Possible Denisovan tooth found in Laos 131 to 164 kya

[Primum Sapienti]

https://www.sciencenews.org/article/denisovan-girl-fossil-tooth-hominid-laos-anthropology

A Denisovan girl’s fossil tooth may have been unearthed in Laos
A molar adds to suspicions that the mysterious hominids inhabited
Southeast Asia's forests

"Analyses of the tooth’s internal structure and protein makeup indicate
that the molar
came from a girl in the Homo genus. She died between the ages of 3½ and
8½, paleoanthropologist Fabrice Demeter of the University of Copenhagen
and colleagues
say."


https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-022-29923-z
A Middle Pleistocene Denisovan molar from the Annamite Chain of northern Laos

Abstract
The Pleistocene presence of the genus Homo in continental Southeast Asia is
primarily evidenced by a sparse stone tool record and rare human remains.
Here
we report a Middle Pleistocene hominin specimen from Laos, with the discovery
of a molar from the Tam Ngu Hao 2 (Cobra Cave) limestone cave in the Annamite
Mountains. The age of the fossil-bearing breccia ranges between 164–131 kyr,
based on the Bayesian modelling of luminescence dating of the sedimentary
matrix from which it was recovered, U-series dating of an overlying
flowstone,
and U-series–ESR dating of associated faunal teeth. Analyses of the internal
structure of the molar in tandem with palaeoproteomic analyses of the enamel
indicate that the tooth derives from a young, likely female, Homo
individual. The
close morphological affinities with the Xiahe specimen from China indicate
that
they belong to the same taxon and that Tam Ngu Hao 2 most likely represents a
Denisovan.

[I Envy JTEM]

Primum Sapienti wrote:

> A Denisovan girl’s fossil tooth may have been unearthed in Laos
> A molar adds to suspicions that the mysterious hominids inhabited
> Southeast Asia's forests
>
> "Analyses of the tooth’s internal structure and protein makeup indicate
> that the molar
> came from a girl in the Homo genus. She died between the ages of 3½ and
> 8½, paleoanthropologist Fabrice Demeter of the University of Copenhagen
> and colleagues
> say."

Honestly. They won't publish anything pertaining to paleo anthropology unless
the writer has first consumed BUCKETS of paint chips...

The picture humans spreading like a ball where they begin at Point-A then
pack up everything and walk to Point-B.... a ball rolling along a lane...

No.

Think of it as pouring out a large can of paint. The people, THE GENETICS
spread like that. And all future populations? Well they're not waltzing forward,
pushing the ball ahead of them. No, it's more like they're stepping on wet
paint, and carrying it where ever they go.

This doesn't just explain how Denisovan DNA and wind up HERE or THERE,
it explains Denisovans! After all, they began as one and the same population
as Neanderthals. After maybe 300 or 400 thousand years they were not only
distinct from Neanderthals but apparently groups of so called Denisovans
were just as distinct from each other!

You can claim this all resulted from evolving in isolation but we all know that
isn't true. They weren't isolated. There were people living in all the lands they
ever reached and they absorbed that DNA....




-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/684450379115675648

[Primum Sapienti]

What is your data for all that?

> You can claim this all resulted from evolving in isolation but we all know that
> isn't true. They weren't isolated. There were people living in all the lands they
> ever reached and they absorbed that DNA....

Why are you arguing with the paper? They collected the data and did the
analysis.
They didn't stare off into space and imagine how things must be. As a
maker of "videos"
you wouldn't understand.

Two more Denisovan items

https://www.the-scientist.com/news-opinion/indigenous-filipino-group-has-highest-known-denisovan-ancestry-69089
Aug 13, 2021
Indigenous Filipino Group Has Highest Known Denisovan Ancestry
Researchers found the relatively high proportion of DNA from a hominin
cousin—nearly 5
percent—when they scanned more than 1,000 genomes from 118 distinct ethnic
groups.


https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-019-1139-x
01 May 2019
A late Middle Pleistocene Denisovan mandible from the Tibetan Plateau

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denisovan
Denisovans are known to have lived in Siberia, and the Xiahe mandible is
the earliest
recorded human presence on the Tibetan Plateau.[13] Though their remains
have been
identified in only these two locations, traces of Denisovan DNA in modern
humans
suggest they ranged across East Asia,[34][35] and potentially western Eurasia.

