Contested Bone

[jillery]

Gutsick Gibbon is the Youtube handle of a biological anthropology PhD
student named Erika. A number of her videos are devoted to
comprehensively debunking anti-evolution pseudoskepticism. The
following Youtube videos are examples, where Erika thoroughly shreds
with great vigor and glee the book "Contested Bones", written by
Christopher Rupe and John Sanford.

Preface and Chapter 1:
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QI6EQDQHO7M>


Chapter 2:
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MkQmxtoQfx4>


Ardipithecus Ramidus:
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nQ25sJl_7xs>


Australopithecus afarensis aka Lucy
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=06XY9bfmJ44>


Homo Erectus:
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OADSuHIjETk>


Neanderthals:
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JUHCn5WNEsU>


Homo floresiensis:
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L9uAXGjIK9Y>


I acknowledge that for most people the above are TL;DR. mostly from
Erika's style of reading chapter and verse from the material itself. I
found her style easier to tolerate if I regarded the videos as
condensed audio books with added commentary.

--
You're entitled to your own opinions.
You're not entitled to your own facts.

[daud....@gmail.com]

Respect for Erika. I can't get into fiction unless the story is mostly reality-based.
I prefer novels by John SanDford, especially the ones featuring Virgil Flowers in Minnesota (my home state.).
They're funny and almost believable.

[Bob Casanova]

On Sat, 19 Nov 2022 20:53:41 -0800 (PST), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by "daud....@gmail.com"
<daud....@gmail.com>:

>Respect for Erika. I can't get into fiction unless the story is mostly reality-based.
>

Ummm... What has that to do with the post to which you
replied? I don't see fiction mentioned, unless you consider
the referenced book to be fiction as contrasted with junk
science. (I admit I have no knowledge of the book in
question, but "debunking" an acknowledged work of fiction
seems to me to be as idiotic as calling a satire website
"disinformation".

>
>I prefer novels by John SanDford, especially the ones featuring Virgil Flowers in Minnesota (my home state.).
>They're funny and almost believable.

--

Bob C.

"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"

- Isaac Asimov

[TimR]

The latest one (Righteous Prey) was disappointing, though.

[Bob Casanova]

On Sat, 19 Nov 2022 22:26:39 -0700, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>:

No answer? OK.

>"disinformation".)

[daud....@gmail.com]

On Friday, November 11, 2022 at 11:55:10 PM UTC-5, jillery wrote:

> Gutsick Gibbon is the Youtube handle of a biological anthropology PhD
> student named Erika. A number of her videos are devoted to
> comprehensively debunking anti-evolution pseudoskepticism. The
> following Youtube videos are examples, where Erika thoroughly shreds
> with great vigor and glee the book "Contested Bones", written by
> Christopher Rupe and John Sanford.
>
> Preface and Chapter 1:
> <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QI6EQDQHO7M>
>
>
> Chapter 2:
> <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MkQmxtoQfx4>
>
>
> Ardipithecus Ramidus:
> <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nQ25sJl_7xs>
>
>
> Australopithecus afarensis aka Lucy
> <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=06XY9bfmJ44>
>
>
> Homo Erectus:
> <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OADSuHIjETk>

Watching this video now. Erika talks of the various interpretation by splitters and lumpers. IMO that is scientifically irrelevant, arbitrary names of the day.

The only real split occurred at the LCA Chromosome 2 transfusion/inversion, when Homo diverged from the Great Apes genetically permanently (per evidence). We don't know if all Homo at different locales at different times could have reproduced successfully, but there is nothing known that physiologically prohibited it. An AMHs in Seattle 20th C couldn't reproduce with an AMHs in Beijing 18th C, that does not mean they were not the same species. Same goes for (adult) Homo erectus specimens throughout the Old World. Morphological adaptations to local climate did not present any significant challenge to inter-reproduction afaict.

Erika then goes on to talk about the authors claims eg. H erectus being H sapiens with degenerac (genetic entropy) due to inbreeding, etc. The creationist reasoning behind this is politically, not scientifically, motivated, IMO, and is the equivalent of making mud pies.

Erika picks apart various claims and definitions (and lack of) used by authors.

The bit on Dmanisi & African brain been more ape-like, and SE Asian H erectus more human-like was interesting, I forgot about that.
https://youtu.be/OADSuHIjETk?t=4436


PS. I have no idea what TL;DR means.

[daud....@gmail.com]

I consider the book a work of politically-motivated fiction, thus my response.

I don't see fiction mentioned, unless you consider
> the referenced book to be fiction as contrasted with junk
> science. (I admit I have no knowledge of the book in
> question, but "debunking" an acknowledged work of fiction
> seems to me to be as idiotic as calling a satire website
> "disinformation".

Does anybody consider that book non-fiction? I don't know, or care.
Erika ably debunks the portended anthropology angle of the book.
Knock-out.

[daud....@gmail.com]

Twisted theme, but fine with me. Also liked the Letty book The Investigator).
The two I didn't care for, an outerspace scifi story co-authored, and a magic-dependent Minnesota story

[jillery]

My understanding is Rupe and Sanford consider their book not only
non-fiction, but authoritative. And based on the comments from their
videos, a number of its readers think so too.

>Erika ably debunks the portended anthropology angle of the book.
>Knock-out.

