to the divergence of
Native Americans from modern Asian ancestors. Our findings support
the
hypothesis that present-day Aboriginal Australians descend from the
earliest humans to occupy Australia, likely representing one of the
oldest continuous populations outside Africa."

Well then, if they are wrong, in your delusional mind, are you
admitting you are too stupid to write a letter to Science and explain
that to them? What are you doing here (besides snipping and lying)?

No go back to school and see if you can learn that 1-5% isn't 95%.

[LloydB]

On Oct 1, 4:26 pm, Lee Olsen <paleoc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Oct 1, 12:33 pm, JTEM <jte...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >  Lee Olsen <paleoc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > >  Yawn... another data free, reference free, science free, 3rd-grade-
> > >  level reply.
>
> > Why do you keep posting those?
>
> > Now, getting back to what I was saying...

[snip]


sci.ARCHAEOLOGY

Where co-dependent OCD's go, to bicker about
the irrelevance of certain types of DNA.

Why don't you two get a room?

[Lee Olsen]

On Oct 1, 3:47 pm, LloydB <bogart.lloy%uwlax....@gtempaccount.com>
wrote:

> sci.ARCHAEOLOGY

Start reading....here...

"Although there is a general consensus on African origin of early
modern humans, there is disagreement about how and when they dispersed

to Eurasia. This paper reviews genetic and Middle Stone Age/Middle
Paleolithic archaeological literature from northeast Africa, Arabia,
and the Levant to assess the timing and geographic backgrounds of
Upper Pleistocene human colonization of Eurasia. At the center of the
discussion lies the question of whether eastern Africa alone was the
source of Upper Pleistocene human dispersals into Eurasia or were
there other loci of human expansions outside of Africa? The reviewed
literature hints at two modes of early modern human colonization of
Eurasia in the Upper Pleistocene: (i) from multiple Homo sapiens
source populations that had entered Arabia, South Asia, and the Levant
prior to and soon after the onset of the Last Interglacial (MIS-5),
(ii) from a rapid dispersal out of East Africa via the Southern Route
(across the Red Sea basin), dating to ~74–60 kya (Beyin 2011)."

and report back.

[JTEM]

LloydB <bogart.lloy%uwlax....@gtempaccount.com> wrote:

> sci.ARCHAEOLOGY
>
> Where co-dependent OCD's go, to bicker about
> the irrelevance of certain types of DNA.
>
> Why don't you two get a room?

Oh. My. Gawd.

Are you REALLY supposed to be a different person?

[JTEM]

Lee Olsen <paleoc...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> What you are saying is nonsense,

Thank you! You've proven me right with several
cites, but that's sweet of you just the same.

> Mungo Man has nothing to do with the
> big picture.

See? Now, see, this is exactly what I was
talking about. I made quite specific claims,
claims you proved correct with your cites,
and instead of admitting you were wrong
you're pretending that we were talking
about something else...

Fact is, as YOU established, the data
disproves the conclusions you advocate.

The data is based on mtDNA, as we all
know, and mtDNA is awful. It's the absolute
WORST kind of "Evidence," lending
itself to any and all preconceived notion.

And you proved this. You did.

With your cites demonstrating that the
mtDNA of the population which modern
Aborigines was supposed to descend
from is different -- unrelated -- from their
own.

This is why your cite called Mungo Man's
mtDNA "Irrelevant," because he doesn't
jive with their conclusion based on a
sampling of modern populations.

And then there's the fact that we know
multi regionalism is true to some extent.
We know that from the Neanderthal data,
and we can't take what we learn THERE
and not apply to HERE.

The safe, common sense most conservative
assumption that latter migrations from
Africa interbred with the populations from the
previous migrations (the Asian descendants
of Homo erectus) has to be applied here. It
has to. Far from scientific, it would be reckless
to not assume this occurred.

Yet, you keep cherry picking out-of-Africa
purists and pretending that their opinions
are scientific fact.....

Man, you're an idiot.

> Original post:
>
> Sep 25, 5:44 pm

My original post, the one YOU replied to, was on
the 24th.

And, even a cursory view of what you quoted
makes it clear to the non-idiots that it's not
my original post, that it's a reply to you... to
your response to my original post.

You're not just dumb, you're not just crazy & dumb,
you're also a liar....

[Lee Olsen]

On Oct 2, 9:10 am, JTEM <jte...@gmail.com> wrote:
>  Lee Olsen <paleoc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > What you are saying is nonsense,
>
> Thank you!  You've proven me right with several
> cites,

Liar.

>
> > Mungo Man has nothing to do with the
> > big picture.
>
> See? Now, see, this is exactly what I was
> talking about.
> I made quite specific claims,

Yes, and very wrong.

Here is exactly were you were quite specific:

On Sep 25, 5:44 pm, JTEM <jte...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Lee Olsen <paleoc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>

> > On Sep 23, 10:20 pm, JTEM <jte...@gmail.com> wrote:

> >We weren't
> >us until our ancestors did the nasty with Neanderthals,
> >according to all the data.

> > So Africans aren't us?
>

> They are a separate population, if that's what you're asking.

There are thousands of separate populations of humans on this planet,
but that doesn't make "us" "different" at the species level,
Neandertals or not.

Africans are exactly the same as all of "us" at the species level,
but a much older population at the local level.

LO: > > If the Neandertals never existed, we would all still be us.

Sept 27, 1:18 am
JTEM: > No. We would be something else.

Wrong, we still would all be Homo sapiens sapiens in the big picture.

"Definition for homo sapiens sapiens:
subspecies of Homo sapiens; includes all modern races."
wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

Proving you know absolutely nothing about genetics or anthopology,
making this the most illiterate statement ever made on this list:

Sept 25, 5:44 pm

JTEM: "In fact, mtDNA is probably the worst "Evidence" you could ever
look at."

Proven wrong but those who understand what you don't:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-14947363
Clive Finlayson, director of the Gibraltar Museum,....
"In my view, it is the field of genetics that will help
us most in clarifying matters," he told BBC News."

and
http://tinyurl.com/6z99a5e

[JTEM]

Insane, Lee Olsen <paleoc...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> JTEM <jte...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Thank you!  You've proven me right with several
> > cites,
>
> Liar.

Nope. We've been over this, LeeTard. YOU provided
the cite denouncing Mungo Man's mtDNA as
irrelevant (to data based entirely on mtDNA), and YOU
provided a cite proving I was right, that Mungo Man's
mtDNA is "Extinct" (that's the word they used) and
YOU provided a cite confirming multi regionalism to
whatever extent with the Neanderthal interbreeding.

Ironically, you did all thing thinking you were doing
the opposite....

> > See? Now, see, this is exactly what I was
> > talking about.
> > I made quite specific claims,
>
> Yes, and very wrong.
>
> Here is exactly were you were quite specific:
>
> On Sep 25, 5:44 pm, JTEM <jte...@gmail.com> wrote:

Wrong. Well, you're lying, actually. My post was on
the 24th, not the 25th, and this is it:

: I'll tell you right now that it's inaccurate.

:
: For starters, Australia might've been inhabited by

: humans for, say, 60K years, but nobody seems

: to be related to the Australians of even 40K years
: ago.

:
: Google: Mungo Man.
:
: Secondly, the very idea that moderns humans
: popped up fully formed, and then spread across
: the planet, is idiotic. We know that isn't the case.

; We know of hybridization, for example. The current
: gene data linking non African populations to

: Neanderthals confirms that much. We weren't

: us until our ancestors did the nasty with Neanderthals,
; according to all the data.

:
: The morphological evidence had been super
: strong for years -- decades even. And now the
: DNA evidence is on board...

But, Lee, ARE totally insane... a complete nut job.

I mean, why would you intentionally skip by my
original post, the one YOU began your argument
with me by responding to, when you know that not
only can I prove you wrong, but anyone who cares
could have looked for themselves?

