'Out of Africa' or 'Modern mitochondrial Eve' theory
Andrew Gyles
assumptions about mitochondrial mutation rates in humans on which it is
largely based, at: www.geocities.com/acgyles .
--
My website criticising 'Out of Africa' theory: www.geocities.com/acgyles
'"... and suddenly a puff of wind, a puff faint and tepid and laden with
strange odours of blossoms, of aromatic wood, comes out of the still
night - the first sigh of the East on my face"'.
Joseph Conrad, 'Youth'.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
wilkins
<acg...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> I argue against the so-called 'Out of Africa' theory, and the
> assumptions about mitochondrial mutation rates in humans on which it is
> largely based, at: www.geocities.com/acgyles .
>
Excuse my ignorance on this topic, but I thought that the OoA hypothesis
was primarily based on the distribution and date of paleontological
finds rather than mtDNA clocks, which were adduced to support the
hypothesis. Also, I thought that the Multiregional hypothesis has some
serious deficits WRT our knowledge of speciation processes and
population genetics (ie, founder effect models of allopatric speciation,
etc). This is all just hearsay - I'm no biologist.
--
John Wilkins, Head, Graphic Production, Hall Institute
<http://www.users.bigpond.com/thewilkins/darwiniana.html>
Otto: Apes don't read philosophy.
Wanda: Yes they do, Otto, they just don't understand it.
Andrew Gyles
John, I think it is fair to say that the paper 'Mitochondrial DNA and
human evolution' by Cann, Stoneking and Wilson, in 'Nature' vol 325, 1
January 1987, started the Out of Africa theory and gave it its main
drive. The abstract says in part: 'All these mitochondrial DNAs stem
from one woman who is postulated to have lived about 200,000 years ago,
probably in Africa'.
It is true that many (but not all) paleontologists have reassessed the
fossil finds and concluded that they support the Out of Africa
hypothesis. But I have an important criticism to make of their
conclusions: much human evolution in eastern and south-eastern Asia has
happened during the ice ages of the past 500,000 years. During most of
that time the vast continental shelves of those regions have been dry
land. Presumably sizable human populations chose to live on those vast
plains, and presumably they evolved there. But no human fossils have
been recovered from the floor of the seas that presently cover those
plains! The last ice age ended roughly 10,000 years ago.
It is as if scientists working in the Western Hemisphere have never
looked thoughtfully at a map showing the shallow Yellow Sea, East China
Sea, South China Sea and Java Sea. And yet two human populations
important in the Multiregional Evolution hypothesis lived in China and
Java.
Andrew Gyles
wilkins
<acg...@my-deja.com> wrote:
Again, forgive my amateur's ignorance, but isn't that the "mitochondrial
Eve" hypothesis, not the OoA as such. As I read the popular lit, the
mtDNA argument has some serious flaws (not least being that paternal
mtDNA does find its way into the ovum (Ankel-Simons and Cummins 1996),
but the generic problem with variable rates is clearly critical (despite
Maynard Smith's 1987 argument that fixation time is, over longer terms,
identical to origin time. However, Mindell and Thacker argue that the
variabilities cancel each other out, again for large datasets, which may
not apply to a single species).
But this was not my point. The OoA hypothesis is not identical to the
mtEve hypothesis, either formally or historically (wasn't Leakey making
the OoA argument back in the 60s?). The idea that all humans evolved
first in Africa and then migrated without significant interbreeding with
the H erectus populations already in situ predates and depends on a
range of other data and hypotheses. I can't, for example, understand
how multiregionalists think that sapiens encephalisation introgressed
the erectus population to fixation. Perhaps you could explain it to me
(that is an honest request, not a snide remark).
Ankel-Simons, Friderun, and Jim M. Cummins. 1996. Misconceptions about
mitochondria and mammalian fertilization: Implications for theories on
human evolution. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 93 (November):13859-13863.
Maynard Smith, J. 1987. On the equality of origin and fixation times in
genetics. Journal of Theoretical Biology 128 (2):247-52.
Mindell, DP, and CE Thacker. 1996. Rates of molecular evolution
phylogenetic issues and applications . Annual Review of Ecology and
Systematics 27:279303.
>
> It is true that many (but not all) paleontologists have reassessed the
> fossil finds and concluded that they support the Out of Africa
> hypothesis. But I have an important criticism to make of their
> conclusions: much human evolution in eastern and south-eastern Asia has
> happened during the ice ages of the past 500,000 years. During most of
> that time the vast continental shelves of those regions have been dry
> land. Presumably sizable human populations chose to live on those vast
> plains, and presumably they evolved there. But no human fossils have
> been recovered from the floor of the seas that presently cover those
> plains! The last ice age ended roughly 10,000 years ago.
Do you have references for this? I know that there is evidence of
erectus habitation in Asia at that time. And it can be taken as given
that they evolved. But that doesn't go to the question whether the
present populations are descendents of those populations (or any other
modern population). As to human remains from the ocean floor - the
present hypothesis is that Australian aboriginal migration mainly
followed the continental shelf edge during the last Ice Age, c18,000
years ago. No evidence has been found of that, either. I'm more sure of
that hypothesis than of the claim that some humans now extant evolved in
situ in SE and E Asia.
>
> It is as if scientists working in the Western Hemisphere have never
> looked thoughtfully at a map showing the shallow Yellow Sea, East China
> Sea, South China Sea and Java Sea. And yet two human populations
> important in the Multiregional Evolution hypothesis lived in China and
> Java.
Again, weren't they erectus? Somoen once told me erectus still lived in
Java as recently as the last ice age. The arrival of sapiens and
dominance in the viable ecologies seems to me a likely explanation of
their demise, not introgression.
However, I'm open to the MRH if the evidence supports it. The mtDNA
thing is a bit of a side issue, though.
Vincent Maycock
"wilkins" <wil...@wehi.edu.au> wrote in message
news:wilkins-219EC4...@news.unimelb.edu.au...
> In article <8nq0fb$s7a$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, Andrew Gyles
> <acg...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
> > I argue against the so-called 'Out of Africa' theory, and the
> > assumptions about mitochondrial mutation rates in humans on which it is
> > largely based, at: www.geocities.com/acgyles .
> >
>
> Excuse my ignorance on this topic, but I thought that the OoA hypothesis
> was primarily based on the distribution and date of paleontological
> finds rather than mtDNA clocks, which were adduced to support the
> hypothesis.
No, the Out of Africa hypothesis uses mtDNA mutation rates to produce a time
scale for the origin of modern humans.
> Also, I thought that the Multiregional hypothesis has some
> serious deficits WRT our knowledge of speciation processes and
> population genetics (ie, founder effect models of allopatric speciation,
> etc). This is all just hearsay - I'm no biologist.
Not sure about that.
--
Vince
Andrew Gyles
wilkins <wil...@wehi.edu.au> wrote:
> In article <8nq76c$3ba$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, Andrew Gyles
> <acg...@my-deja.com> wrote:
John, I think you are right in saying that Out of Africa was as old as
the Leakey argument back in the 60s (though the name cannot have been
used before the film of the same name starring Robert Redford and a
woman whose name I forget made the phrase popular!). I am talking about
Modern Mitochondrial Eve, but she was also called African Eve, and Out
of Africa probably has a bit of African Eve in it.
The important thing about the mitochondrial argument is that if the
scientists can get the mitochondrial mutation rate in humans correct
(they speak of the sequence divergence rate) it does enable them to
calculate how many years have passed since our most recent common
mitochondrial ancestor lived. Any other mathematical approach requires
that they know the number of people in each generation in each
population being studied, and the interval between generations, and
they certainly don't know those figures, though they might make a good
guess at the latter.
The defenders of the Multiregional Evolution hypothesis are saying now
that Homo sapiens is as old as Homo erectus; that is to say, they
regard Homo erectus as just a name for an early form of Homo sapiens.