I share your opinions of the book. "Contested Bones" is politically
motivated fiction in the same sense as most books written by cdesign
proponentsists and other anti-evolution pseudoskeptics, even as their
authors claim otherwise.

[jillery]

On Mon, 21 Nov 2022 15:25:03 -0800 (PST), "daud....@gmail.com"
<daud....@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Friday, November 11, 2022 at 11:55:10 PM UTC-5, jillery wrote:
>> Gutsick Gibbon is the Youtube handle of a biological anthropology PhD
>> student named Erika. A number of her videos are devoted to
>> comprehensively debunking anti-evolution pseudoskepticism. The
>> following Youtube videos are examples, where Erika thoroughly shreds
>> with great vigor and glee the book "Contested Bones", written by
>> Christopher Rupe and John Sanford.
>>
>> Preface and Chapter 1:
>> <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QI6EQDQHO7M>
>>
>>
>> Chapter 2:
>> <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MkQmxtoQfx4>
>>
>>
>> Ardipithecus Ramidus:
>> <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nQ25sJl_7xs>
>>
>>
>> Australopithecus afarensis aka Lucy
>> <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=06XY9bfmJ44>
>>
>>
>> Homo Erectus:
>> <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OADSuHIjETk>
>
>Watching this video now. Erika talks of the various interpretation by splitters and lumpers. IMO that is scientifically irrelevant, arbitrary names of the day.

"splitters and lumpers" become scientifically relevant whenever
sufficient fossil evidence is collected to identify fine gradations
between what were previously clear distinctions. For example, this
happened when more dinosaur fossils were found with feathers, and
earlier when several mammal-like reptile fossils were found. I recall
one author writing about one conference, where the participants became
so passionate over which were mammals and which were reptiles, fist
fights nearly broke out.

In the specific case Erika mentions, it is about which fossils
represent ancestral lineages to humans. Erika's point is a relevant
counterpoint to a claim made by Rupe and Sanford that transitional
hominins are false fossil mashups of human and ape individuals.

>The only real split occurred at the LCA Chromosome 2 transfusion/inversion, when Homo diverged from the Great Apes genetically permanently (per evidence). We don't know if all Homo at different locales at different times could have reproduced successfully, but there is nothing known that physiologically prohibited it. An AMHs in Seattle 20th C couldn't reproduce with an AMHs in Beijing 18th C, that does not mean they were not the same species. Same goes for (adult) Homo erectus specimens throughout the Old World. Morphological adaptations to local climate did not present any significant challenge to inter-reproduction afaict.

You are correct that geographic and temporal isolation don't by
themselves cause reproductive isolation. However, population
isolation allows for different rates of genetic drift in populations'
nuclear DNA and mitochondrial DNA over time, until enough differences
accumulate to make them no longer metabolically compatible, the
ultimate cause of reproductive isolation.

Since you mention it, I point out there is a misimpression among many
that the chromosome 2 translocation would have caused immediate
reproductive isolation. In fact, it involved no loss of genetic
information, and the chromosome pairs could still match up to allow
successful meiosis.


>Erika then goes on to talk about the authors claims eg. H erectus being H sapiens with degenerac[y] (genetic entropy) due to inbreeding, etc. The creationist reasoning behind this is politically, not scientifically, motivated, IMO, and is the equivalent of making mud pies.

>
>Erika picks apart various claims and definitions (and lack of) used by authors.
>
>The bit on Dmanisi & African brain been more ape-like, and SE Asian H erectus more human-like was interesting, I forgot about that.
>https://youtu.be/OADSuHIjETk?t=4436
>
>
>PS. I have no idea what TL;DR means.

This is another acronym. It literally stands for "too long, didn't
read". It can refer to any explanation that exceeds a person's
attention span. A regular criticism in T.O. is that people can read
faster than they can listen. It may also have to do with habituated
preferences for specific types of data entry.

[daud....@gmail.com]

I wasn't saying Erika's counterpoint was irrelevant, I was saying the argument over the names was, since they are all supposedly Homo. (How many hominid fossils were not claimed to have been possible human ancestors?)

> >The only real split occurred at the LCA Chromosome 2 transfusion/inversion, when Homo diverged from the Great Apes genetically permanently (per evidence). We don't know if all Homo at different locales at different times could have reproduced successfully, but there is nothing known that physiologically prohibited it. An AMHs in Seattle 20th C couldn't reproduce with an AMHs in Beijing 18th C, that does not mean they were not the same species. Same goes for (adult) Homo erectus specimens throughout the Old World. Morphological adaptations to local climate did not present any significant challenge to inter-reproduction afaict.
> You are correct that geographic and temporal isolation don't by
> themselves cause reproductive isolation. However, population
> isolation allows for different rates of genetic drift in populations'
> nuclear DNA and mitochondrial DNA over time, until enough differences
> accumulate to make them no longer metabolically compatible, the
> ultimate cause of reproductive isolation.

There are 8bn AMHs now, none have 48 chromosomes. Proof of reproductive isolation. No Homo has ever had 48, no chimp 46. Every human population is inter-reproductive with all others, not all individuals are so.

> Since you mention it, I point out there is a misimpression among many
> that the chromosome 2 translocation would have caused immediate
> reproductive isolation. In fact, it involved no loss of genetic
> information, and the chromosome pairs could still match up to allow
> successful meiosis.