You're twisted. Your inability to admit your astonishingly
stupid mistakes forces you into bizarre behaviors....

[Lee Olsen]

On Oct 2, 9:10 am, JTEM <jte...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Lee Olsen <paleoc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > What you are saying is nonsense,
>

> Thank you! You've proven me right with several
> cites,

Liar.

>

> > Mungo Man has nothing to do with the
> > big picture.
>

> See? Now, see, this is exactly what I was
> talking about.
> I made quite specific claims,

Yes, and very wrong.

Here is exactly were you were quite specific:

On Sep 25, 5:44 pm, JTEM <jte...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Lee Olsen <paleoc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Sep 23, 10:20 pm, JTEM <jte...@gmail.com> wrote:

> >We weren't
> >us until our ancestors did the nasty with Neanderthals,
> >according to all the data.

[JTEM]

Insane liar, Lee Olsen <paleoc...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> Liar.

not quite. Not at all. But you're incapable of
admitting your ridiculous mistakes so I see
your need to pretend that I'm lying. now, let's
look at what I actually said together with
some of the cites you posted in this thread.
I'm not afraid of proving that I'm right. And,
why should I be? I mean, seeing how YOU
already proved I'm right...

I said:

: I'll tell you right now that it's inaccurate.
:
: For starters, Australia might've been inhabited by
: humans for, say, 60K years, but nobody seems
: to be related to the Australians of even 40K years
: ago.
:
: Google: Mungo Man.

You proved this right with a cite that said this:

} The extinct DNA means Mungo was one version of modern
} man who developed from more primitive human forms
} independent from those in Africa.

So that's JTEM: 1, Crazy psycho: 0.

Next I said...

: Secondly, the very idea that moderns humans
: popped up fully formed, and then spread across
: the planet, is idiotic. We know that isn't the case.
; We know of hybridization, for example. The current
: gene data linking non African populations to

: Neanderthals confirms that much. We weren't

: us until our ancestors did the nasty with Neanderthals,
; according to all the data.

:

: The morphological evidence had been super
: strong for years -- decades even. And now the
: DNA evidence is on board...

And here you are proving me right again:

} "Neanderthals have contributed approximately 1% to 4%
} to the genomes of non-African modern humans."

There. Now it's true our exchange grew a little as
your cheap rationalizations went on, but it remained
firmly planted on the above foundation. For example,
when you were insanely misrepresenting a comparison
of modern populations as a look at ancient populations
who were trying to "disprove" the fact that Mungo
Man's mtDNA is extinct.

Man, you're crazy....

[Lee Olsen]

On Oct 2, 6:50 pm, JTEM <jte...@gmail.com> wrote:
http://www.learnersdictionary.com/search/lip%20service

On Oct 2, 9:10 am, JTEM <jte...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Lee Olsen <paleoc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > What you are saying is nonsense,
>
> Thank you! You've proven me right with several
> cites,

Liar.

>
> > Mungo Man has nothing to do with the
> > big picture.
>
> See? Now, see, this is exactly what I was
> talking about.
> I made quite specific claims,

Yes, and very wrong.

Here is exactly were you were quite specific:

On Sep 25, 5:44 pm, JTEM <jte...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Lee Olsen <paleoc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Sep 23, 10:20 pm, JTEM <jte...@gmail.com> wrote:

> >We weren't
> >us until our ancestors did the nasty with Neanderthals,
> >according to all the data.

[Lee Olsen]

On Sep 23, 4:27 pm, Meteorologist <dchristain...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Popular Archaeologyhttp://popular-archaeology.com/issue/september-2011/article/aborigina...
>
> Please see map at end of article.


http://tinyurl.com/3jy8fqj
Abstract

We present an Aboriginal Australian genomic sequence obtained from a
100-year-old lock of hair donated by an Aboriginal man from southern
Western
Australia in the early 20th century. We detect no evidence of European
admixture
and estimate contamination levels to be below 0.5%. We show that
Aboriginal
Australians are descendants of an early human dispersal into eastern
Asia,
possibly 62,000 to 75,000 years ago. This dispersal is separate from
the one
that gave rise to modern Asians 25,000 to 38,000 years ago. We also
find
evidence of gene flow between populations of the two dispersal waves
prior to
the divergence of Native Americans from modern Asian ancestors. Our
findings
support the hypothesis that present-day Aboriginal Australians descend
from the
earliest humans to occupy Australia, likely representing one of the
oldest
continuous populations outside Africa.

and


http://www.cell.com/AJHG/abstract/S0002-9297(11)00395-8
Reich, D., et al.
Copyright 2011 The American Society of Human Genetics All rights
reserved.
The American Journal of Human Genetics, 22 September 2011
doi:10.1016/j.ajhg.2011.09.005
Denisova Admixture and the First Modern Human Dispersals into
Southeast Asia and Oceania

Abstract
It has recently been shown that ancestors of New Guineans and
Bougainville Islanders have inherited a proportion of their ancestry
from Denisovans, an archaic hominin group from Siberia. However, only
a sparse sampling of populations from Southeast Asia and Oceania were
analyzed. Here, we quantify Denisova admixture in 33 additional
populations from Asia and Oceania. Aboriginal Australians, Near
Oceanians, Polynesians, Fijians, east Indonesians, and Mamanwa (a
Negrito group from the Philippines) have all inherited genetic
material from Denisovans, but mainland East Asians, western
Indonesians, Jehai (a Negrito group from Malaysia), and Onge (a
Negrito group from the Andaman Islands) have not. These results
indicate that Denisova gene flow occurred into the common ancestors of
New Guineans, Australians, and Mamanwa but not into the ancestors of
the Jehai and Onge and suggest that relatives of present-day East
Asians were not in Southeast Asia when the Denisova gene flow
occurred. Our finding that descendants of the earliest inhabitants of
Southeast Asia do not all harbor Denisova admixture is inconsistent
with a history in which the Denisova interbreeding occurred in
mainland Asia and then spread over Southeast Asia, leading to all its
earliest modern human inhabitants. Instead, the data can be most
parsimoniously explained if the Denisova gene flow occurred in
Southeast Asia itself. Thus, archaic Denisovans must have lived over
an extraordinarily broad geographic and ecological range, from Siberia
to tropical Asia.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

from
http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2011/09/widespread-denisovan-admixture-reich-et.html

UPDATE II: A possible reason why East Asians lack Denisovan admixture
is given by Mark Stoneking, as quoted in Nature:
Stoneking says that this pattern hints at at least two waves of human
migration into Asia: an early trek that included the ancestors of
contemporary Aboriginal Australians, New Guineans and some other
Oceanians, followed by a second wave that gave rise to the present
residents of mainland Asia. Some members of the first wave (though not
all of them) interbred with Denisovans. However, the Denisovans may
have vanished by the time the second Asian migrants arrived. This also
suggests that the Denisovan's range, so far linked only to a cave in
southern Siberia, once extended to Southeast Asia and perhaps Oceania.
Given that the Denisova hominin is about 41ka old, that would imply
that East Asian ancestors moved through their territory after that
date, when the Denisovans were already extinct, partially absorbed by
first-wave "Australasian-like" people.

[Lee Olsen]

On Sep 28, 7:37 am, JTEM <jte...@gmail.com> wrote:
> , Lee Olsen <paleoc...@hotmail.com> wrote:

>
> > > Google:  Mungo Man.
>
> Check this out; in a debate where I said that mtDNA
> was the worst kind of evidence,youtry to prove me
> wrong by cherry picking a quote that says mtDNA
> is meaningless:

>
> >http://www.donsmaps.com/mungo.html
> > "But University of Sydney prehistorian Peter White says the debate
> > over Mungo Man's mitochondrial DNA is essentially irrelevant to
> > the big picture of evolution. "We're looking at one of those lines
> > of mitochondrial DNA that has disappeared. The fact that it is not
> > known in Australia is meaningless in a larger evolutionary sense."
>

> The kicker?