They say that Homo sapiens appeared about 2 million (or 1.5) years ago
and has been evolving in different parts of the Old World ever since.
The defenders of the Multiregional Evolution hypothesis say that there
is evidence in the fossil bones of gradual evolution from a form like
Home erectus in China and Java to the Mongoloid and Australoid forms.
They point, for example, to the shovel-shaped incisor teeth of Peking
man, which are found in modern Mongoloids, including Polynesians. I
doubt that they are worried by evidence of survival of some forms like
Home erectus in China and Java until about 30,000 years ago; other
parts of the original population in other places might have evolved
much more quickly.
As for my assertion that humans must have lived on the vast continental
shelf during the ice ages, I have no references to support it, except
those proving that people crossed a narrower sea gap than the present
one to get from what is now Indonesia to the conjoined masses of New
Guinea and Australia.
By the way, I suspect from your references that you are less of an
amateur than I am!
Andrew Gyles
--
My website criticising 'Out of Africa' theory: www.geocities.com/acgyles
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Stephen Poley
>John, I think you are right in saying that Out of Africa was as old as
>the Leakey argument back in the 60s (though the name cannot have been
>used before the film of the same name starring Robert Redford and a
>woman whose name I forget made the phrase popular!).
The book Out of Africa (by Isak Dinesen, otherwise known as Baroness Karen
Blixen-Finecke) was written as long ago as 1937, so the name for the theory
could certainly have predated the film. (Though it quite likely did not.)
I believe the actress was Meryl Streep, BTW.
Stephen Poley
Barendrecht, Holland
wilkins
<acg...@my-deja.com> wrote:
...
> John, I think you are right in saying that Out of Africa was as old as
> the Leakey argument back in the 60s (though the name cannot have been
> used before the film of the same name starring Robert Redford and a
> woman whose name I forget made the phrase popular!). I am talking about
> Modern Mitochondrial Eve, but she was also called African Eve, and Out
> of Africa probably has a bit of African Eve in it.
Meryl Streep - good at accents and crying...
...
>
> The defenders of the Multiregional Evolution hypothesis are saying now
> that Homo sapiens is as old as Homo erectus; that is to say, they
> regard Homo erectus as just a name for an early form of Homo sapiens.
> They say that Homo sapiens appeared about 2 million (or 1.5) years ago
> and has been evolving in different parts of the Old World ever since.
I have often thought that the distinction between erectus and sapiens is
a morphological rather than a biological classification. It may be that
"we" were totally interfertile with erectus, and that the *real*
biological speciation was with ergaster, heidelbergensis and
neandertalensis, which were allopatric and more likely candidates for
speciation (given the extreme promiscuity for which Homo is known).
This makes the MRH feasible in one way - introgression would be very
likely - but unfeasible in another - how would encephalisation genes go
to fixation if there was already a very large erectus population in a
region, and why would it do this so similarly in all regions? Why
wouldn't there be some ESS for each region? IOW, why aren't there *real*
racial differences rather than the geographical minor phenotypical
variations we now observe in the species? On this basis - one of
parsimony - I think that rather than the MRH being the best explanation,
a single locus for the sapiens morphotype followed by replacement
through migration is the best account.
>
> The defenders of the Multiregional Evolution hypothesis say that there
> is evidence in the fossil bones of gradual evolution from a form like
> Home erectus in China and Java to the Mongoloid and Australoid forms.
> They point, for example, to the shovel-shaped incisor teeth of Peking
> man, which are found in modern Mongoloids, including Polynesians. I
> doubt that they are worried by evidence of survival of some forms like
> Home erectus in China and Java until about 30,000 years ago; other
> parts of the original population in other places might have evolved
> much more quickly.
These features might be homoplastic if they were regional adaptations in
both species. And given the functional character of dentition, that
would seem, a priori, likely.
>
> As for my assertion that humans must have lived on the vast continental
> shelf during the ice ages, I have no references to support it, except
> those proving that people crossed a narrower sea gap than the present
> one to get from what is now Indonesia to the conjoined masses of New
> Guinea and Australia.
As far as I know it's accepted that migration occurred at least in part
on the shelves during the low sea levels.
>
> By the way, I suspect from your references that you are less of an
> amateur than I am!
Doubt it - I am a philosophy buff with access to a good online
bibliographical service.
>
> Andrew Gyles
>
> --
> My website criticising 'Out of Africa' theory: www.geocities.com/acgyles
>
>
>
> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> Before you buy.
>
--
thei...@my-deja.com
wilkins <wil...@wehi.edu.au> wrote:
> In article <8nqpoo$ns2$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, Andrew Gyles
> <acg...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
> ...
> > John, I think you are right in saying that Out of Africa was as old as
> > the Leakey argument back in the 60s (though the name cannot have been
> > used before the film of the same name starring Robert Redford and a
> > woman whose name I forget made the phrase popular!). I am talking about
> > Modern Mitochondrial Eve, but she was also called African Eve, and Out
> > of Africa probably has a bit of African Eve in it.
>
> ...
> >
> > that Homo sapiens is as old as Homo erectus; that is to say, they
> > regard Homo erectus as just a name for an early form of Homo sapiens.
> > They say that Homo sapiens appeared about 2 million (or 1.5) years ago
> > and has been evolving in different parts of the Old World ever since.
>
> a morphological rather than a biological classification. It may be that
> "we" were totally interfertile with erectus, and that the *real*
> biological speciation was with ergaster, heidelbergensis and
> neandertalensis, which were allopatric and more likely candidates for
> speciation (given the extreme promiscuity for which Homo is known).
>
> This makes the MRH feasible in one way - introgression would be very
> likely - but unfeasible in another - how would encephalisation genes go
> to fixation if there was already a very large erectus population in a
> region, and why would it do this so similarly in all regions? Why
> wouldn't there be some ESS for each region? IOW, why aren't there *real*
> racial differences rather than the geographical minor phenotypical
> variations we now observe in the species?
>
There aren't any 'real' racial differences???... Does your hair roll into a
bead???...
Well,most all Africans do. And that accounts for a lot when it comes to
genetics.
And I don't see the Andaman Islanders,who are the easternmost Negroids
btw,exactly turning into 'blue-eyed' blondes.
>
On this basis - one of
> parsimony - I think that rather than the MRH being the best explanation,
> a single locus for the sapiens morphotype followed by replacement
> through migration is the best account.
>
In Africa??? I don't think so.
> >
> > The defenders of the Multiregional Evolution hypothesis say that there
> > is evidence in the fossil bones of gradual evolution from a form like
> > Home erectus in China and Java to the Mongoloid and Australoid forms.
> > They point, for example, to the shovel-shaped incisor teeth of Peking
> > man, which are found in modern Mongoloids, including Polynesians. I
> > doubt that they are worried by evidence of survival of some forms like
> > Home erectus in China and Java until about 30,000 years ago; other
> > parts of the original population in other places might have evolved
> > much more quickly.
>
> These features might be homoplastic if they were regional adaptations in
> both species. And given the functional character of dentition, that
> would seem, a priori, likely.
> >
> > As for my assertion that humans must have lived on the vast continental
> > shelf during the ice ages, I have no references to support it, except
> > those proving that people crossed a narrower sea gap than the present
> > one to get from what is now Indonesia to the conjoined masses of New
> > Guinea and Australia.
>
> As far as I know it's accepted that migration occurred at least in part
> on the shelves during the low sea levels.
> >
> > By the way, I suspect from your references that you are less of an
> > amateur than I am!
>
> Doubt it - I am a philosophy buff with access to a good online
> bibliographical service.
> >
> > Andrew Gyles
> >
> > --
> > My website criticising 'Out of Africa' theory: www.geocities.com/acgyles
> >
> >
> >
> > Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> > Before you buy.