Once more, there are 8bn AMHs now, none have 48 chromosomes. Proof of reproductive isolation.

> >Erika then goes on to talk about the authors claims eg. H erectus being H sapiens with degenerac[y] (genetic entropy) due to inbreeding, etc. The creationist reasoning behind this is politically, not scientifically, motivated, IMO, and is the equivalent of making mud pies.
> >
> >Erika picks apart various claims and definitions (and lack of) used by authors.
> >
> >The bit on Dmanisi & African brain been more ape-like, and SE Asian H erectus more human-like was interesting, I forgot about that.
> >https://youtu.be/OADSuHIjETk?t=4436
> >
> >
> >PS. I have no idea what TL;DR means.
> This is another acronym. It literally stands for "too long, didn't
> read". It can refer to any explanation that exceeds a person's
> attention span. A regular criticism in T.O. is that people can read
> faster than they can listen. It may also have to do with habituated
> preferences for specific types of data entry.

Ok, thanks.

[Bob Casanova]

On Mon, 21 Nov 2022 17:17:23 -0800 (PST), the following

OK.

>
> I don't see fiction mentioned, unless you consider
>> the referenced book to be fiction as contrasted with junk
>> science. (I admit I have no knowledge of the book in
>> question, but "debunking" an acknowledged work of fiction
>> seems to me to be as idiotic as calling a satire website
>> "disinformation".
>
>Does anybody consider that book non-fiction? I don't know, or care.
>

I would assume the author(s) did.

>
>Erika ably debunks the portended anthropology angle of the book.
>

I suspect that you meant "pretended", but I could be
mistaken.

As I noted previously, It's either intended by the author(s)
as non-fiction, in which case debunking it is reasonable, or
as fiction, in which case "debunking" it is as idiotic as
calling the content of a satire website "disinformation" and
"debunking" it: "Here I debunk both The Onion and the
Babylon Bee!". Duh.

But I got my answer; thanks.
>
>Knock-out.

[jillery]

On Tue, 22 Nov 2022 01:31:52 -0800 (PST), "daud....@gmail.com"

Correlation is not causation. It isn't known when this translocation
happened. It could have happened after humans diverged from other
apes, and any 48-chromosome humans later went extinct. Or it could
have happened before humans diverged from other apes, and any
46-chromosome apes later went extinct. Karotypes don't fossilize.

On a related topic, some AMH's have only 44 chromosomes:

<https://www.thetech.org/ask-a-geneticist/48-46>

<https://www.kqed.org/quest/5239/and-then-there-were-44>

<https://www.kqed.org/quest/586/chromosome-fusion-chance-or-design>

[TimR]

I agree on those three. The Letty book was great, as long as you suspend disbelief that anyone could do that. I didn't even finish the other two.

But Righteous Prey? Nowhere near as good as the rest of the series, I had many complaints. It was just sloppy.
Maybe not quite as bad as the last two Jack Reacher novels though.

[daud....@gmail.com]

What does Erika say?

.9ma HSA2 fusion 23 paired chromosomes in human, 24 in arboreal great apes
BMC Genomics volume 23, Article number: 616 (2022)

Abstract
Background
The reduction of the chromosome number from 48 in the Great Apes to 46 in modern humans is thought to result from the end-to-end fusion of two ancestral non-human primate chromosomes forming the human chromosome 2 (HSA2). Genomic signatures of this event are the presence of inverted telomeric repeats at the HSA2 fusion site and a block of degenerate satellite sequences that mark the remnants of the ancestral centromere. It has been estimated that this fusion arose up to 4.5 million years ago (Mya).

Results
We have developed an enhanced algorithm for the detection and efficient counting of the locally over-represented weak-to-strong (AT to GC) substitutions. By analyzing the enrichment of these substitutions around the fusion site of HSA2 we estimated its formation time at 0.9 Mya with a 95% confidence interval of 0.4-1.5 Mya. Additionally, based on the statistics derived from our algorithm, we have reconstructed the evolutionary distances among the Great Apes (Hominoidea).

Conclusions
Our results shed light on the HSA2 fusion formation and provide a novel computational alternative for the estimation of the speciation chronology

https://bmcgenomics.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12864-022-08828-7

It could have happened after humans diverged from other
> apes, and any 48-chromosome humans later went extinct. Or it could
> have happened before humans diverged from other apes, and any
> 46-chromosome apes later went extinct. Karotypes don't fossilize.
>
> On a related topic, some AMH's have only 44 chromosomes:
>
> <https://www.thetech.org/ask-a-geneticist/48-46>

I'm sure a few have other aberrant counts.

> <https://www.kqed.org/quest/5239/and-then-there-were-44>
>
> <https://www.kqed.org/quest/586/chromosome-fusion-chance-or-design>

Yes, these things happen. The question is, is there an advantage to the new order? (Eg. Malaria unable to take hold.)
The arboreal Great Apes have a stable 48 and limited largely to tropical swamp forests, AMHs has a stable 46 and has overrun the planet despite serious birthing difficulties, in part due to broad shoulders and big head fitting through a birth canal modified for obligate terrestrial striding bipedalism.