The kicker is he didn't say "mtDNA is meaningless" as you claim, he
said "Mungo Man's mitochondrial DNA is essentially irrelevant"

Either you can't read or you are a word-switching troll, which is
it?

[JTEM]

Lee Olsen <paleoc...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> > >http://www.donsmaps.com/mungo.html
> > > "But University of Sydney prehistorian Peter White says the debate
> > > over Mungo Man's mitochondrial DNA is essentially irrelevant to
> > > the big picture of evolution. "We're looking at one of those lines
> > > of mitochondrial DNA that has disappeared. The fact that it is not
> > > known in Australia is meaningless in a larger evolutionary sense."

> The kicker is he didn't say "mtDNA is meaningless" as you claim,

It's impossible for a sane person to see an issue as #1
Paraphrasing is perfectly acceptable and #2 the actual
quote was provided so nobody could be confused as to
what the precise words said.

Then again, if you weren't a mental case, if you could
simply admit your idiotic mistakes you wouldn't have
to stoop to this nonsense...

[JTEM]

Lee Olsen <paleoc...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> It has recently been shown that ancestors of New Guineans and
> Bougainville Islanders have inherited a proportion of their ancestry
> from Denisovans,

You do realize that you're back to SUPPORTING the
multi regional hypothesis with these cites, right?

You're disputing the out-of-Africa purists, again.

[JTEM]

, Lee Olsen <paleoc...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> There are thousands of separate populations of humans on this planet,
> but that doesn't make "us" "different" at the species level,

I never said we were. In fact, I never said that Neanderthals
were a different species.

How many dog species do you think there are? I'll give you
a hint: You can count them all on two fingers and not use
one of them....

> Africans are exactly the same as all of "us" at the species level,

That's absolutely meaningless as "Species" is a human
invented term, not a natural thing, and it's a rather ill
defined term at that. It's only useful for describing the
obvious, which makes it useless.

For example, we can say that Whales and Goats are
two different "Species," but it's clear that they are
unrelated, and nobody can say where the lines between
a species, subspecies or simple variations exist.

> Wrong, we still would all be Homo sapiens sapiens in the big picture.

Neanderthals aren't. Your Denisovans aren't. And some
populations are part them while others are not.

Thus, modern humans result in hybridization and not
all populations are the same hybrid.

I've believed this for years, and have openly argued it
for some time....

[JTEM]

Lee Olsen <paleoc...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> Here is exactly were you were quite specific:
>
> On Sep 25, 5:44 pm, JTEM <jte...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >We weren't
> > >us until our ancestors did the nasty with Neanderthals,
> > >according to all the data.
> > > So Africans aren't us?
>
> > They are a separate population, if that's what you're asking.
>
> There are thousands of separate populations of humans on this planet,
> but that doesn't make "us" "different" at the species level,
> Neandertals or not.

Neanderthals weren't a different species. Those earliest
"Moderns" to reach Europe were as far away from us
as Neanderthals were. Why not call them a different
species?

You're so fucked up that you're now arguing against the
things that NOBODY has said...

[Lee Olsen]

On Oct 3, 10:25 am, JTEM <jte...@gmail.com> wrote:
>  Lee Olsen <paleoc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > >http://www.donsmaps.com/mungo.html
> > > > "But University of Sydney prehistorian Peter White says the debate
> > > > over Mungo Man's mitochondrial DNA is essentially irrelevant to
> > > > the big picture of evolution. "We're looking at one of those lines
> > > > of mitochondrial DNA that has disappeared. The fact that it is not
> > > > known in Australia is meaningless in a larger evolutionary sense."

> > The kicker is he didn't say as you claim,

>
> It's impossible for a sane person to see an issue as #1
> Paraphrasing is perfectly acceptable

No it's not. You lied, he didn't say mnDNA was "meaningless" as you

claimed. He said just the opposite, he said:
"The fact that it is not known in Australia is meaningless in a
larger evolutionary sense."

I notice you were forced to snip out your own words after you realized
your mistake:
JTEM:

> Check this out; in a debate where I said that mtDNA
> was the worst kind of evidence,youtry to prove me
> wrong by cherry picking a quote that says mtDNA
> is meaningless:

Admit it, you made a mistake and didn't read the quote correctly, stop
tring to lie your way out my snipping.

> and #2  the actual
> quote was provided so nobody could be confused as to
> what the precise words said.

That fact that some populations go extinct doesn't mean the DNA to
identifiy it is flawed, or how else would you know it's extinct? You
are forced to use their DNA data or you wouldn't know the lineage was
lost in the first place.

>
> Then again, if you weren't a mental case, if you could
> simply admit your idiotic mistakes you wouldn't have
> to stoop to this nonsense...

If you could only learn to use a mouse to copy and paste, you wouldn't
get so mixed up on what the quote actually said.

[Lee Olsen]

On Oct 3, 10:30 am, JTEM <jte...@gmail.com> wrote:
>  Lee Olsen <paleoc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > It has recently been shown that ancestors of New Guineans and
> > Bougainville Islanders have inherited a proportion of their ancestry
> > from Denisovans,
>
> You do realize that you're back to SUPPORTING the
> multi regional hypothesis with these cites, right?

Try learing to read: "inherited a proportion".

>
> You're disputing the out-of-Africa purists, again.

Nope, a 'one-drop' doesn't change a thing.

[Lee Olsen]

On Oct 3, 10:56 am, JTEM <jte...@gmail.com> wrote:
> , Lee Olsen <paleoc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > There are thousands of separate populations of humans on this planet,
> > but that doesn't make "us" "different" at the species level,
>
> I never said we were. In fact, I never said that Neanderthals
> were a different species.

Neither did I, but you claimed "Africans" were a different population,
which doesn't mean a thing at the
species level.


LO:

> > So Africans aren't us?

JTEM:

> They are a separate population, if that's what you're asking.

>

> How many dog species do you think there are? I'll give you
> a hint:  You can count them all on two fingers and not use
> one of them....

Correct.

>
> > Africans are exactly the same as all of "us" at the species level,
>
> That's absolutely meaningless as "Species" is a human
> invented term, not a natural thing, and it's a rather ill
> defined term at that. It's only useful for describing the
> obvious, which makes it useless.

Thank you, and for that same reason "Mungo Man" was a usless analogy
made by you. You just proved you were wrong.

>
> For example, we can say that Whales and Goats are
> two different "Species," but it's clear that they are
> unrelated, and nobody can say where the lines between
> a species, subspecies or simple variations exist.
>
> > Wrong, we still would all be Homo sapiens sapiens in the big picture.
>
> Neanderthals aren't.

Neandertals are extinct.

> Your Denisovans aren't.

They are extinct also.

> And some
> populations are part them while others are not.

>
> Thus, modern humans result in hybridization and not
> all populations are the same hybrid.
>
> I've believed this for years, and have openly argued it
> for some time....

So your comment:
JTEM: "We weren't us until our ancestors did the nasty with
Neanderthals" is no more valid with them than Mungo Man.

So you could do away with all collie dogs, and dogs at the species
level would still be dogs.

Same for our species, you could do away with Neandertals and Mungo
Man both and we would still all be "us",
just as I claimed:

[Lee Olsen]

On Oct 3, 10:34 am, JTEM <jte...@gmail.com> wrote:
>  Lee Olsen <paleoc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Here is exactly were you were quite specific:
>
> > On Sep 25, 5:44 pm, JTEM <jte...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >We weren't
> > > >us until our ancestors did the nasty with Neanderthals,
> > > >according to all the data.

JTEM:

"How many dog species do you think there are? I'll give you
a hint: You can count them all on two fingers and not use
one of them...."