[I Envy JTEM]

Primum Sapienti wrote:

> > Think of it as pouring out a large can of paint. The people, THE GENETICS
> > spread like that. And all future populations? Well they're not waltzing forward,
> > pushing the ball ahead of them. No, it's more like they're stepping on wet
> > paint, and carrying it where ever they go.
> >
> > This doesn't just explain how Denisovan DNA and wind up HERE or THERE,
> > it explains Denisovans! After all, they began as one and the same population
> > as Neanderthals. After maybe 300 or 400 thousand years they were not only
> > distinct from Neanderthals but apparently groups of so called Denisovans
> > were just as distinct from each other!

> What is your data for all that?

I'm sorry, and you think you're saying... what?

You are unaware of any data? You think that the slate is empty, nobody has ever
done DNA research?

I'm describing a model that EXPLAINS the data. Your model does not.

"Replacement" is stupid. It's disproven.

https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-35595661

There. No "Out of Africa" aka "Replacement" can explain that.

Out of Africa/Replacement can't explain Denisovans. It can't explain the Denisovan
DNA carried by modern human populations. It can't explain Mungo Man or even
the A00 y chromosome found in modern humans:

https://www.cell.com/ajhg/fulltext/S0002-9297(13)00073-6

Your model doesn't work. Linear models NEVER worked.

> Why are you arguing with the paper?

I'm not. Your models are stupid. They don't work. They are self refuting.

> They collected the data and did the
> analysis.

It's not about the data, rabbit dropping eating buffoon, it's about EXPLAINING
It. It's about constructing a model on which the data fits and no linear model
works or has ever worked.

Period.





-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/685720939973001216

[Primum Sapienti]

I Envy JTEM wrote:
> Primum Sapienti wrote:
>
>>> Think of it as pouring out a large can of paint. The people, THE GENETICS
>>> spread like that. And all future populations? Well they're not waltzing forward,
>>> pushing the ball ahead of them. No, it's more like they're stepping on wet
>>> paint, and carrying it where ever they go.
>>>
>>> This doesn't just explain how Denisovan DNA and wind up HERE or THERE,
>>> it explains Denisovans! After all, they began as one and the same population
>>> as Neanderthals. After maybe 300 or 400 thousand years they were not only
>>> distinct from Neanderthals but apparently groups of so called Denisovans
>>> were just as distinct from each other!
>
>> What is your data for all that?
>
> I'm sorry, and you think you're saying... what?
>
> You are unaware of any data? You think that the slate is empty, nobody has ever
> done DNA research?

Then you should have no problem backing up your claim.

> I'm describing a model that EXPLAINS the data. Your model does not.

I did not propose a model. I posted references to articles.

> "Replacement" is stupid. It's disproven.
>
> https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-35595661
>
> There. No "Out of Africa" aka "Replacement" can explain that.

No mention of Denisovans there.

> Out of Africa/Replacement can't explain Denisovans. It can't explain the Denisovan
> DNA carried by modern human populations. It can't explain Mungo Man or even
> the A00 y chromosome found in modern humans:
>
> https://www.cell.com/ajhg/fulltext/S0002-9297(13)00073-6

No mention of Denisovans there.

> Your model doesn't work. Linear models NEVER worked.

I did not propose a model. I posted references to articles.

>> Why are you arguing with the paper?
>
> I'm not. Your models are stupid. They don't work. They are self refuting.

I did not propose a model. I posted references to articles.

>> They collected the data and did the
>> analysis.
>
> It's not about the data, rabbit dropping eating buffoon, it's about EXPLAINING
> It. It's about constructing a model on which the data fits and no linear model
> works or has ever worked.
>
> Period.