[jillery]

On Wed, 23 Nov 2022 05:37:43 -0800 (PST), "daud....@gmail.com"
<daud....@gmail.com> wrote:


<snip for focus>

>> >> >The only real split occurred at the LCA Chromosome 2 transfusion/inversion, when Homo diverged from the Great Apes genetically permanently (per evidence). We don't know if all Homo at different locales at different times could have reproduced successfully, but there is nothing known that physiologically prohibited it. An AMHs in Seattle 20th C couldn't reproduce with an AMHs in Beijing 18th C, that does not mean they were not the same species. Same goes for (adult) Homo erectus specimens throughout the Old World. Morphological adaptations to local climate did not present any significant challenge to inter-reproduction afaict.
>> >> You are correct that geographic and temporal isolation don't by
>> >> themselves cause reproductive isolation. However, population
>> >> isolation allows for different rates of genetic drift in populations'
>> >> nuclear DNA and mitochondrial DNA over time, until enough differences
>> >> accumulate to make them no longer metabolically compatible, the
>> >> ultimate cause of reproductive isolation.
>> >
>> >There are 8bn AMHs now, none have 48 chromosomes. Proof of reproductive isolation. No Homo has ever had 48, no chimp 46. Every human population is inter-reproductive with all others, not all individuals are so.
>> >
>> >> Since you mention it, I point out there is a misimpression among many
>> >> that the chromosome 2 translocation would have caused immediate
>> >> reproductive isolation. In fact, it involved no loss of genetic
>> >> information, and the chromosome pairs could still match up to allow
>> >> successful meiosis.
>> >
>> >Once more, there are 8bn AMHs now, none have 48 chromosomes. Proof of reproductive isolation.
>>
>> Correlation is not causation. It isn't known when this translocation

>> happened. It could have happened after humans diverged from other

>> apes, and any 48-chromosome humans later went extinct. Or it could
>> have happened before humans diverged from other apes, and any
>> 46-chromosome apes later went extinct. Karotypes don't fossilize.
>

>What does Erika say?


Erika says much in other videos about this fusion event, as strong
evidence for common ancestry between humans and other apes, but says
nothing about the fusion event reproductively isolating humans. And
neither does your cite below

>.9ma HSA2 fusion 23 paired chromosomes in human, 24 in arboreal great apes
>BMC Genomics volume 23, Article number: 616 (2022)
>
>Abstract
>Background
>The reduction of the chromosome number from 48 in the Great Apes to 46 in modern humans is thought to result from the end-to-end fusion of two ancestral non-human primate chromosomes forming the human chromosome 2 (HSA2). Genomic signatures of this event are the presence of inverted telomeric repeats at the HSA2 fusion site and a block of degenerate satellite sequences that mark the remnants of the ancestral centromere. It has been estimated that this fusion arose up to 4.5 million years ago (Mya).
>
>Results
>We have developed an enhanced algorithm for the detection and efficient counting of the locally over-represented weak-to-strong (AT to GC) substitutions. By analyzing the enrichment of these substitutions around the fusion site of HSA2 we estimated its formation time at 0.9 Mya with a 95% confidence interval of 0.4-1.5 Mya. Additionally, based on the statistics derived from our algorithm, we have reconstructed the evolutionary distances among the Great Apes (Hominoidea).
>
>Conclusions
>Our results shed light on the HSA2 fusion formation and provide a novel computational alternative for the estimation of the speciation chronology
>
>https://bmcgenomics.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12864-022-08828-7

Now ask yourself: How does your cite inform what I wrote?

>> On a related topic, some AMH's have only 44 chromosomes:
>>
>> <https://www.thetech.org/ask-a-geneticist/48-46>
>
>I'm sure a few have other aberrant counts.
>
>> <https://www.kqed.org/quest/5239/and-then-there-were-44>
>>
>> <https://www.kqed.org/quest/586/chromosome-fusion-chance-or-design>
>
>Yes, these things happen. The question is, is there an advantage to the new order? (Eg. Malaria unable to take hold.)

The answer is "no". More to the point, there is no good reason to
presume any advantage, as there was no change in genetic information
caused by "the new order".

>The arboreal Great Apes have a stable 48 and limited largely to tropical swamp forests, AMHs has a stable 46 and has overrun the planet despite serious birthing difficulties, in part due to broad shoulders and big head fitting through a birth canal modified for obligate terrestrial striding bipedalism.

...none of the phenomena you mention above are causally linked to each
other.

[daud....@gmail.com]

I'll keep that in mind. My cite merely estimates a date of divergence, it doesn't explire the ramifications of the split.

> >.9ma HSA2 fusion 23 paired chromosomes in human, 24 in arboreal great apes
> >BMC Genomics volume 23, Article number: 616 (2022)
> >
> >Abstract
> >Background
> >The reduction of the chromosome number from 48 in the Great Apes to 46 in modern humans is thought to result from the end-to-end fusion of two ancestral non-human primate chromosomes forming the human chromosome 2 (HSA2). Genomic signatures of this event are the presence of inverted telomeric repeats at the HSA2 fusion site and a block of degenerate satellite sequences that mark the remnants of the ancestral centromere. It has been estimated that this fusion arose up to 4.5 million years ago (Mya).
> >
> >Results
> >We have developed an enhanced algorithm for the detection and efficient counting of the locally over-represented weak-to-strong (AT to GC) substitutions. By analyzing the enrichment of these substitutions around the fusion site of HSA2 we estimated its formation time at 0.9 Mya with a 95% confidence interval of 0.4-1.5 Mya. Additionally, based on the statistics derived from our algorithm, we have reconstructed the evolutionary distances among the Great Apes (Hominoidea).
> >
> >Conclusions
> >Our results shed light on the HSA2 fusion formation and provide a novel computational alternative for the estimation of the speciation chronology
> >
> >https://bmcgenomics.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12864-022-08828-7
> Now ask yourself: How does your cite inform what I wrote?