So with or without Neandertals, we would still be "us", Neandertals
had nothing to do with anything, and neither did Mungo Man. Thanks for
your confession that you were wrong when you made the "nasty" comment
about "Neanderthals"

> > > > So Africans aren't us?
>
> > > They are a separate population, if that's what you're asking.
>
> > There are thousands of separate populations of humans on this planet,
> > but that doesn't make "us" "different" at the species level,
> > Neandertals or not.
>
> Neanderthals weren't a different species. Those earliest
> "Moderns" to reach Europe were as far away from us
> as Neanderthals were. Why not call them a different
> species?

You are babbling, do you want to try that again?

>
> You're so fucked up that you're now arguing against the
> things that NOBODY has said...

JTEM:

"We weren't us until our ancestors did the nasty with Neanderthals,
according to all the data."

You said that, not me and it's flat wrong. You proved it yourself with
your dog analogy.
If dingos, say, had gone extinct, dogs would still be dogs. Same
applies to Neandertals, Mungo Man, and even the new
postulated African Archaic in Stringer's new hypothesis. We are are
all still "us" just as I said.

Your "Google: Mungo Man." was a totally worthless analogy, same with
your silly comment

"We weren't us until our ancestors did the nasty with Neanderthals,
according to all the data."

Thanks for playing.

[JTEM]

Lee Olsen <paleoc...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> > It's impossible for a sane person to see an issue as #1

> > Paraphrasing is perfectly acceptable and #2 the actual

> > quote was provided so nobody could be confused as to
> > what the precise words said.

> No it's not. You lied, he didn't say mnDNA was  "meaningless" as you
> claimed. He said just the opposite, he said:
>  "The fact that it is not known in Australia is meaningless in a
> larger evolutionary sense."

That's not the opposite. and the word he used was "irrelevant."
You lied. You either lied when you said there was a problem
with my paraphrasing or you're intentionally lying now. Either
way you lied.

Oh, and you're a moron and you're a mental case.

Now, get over yourself, admit your idiotic mistakes and
move on.

[JTEM]

Lee Olsen <paleoc...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> On Oct 3, 10:30 am, JTEM <jte...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > You do realize that you're back to SUPPORTING the
> > multi regional hypothesis with these cites, right?
>
> Try learing to read: "inherited a proportion".

Yup. That is multi regionalism. I prefer to think of it as
hybridization myself, something I've long argued, including
with you posting under various sock puppets alt
anthropology paleo.

The status quo preaches the ridiculous idea of modern
man fully forming on the Savannah and then spreading
across the globe. It. Never. Happened. All the evidence
says this, all of it. The DNA evidence, the morphological
evidence... all of it says that "modern" man is a result
of interbreeding between distinct groups. How much from
each group, what exactly you inherited all depended
upon your region.

Get used to it.

[JTEM]

, Lee Olsen <paleoc...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> On Oct 3, 10:56 am, JTEM <jte...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > I never said we were. In fact, I never said that Neanderthals
> > were a different species.
>
> Neither did I,

You did, actually. You didn't use those words but to claim
that it isn't what you meant is to render your words as
utter gibberish.

[JTEM]

Lee Olsen <paleoc...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> JTEM:
> "How many dog species do you think there are? I'll give you
> a hint:  You can count them all on two fingers and not use
> one of them...."
>
> So with or without Neandertals, we would still be "us",

No we would not. It would be like claiming that you'd be
the same person even if you had a different grandparent.
You would not be the same.

Man, you are ignorant....

[Lee Olsen]

On Oct 3, 9:25 pm, JTEM <jte...@gmail.com> wrote:

[...]

Sept 25, 5:44 pm

JTEM:
> In fact, mtDNA is
probably the worst "Evidence" you could ever look at.

>Secondly, Mungo Man isn't part of any such lineage,

... the only way you know that he "isn't part of any
such lineage" is to use DNA evidence yourself, which you
just claimed was the "worst". That's taking circular
reasoning to the extreme.


> which
was my point. According to the best evidence he is not
part of any modern lineage what so ever."

....which is based on DNA results, so why are you using DNA results
if it's the "worst"?

[Lee Olsen]

On Oct 3, 9:34 pm, JTEM <jte...@gmail.com> wrote:
>  Lee Olsen <paleoc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Oct 3, 10:30 am, JTEM <jte...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > You do realize that you're back to SUPPORTING the
> > > multi regional hypothesis with these cites, right?
>
> > Try learing to read: "inherited a proportion".
>
> Yup. That is multi regionalism.

Nope, it is not multiregionalism, you don't understand anymore about
multiregionalism than you do
DNA, which you were forced to use yourself here:

>I prefer to think of it as
> hybridization myself, something I've long argued, including
> with you posting under various sock puppets alt
> anthropology paleo.

What you "prefer" is to use what you claimed as the "worst" evidence,
DNA, to support your claim Mungo Man
wasn't part of "part of any modern lineage what so ever." You can't
have it both ways, DNA is either the best evidence
to show he wasn't part of any such lineage or he was part based on
morphology. Which is it?

Your "Google Mungo Man." analogy was flawed and your own argument
contradictory.

[Lee Olsen]

Which still doesn't change "a different grandparent" into a different
species, it simply adds variation to the gene pool.
One collie dog mixed with 100 pit bulls wouldn't change a thing, dogs
are still dogs.

>
> Man, you are ignorant....

But not as ignorant as you.

[Lee Olsen]

On Oct 3, 9:37 pm, JTEM <jte...@gmail.com> wrote:
> , Lee Olsen <paleoc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Oct 3, 10:56 am, JTEM <jte...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > I never said we were. In fact, I never said that Neanderthals
> > > were a different species.
>
> > Neither did I,
>
> You did, actually. You didn't use those words

Your inability to quote me directly proves you are lying.

> but to claim
> that it isn't what you meant is to render your words as
> utter gibberish.

Your paraphrasing is gibberish.

Sept, 29, 9:49 pm
LO:
"But the genomic data also don't prove the classic multiregionalism
model,
which argues that a single, worldwide species of human, including
archaic
forms outside of Africa, met, mingled, and had offspring, and so
produced
Homo sapiens." Ann Gibbons [thank you Ann, good girl]

Kiss the old multiregional hypothesis goodbye."

[JTEM]

Lee Olsen <paleoc...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> > Yup. That is multi regionalism.
>
> Nope,

You don't know what you're talking about. You're
dirt ignorant as well as bat shit crazy.

> >I prefer to think of it as
> > hybridization myself, something I've long argued, including
> > with you posting under various sock puppets alt
> > anthropology paleo.
>
> What you "prefer"

I know what I prefer, and unlike you I have reading
comprehension and an understanding of the
science beyond a third grade level. So who do you
think you are and why aren't you properly medicated?

is to use what you claimed as the "worst" evidence,
> DNA, to support your claim Mungo Man
> wasn't part of "part of any modern lineage what so ever."

There is no inconsistency. We need only look at the
DNA to see it is different, unrelated, but what is
impossible -- what this evidence does not so much
as hint at -- is how these two unrelated populations
came to exist in the same place.

Again, this is nothing new. We've been over this many,
many, many times with you using a number of your
twisted personalities. You're cherry picking words and
pretending that they exist in isolation, when in fact
there is a long history behind them.

So, you're dishonest as well as stupid and bat shit
crazy.

[JTEM]

Lee Olsen <paleoc...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> Which still doesn't change "a different grandparent" into a different
> species,

We've been down this path before. This is where I point out
that I'm NOT saying Neanderthals were a different species,
and then you reply (just like you did last time) pretending
that you aren't either, rendering your comments here gibberish.

"Species" is a useless term here. It's meaningless. There is
no useful definition for "Species" which allows us to determine
when two closely related populations become two species. So,
why do YOU keep bring it up? I mean, BESIDES your rank
ignorance and severe emotional problems?

[JTEM]

Lee Olsen <paleoc...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> probably the worst "Evidence" you could ever look at.