> >
>
> --
> John Wilkins, Head, Graphic Production, Hall Institute
> <http://www.users.bigpond.com/thewilkins/darwiniana.html>
> Otto: Apes don't read philosophy.
> Wanda: Yes they do, Otto, they just don't understand it.
>
chmc
>
> > This makes the MRH feasible in one way - introgression would be very
> > likely - but unfeasible in another - how would encephalisation genes go
> > to fixation if there was already a very large erectus population in a
> > region, and why would it do this so similarly in all regions? Why
> > wouldn't there be some ESS for each region? IOW, why aren't there *real*
> > racial differences rather than the geographical minor phenotypical
> > variations we now observe in the species?
> >
>
> There aren't any 'real' racial differences???... Does your hair roll into a
> bead???...
>
Greetings. As a founding member of the Society to Preserve Punctuation marks, I
will have to ask you to be more considerate in your punctuation usage. You may
not realize it, but there are children in third world nations right now who have
to speak in long William Faulkner style sentences because they have only a few
question marks, exclamation points and periods to end their sentences with. If
you find you have extra punctuation just lying around, please, send it in to the
SPPM as soon as possible, and we will make sure they are distributed immediately.
>
> Well,most all Africans do. And that accounts for a lot when it comes to
> genetics.
What exactly does this mean. How does hair that "rolls into a bead" "account for
a lot" genetically? How big a difference is there?
wilkins
Don't trust him or the SPPM. They have a *massive* overhead and most of
your punctuation marks end up going in administration reports by their
bureacrats. Then, of what *is* sent to the third world countries, at
least 80% ends up being passed on to corrupt bureacrats in the
government of these countries. I recommend OxPunct, which is a reputable
typographical aid organisation...
>
> >
> > Well,most all Africans do. And that accounts for a lot when it comes
> > to
> > genetics.
>
> What exactly does this mean. How does hair that "rolls into a bead"
> "account for
> a lot" genetically? How big a difference is there?
And "Africans"? I thought that the oval cross section of head hair was
restricted to only a few groups in central and west Africa, but I may be
wrong.
thei...@my-deja.com
chmc <ch...@chmc.org> wrote:
>
>
> >
> > > This makes the MRH feasible in one way - introgression would be very
> > > likely - but unfeasible in another - how would encephalisation genes go
> > > to fixation if there was already a very large erectus population in a
> > > region, and why would it do this so similarly in all regions? Why
> > > wouldn't there be some ESS for each region? IOW, why aren't there *real*
> > > racial differences rather than the geographical minor phenotypical
> > > variations we now observe in the species?
> > >
> >
> > There aren't any 'real' racial differences???... Does your hair roll into a
> > bead???...
> >
>
> Greetings. As a founding member of the Society to Preserve Punctuation marks, I
> will have to ask you to be more considerate in your punctuation usage.
>
I can't. It's my schtick.
>
You may
> not realize it, but there are children in third world nations right now who have
> to speak in long William Faulkner style sentences because they have only a few
> question marks, exclamation points and periods to end their sentences with. If
> you find you have extra punctuation just lying around, please, send it in to the
> SPPM as soon as possible, and we will make sure they are distributed immediately.
>
Usenet is never short of comedians is it?
> >
> > Well,most all Africans do. And that accounts for a lot when it comes to
> > genetics.
>
> What exactly does this mean. How does hair that "rolls into a bead" "account for
> a lot" genetically? How big a difference is there?
>
Meaning that this a racial trait common only to people of 'Negroid'
heritage.
The simple fact is,Negroid hair,which btw,is short and sometimes
brittle,cannot mutate into elongated caucasoid hair(or mongoloid hair for
that matter) . It is virtually impossible,and has never been done
before,since no two parents of 'true' Negroid parentage has ever produced
children with long hair.
If it were true,you would see blacks with long hair all over Africa. And the
Andaman Islanders,aboriginal pygmies who live in islands south of India,are
living proof.
This is extremely important when considering this 'out of Egypt(Africa)'
theory(which is IMO,bogus btw)
Paul Kekai Manansala
thei...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
>
> The simple fact is,Negroid hair,which btw,is short and sometimes
> brittle,cannot mutate into elongated caucasoid hair(or mongoloid hair
for
> that matter) . It is virtually impossible,and has never been done
> before,since no two parents of 'true' Negroid parentage has ever
produced
> children with long hair.
How do you know this?
Even if it were true of modern "Negroids" what bearing does it have on
the ancestors of the same people?
Regards,
Paul Kekai Manansala
http://www.jps.net/kabalen/afro.htm
--
Check out http://AsiaPacificUniverse.com/
rokimo...@my-deja.com
Andrew Gyles <acg...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> In article <wilkins-74FFB4...@news.unimelb.edu.au>,
> wilkins <wil...@wehi.edu.au> wrote:
> > In article <8nq76c$3ba$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, Andrew Gyles
> > <acg...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> > <snip>
snip wilkins' relavent comments that I tend to agree with.
Any explanation has to account for the neaderthal mitochondrial data.
The multi-regional explanation fails in this regard. The mtDNA
sequence of neaderthals is a distinct maternal lineage from modern
homo. You have to say that these divergent maternal lineages (and
there must have been many) have been lost by drift in the different
regions and only the modern human mtDNA type has survived. This is
highly unlikely to be the case.
Ron Okimoto
thei...@my-deja.com
Paul Kekai Manansala <mana...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> In article <8o6ek3$8fs$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> thei...@my-deja.com wrote:
> >
> >
> > The simple fact is,Negroid hair,which btw,is short and sometimes
> > brittle,cannot mutate into elongated caucasoid hair(or mongoloid hair
> for
> > that matter) . It is virtually impossible,and has never been done
> > before,since no two parents of 'true' Negroid parentage has ever
> produced
> > children with long hair.
>
> How do you know this?
>
It's a fact. How many people of 'straight'(non-mixed) African descent have
really long hair?...
The answer is 'none'.
The only blacks with long hair are of mixed backgrounds(i.e. caucasian or
mongolian parentage or ancestry)
>
> Even if it were true of modern "Negroids" what bearing does it have on
> the ancestors of the same people?
>
Everything. It means they're ancestors were just as short haired as well.
> Regards,
> Paul Kekai Manansala
> http://www.jps.net/kabalen/afro.htm
>
> --
> Check out http://AsiaPacificUniverse.com/
>
rich hammett
> In article <8o988l$9kd$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> Paul Kekai Manansala <mana...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>> In article <8o6ek3$8fs$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
>> thei...@my-deja.com wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> > The simple fact is,Negroid hair,which btw,is short and sometimes
>> > brittle,cannot mutate into elongated caucasoid hair(or mongoloid hair
>> for
>> > that matter) . It is virtually impossible,and has never been done
>> > before,since no two parents of 'true' Negroid parentage has ever
>> produced
>> > children with long hair.
>>
>> How do you know this?
>>
> It's a fact. How many people of 'straight'(non-mixed) African descent have
> really long hair?...
> The answer is 'none'.
No, the correct answer is 68.4%. You should really check your facts!
> The only blacks with long hair are of mixed backgrounds(i.e. caucasian or
> mongolian parentage or ancestry)
>>
>> Even if it were true of modern "Negroids" what bearing does it have on
>> the ancestors of the same people?
>>
> Everything. It means they're ancestors were just as short haired as well.
Sure. This is really poor, even for a troll.
rich
>> Regards,
>> Paul Kekai Manansala
>> http://www.jps.net/kabalen/afro.htm
>>
>> --
>> Check out http://AsiaPacificUniverse.com/
>>
>> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
>> Before you buy.
>>
>>
> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> Before you buy.