Again, it provides an estimated date of divergence.

> >> On a related topic, some AMH's have only 44 chromosomes:
> >>
> >> <https://www.thetech.org/ask-a-geneticist/48-46>
> >
> >I'm sure a few have other aberrant counts.
> >
> >> <https://www.kqed.org/quest/5239/and-then-there-were-44>
> >>
> >> <https://www.kqed.org/quest/586/chromosome-fusion-chance-or-design>
> >
> >Yes, these things happen. The question is, is there an advantage to the new order? (Eg. Malaria unable to take hold.)
> The answer is "no".

Perhaps not. Seems a bit early to claim anything, since the article is from 2022.

More to the point, there is no good reason to
> presume any advantage, as there was no change in genetic information
> caused by "the new order".

I think I'll hold my opinion, though I note yours. Shuffling the deck changes the card order, though the cards remain the same overall.

> >The arboreal Great Apes have a stable 48 and limited largely to tropical swamp forests, AMHs has a stable 46 and has overrun the planet despite serious birthing difficulties, in part due to broad shoulders and big head fitting through a birth canal modified for obligate terrestrial striding bipedalism.
> ...none of the phenomena you mention above are causally linked to each
> other.

Malaria & ABO blood: Type O protects against worse damage
Pan & Hs & malaria species:
- Hs are the only primates missing N-glycolyl neuraminic acid Neu5Gc ;
- Hs cells are instead rich in N-acetyl neuraminic acid Neu5Ac ;
- the enzyme that converts Neu5Ac to Neu5Gc is disabled by mutation in Hs.
The explanation for this loss might be malaria:
- Pt don't get sick from the Hs malaria parasite Plasmodium falciparum
(favours Neu5Ac).
- Hs can't be infected with the Pt parasite Plasm.reichenowi (prefers Neu5Gc
on Pt RBCs).

[daud....@gmail.com]

OT
I thought the Neu5Ac/Neu5Gc change was unique to humans, but it has happened to a variety of mammals:
https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fimmu.2019.00789/full
Seals, white-tail deer, spider monkeys, weasels, raccoons etc.

[jillery]

On Thu, 24 Nov 2022 03:24:31 -0800 (PST), "daud....@gmail.com"

Read it again. Your cite estimates a date when human chromosome 2
translocation happened approx, 0.9mya. It does not say that's when
humans and chimpanzees diverged. It does suggest a lower bound range
for that divergence to be 2.5-4.5mya, and a likely divergence of
6.5mya.

Your cite also suggests Denisovan/Neanderthal divergences from humans
at 644kya to 812kya, and that both species shared our translocated
chromosome 2. I was unaware that enough of their DNA has been
recovered to support such conclusions. But if these suggestions are
correct, that means the translocation had to have happened before
2.5mya and no later than 812kya, plenty of time for humans with 24
paired chromosomes.

>> > >> On a related topic, some AMH's have only 44 chromosomes:
>> > >>
>> > >> <https://www.thetech.org/ask-a-geneticist/48-46>
>> > >
>> > >I'm sure a few have other aberrant counts.
>> > >
>> > >> <https://www.kqed.org/quest/5239/and-then-there-were-44>
>> > >>
>> > >> <https://www.kqed.org/quest/586/chromosome-fusion-chance-or-design>
>> > >
>> > >Yes, these things happen. The question is, is there an advantage to the new order? (Eg. Malaria unable to take hold.)
>> > The answer is "no".
>> Perhaps not. Seems a bit early to claim anything, since the article is from 2022.
>> More to the point, there is no good reason to
>> > presume any advantage, as there was no change in genetic information
>> > caused by "the new order".
>> I think I'll hold my opinion, though I note yours. Shuffling the deck changes the card order, though the cards remain the same overall.

"Shuffling the deck" is roughly analogous to meiotic recombination, an
important benefit to diploidy. The chromosome 2 translocation is
analogous to stacking 2 decks of cards into one deck without shuffling
them at all. The gene order wasn't changed. That's how we know the
translocation happened.

>> > >The arboreal Great Apes have a stable 48 and limited largely to tropical swamp forests, AMHs has a stable 46 and has overrun the planet despite serious birthing difficulties, in part due to broad shoulders and big head fitting through a birth canal modified for obligate terrestrial striding bipedalism.
>> > ...none of the phenomena you mention above are causally linked to each
>> > other.
>> Malaria & ABO blood: Type O protects against worse damage
>> Pan & Hs & malaria species:
>> - Hs are the only primates missing N-glycolyl neuraminic acid Neu5Gc ;
>> - Hs cells are instead rich in N-acetyl neuraminic acid Neu5Ac ;
>> - the enzyme that converts Neu5Ac to Neu5Gc is disabled by mutation in Hs.
>> The explanation for this loss might be malaria:
>> - Pt don't get sick from the Hs malaria parasite Plasmodium falciparum
>> (favours Neu5Ac).
>> - Hs can't be infected with the Pt parasite Plasm.reichenowi (prefers Neu5Gc
>> on Pt RBCs).
>> > --

>OT
>I thought the Neu5Ac/Neu5Gc change was unique to humans, but it has happened to a variety of mammals:
>https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fimmu.2019.00789/full
>Seals, white-tail deer, spider monkeys, weasels, raccoons etc.