Yup. For years it was claimed that the mtDNA showed
no interbreeding between Neanderthals and so-called
"Moderns," when it fact it couldn't. And Here is has
been used to defend an out-of-Africa replacement
model which we know for a fact is wrong....

> >Secondly, Mungo Man isn't part of any such lineage,

That's true AGAIN. As your own cite confirmed, his
mtDNA lineage is extinct....

You did find out what "extinct" means, right?

> ... the only way you know that he "isn't part of any
> such lineage" is to use DNA evidence yourself,

The only inconstancy is in your warped brain. We have
a long history, in this and that other group, with you
posting under several of your demented personalities,
and during that long history I've pointed out numerous
times that it's real easy to see what DNA is and next
to impossible to see how it got that way. See that
two mtDNA lineages are different -- unrelated -- would
be covered under the former, seeing what it is. What
we can't do, and what you are pretending to do is
tell us how it got that way with your maps and
looking at modern populations...

Man, you're fucked in the head. I mean, you are seriously
fucked in the head....

[JTEM]

Watch as, once again, LeeTard posts an
opinion and thinks he's posting evidence...

Psycho Lee Olsen <paleoc...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> "But the genomic data also don't prove the classic multiregionalism
> model,
> which argues that a single, worldwide species of human, including
> archaic
> forms outside of Africa, met, mingled, and had offspring, and so
> produced
> Homo sapiens." Ann Gibbons [thank you Ann, good girl]

Ironically, we both know for a fact that it disproves out-of-Africa
which is also known as "Replacement." But, as for what is
supposed to be a cite but is just some idiot's opinion....

That's not even an accurate paraphrasing of multi regionalism,
let alone "Evidence."

"Multi Regionalism" encompasses a number of theories. The
first I heard was that the earth was populated by successive
waves, the last being the wave that populated Asia, and that
each of these groups became Europeans, Africans, Asians
and Aberigines.

Yes, the first multi regional theory I heard had four races...

And the flavor of multi regionalism I;ve heard most often
ALWAYS called for interbreeding, It was always part of
the theory. Now THIS version is definitely true to some
extent, and the only question that remains is which
extent...

Neanderthals were a separate population following their
own evolutionary path, as were your Denisovans.
These and others from different regions -- multi regions --
formed unique populations, each with their own
distinct adaptations -- traits -- and the interbreeding
(hybridization) of these groups is what made us moderns.

But it didn't start with them. It had to start millions of
years ago, with the ice age or before.

[Lee Olsen]

On Oct 4, 10:36 am, JTEM <jte...@gmail.com> wrote:
>  Lee Olsen <paleoc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > Yup. That is multi regionalism.
>
> > Nope,
>
> You don't know what you're talking about. You're
> dirt ignorant as well as bat shit crazy.

Another reference free, personal opinion comment. Here is what a
reference looks like:
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/331/6016/392.summary

"But the genomic data also don't prove the classic multiregionalism
model, which argues that a single, worldwide species of human,
including archaic forms outside of Africa, met, mingled, and had

offspring, and so produced Homo sapiens. They suggest only a small
amount of interbreeding, presumably at the margins where invading
moderns met archaic groups. The new picture most resembles so-called
assimilation models, which got relatively little attention over the
years."

The reason she can made a good living writing about science is because
she knows something.
The reason you can't is because you don't know a thing about science
or anthropology.

>
> > >I prefer to think of it as
> > > hybridization myself, something I've long argued, including
> > > with you posting under various sock puppets alt
> > > anthropology paleo.
>
> > What you "prefer"
>
> I know what I prefer, and unlike you I have reading
> comprehension and an understanding of the
> science beyond a third grade level. So who do you
> think you are and why aren't you properly medicated?

More reference free, personal-attack nonsense. Prove Gibbons wrong.

>
>  is to use what you claimed as the "worst" evidence,
>
> > DNA, to support your claim Mungo Man
> > wasn't part of "part of any modern lineage what so ever."
>
> There is no inconsistency.

Yes there is, you claimed DNA is the worst, yet you are forced to use
it in your argument that Mungo is extinct.

> We need only look at the
> DNA to see it is different,

There you go, you can't function with out DNA evidence. So how can you
call it the "worst"?

> unrelated, but what is
> impossible -- what this evidence does not so much
> as hint at -- is how these two unrelated populations
> came to exist in the same place.

Like 14C dating and new fossils being discovered, science is improving
all the time. So DNA studies are improving also. They didn't have
today's technology when Mungo was tested, and they can't test him over
again. I remember when Barry Scheck used to get people off in court
because of contamination, that doesn't happen very often nowdays.

>
> Again, this is nothing new. We've been over this many,
> many, many times with you using a number of your
> twisted personalities. You're cherry picking words and
> pretending that they exist in isolation, when in fact
> there is a long history behind them.
>
> So, you're dishonest as well as stupid and bat shit
> crazy.

More data free, reference-free accusations.

Go ahead, prove Gibbons wrong, show us your rebuttal with something
besides four-letter words.
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/331/6016/392.summary

"But the genomic data also don't prove the classic multiregionalism
model, which argues that a single, worldwide species of human,
including archaic forms outside of Africa, met, mingled, and had
offspring, and so produced Homo sapiens."

The world will patiently waiting for you to prove her bat shit crazy.

[JTEM]

Lee Olsen <paleoc...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> Another reference free, personal opinion comment.

You do that a lot. AND you post unrelated quotes
and pretend that they're cites. You also post a
lot of cites that disprove you, and then spend a
great deal of time pretending that they don't.

Here's one for example:

> "But the genomic data also don't prove the classic multiregionalism
> model, which argues that a single, worldwide species of human,
> including archaic forms outside of Africa, met, mingled, and had
> offspring, and so produced Homo sapiens.

That's not multi regionalism at all. In fact, it doesn't even make
sense. ]

Hint: What do the words "multi" and "Regionalism" mean, and
where are they incorporated in the above?

Hint, hint: Nowhere. They're definition of "multi regionalism"
lacks multi regions....

> They suggest only a small
> amount of interbreeding,

Wrong. totally wrong. If the cites YOU posted here
are accurate, the interbreeding was significant. It
resulted in genetic differences between populations
equal to some 1000 to 6000% of the differences
within a population.

> The reason she can made a good living writing about science is because
> she knows something.

No, it's because you don't know something and lack
reading comprehension. Seriously, you twisted
psycho, the description of multi regionalism lacks
multi regions!

You're an idiot. You're a goddamn idiot.

> More reference free, personal-attack nonsense.

Yeah, why do you keep doing that?

> Prove Gibbons wrong.

How "Scientific" of you: "Prove a negative."

Well, idiot, how would YOU go about disproving
a description of multi regionalism that lacks
any multi regionalism what so ever? Hmm?

> Yes there is, you claimed DNA is the worst,

As I said, we have a history. I've explained many
times, with you following along using this and
other personalities -- in other groups -- and here
you are ignoring all that because you know you
haven't a leg to stand on...

The mtDNA evidence doesn't agree with itself.
The mtDNA is proven to not show the things
that morons like you claim.

It is not a clock. It can't tell you how it got to
look the way it is. It doesn't show anyone
living anywhere, or coming from anywhere.

Mungo Man's mtDNA lineage is extinct. A
comparison of Mungo Man's mtDNA to modern
population shows that nobody alive today
appears related to anyone alive in Mungo Man's
time.

A comparison of MODERN populations says
something totally different

Well, not really. The DNA is telling us nothing
but what it looks like, and it's jackasses like
you who project your opinions onto that data.

Moron.

[Lee Olsen]

On Oct 4, 10:10 pm, JTEM <jte...@gmail.com> wrote:
>  Lee Olsen <paleoc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Another reference free, personal opinion comment.
>
> You do that a lot.

That's because you repeat your ignorance a lot.