--
-remove no from mail name and spam from domain to reply
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
\ Rich Hammett http://home.hiwaay.net/~rhammett
/ hnoa...@eng.spamauburn.edu
\ ..basketball [is] the paramount
/ synthesis in sport of intelligence, precision, courage,
\ audacity, anticipation, artifice, teamwork, elegance,
/ and grace. --Carl Sagan
thei...@my-deja.com
rich hammett <hnoa...@eng.spamauburn.edu> wrote:
> thei...@my-deja.com is alleged to have said:
> > In article <8o988l$9kd$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> > Paul Kekai Manansala <mana...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> >> In article <8o6ek3$8fs$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> >> thei...@my-deja.com wrote:
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > The simple fact is,Negroid hair,which btw,is short and sometimes
> >> > brittle,cannot mutate into elongated caucasoid hair(or mongoloid hair
> >> for
> >> > that matter) . It is virtually impossible,and has never been done
> >> > before,since no two parents of 'true' Negroid parentage has ever
> >> produced
> >> > children with long hair.
> >>
> >> How do you know this?
> >>
>
> > It's a fact. How many people of 'straight'(non-mixed) African descent have
> > really long hair?...
>
> > The answer is 'none'.
>
> No, the correct answer is 68.4%. You should really check your facts!
>
Umm...proof???
And by proof,I want the bogus sources,the written evidence,plus pictures.
> > The only blacks with long hair are of mixed backgrounds(i.e. caucasian or
> > mongolian parentage or ancestry)
>
> >>
> >> Even if it were true of modern "Negroids" what bearing does it have on
> >> the ancestors of the same people?
> >>
>
> > Everything. It means they're ancestors were just as short haired as well.
>
> Sure. This is really poor, even for a troll.
>
Well go ahead 'big shot'. Prove me wrong.
> rich
>
> >> Regards,
> >> Paul Kekai Manansala
> >> http://www.jps.net/kabalen/afro.htm
> >>
> >> --
> >> Check out http://AsiaPacificUniverse.com/
> >>
> >> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> >> Before you buy.
> >>
> >>
>
> > Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> > Before you buy.
>
> --
> -remove no from mail name and spam from domain to reply
> +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
> \ Rich Hammett http://home.hiwaay.net/~rhammett
> / hnoa...@eng.spamauburn.edu
> \ ..basketball [is] the paramount
> / synthesis in sport of intelligence, precision, courage,
> \ audacity, anticipation, artifice, teamwork, elegance,
> / and grace. --Carl Sagan
>
>
Paul Kekai Manansala
thei...@my-deja.com wrote:
> In article <8o988l$9kd$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> Paul Kekai Manansala <mana...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> > In article <8o6ek3$8fs$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> > thei...@my-deja.com wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > The simple fact is,Negroid hair,which btw,is short and sometimes
> > > brittle,cannot mutate into elongated caucasoid hair(or mongoloid
hair
> > for
> > > that matter) . It is virtually impossible,and has never been done
> > > before,since no two parents of 'true' Negroid parentage has ever
> > produced
> > > children with long hair.
> >
> > How do you know this?
> >
>
> It's a fact. How many people of 'straight'(non-mixed) African
descent have
> really long hair?...
>
> The answer is 'none'.
>
caucasian or
> mongolian parentage or ancestry)
>
But did you read this somewhere, or is it just a personal observation?
Have you been to Africa? There are many "sub-Saharan" peoples who do
frequently have long hair such as the Fulani.
> >
> > Even if it were true of modern "Negroids" what bearing does it have
on
> > the ancestors of the same people?
> >
>
> Everything. It means they're ancestors were just as short haired as
well.
>
Nope. Now you need to study your genetics.
Regards,
Paul Kekai Manansala
http://www.jps.net/kabalen/afro.htm
> > --
> > Check out http://AsiaPacificUniverse.com/
> >
> > Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> > Before you buy.
> >
> >
>
> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> Before you buy.
>
>
--
Check out http://AsiaPacificUniverse.com/
thei...@my-deja.com
Paul Kekai Manansala <mana...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> In article <8obd6h$h0l$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> thei...@my-deja.com wrote:
> > In article <8o988l$9kd$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> > Paul Kekai Manansala <mana...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> > > In article <8o6ek3$8fs$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> > > thei...@my-deja.com wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > The simple fact is,Negroid hair,which btw,is short and sometimes
> > > > brittle,cannot mutate into elongated caucasoid hair(or mongoloid
> hair
> > > for
> > > > that matter) . It is virtually impossible,and has never been done
> > > > before,since no two parents of 'true' Negroid parentage has ever
> > > produced
> > > > children with long hair.
> > >
> > > How do you know this?
> > >
> >
> > It's a fact. How many people of 'straight'(non-mixed) African
> descent have
> > really long hair?...
> >
> > The answer is 'none'.
> >
> > The only blacks with long hair are of mixed backgrounds(i.e.
> caucasian or
> > mongolian parentage or ancestry)
> >
>
> But did you read this somewhere, or is it just a personal observation?
>
Mostly personal. I live & have lived around almost every type of African.
From Nigerians to South Africans to Ethiopians. I also have on a slew of
video documentries of peoples & countries around the world.
...And I have been "negroid" all my life.
> Have you been to Africa?
Not yet.
>
There are many "sub-Saharan" peoples who do
> frequently have long hair such as the Fulani.
>
But you see they don't count since they are nomadic peoples who travel all
over Africa. They have been mixing with Berbers & Arabs for over a millenia.
As described here:
http://www.niica.on.ca/Gambia/people.htm What I meant was two people of
'straight African' descent. Meaning,two people of non-mixed bloodlines cannot
generate the types of hair of other races. And like I said it has never ever
been done before.
If it indeed were true,there would be thousands of long-haired women running
up & down the coasts of Ghana. The problem is there is'nt.
Like I said,give me some hard evidence and I'll gladly retract my statement.
> > >
> > > Even if it were true of modern "Negroids" what bearing does it have
> on
> > > the ancestors of the same people?
> > >
> >
> > Everything. It means they're ancestors were just as short haired as
> well.
> >
>
> Nope. Now you need to study your genetics.
>
No,you need to do your homework:
"Next to skin,hair is a major visible sign of racial difference. Mongolian
and Oriental-based genetic coding will produce dark,straight,coarse hair;the
'Negroid' race will usually produce a 'kinky','woolly' type hair. In like
manner,the Mongoloid & the Negroid will be noticably 'less'
hirsute(hairy);the Mediterranean Caucasian will be more hirsute than the
Nordic Caucasian." -Dr. Robert Greenblatt,M.D.,"The Role Of
Heredity,Genetics,& Androgenic Metabolism".
...Want more?
Btw,if they're ancestors were not just like them phenotypically,then what
were they like???..."little green men"???
> Regards,
> Paul Kekai Manansala
> http://www.jps.net/kabalen/afro.htm
>
> > > --
> > > Check out http://AsiaPacificUniverse.com/
> > >
> > > Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> > > Before you buy.
> > >
> > >
> >
> > Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> > Before you buy.
> >
> >
>
> --
> Check out http://AsiaPacificUniverse.com/
>
WickedDyno
> In article <8o988l$9kd$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> Paul Kekai Manansala <mana...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> > In article <8o6ek3$8fs$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> > thei...@my-deja.com wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > The simple fact is,Negroid hair,which btw,is short and sometimes
> > > brittle,cannot mutate into elongated caucasoid hair(or mongoloid hair
> > for
> > > that matter) . It is virtually impossible,and has never been done
> > > before,since no two parents of 'true' Negroid parentage has ever
> > produced
> > > children with long hair.
> >
> > How do you know this?
> >
>
> It's a fact. How many people of 'straight'(non-mixed) African descent
> have
> really long hair?...
>
> The answer is 'none'.