Also, translocations of the type discussed above should not be
confused with a phenomena where fragments of chromosomes become
attached to other chromosomes. See:
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chromosomal_translocation#Examples_of_translocations_on_human_chromosomes>

[daud....@gmail.com]

Why?

Your cite estimates a date when human chromosome 2
> translocation happened approx, 0.9mya.

Yes, as I affirmed.

It does not say that's when
> humans and chimpanzees diverged.

Nor did I say it did.

It does suggest a lower bound range
> for that divergence to be 2.5-4.5mya, and a likely divergence of
> 6.5mya.

Plausible. Not confirmed.

>
> Your cite also suggests Denisovan/Neanderthal divergences from humans
> at 644kya to 812kya, and that both species shared our translocated
> chromosome 2.

Yes, as expected.

I was unaware that enough of their DNA has been
> recovered to support such conclusions.

It has. Maybe from dirt analysis.

But if these suggestions are
> correct, that means the translocation had to have happened before
> 2.5mya and no later than 812kya, plenty of time for humans with 24
> paired chromosomes.

Ok. I don't know if I'd refer to them as humans. All humans but a few have 26 pairs of chromosomes. Maybe another term? Humanzee? Chuman?

> >> > >> On a related topic, some AMH's have only 44 chromosomes:
> >> > >>
> >> > >> <https://www.thetech.org/ask-a-geneticist/48-46>
> >> > >
> >> > >I'm sure a few have other aberrant counts.
> >> > >
> >> > >> <https://www.kqed.org/quest/5239/and-then-there-were-44>
> >> > >>
> >> > >> <https://www.kqed.org/quest/586/chromosome-fusion-chance-or-design>
> >> > >
> >> > >Yes, these things happen. The question is, is there an advantage to the new order? (Eg. Malaria unable to take hold.)
> >> > The answer is "no".
> >> Perhaps not. Seems a bit early to claim anything, since the article is from 2022.
> >> More to the point, there is no good reason to
> >> > presume any advantage, as there was no change in genetic information
> >> > caused by "the new order".
> >> I think I'll hold my opinion, though I note yours. Shuffling the deck changes the card order, though the cards remain the same overall.
> "Shuffling the deck" is roughly analogous to meiotic recombination, an
> important benefit to diploidy. The chromosome 2 translocation is
> analogous to stacking 2 decks of cards into one deck without shuffling
> them at all. The gene order wasn't changed. That's how we know the
> translocation happened.

Yet it did in reference to the chromosomes, 24 prs vs 23prs.

Ok, will check that.

[jillery]

On Thu, 24 Nov 2022 08:58:43 -0800 (PST), "daud....@gmail.com"

Then your cite doesn't inform what I wrote. Pick your poison.

> It does suggest a lower bound range
>> for that divergence to be 2.5-4.5mya, and a likely divergence of
>> 6.5mya.
>Plausible. Not confirmed.
>>
>> Your cite also suggests Denisovan/Neanderthal divergences from humans
>> at 644kya to 812kya, and that both species shared our translocated
>> chromosome 2.
>Yes, as expected.
>I was unaware that enough of their DNA has been
>> recovered to support such conclusions.
>It has. Maybe from dirt analysis.
>But if these suggestions are
>> correct, that means the translocation had to have happened before
>> 2.5mya and no later than 812kya, plenty of time for humans with 24
>> paired chromosomes.
>Ok. I don't know if I'd refer to them as humans.

On what basis would you not?

> All humans but a few have 26 pairs of chromosomes. Maybe another term? Humanzee? Chuman?
>> >> > >> On a related topic, some AMH's have only 44 chromosomes:
>> >> > >>
>> >> > >> <https://www.thetech.org/ask-a-geneticist/48-46>
>> >> > >
>> >> > >I'm sure a few have other aberrant counts.
>> >> > >
>> >> > >> <https://www.kqed.org/quest/5239/and-then-there-were-44>
>> >> > >>
>> >> > >> <https://www.kqed.org/quest/586/chromosome-fusion-chance-or-design>
>> >> > >
>> >> > >Yes, these things happen. The question is, is there an advantage to the new order? (Eg. Malaria unable to take hold.)
>> >> > The answer is "no".
>> >> Perhaps not. Seems a bit early to claim anything, since the article is from 2022.
>> >> More to the point, there is no good reason to
>> >> > presume any advantage, as there was no change in genetic information
>> >> > caused by "the new order".
>> >> I think I'll hold my opinion, though I note yours. Shuffling the deck changes the card order, though the cards remain the same overall.
>> "Shuffling the deck" is roughly analogous to meiotic recombination, an
>> important benefit to diploidy. The chromosome 2 translocation is
>> analogous to stacking 2 decks of cards into one deck without shuffling
>> them at all. The gene order wasn't changed. That's how we know the
>> translocation happened.
>Yet it did in reference to the chromosomes, 24 prs vs 23prs.

Once again, gene order isn't dependent on chromosome arrangement.