> AND you post unrelated quotes
> and pretend that they're cites.
>You also post a
> lot of cites that disprove you, and then spend a
> great deal of time pretending that they don't.

Another reference free, personal opinion comment. The fact is, you
snip as you go, then lie about what was actually said.

>
> Here's one for example:
>
> > "But the genomic data also don't prove the classic multiregionalism
> > model, which argues that a single, worldwide species of human,
> > including archaic forms outside of Africa, met, mingled, and had
> > offspring, and so produced Homo sapiens.


>
> That's not multi regionalism at all. In fact, it doesn't even make
> sense. ]

Another reference free, personal opinion comment. You don't have a
clue what
multiregionalism means.

>
> Hint:  What do the words "multi" and "Regionalism" mean, and
> where are they incorporated in the above?

You read the whole article? No, you didn't. Not only are you
completely in the dark as to what multiregionalism is, you don't have
a clue as to why abstracts are just a summary.

>
> Hint, hint:  Nowhere. They're definition of "multi regionalism"
> lacks multi regions....

Nowhere? How do you know that without reading the entire article or
the paper she referenced?
So now you are pretending you can "paraphrase" what you haven't
read?

>
> > They suggest only a small
> > amount of interbreeding,
>
> Wrong. totally wrong.

Correct, totally correct.
http://tinyurl.com/244ng5q

"A comparison of the genomes of the two human species has shown that
between 1 and 4 per cent of the DNA of modern non-Africans has a
Neanderthal origin, while no Neanderthal genes can be detected in
Africans today. This indicates that the first modern humans to leave
the continent must have interbred with Neanderthals they encountered,
probably in the Middle East. Their descendants went on to populate
the other continents."

Even Milford Wolpoff, Dr. Multiregionalism, admits that is true.
http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/34366
Notice him ducking the issue by claiming they, the multiregionalists,
never claimed what %.

> If the cites YOU posted here
> are accurate, the interbreeding was significant.

Wolpoff says different, you are contraditing the man who rewrote the
book on mulitiregionalism.

> It
> resulted in genetic differences between populations
> equal to some 1000 to 6000% of the differences
> within a population.

No reference because you made it up. You make up a strawman claim,
then repeatedly cite yourself. That's circular.

>
> > The reason she can made a good living writing about science is because
> > she knows something.
>
> No, it's because you don't know something and lack
> reading comprehension. Seriously, you twisted
> psycho, the description of multi regionalism lacks
> multi regions!
>
> You're an idiot. You're a goddamn idiot.

Then so is Wolpoff by your logic. Nice going sport, you just accused
Wolpoff, a muliregionalist, of being a "goddamn idiot".

>
> > More reference free, personal-attack nonsense.
>
> Yeah, why do you keep doing that?
>
> > Prove Gibbons wrong.
>
> How "Scientific" of you:  "Prove a negative."

JTEM:

> Hint, hint: Nowhere. They're definition of "multi regionalism"
> lacks multi regions....


>

> Well, idiot, how would YOU go about disproving
> a description of multi regionalism that lacks
> any multi regionalism what so ever?  Hmm?

Because it didn't happen, even Wolpoff admits the geneticists were
right.

Just because someone didn't do something, (except at the 1 to 4% 'one
drop' level) doesn't prove multiregionalists correct in the overall
big picture.

>
> > Yes there is, you claimed DNA is the worst,
>
> As I said, we have a history.

As you said: "According to the mtDNA evidence, so-called moderns
and Neanderthals never interbred. In fact, mtDNA is

probably the worst "Evidence" you could ever look at."

First you lied and said mtDNA said "never" when the articles above
never made such a claim.
Secondly, you said "probably the worst" which is wrong, since it is
the best in this case. Even Wolpoff adnits that.

> I've explained many
> times, with you following along using this and
> other personalities -- in other groups -- and here
> you are ignoring all that because you know you
> haven't a leg to stand on...

Another reference free, reference free, snip and hide accusation.

>
> The mtDNA evidence doesn't agree with itself.
> The mtDNA is proven to not show the things
> that morons like you claim.

A few of the Neandertal DNA studies:

2000

“Together these analyses of Neanderthal DNA provide support for the
hypothesis
of no or a very low gene flow between the Neanderthals and modern
humans and
points to the Neanderthals as a separate branch of hominid evolution
[5].”

Ovchinnikov et al.
Comparison Of Modern Human and Neanderthal DNA.
Nature 2000

2004

online paper
http://tinyurl.com/3f8qbbt
“In combination with current mtDNA data, this excludes any large
genetic
contribution by Neanderthals to early moderns humans, but does not
rule
out the possibility of a smaller contribution.”

2010

http://tinyurl.com/244ng5q

"A comparison of the genomes of the two human species has shown that
between 1 and 4 per cent of the DNA of modern non-Africans has a
Neanderthal origin, while no Neanderthal genes can be detected in
Africans today. This indicates that the first modern humans to leave
the continent must have interbred with Neanderthals they encountered,
probably in the Middle East. Their descendants went on to populate
the other continents."

The DNA studies had it right all along, they never claimed from the
start that interbreeding was eliminated, they just said early on that
they didn't have enough of the sequence to "rule out the possibility".
When they did find some circumstantial evidence, it was just one drop
as they predicted in the first place, 1 to 4%.

>
> It is not a clock. It can't tell you how it got to
> look the way it is. It doesn't show anyone
> living anywhere, or coming from anywhere.

Liar, you made that up also. Another reference free, cite JTEM
response.

>
> Mungo Man's mtDNA lineage is extinct.

Known only by the DNA, so thanks for admitting DNA is not the worst
evidence one can use.

> A
> comparison of Mungo Man's mtDNA to modern
> population shows that nobody alive today
> appears related to anyone alive in Mungo Man's
> time.

Irrelevant in the big picture. Why do you keep repeating your
ignorance?
Dogs are dogs, you admitted that yourself.

>
> A comparison of MODERN populations says
> something totally different

No it doesn't, a group can go extinct, doesn't mean the entire
population went extinct.

>
> Well, not really. The DNA is telling us nothing
> but what it looks like, and it's jackasses like
> you who project your opinions onto that data.
>
> Moron.

So everyone is a moron, including Wolpoff according to you, a garbage
collector in real life, knows better than everyone else?

[JTEM]

, Lee Olsen <paleoc...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> That's because you repeat your ignorance a lot.

I guess that means it's time for you to post more
cites that disprove you...

> > > "But the genomic data also don't prove the classic multiregionalism
> > > model, which argues that a single, worldwide species of human,
> > > including archaic forms outside of Africa, met, mingled, and had
> > > offspring, and so produced Homo sapiens.
>
> > That's not multi regionalism at all. In fact, it doesn't even make
> > sense. ]
>
> Another reference free, personal opinion comment.

Actually, you dumb psycho, the quote above is a reference.
It's talking about a single species coming together
together and having offspring. Where's the multi regional
in that?

I pointed it out here:

> > Hint:  What do the words "multi" and "Regionalism" mean, and
> > where are they incorporated in the above?

And instead of admitting your error or finding a

different quote, you said:

> You read the whole article?

Man, you're a fucking idiot...


> .http://tinyurl.com/244ng5q

>
> "A comparison of the genomes of the two human species has shown that
> between 1 and 4 per cent of the DNA of modern non-Africans has a
> Neanderthal origin,

That's huge. That's enormous. What did that deranged
mind of yours think was the genetic differences between
humans and chimps? Put it into perspective, you stupid
shit...

> Notice him ducking the issue by claiming they, the multiregionalists,
> never claimed what %.

You don't even know how what is or is not significant
here...

> Wolpoff says different, you are contraditing the man who rewrote the
> book on mulitiregionalism.

I don't understand this need of yours to lower yourself
to arguing authority, but it's stupid. Multi regionalism is
old, and there is no shortage of variations, you stupid
moron.