You've surveyed every single African in the world?
--
| Andrew Glasgow <amg39(at)cornell.edu> |
| SCSI is *NOT* magic. There are *fundamental technical |
| reasons* why it is necessary to sacrifice a young goat |
| to your SCSI chain now and then. -- John Woods |
rich hammett
Okay, just in the off-chance that you may be honest, I'll
suggest a word to you: "mutation."
I don't know anything about the history of hair, but a
set of simple mutations in parent populations would
easily account for differing hair types, even if it
were as clear-cut a difference as you imagine.
rich
thei...@my-deja.com is alleged to have said:
> In article <sqijvb...@corp.supernews.com>,
> rich hammett <hnoa...@eng.spamauburn.edu> wrote:
>> thei...@my-deja.com is alleged to have said:
>> > In article <8o988l$9kd$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
>> > Paul Kekai Manansala <mana...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>> >> In article <8o6ek3$8fs$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
>> >> thei...@my-deja.com wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > The simple fact is,Negroid hair,which btw,is short and sometimes
>> >> > brittle,cannot mutate into elongated caucasoid hair(or mongoloid hair
>> >> for
>> >> > that matter) . It is virtually impossible,and has never been done
>> >> > before,since no two parents of 'true' Negroid parentage has ever
>> >> produced
>> >> > children with long hair.
>> >>
>> >> How do you know this?
>> >>
>>
>> > It's a fact. How many people of 'straight'(non-mixed) African descent have
>> > really long hair?...
>>
>> > The answer is 'none'.
>>
>> No, the correct answer is 68.4%. You should really check your facts!
>>
> Umm...proof???
> And by proof,I want the bogus sources,the written evidence,plus pictures.
>> > The only blacks with long hair are of mixed backgrounds(i.e. caucasian or
>> > mongolian parentage or ancestry)
>>
>> >>
>> >> Even if it were true of modern "Negroids" what bearing does it have on
>> >> the ancestors of the same people?
>> >>
>>
>> > Everything. It means they're ancestors were just as short haired as well.
>>
>> Sure. This is really poor, even for a troll.
>>
> Well go ahead 'big shot'. Prove me wrong.
>> rich
>>
>> >> Regards,
>> >> Paul Kekai Manansala
>> >> http://www.jps.net/kabalen/afro.htm
>> >>
>> >> --
>> >> Check out http://AsiaPacificUniverse.com/
>> >>
>> >> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
>> >> Before you buy.
>> >>
>> >>
>>
>> > Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
>> > Before you buy.
>>
>> --
>> -remove no from mail name and spam from domain to reply
>> +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
>> \ Rich Hammett http://home.hiwaay.net/~rhammett
>> / hnoa...@eng.spamauburn.edu
>> \ ..basketball [is] the paramount
>> / synthesis in sport of intelligence, precision, courage,
>> \ audacity, anticipation, artifice, teamwork, elegance,
>> / and grace. --Carl Sagan
>>
>>
> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> Before you buy.
thei...@my-deja.com
rich hammett <hnoa...@eng.spamauburn.edu> wrote:
>
> Okay, just in the off-chance that you may be honest, I'll
> suggest a word to you: "mutation."
>
A word that I already discussed about in a previous post.
> I don't know anything about the history of hair, but a
> set of simple mutations in parent populations would
> easily account for differing hair types, even if it
> were as clear-cut a difference as you imagine.
>
http://www.electrology.com/jour89g.html
...Almost everything you need to know abou thair.
> >> >> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> >> >> Before you buy.
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >>
> >> > Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> >> > Before you buy.
> >>
> >> --
> >> -remove no from mail name and spam from domain to reply
> >> +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
> >> \ Rich Hammett http://home.hiwaay.net/~rhammett
> >> / hnoa...@eng.spamauburn.edu
> >> \ ..basketball [is] the paramount
> >> / synthesis in sport of intelligence, precision, courage,
> >> \ audacity, anticipation, artifice, teamwork, elegance,
> >> / and grace. --Carl Sagan
> >>
> >>
>
> > Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> > Before you buy.
>
> --
> -remove no from mail name and spam from domain to reply
> +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
> \ Rich Hammett http://home.hiwaay.net/~rhammett
> / hnoa...@eng.spamauburn.edu
> \ ..basketball [is] the paramount
> / synthesis in sport of intelligence, precision, courage,
> \ audacity, anticipation, artifice, teamwork, elegance,
> / and grace. --Carl Sagan
>
thei...@my-deja.com
WickedDyno <amg39.RE...@cornell.edu.invalid> wrote:
> In article <8obd6h$h0l$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, thei...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> > Paul Kekai Manansala <mana...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> > > In article <8o6ek3$8fs$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> > > thei...@my-deja.com wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > The simple fact is,Negroid hair,which btw,is short and sometimes
> > > > brittle,cannot mutate into elongated caucasoid hair(or mongoloid hair
> > > for
> > > > that matter) . It is virtually impossible,and has never been done
> > > > before,since no two parents of 'true' Negroid parentage has ever
> > > produced
> > > > children with long hair.
> > >
> > > How do you know this?
> > >
> >
> > It's a fact. How many people of 'straight'(non-mixed) African descent
> > have
> > really long hair?...
> >
> > The answer is 'none'.
>
>
No,but I know about almost every tribe in Africa. From the Tuaregs,to the
Wodaabe,straight down to the Zulu.
> --
> | Andrew Glasgow <amg39(at)cornell.edu> |
> | SCSI is *NOT* magic. There are *fundamental technical |
> | reasons* why it is necessary to sacrifice a young goat |
> | to your SCSI chain now and then. -- John Woods |
>
>
Paul Kekai Manansala
thei...@my-deja.com wrote:
> In article <8ocb5q$hd5$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> Paul Kekai Manansala <mana...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> > In article <8obd6h$h0l$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> > thei...@my-deja.com wrote:
> > > In article <8o988l$9kd$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> > > Paul Kekai Manansala <mana...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> > > > In article <8o6ek3$8fs$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> > > >
> > caucasian or
> > > mongolian parentage or ancestry)
> > >
> >
observation?
> >
>
> Mostly personal. I live & have lived around almost every type of
African.
> From Nigerians to South Africans to Ethiopians. I also have on a slew
of
> video documentries of peoples & countries around the world.
>
> ...And I have been "negroid" all my life.
>
That's interesting, but not very scientific. I still don't know how this
allows you to know who is a "straight Negroid" or not.
> > Have you been to Africa?
>
> Not yet.
>
> >
> There are many "sub-Saharan" peoples who do
> > frequently have long hair such as the Fulani.
> >
>
> But you see they don't count since they are nomadic peoples who
travel all
> over Africa. They have been mixing with Berbers & Arabs for over a
millenia.
> As described here:
>
> http://www.niica.on.ca/Gambia/people.htm What I meant was two people
of
> 'straight African' descent. Meaning,two people of non-mixed bloodlines
cannot
> generate the types of hair of other races. And like I said it has
never ever
> been done before.
>
You said it, but you offered no proof. How do you know it has never been
done before?
> If it indeed were true,there would be thousands of long-haired women
running
> up & down the coasts of Ghana. The problem is there is'nt.
>
Why are people in Ghana more straight than other Africans? Haven't they
been mixing too?
> Like I said,give me some hard evidence and I'll gladly retract my
statement.
>
> > > >
> > > > Even if it were true of modern "Negroids" what bearing does it
have
> > on
> > > > the ancestors of the same people?
> > > >
> > >
> > > Everything. It means they're ancestors were just as short haired
as
> > well.
> > >
> >
> > Nope. Now you need to study your genetics.
> >
>
> No,you need to do your homework:
>
> "Next to skin,hair is a major visible sign of racial difference.