[daud....@gmail.com]

Divergence 7.5ma H/P https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2022/11/221123114249.htm

> > It does suggest a lower bound range
> >> for that divergence to be 2.5-4.5mya, and a likely divergence of
> >> 6.5mya.
> >Plausible. Not confirmed.
> >>
> >> Your cite also suggests Denisovan/Neanderthal divergences from humans
> >> at 644kya to 812kya, and that both species shared our translocated
> >> chromosome 2.
> >Yes, as expected.
> >I was unaware that enough of their DNA has been
> >> recovered to support such conclusions.
> >It has. Maybe from dirt analysis.
> >But if these suggestions are
> >> correct, that means the translocation had to have happened before
> >> 2.5mya and no later than 812kya, plenty of time for humans with 24
> >> paired chromosomes.
> >Ok. I don't know if I'd refer to them as humans.
> On what basis would you not?

All AMHs (and all tested ancient Homo populations) have 26prs of chromosomes. It is part of the definition of 'human population'. It is an extraordinary claim that some human population didn't.

> > All humans but a few have 26 pairs of chromosomes. Maybe another term? Humanzee? Chuman?
> >> >> > >> On a related topic, some AMH's have only 44 chromosomes:
> >> >> > >>
> >> >> > >> <https://www.thetech.org/ask-a-geneticist/48-46>
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > >I'm sure a few have other aberrant counts.
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > >> <https://www.kqed.org/quest/5239/and-then-there-were-44>
> >> >> > >>
> >> >> > >> <https://www.kqed.org/quest/586/chromosome-fusion-chance-or-design>
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > >Yes, these things happen. The question is, is there an advantage to the new order? (Eg. Malaria unable to take hold.)
> >> >> > The answer is "no".
> >> >> Perhaps not. Seems a bit early to claim anything, since the article is from 2022.
> >> >> More to the point, there is no good reason to
> >> >> > presume any advantage, as there was no change in genetic information
> >> >> > caused by "the new order".
> >> >> I think I'll hold my opinion, though I note yours. Shuffling the deck changes the card order, though the cards remain the same overall.
> >> "Shuffling the deck" is roughly analogous to meiotic recombination, an
> >> important benefit to diploidy. The chromosome 2 translocation is
> >> analogous to stacking 2 decks of cards into one deck without shuffling
> >> them at all. The gene order wasn't changed. That's how we know the
> >> translocation happened.
> >Yet it did in reference to the chromosomes, 24 prs vs 23prs.
> Once again, gene order isn't dependent on chromosome arrangement.

But the chromosome arrangement has changed.

[jillery]

On Thu, 24 Nov 2022 18:29:18 -0800 (PST), "daud....@gmail.com"

So even more time for 24-pair human species. Are you really having
this much trouble understanding this simple point?

>> >> It does suggest a lower bound range
>> >> for that divergence to be 2.5-4.5mya, and a likely divergence of
>> >> 6.5mya.
>> >Plausible. Not confirmed.
>> >>
>> >> Your cite also suggests Denisovan/Neanderthal divergences from humans
>> >> at 644kya to 812kya, and that both species shared our translocated
>> >> chromosome 2.
>> >Yes, as expected.
>> >> I was unaware that enough of their DNA has been
>> >> recovered to support such conclusions.
>> >It has. Maybe from dirt analysis.
>> >> But if these suggestions are
>> >> correct, that means the translocation had to have happened before
>> >> 2.5mya and no later than 812kya, plenty of time for humans with 24
>> >> paired chromosomes.
>> >Ok. I don't know if I'd refer to them as humans.
>> On what basis would you not?

>All AMHs (and all tested ancient Homo populations) have 26prs [23-pairs] of chromosomes. It is part of the definition of 'human population'. It is an extraordinary claim that some human population didn't.


Your expressed criteria above would eliminate those 22-pair
individuals by definition as well. I acknowledge the number of
chromosomes are descriptive. However, that isn't part of any
meaningful definition, any more than are the number of toes. Your
argument above makes the same category mistake as do those of Rupe and
Sanford.

>> > All humans but a few have 26 pairs of chromosomes. Maybe another term? Humanzee? Chuman?
>> >> >> > >> On a related topic, some AMH's have only 44 chromosomes:
>> >> >> > >>
>> >> >> > >> <https://www.thetech.org/ask-a-geneticist/48-46>
>> >> >> > >
>> >> >> > >I'm sure a few have other aberrant counts.
>> >> >> > >
>> >> >> > >> <https://www.kqed.org/quest/5239/and-then-there-were-44>
>> >> >> > >>
>> >> >> > >> <https://www.kqed.org/quest/586/chromosome-fusion-chance-or-design>
>> >> >> > >
>> >> >> > >Yes, these things happen. The question is, is there an advantage to the new order? (Eg. Malaria unable to take hold.)
>> >> >> > The answer is "no".
>> >> >> Perhaps not. Seems a bit early to claim anything, since the article is from 2022.
>> >> >> More to the point, there is no good reason to
>> >> >> > presume any advantage, as there was no change in genetic information
>> >> >> > caused by "the new order".
>> >> >> I think I'll hold my opinion, though I note yours. Shuffling the deck changes the card order, though the cards remain the same overall.
>> >> "Shuffling the deck" is roughly analogous to meiotic recombination, an
>> >> important benefit to diploidy. The chromosome 2 translocation is
>> >> analogous to stacking 2 decks of cards into one deck without shuffling
>> >> them at all. The gene order wasn't changed. That's how we know the
>> >> translocation happened.
>> >Yet it did in reference to the chromosomes, 24 prs vs 23prs.
>> Once again, gene order isn't dependent on chromosome arrangement.
>But the chromosome arrangement has changed.