> > It
> > resulted in genetic differences between populations
> > equal to some 1000 to 6000% of the differences
> > within a population.
>
> No reference because you made it up.

Nope. The differences between any two Europeans
is usually expressed as 0.1%.

Google it, you jackass.

> Then so is Wolpoff

If you want to make an argument, make it, but
don't pretend that someone else is making
an argument through you.

>  “Together these analyses of Neanderthal DNA provide support for the
> hypothesis
> of no or a very low gene flow between the Neanderthals and modern
> humans and
> points to the Neanderthals as a separate branch of hominid evolution
> [5].”

And this has been proven wrong. You yourself say it's wrong. You
have more Neanderthal DNA than you do DNA from your Great,
Great Grandfather, you stupid jackass.

[Lee Olsen]

On Oct 5, 6:19 pm, JTEM <jte...@gmail.com> wrote:
> , Lee Olsen <paleoc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > That's because you repeat your ignorance a lot.
>
> I guess that means it's time for you to post more
> cites that disprove you...

More data free, reference free, accusations that you can't support.

>
> > > > "But the genomic data also don't prove the classic multiregionalism
> > > > model, which argues that a single, worldwide species of human,
> > > > including archaic forms outside of Africa, met, mingled, and had
> > > > offspring, and so produced Homo sapiens.
>
> > > That's not multi regionalism at all. In fact, it doesn't even make
> > > sense. ]
>
> > Another reference free, personal opinion comment.
>
> Actually, you dumb psycho, the quote above is a reference.

Oh, so now you admit DNA is not the "worst" evidence, thanks for
proving my point.

> It's talking about a single species coming together
> together and having offspring. Where's the multi regional
> in that?



>
> I pointed it out here:
>
> > > Hint:  What do the words "multi" and "Regionalism" mean, and
> > > where are they incorporated in the above?
>
> And instead of admitting your error or finding a
> different quote, you said:

Your babbling nonsense.

>
> > You read the whole article?
>
> Man, you're a fucking idiot...

So, you admit you didn't, so how do you know what's in it?

>
> > .http://tinyurl.com/244ng5q
>
> > "A comparison of the genomes of the two human species has shown that
> > between 1 and 4 per cent of the DNA of modern non-Africans has a
> > Neanderthal origin,
>
> That's huge. That's enormous.

No, it's not, and the reason you can't cite one reference, other than
your garbage collector expertise, is proof enough.

> What did that deranged
> mind of yours think was the genetic differences between
> humans and chimps?  Put it into perspective, you stupid
> shit...

http://tinyurl.com/6ydcb84
"We find that observed low levels
of Neanderthal ancestry in Eurasians are compatible with a very low
rate of interbreeding (<2%), potentially attributable to a very strong
avoidance of interspecific matings, a low fitness of hybrids, or both."

>
> > Notice him ducking the issue by claiming they, the multiregionalists,
> > never claimed what %.
>
> You don't even know how what is or is not significant
> here...

Says the garbage collector. Try some science instead of your
imagination.

http://tinyurl.com/6ydcb84
"We find that observed low levels
of Neanderthal ancestry in Eurasians are compatible with a very low
rate of interbreeding (<2%), potentially attributable to a very strong
avoidance of interspecific matings, a low fitness of hybrids, or both."

>
> > Wolpoff says different, you are contraditing the man who rewrote the
> > book on mulitiregionalism.
>
> I don't understand this need of yours to lower yourself
> to arguing authority,

The authority in this case is a multiregionalist, not a garbage man.

> but it's stupid. Multi regionalism is
> old, and there is no shortage of variations, you stupid
> moron.

Liar, Wolpoff explained it very well, unlike you, didn't use one swear
word, which is the sum total of your argument so far.

>
> > > It
> > > resulted in genetic differences between populations
> > > equal to some 1000 to 6000% of the differences
> > > within a population.
>
> > No reference because you made it up.
>
> Nope. The differences between any two Europeans
> is usually expressed as 0.1%.

Which is an insignificant difference when compared to the entire
genome. They are still the of the same population, which can easily be
differenciated from a Neandertal population.
You are confusing individuals with populations see:

http://tinyurl.com/3f8qbbt
“In combination with current mtDNA data, this excludes any large
genetic
contribution by Neanderthals to early moderns humans, but does not
rule
out the possibility of a smaller contribution.”

Yeah, like "(<2%)"


>
> Google it, you jackass.

http://tinyurl.com/6ydcb84
"We find that observed low levels
of Neanderthal ancestry in Eurasians are compatible with a very low
rate of interbreeding (<2%), potentially attributable to a very strong
avoidance of interspecific matings, a low fitness of hybrids, or both."

>
> > Then so is Wolpoff
>
> If you want to make an argument, make it, but
> don't pretend that someone else is making
> an argument through you.

That's what references are for, but since you don't have a clue as to
what science is, you wouldn't know that.
Citing yourself is circular.

>
> >  “Together these analyses of Neanderthal DNA provide support for the
> > hypothesis
> > of no or a very low gene flow between the Neanderthals and modern
> > humans and
> > points to the Neanderthals as a separate branch of hominid evolution
> > [5].”
>
> And this has been proven wrong.

Where? Do you have a reference?
I do:


http://tinyurl.com/6ydcb84
"We find that observed low levels
of Neanderthal ancestry in Eurasians are compatible with a very low
rate of interbreeding (<2%), potentially attributable to a very strong
avoidance of interspecific matings, a low fitness of hybrids, or both."

>You yourself say it's wrong.

More lies. I clearly said "one drop" doesn't make a species.

>You
> have more Neanderthal DNA than you do DNA from your Great,
> Great Grandfather, you stupid jackass.

How do you know that, since you inherit mtDNA from the maternal side?
Also note the words "might come from Neanderthals" and "low levels"


http://tinyurl.com/6ydcb84
ABSTRACT:
"Recent studies have revealed that 2–3% of the genome of non-
Africans might come from Neanderthals, suggesting amore complex
scenario of modern human evolution than previously anticipated. In
this paper, we use a model of admixture during a spatial expansion
to study the hybridization of Neanderthals with modern humans
during their spread out of Africa. We find that observed low levels
of Neanderthal ancestry in Eurasians are compatible with a very low
rate of interbreeding (<2%), potentially attributable to a very strong
avoidance of interspecific matings, a low fitness of hybrids, or both.
These results suggesting the presence of very effective barriers to
geneflowbetween the two species are robust to uncertainties about
the exact demography of the Paleolithic populations, and they are
also found to be compatible with the observed lack of mtDNA in-
trogression.Our model additionally suggests that similarly low levels
of introgression in Europe and Asia may result from distinct admix-
ture events having occurred beyond the Middle East, after the split of
Europeans and Asians. This hypothesis could be tested because it
predicts that different components of Neanderthal ancestry should
be present in Europeans and in Asians."

[JTEM]

Lee Olsen <paleoc...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> More data free, reference free, accusations that you can't support.

Ironically, I'm replying to your so-called "Cites,"
pointing out what is wrong with them, how you
are misunderstanding them....

You're literally arguing that you have no cites.

> > > > Hint:  What do the words "multi" and "Regionalism"
> > > > mean, and where are they incorporated in the above?

> Your babbling nonsense.

Considering that you're defending a so-called "cite" on
the topic of multi regionalism, you're doing an excellent
job of discrediting yourself.... again.

> so how do you know what's in it?

If you have a case to make, make it. Right now you're
asking me to make a case for you.

Stop that.

> > > "A comparison of the genomes of the two human species has shown that
> > > between 1 and 4 per cent of the DNA of modern non-Africans has a
> > > Neanderthal origin,
>
> > That's huge. That's enormous.
>
> No, it's not,

You're 50% your mother. You're 25% one of your grand
parents. You're 12.5% one of you're great grand parents.
You're 6.25% one of your great, great grand parents and
you're as much as 4% a Neanderthal that hasn't existed
in 30,000 years.