Mongolian
> and Oriental-based genetic coding will produce dark,straight,coarse
hair;the
> 'Negroid' race will usually produce a 'kinky','woolly' type hair. In
like
> manner,the Mongoloid & the Negroid will be noticably 'less'
> hirsute(hairy);the Mediterranean Caucasian will be more hirsute than
the
> Nordic Caucasian." -Dr. Robert Greenblatt,M.D.,"The Role Of
> Heredity,Genetics,& Androgenic Metabolism".
Don't need more. Most geneticists now reject the idea of race.
Regards,
Paul Kekai Manansala
--
Check out http://AsiaPacificUniverse.com/
WickedDyno
> In article
> <amg39.REMOVETHIS-CA...@newsstand.cit.cornell.edu>,
> WickedDyno <amg39.RE...@cornell.edu.invalid> wrote:
> > In article <8obd6h$h0l$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, thei...@my-deja.com wrote:
> >
> > > In article <8o988l$9kd$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> > > Paul Kekai Manansala <mana...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> > > > In article <8o6ek3$8fs$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> > > > thei...@my-deja.com wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > The simple fact is,Negroid hair,which btw,is short and
> > > > > sometimes
> > > > > brittle,cannot mutate into elongated caucasoid hair(or mongoloid
> > > > > hair
> > > > for
> > > > > that matter) . It is virtually impossible,and has never been done
> > > > > before,since no two parents of 'true' Negroid parentage has ever
> > > > produced
> > > > > children with long hair.
> > > >
> > > > How do you know this?
> > > >
> > >
> > > It's a fact. How many people of 'straight'(non-mixed) African
> > > descent
> > > have
> > > really long hair?...
> > >
> > > The answer is 'none'.
> >
> > You've surveyed every single African in the world?
> >
>
> No,but I know about almost every tribe in Africa. From the Tuaregs,to
> the
> Wodaabe,straight down to the Zulu.
You said none. Not "almost none".
thei...@my-deja.com
> thei...@my-deja.com wrote:
> > In article <8ocb5q$hd5$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> > Paul Kekai Manansala <mana...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> > > In article <8obd6h$h0l$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> > > thei...@my-deja.com wrote:
> > > > In article <8o988l$9kd$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> > > > Paul Kekai Manansala <mana...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> > > > > In article <8o6ek3$8fs$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> > > > >
> > > caucasian or
> > > > mongolian parentage or ancestry)
> > > >
> > >
> > > But did you read this somewhere, or is it just a personal
> observation?
> > >
> >
> > Mostly personal. I live & have lived around almost every type of
> African.
> > From Nigerians to South Africans to Ethiopians. I also have on a slew
> of
> > video documentries of peoples & countries around the world.
> >
> > ...And I have been "negroid" all my life.
> >
>
> That's interesting, but not very scientific.
>
It was'nt supposed to be.
>
I still don't know how this
> allows you to know who is a "straight Negroid" or not.
>
One who's of pure black/and or African ancestry.
> > > Have you been to Africa?
> >
> > Not yet.
> >
> > >
> > There are many "sub-Saharan" peoples who do
> > > frequently have long hair such as the Fulani.
> > >
> >
> > But you see they don't count since they are nomadic peoples who
> travel all
> > over Africa. They have been mixing with Berbers & Arabs for over a
> millenia.
> > As described here:
> >
> > http://www.niica.on.ca/Gambia/people.htm What I meant was two people
> of
> > 'straight African' descent. Meaning,two people of non-mixed bloodlines
> cannot
> > generate the types of hair of other races. And like I said it has
> never ever
> > been done before.
> >
>
> You said it, but you offered no proof. How do you know it has never been
> done before?
>
It has'nt. As I've said before,show me where it has.
The only people who came out of Africa were pure black,short-haired,short
'negroids'. Proof of this is the Jarawa tribe of the Andaman Islands,who
possess the same hair,as well as skin traits as the Africans. In fact,they
originally came from Africa.
They're said to be descendents of the first humans 'out of Africa'. And
they're situated on islands southeast of India.
Hmmm...
http://gwis.circ.gwu.edu/~andaman/Andpeople3.htm
http://www.survival.org.uk/jarawapr2.htm
http://www.the-week.com/99dec19/life1.htm
And notice how after all these milleniums,they haven't 'mutated'.
Hmmm...
And if they're descendents of the first humans,should'nt they all look just
like their ancestors???...
>
> > If it indeed were true,there would be thousands of long-haired women
> running
> > up & down the coasts of Ghana. The problem is there is'nt.
> >
>
> Why are people in Ghana more straight than other Africans? Haven't they
> been mixing too?
>
Probably. It depends on heredity.
> > Like I said,give me some hard evidence and I'll gladly retract my
> statement.
> >
> > > > >
> > > > > Even if it were true of modern "Negroids" what bearing does it
> have
> > > on
> > > > > the ancestors of the same people?
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Everything. It means they're ancestors were just as short haired
> as
> > > well.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Nope. Now you need to study your genetics.
> > >
> >
> > No,you need to do your homework:
> >
> > "Next to skin,hair is a major visible sign of racial difference.
> Mongolian
> > and Oriental-based genetic coding will produce dark,straight,coarse
> hair;the
> > 'Negroid' race will usually produce a 'kinky','woolly' type hair. In
> like
> > manner,the Mongoloid & the Negroid will be noticably 'less'
> > hirsute(hairy);the Mediterranean Caucasian will be more hirsute than
> the
> > Nordic Caucasian." -Dr. Robert Greenblatt,M.D.,"The Role Of
> > Heredity,Genetics,& Androgenic Metabolism".
>
> Don't need more. Most geneticists now reject the idea of race.
>
Gee,I wonder why.
> Regards,
> Paul Kekai Manansala
>
> --
> Check out http://AsiaPacificUniverse.com/
>
thei...@my-deja.com
WickedDyno <amg39.RE...@cornell.edu.invalid> wrote:> > <amg39.REMOVETHIS-CA...@newsstand.cit.cornell.edu>,
> > WickedDyno <amg39.RE...@cornell.edu.invalid> wrote:
> > > In article <8obd6h$h0l$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, thei...@my-deja.com wrote:
> > >
> > > > In article <8o988l$9kd$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> > > > Paul Kekai Manansala <mana...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> > > > > In article <8o6ek3$8fs$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The simple fact is,Negroid hair,which btw,is short and
> > > > > > sometimes
> > > > > > brittle,cannot mutate into elongated caucasoid hair(or mongoloid
> > > > > > hair
> > > > > for
> > > > > > that matter) . It is virtually impossible,and has never been done
> > > > > > before,since no two parents of 'true' Negroid parentage has ever
> > > > > produced
> > > > > > children with long hair.
> > > > >
> > > > > How do you know this?
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > It's a fact. How many people of 'straight'(non-mixed) African
> > > > descent
> > > > have
> > > > really long hair?...
> > > >
> > > > The answer is 'none'.
> > >
> > > You've surveyed every single African in the world?
> > >
> >
> > No,but I know about almost every tribe in Africa. From the Tuaregs,to
> > the
> > Wodaabe,straight down to the Zulu.
>
> You said none. Not "almost none".
>
That's right. I said "none". Where on Earth did you see that I wrote
"almost none" at???...
> --
> | Andrew Glasgow <amg39(at)cornell.edu> |
> | SCSI is *NOT* magic. There are *fundamental technical |
> | reasons* why it is necessary to sacrifice a young goat |
> | to your SCSI chain now and then. -- John Woods |
>
>
WickedDyno
Nowhere, that's my point. You can't know that every african on earth
has curly hair unless you've surveyed every african on earth. You said
you "know about almost every tribe in Africa" implying that you do not
know every one.