I did not propose a model. I posted references to articles.

https://www.sciencenews.org/article/denisovan-girl-fossil-tooth-hominid-laos-anthropology

A Denisovan girl’s fossil tooth may have been unearthed in Laos
A molar adds to suspicions that the mysterious hominids inhabited
Southeast Asia's forests

"Analyses of the tooth’s internal structure and protein makeup indicate
that the molar
came from a girl in the Homo genus. She died between the ages of 3½ and
8½, paleoanthropologist Fabrice Demeter of the University of Copenhagen
and colleagues
say."

[I Envy JTEM]

Primum Sapienti wrote:

> I Envy JTEM wrote:

> > I'm sorry, and you think you're saying... what?
> >
> > You are unaware of any data? You think that the slate is empty, nobody has ever
> > done DNA research?

> Then you should have no problem

Look. I'm not some highly trained, paid professional whose job it is to be patient
and understanding with the likes of you.

If you are NOT pretending that there is no "Data," if you are NOT pretending that
as far as you know nobody has ever looked for/researched the DNA, shut the
fuck up. You are demanding that I "Prove" a settled matter.

So either figure out what you REALLY want to say here or shut the fuck up. I will
not coddle you.

> > "Replacement" is stupid. It's disproven.
> >
> > https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-35595661
> >
> > There. No "Out of Africa" aka "Replacement" can explain that.

> No mention of Denisovans there.

I know you're insane and not just intellectually challenged but, if you had
reading comprehension, which you don't, I produced the cite to demonstrate
that "Out of Africa" aka "Replacement" is wrong, and you imagined some
crazy Denisovan claim...

True, that Denisovans along with ALL extant populations -- extant during the
evolutionarily significant period we speak of -- are indeed part of the mosaic
that Out of Africa and official interpretations of the DNA evidence are unable
to account for, but once you were shown the inadequacies of your model
there was no need to go into further specifics. Put in a way that even an idiot
can grasp though you surely will not: Once you establish that the Titanic
has sunk it is pointless to establish that the Titanic's gymnasium or kitchen
or dinning room also sank.

Please work hard at thinking, at discerning what your own goddamn position
is, before further disgracing yourself.





-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com

[Primum Sapienti]

Still waiting for you to back up your claim...

I Envy JTEM wrote:
> Primum Sapienti wrote:
>
>>> Think of it as pouring out a large can of paint. The people, THE GENETICS
>>> spread like that. And all future populations? Well they're not
waltzing forward,
>>> pushing the ball ahead of them. No, it's more like they're stepping
on wet
>>> paint, and carrying it where ever they go.
>>>
>>> This doesn't just explain how Denisovan DNA and wind up HERE or THERE,
>>> it explains Denisovans! After all, they began as one and the same
population
>>> as Neanderthals. After maybe 300 or 400 thousand years they were not only
>>> distinct from Neanderthals but apparently groups of so called Denisovans
>>> were just as distinct from each other!
>
>> What is your data for all that?
>

> I'm sorry, and you think you're saying... what?
>
> You are unaware of any data? You think that the slate is empty, nobody
has ever
> done DNA research?

Then you should have no problem backing up your claim.

> I'm describing a model that EXPLAINS the data. Your model does not.

I did not propose a model. I posted references to articles.

> "Replacement" is stupid. It's disproven.
>
> https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-35595661
>
> There. No "Out of Africa" aka "Replacement" can explain that.

No mention of Denisovans there.

> Out of Africa/Replacement can't explain Denisovans. It can't explain
the Denisovan
> DNA carried by modern human populations. It can't explain Mungo Man or even
> the A00 y chromosome found in modern humans:
>
> https://www.cell.com/ajhg/fulltext/S0002-9297(13)00073-6

No mention of Denisovans there.

[I Envy JTEM]

Primum Sapienti wrote:

> Still waiting for you to back up your claim...

That data exists? Or that if I can prove that "Out of Africa/Replacement"
is absolutely rubbish using one example that means it's absolutely
rubbish for all the other examples as well? Reality isn't reinvented with
every passing moment? Hmm? Is that what you're waiting for?

You're an idiot who probably made truck loads of stupid claims, only to
be made a fool out of by people asking for citations & whatnot. And,
being an idiot, you think their questions were magical incantations and
if you can just remember to repeat them then everyone else will be an
idiot, not you...