So what? That doesn't cause any of the functional changes you
suggest, any more than does the arrangement of cards in a hand.

[daud....@gmail.com]

Odd, as I don't feel I'm having any trouble. I do feel that a 24pr chromosome hominid is better termed something other than human, since all known human populations have/had 23pr chromosomes. I don't think any australopiths have had their chromosomes determined yet, perhaps that name would better fit?

> >> >> It does suggest a lower bound range
> >> >> for that divergence to be 2.5-4.5mya, and a likely divergence of
> >> >> 6.5mya.
> >> >Plausible. Not confirmed.
> >> >>
> >> >> Your cite also suggests Denisovan/Neanderthal divergences from humans
> >> >> at 644kya to 812kya, and that both species shared our translocated
> >> >> chromosome 2.
> >> >Yes, as expected.
> >> >> I was unaware that enough of their DNA has been
> >> >> recovered to support such conclusions.
> >> >It has. Maybe from dirt analysis.
> >> >> But if these suggestions are
> >> >> correct, that means the translocation had to have happened before
> >> >> 2.5mya and no later than 812kya, plenty of time for humans with 24
> >> >> paired chromosomes.
> >> >Ok. I don't know if I'd refer to them as humans.
> >> On what basis would you not?

NOTE: Below, I meant "All AMHs (and all tested ancient Homo) populations have 26 pairs of chromosomes....

> >All AMHs (and all tested ancient Homo populations) have 26prs [23-pairs] of chromosomes. It is part of the definition of 'human population'. It is an extraordinary claim that some human population didn't.

I meant to disregard unique individuals with unusual chromosome counts outside the 2nd chromosome.

> Your expressed criteria above would eliminate those 22-pair
> individuals by definition as well. I acknowledge the number of
> chromosomes are descriptive. However, that isn't part of any
> meaningful definition, any more than are the number of toes.

Name any species or genus that has twenty distal prehensile digits and 26 pairs of chromosomes, among plants, animals, fungi, bacteria & archae:____________

I am less certain of that than you appear to be.

[jillery]

On Fri, 25 Nov 2022 07:12:15 -0800 (PST), "daud....@gmail.com"

You cite an article above that refers to a point when human and
chimpanzee lineages diverged. That means all descendants after that
point are either chimpanzees or humans, by definition.

The evidence shows that point happened millions of years earlier than
when the chromosome 2 translocation happened. That means humans had
24 pairs of chromosomes during those millions of years, by definition.
Your feelings don't inform this discussion.

Sure, right after you decide whether your point is about definitive
characteristics or descriptive features.

[daud....@gmail.com]

Yes.

That means all descendants after that
> point are either chimpanzees or humans, by definition.

No. The article refers to "human ancestors" having mutations, not "humans".
"Specifically, the DNA sequences in question, which the researchers have dubbed Human Ancestor Quickly Evolved Regions (HAQERS), pronounced like hackers, regulate genes"/
If those "human ancestors" were also ancestors of australopiths, preanthropus, etc., which is plausible, then I wouldn't identify them as human.

> The evidence shows that point happened millions of years earlier than
> when the chromosome 2 translocation happened. That means humans had
> 24 pairs of chromosomes during those millions of years, by definition.
> Your feelings don't inform this discussion.

See above. Are you declaring the pre-Homo fossils to be human or not? We don't know if any or all had 23 or 24 pairs or if they were directly ancestral to AMHs.

Put within limits vs to write down
Distinctive trait vs form
The human population overwhelmingly has 23 pairs of chromosomes.
That's my point.

[daud....@gmail.com]

I see Erika made a video about the AAH: https://youtu.be/tU1hmygPdYY

[daud....@gmail.com]

I hear her claim that humans reduced body hair and gained sweat glands due to persistence hunting & endurance running. That goes way beyond silly.

[jillery]

On Fri, 25 Nov 2022 19:23:00 -0800 (PST), "daud....@gmail.com"

Read it again. The ancestors to which the article refers are
ancestors of their descendants *since* the H/P split:
***********************************
A lot of the traits that we think of as uniquely human, and
human-specific, probably appear during that time period," in the 7.5
million years since the split with the common ancestor we share with
the chimpanzee
***********************************

>> The evidence shows that point happened millions of years earlier than
>> when the chromosome 2 translocation happened. That means humans had
>> 24 pairs of chromosomes during those millions of years, by definition.
>> Your feelings don't inform this discussion.
>See above. Are you declaring the pre-Homo fossils to be human or not?

That's a question you need to ask yourself. Either you understand
what "common ancestor" and "H/P split" mean, or you don't.

>We don't know if any or all had 23 or 24 pairs

Then you had no good reason to declare that very thought is "an
extraordinary claim".

> or if they were directly ancestral to AMHs.

Once again, either you accept the date for LCA of chimpanzees and
humans, and the date for the chromosome 2 fusion, or you don't.
Either way, your feelings *still* don't inform this discussion.

[daud....@gmail.com]

Erika's new video on Chromosome 2
https://youtu.be/qVeriF1OL54