That's ENORMOUS. It's about 4000% the usual difference
described between any two Europeans.

You are out of your league, as usual. You haven't the
intellectual capacity to hold a reasonable position on
this issue, like most other issues.

Seek help.



You have no idea what you're saying.

[Lee Olsen]

On Oct 6, 8:37 pm, JTEM <jte...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Lee Olsen <paleoc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > More data free, reference free, accusations that you can't support.
>
> Ironically, I'm replying to your so-called "Cites,"
> pointing out what is wrong with them, how you
> are misunderstanding them....

More data free, reference free, accusations that you can't support.


>
> You're literally arguing that you have no cites.

Where, do you have something you didn't make up?

>
> > > > > Hint:  What do the words "multi" and "Regionalism"
> > > > > mean, and where are they incorporated in the above?

> > Your babbling nonsense.
>
> Considering that you're defending a so-called "cite" on
> the topic of multi regionalism, you're doing an excellent
> job of discrediting yourself.... again.

More data free, reference free, accusations that you can't support.

>

> > so how do you know what's in it?
>
> If you have a case to make, make it. Right now you're
> asking me to make a case for you.

Babbling nonsense again.

>
> Stop that.
>
> > > > "A comparison of the genomes of the two human species has shown that
> > > > between 1 and 4 per cent of the DNA of modern non-Africans has a
> > > > Neanderthal origin,
>
> > > That's huge. That's enormous.
>
> > No, it's not,
>
> You're 50% your mother. You're 25% one of your grand
> parents. You're 12.5% one of you're great grand parents.
> You're 6.25% one of your great, great grand parents and
> you're as much as 4% a Neanderthal that hasn't existed
> in 30,000 years.

Sorry, but you are 95% chimp, but that doesn't make you a chimp, does
it?

>
> That's ENORMOUS. It's about 4000% the usual difference
> described between any two Europeans.

http://tinyurl.com/6ydcb84
ABSTRACT:
"Recent studies have revealed that 2–3% of the genome of non-
Africans might come from Neanderthals, suggesting amore complex
scenario of modern human evolution than previously anticipated. In
this paper, we use a model of admixture during a spatial expansion
to study the hybridization of Neanderthals with modern humans
during their spread out of Africa. We find that observed low levels
of Neanderthal ancestry in Eurasians are compatible with a very low
rate of interbreeding (<2%), potentially attributable to a very
strong
avoidance of interspecific matings, a low fitness of hybrids, or both.
These results suggesting the presence of very effective barriers to
geneflowbetween the two species are robust to uncertainties about
the exact demography of the Paleolithic populations, and they are
also found to be compatible with the observed lack of mtDNA in-
trogression.Our model additionally suggests that similarly low levels
of introgression in Europe and Asia may result from distinct admix-
ture events having occurred beyond the Middle East, after the split
of
Europeans and Asians. This hypothesis could be tested because it
predicts that different components of Neanderthal ancestry should
be present in Europeans and in Asians."

Less than (>2%) is virtually nothing.

>
> You are out of your league, as usual. You haven't the
> intellectual capacity to hold a reasonable position on
> this issue, like most other issues.

So, Wolpoff and Gibbons are out of their league, but JTEM (a garbage
collector in real life) knows better?

>
> Seek help.
>
> You have no idea what you're saying.

You are the same person that didn't know mtDNA is inherited from only
your maternal side:

JTEM:

>You
> have more Neanderthal DNA than you do DNA from your Great,
> Great Grandfather, you stupid jackass.

How do you know that, since you inherit mtDNA from the maternal side?
Also note the words "might come from Neanderthals" and "low levels"

All you can do now is continue your name calling, it's the only
argument you have left.

[JTEM]

Lee Olsen <paleoc...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> More data free, reference free, accusations that you can't support.

Um, retard, I know you're a sick fuck who can't admit
his all to obvious errors, but I'm replying to your
misrepresentations of cites.

YOU posted these cites which you now say never
existed.... Sheesh!

> Where, do you have something you didn't make up?

I don't know what you're trying to claim here. You
keep spilling gibberish...

> > Considering that you're defending a so-called "cite" on
> > the topic of multi regionalism, you're doing an excellent
> > job of discrediting yourself.... again.
>
> More data free, reference free

Again, YOU posted the reference that you're now denying
the existence of...

> Sorry, but you are 95% chimp,

So you're saying that there's only a 5% difference between
Europeans and Chimps, and a 4% difference between
Europeans and Africans....

What you're saying is that 4% is an enormous difference.

This 4%, by your argument, is a spectacularly huge
difference.

[Lee Olsen]

On Oct 6, 11:18 pm, JTEM <jte...@gmail.com> wrote:
>  Lee Olsen <paleoc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > More data free, reference free, accusations that you can't support.
>
> Um, retard, I know you're a sick fuck who can't admit
> his all to obvious errors, but I'm replying to your
> misrepresentations of cites.

Your "replying" isn't evidence and is not a reference, your snipping,
name calling, and bungling of the facts is circular and only proves
your illiteracy.

For example:

JTEM:
>You
> have more Neanderthal DNA than you do DNA from your Great,
> Great Grandfather, you stupid jackass.

So thanks for proving you know absolutely nothing about DNA, only an
illiterate would make such a claim.

LO:

"How do you know that, since you inherit mtDNA from the maternal
side?
Also note the words "might come from Neanderthals" and "low levels"

Why do you keep snipping that out?

>
> YOU posted these cites which you now say never
> existed....  Sheesh!

Liar, I posted references that prove you are an illiterate. Your
inability to understand what Wolpoff and Gibbion said
only demonstrates you don't have a clue what you are talking about.

>
> > Where, do you have something you didn't make up?
>
> I don't know what you're trying to claim here. You
> keep spilling gibberish...

http://tinyurl.com/6ydcb84

"We find that observed low levels
of Neanderthal ancestry in Eurasians are compatible with a very low
rate of interbreeding (<2%), potentially attributable to a very strong
avoidance of interspecific matings, a low fitness of hybrids, or both."

If you are to ignorant to understand that, what are you doing here,
other than making yourself look like a fool?

>
> > > Considering that you're defending a so-called "cite" on
> > > the topic of multi regionalism, you're doing an excellent
> > > job of discrediting yourself.... again.
>
> > More data free, reference free
>
> Again, YOU posted the reference that you're now denying
> the existence of...

Liar.

>
> > Sorry, but you are 95% chimp,
>
> So you're saying that there's only a 5% difference between
> Europeans and Chimps,

Do you see the words "Europeans" anywhere in "Sorry, but you are 95%
chimp"? No? You lied again.

> and a 4% difference between
> Europeans and Africans....

Snip and lie, is that the only argument you can make"?
What part of this are you too stupid to understand?:

http://tinyurl.com/6ydcb84

"We find that observed low levels
of Neanderthal ancestry in Eurasians are compatible with a very low
rate of interbreeding (<2%), potentially attributable to a very
strong
avoidance of interspecific matings, a low fitness of hybrids, or both."

Less than (>2%) is virtually nothing.

>

> What you're saying is that 4% is an enormous difference.

Another snip and lie classic statement from you.

Here is what was actually said and you snipped out:

LO: "Less than (>2%) is virtually nothing."

>
> This 4%, by your argument,

Liar, those are your words, not mine. Are you really that confused?

> is a spectacularly huge
> difference.

What you are claiming is the same as saying if you had two poddles and
threw them in with a population of 100 collies, the poodle (hybrids)
would then have then contributed an "ENORMOUS" amount to the
descendent collie (hybrid) population, which would be false. And the
best way to determine such a mix 30 kya later is to use DNA studies
"(>2%)" .

It is really too bad you can't grasp the simplest of concepts. But,
keep name calling, it's the only argument you have left.