No, sweet cheeks, it was never their questions & demands that made
you stupid. You did that. It's you. It's always been you! Like here & now
where you don't even know what it is you're trying to dispute!

You're disputing "Data" which you do not dispute at all, you know and
agree that there's loads of data, when you're supposed to be disputing
conclusions -- IDEAS! -- based, however loosely in your case, on the data.

Now pay attention here or, better yet, find an adult to maybe explain this
to you but, I'm pointing out how the model(s) proposed to explain the
data sucks the rotting fallopian tubes from a dead dog, while you think
that pretending that there's no data, or at least you never heard of any,
is a scathing rebuttal.

Less than impressive there, champ.

Here. Remember this?

https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-35595661

Besides completely fucking up the definition of "Human," besides
exposing ridiculous a-priori assumptions and passing that off as
science, this "Data" is inconsistent with any
"Out of Africa/Replacement" model. But your position here, as
laughable as it seems, is that it doesn't matter if it's disproven
because maybe it's not disproven by some different evidence...

No, baby cakes, that's not how it works. Once you establish that
the Titanic sank you don't need to "Prove" that the officer's
lavatory also sank! And it's NOT reasonable to "Argue" that maybe
it didn't, because I wouldn't show you any data specifically
mentioning the sinking of the officer's lavatory...





-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/691142199538237440

[Primum Sapienti]

[littor...@gmail.com]

Op zaterdag 30 juli 2022 om 04:42:03 UTC+2 schreef I Envy JTEM:


> https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-35595661

Thanks!
1) Hn & Hs interbred.
2) Hn was unmistakenly semi-aquatic (wading+diving).
1+2) implies our aquatic past was not >5 Ma as Elaine & Hardy thought, but lasted until late-Pleistocene
(in fact, some Hs are ?still semi-aquatic, e.g. Polynesians).

[DD'eDeN aka note/nickname/alas_my_loves]

All Polynesians, Moken, Bajau, Ama sleep in constructed shelters, never in water.

[I Envy JTEM]

Primum Sapienti wrote:

> Still waiting for you to

You can wait until you graduate the 3rd grade, for all I care. I explained
it to you more than once. If you didn't grasp then you're not going to
grasp it now....

All you have to do is disprove the Out of Africa purity model. Doesn't
matter what the evidence is, or how it disproves it but if one piece of
evidence disproves it then it's disproved. You needn't go any further.

> Then you should have no problem backing up your claim.

That data exists?

I'm laughing at you! You are an object of ridicule!

> I did not propose a model. I posted references to articles.

So you haven't the courage to stand by your own position.

"It's not me posting this stuff and misrepresenting it! It's someone
else!"

> > "Replacement" is stupid. It's disproven.
> >
> > https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-35595661
> >
> > There. No "Out of Africa" aka "Replacement" can explain that.

> No mention of Denisovans there.

Who cares? Out of Africa aka Replacement is gone. It's falsified. We're
done.

This is how reality works. It's how science works. When you lose, when
your model is disproven you admit it. If you don't, then you don't have
science you have religion.

You're a dogmatic fool.




-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/691966152530903040

[I Envy JTEM]

DD'eDeN aka note/nickname/alas_my_loves wrote:

> All Polynesians, Moken, Bajau, Ama sleep in constructed shelters, never in water.

So you're looking at the present, not the past, and you're concluding that this is
the past, not the present. Interesting. Well, not really. It's dull, just the sort of
nonsense you've been posting for years.





-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/691966152530903040

[littor...@gmail.com]

Op dinsdag 9 augustus 2022 om 01:49:19 UTC+2 schreef DD'eDeN aka note/nickname/alas_my_loves:

> > > https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-35595661

> > Thanks!
> > 1) Hn & Hs interbred.
> > 2) Hn was unmistakenly semi-aquatic (wading+diving).
> > 1+2) implies our aquatic past was not >5 Ma as Elaine & Hardy thought, but lasted until late-Pleistocene
> > (in fact, some Hs are ?still semi-aquatic, e.g. Polynesians).

> All Polynesians, Moken, Bajau, Ama sleep in constructed shelters, never in water.

Of course, my little boy, what else??
Grow up.