Look, this is a pointless argument. I'll stop if you will.
rich hammett
So your argument is, there are some people who look like you imagine
the african progenitors looked still alive, so why don't we all still
look like that if we are descended from them?
rich
thei...@my-deja.com is alleged to have said:
> In article <8oet51$fkb$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> Paul Kekai Manansala <mana...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>> In article <8ocl9r$smb$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
>> thei...@my-deja.com wrote:
>> > In article <8ocb5q$hd5$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
>> > Paul Kekai Manansala <mana...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>> > > In article <8obd6h$h0l$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
>> > > thei...@my-deja.com wrote:
>> > > > In article <8o988l$9kd$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
>> > > > Paul Kekai Manansala <mana...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>> > > > > In article <8o6ek3$8fs$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
>> > > > >
> Hmmm...
> http://gwis.circ.gwu.edu/~andaman/Andpeople3.htm
> http://www.survival.org.uk/jarawapr2.htm
> http://www.the-week.com/99dec19/life1.htm
> Hmmm...
> Gee,I wonder why.
>> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
>> Before you buy.
>>
> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> Before you buy.
Paul Kekai Manansala
thei...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> > You said it, but you offered no proof. How do you know it has never
been
> > done before?
> >
>
> It has'nt. As I've said before,show me where it has.
>
If hair is really immutable as you say, then the different races cannot
be related to each other except going back to our pre-hair ancestors?!
Are you possibly approaching this from a non-evolutionary standpoint? I
have no problem with that, and it will help explain why we're not
getting anywhere.
If not, how are the different races related to each other? Why are the
capable of producing perfectly healthy, fertile mixed offspring?
Regards,
Paul Kekai Manansala
--
Check out http://AsiaPacificUniverse.com/
Andrew Gyles
your points one at a time, which I shall do shortly. As a start I
suggest that the appropriate sequence in the mtDNA to look at to test
my hypothesis of a system for eliminating mutations in mtDNA would be
the non-coding sequences examined by Allan Wilson and his successors.
These sequences (apart from some highly conserved positions) show
little evidence of conservation through natural selection (which was
precisely why Wilson chose them). Wilson found strikingly fewer
mutations in them in modern humans than in chimpanzees. He therefore
assumed that modern humans had evolved very recently compared with
chimpanzees. However, he ignored the other logical alternative
explanation, which deserved to be explored. That is, that the mtDNA
mutation rate in humans is much lower than in chimpanzees.
It is this second alternative that I am exploring. It explains one
thing that no other hypothesis does: the fact that mitochondria differ
from their presumed bacterial ancestor in having about ten copies of
their single circular mtDNA chromosome. Bacteria have only one copy of
their single circular mtDNA chromosome. As I remarked, my hypothetical
system for eliminating some mtDNA mutations requires more than one copy
of the mtDNA genome.
I shall respond to your invitation to deal with your other criticisms
(which I found helpful) about one point at a time as soon as I can.
Andrew Gyles
In article <8p13f9$n36$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
rokimo...@my-deja.com wrote:
> Your explanations have several problems and do not addresss the data
> effectively. I doubt that your explanations will gain widespread
> acceptance until you can produce data that indicates that you may be
> correct about genome selection in mitochondria. Current evidence
> suggest that there is no such selection. If you look up the COII data
> on primates you will find out that it is likely that certain
> mitochondrial substitutions are non neutral and certain regions of the
> COII gene may have a higher substituition rate than others. It looks
> like certain mutations are may be selected for just like in population
> genetics but treating genomes like organisms. There does not seem to
> be any evidence that mutations are selected against using any
> mechanism, but natural selection.
>
> There does seem to be a selection of a small fraction of the mtDNA
> molecules within the cell for replication. Some of the best evidence
> for this is the bovine work (I don't have access to the refs right
now)
> showing that cows with more than one type of mtDNA in a cell can
> produce progeny with only a single type. For this to occur at the
> frequency that it does indicates that the mtDNA of the eggs are likely
> to be derived from a limited subset of the mtDNA molecules found in
the
> egg progenitor cells so that one mtDNA type gets fixed in the cell
more
> often than chance would indicate. There is no evidence that this
> selection (if it occurs) is anything but random. The cells will live
> or die depending on whether or not a defective mtDNA molecule was
> selected for replication. Selection of a limited number of mtDNA
> molecules for replication in each cell is a good way in which
> detrimental mutations can be kept from increasing in frequency within
> individual cells eventually causing problems that could not be
selected
> against effectively.
>
> If you think about it if this did not happen our cells would be full
of
> mtDNAs with different detrimental mutations (they could complement
each
> other) and our survival would be dependent on selection against the
> next mutation that would send us over the edge in terms of
> mitochondrial function. We don't see this mixed population of mtDNAs.
> We do see increases in defective mtDNA molecules with age, but not to
> that level for generation of egg cells.
>
> You will have to rethink your explanation of the neandertal data. The
> neandertal mtDNA molecules are very different from modern humans.
> Other human population predicted by the multiregional hypothesis are
> just as likely to have mtDNAs just as divergent. The neandertals that
> we have would be from the European region. How much different was the
> Asian type? What happened to these mtDNAs? As you point out the
local
> maternal types would likely outnumber any maternal types coming into
> the region by migration. It would be very difficult to replace these
> local established mtDNA types by chance. You have to propose that the
> African human mtDNA type was superior to all other human mtDNA types
> evolving in the other regions of the world and that it took over by
> selection and not by chance. This is not entirely impossible. The
> COII data would indicate that the COII gene inherited by the primate
> lineage may have been suboptimal and that some mutations in this gene
> may have some selective advantage. It is possible that certain
> mutations may improve mitochondrial function enough to be selected
for.
>
> We could test this notion by sequencing the entire neandertal mtDNA
and
> reconstructing it and placing it into modern human cells in culture.
> If it had replacement substitutions relative to the modern mtDNA and
> these substitutions could be shown to cause defective mitochondrial
> function the multiregional interbreeding hypothesis might still have a
> chance. As it stands it is pretty much dead due to the neandertal and
> modern mtDNA data.
>
> I am sorry, but I did not read your whole web page. You will have to
> get past the above problems before your ideas can be taken seriously.
> If there are certain sections that you want to discuss post them
(short
> and one at a time would probably be best).
>
> Ron Okimoto
>
> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> Before you buy.
>
>
_______________________________
Andrew Gyles
On my site at http://www.geocities.com/acgyles I present ideas
supporting the hypothesis of the Multiregional Evolution of Humans. I
point out weaknesses in the rival Out of Africa theory, which is based
on unproved assumptions about the mitochondrial mutation rate in humans.
Adam Noel Harris
[...]
:chimpanzees. However, he ignored the other logical alternative
:explanation, which deserved to be explored. That is, that the mtDNA
:mutation rate in humans is much lower than in chimpanzees.
:
:It is this second alternative that I am exploring. It explains one
:thing that no other hypothesis does: the fact that mitochondria differ
:from their presumed bacterial ancestor in having about ten copies of
:their single circular mtDNA chromosome. Bacteria have only one copy of
:their single circular mtDNA chromosome. As I remarked, my hypothetical
:system for eliminating some mtDNA mutations requires more than one copy
:of the mtDNA genome.
How does your hypothesis explain the extra copies of chimp mitochondrial
DNA? IOW, an error correction mechanism present in humans but not
chimps cannot "explain" multiple mitochondrial genome copies in both
species.
[snip]
-Adam
--
Opinions expressed are not necessarily those of Stanford University.
PGP Fingerprint = C0 65 A2 BD 8A 67 B3 19 F9 8B C1 4C 8E F2 EA 0E
Adam Noel Harris
[...]
:If I recall correctly I don't think that your explanation can stand up
:to the data as it is already known. I certainly do not recall a human
:branch length that was 10 times shorter than other apes. If you have
:trouble finding these references I'll try and find some for you. I
:don't know if I am spelling this correctly, but Arnanson's? lab
:sequenced a lot of these genomes.
If I understand the argument correctly, the _fixed_ differences between
humans and others in the clade show that mutation rates have been the
same. Andrew argues that low polymorphism levels (which are the basis of
concluding a bottleneck) in the human lineage indicate lower mutation
rates. So Andrew's argument would, indeed, be at odds with the data.
I apologize if I've misunderstood either rationale.
Andrew, I'm curious if you originally developed your theory to prop up the
multiregional hypothesis.
rokimo...@my-deja.com
ad...@stanford.edu.XX (Adam Noel Harris) wrote:
> rokimo...@my-deja.com <rokimo...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> [...]
> :If I recall correctly I don't think that your explanation can stand up
> :to the data as it is already known. I certainly do not recall a human
> :branch length that was 10 times shorter than other apes. If you have
> :trouble finding these references I'll try and find some for you. I
> :don't know if I am spelling this correctly, but Arnanson's? lab
> :sequenced a lot of these genomes.
>
> If I understand the argument correctly, the _fixed_ differences between
> humans and others in the clade show that mutation rates have been the
> same. Andrew argues that low polymorphism levels (which are the basis of
> concluding a bottleneck) in the human lineage indicate lower mutation
> rates. So Andrew's argument would, indeed, be at odds with the data.
>
> I apologize if I've misunderstood either rationale.
>
> Andrew, I'm curious if you originally developed your theory to prop up the
> multiregional hypothesis.
>
> -Adam
Yes, this is essentially the point. The human branch length is not
signifcantly shorter than other apes. I haven't read the papers in
around two or three years and primates aren't my field, but I recall that
the human branch length may have been longer for at least one of the data
sets.
He is correct that chimps have deeper intraspecies branchlengths for
their mitochondrial lineages, but unless this is coupled with other data
you can't conclude anything about rates. You need an outgroup species.
Orangutans and gibbons would be the closest definite outgroups.
Andrew Gyles
Ron and Adam, thank you for your perspectives on this problem. And it
is a problem. Wilson and Cann put it in a nutshell when they wrote of
human mtDNA: 'The chimpanzee data also illustrated how remarkably
homogeneous humans are at the genetic level: chimpanzees commonly show
as much as 10 times the genetic variation as humans'.
We need to distinguish between branch length and branch age. I assume
that you both mean by 'branch length' the complexity of the branching:
the more branch points there are the 'longer' the branch is. But you
will agree, I take it, that the complexity of branching tells us
nothing about the date of the first branch point unless we know the
mutation rate.
Wilson and Cann assumed that the mtDNA mutation rate in humans was the
same as that in chimpanzees. They said, 'We assumed the human and
chimpanzee lineages diverged five million years ago'. They then found
the ratio of mitochondrial DNA divergence among humans to that between
humans and chimpanzees. 'Using two sets of data, we determined the
ratio was less than 1:25. Human maternal lineages therefore grew apart
in a period less than one-twenty-fifth as long as five million years,
or less than 200,000 years'.
That is the platform that the Out of Africa theory stands on. There
have been refinements in methods of constructing its trees and some
variations in estimates of the age of Mitochondrial Eve but that is the
platform.
In answer to your question, Adam, my hypothesis about how mitochondria
could eliminate physically detectable mutations in mtDNA is an attempt
to explain why the genetic variation in mtDNA in humans is as little as
a tenth of what it is in chimpanzees. (I suggest that all animals do
it, but humans do it more vigorously than other animals.) But certainly
I support the Multiregional Evolution hypothesis. I do think that the
Modern Mitochondrial Eve hypothesis is incorrect.
Andrew Gyles
_________________
On my site at http://www.geocities.com/acgyles I present ideas
supporting the hypothesis of the Multiregional Evolution of Humans. I
point out weaknesses in the rival Out of Africa theory, which is based
on unproved assumptions about the mitochondrial mutation rate in humans.
rokimo...@my-deja.com
This is an incorrect assumption. The complexity of the number of
branches has nothing to do with the calculation when you are dealing
with individual mitochondrial genomes. Branch length refers to the
estimated number of mutations that have been fixed along each lineage
since divergence from the common ancestor. We do not have to know the
mutation rate to make this estimation. All that is needed is an
outgroup sequence so that the ancestral sequence can more acurately be
determined. There are two outgroup sequences available (orangs and
gibbons). Even if your above assumption were true the chimp lineage
has the greater complexity so should have the longer branch lengths.
This would make the human difference even greater if you were correct.
>
> Wilson and Cann assumed that the mtDNA mutation rate in humans was the
> same as that in chimpanzees. They said, 'We assumed the human and
> chimpanzee lineages diverged five million years ago'. They then found
> the ratio of mitochondrial DNA divergence among humans to that between
> humans and chimpanzees. 'Using two sets of data, we determined the
> ratio was less than 1:25. Human maternal lineages therefore grew apart
> in a period less than one-twenty-fifth as long as five million years,
> or less than 200,000 years'.
>
> That is the platform that the Out of Africa theory stands on. There
> have been refinements in methods of constructing its trees and some
> variations in estimates of the age of Mitochondrial Eve but that is
the
> platform.
>
> In answer to your question, Adam, my hypothesis about how mitochondria
> could eliminate physically detectable mutations in mtDNA is an attempt
> to explain why the genetic variation in mtDNA in humans is as little
as
> a tenth of what it is in chimpanzees. (I suggest that all animals do
> it, but humans do it more vigorously than other animals.) But
certainly
> I support the Multiregional Evolution hypothesis. I do think that the
> Modern Mitochondrial Eve hypothesis is incorrect.
>
> Andrew Gyles
The neandertal sequences indicate that mtDNA lineages existed in Europe
that were twice as divergent as any two modern human lineages, and the
two neandertal sequences are significantly different from each other.
The multiregional hypothesis would be consistent with many such extant
divergent lineages. They are not found. Only one lineage seems to
have survived this multiregional evolution. This is not likely to have
happened by chance. Why is it that the African lineage is the only one
that seems to have survived? The Neandertal data demonstrates that
there were at least two others.
There is no evidence that the substitution rate in humans is 10 times
less than it is in chimps. Phylogenetic analysis of the ape lineage
does not support your assertion. You seem to be unclear on some of the
assumptions and methods used in estimating the rate of change along
specific lineages.
Andrew Gyles
Here is the summary of my hypothesis about the possible elimination of
mutations in mtDNA by mitochondria. A few days ago I said I would post
it.
There is a theoretical possibility that a mitochondrion could eliminate
those mutations that cause a distortion of the double-stranded mtDNA,
because such mutations are physically detectable by a set of enzymes.
The enzymes could then destroy the entire double-stranded copy of the
circular mtDNA genome containing the distorted mtDNA, or alternatively
tag it for 'export' and cause it to be ejected from the mitochondrion.
(The ejecting of genetic material through a conjugation tube is a known
bacterial behaviour. Mitochondria are thought to have a bacterial
ancestor.)
The destroyed or ejected copy of the mtDNA genome could be replaced,
sooner or later, by the replication of an unmutated copy in the same
mitochondrion.
It is interesting to note that enzymes in the nucleus try to do the
same thing. But of course, having detected a chromosome distorted by a
mutation they cannot destroy the chromosome. If they did that they
would not have an unmutated copy to replicate and so make good the
loss. The homologous chromosome is not an identical copy. So the best
they can do is to 're-pair' the distorted part of the double-stranded
nuclear DNA. This is a chancey business because they cannot 'know'
which base or bases to leave in and which to cut out. But it is better
than doing nothing.
Oxygen free radicals produced by the respiratory chain in mitochondria
can damage mtDNA and thus increase the mutation rate. It is conceivable
that an abnormally high mtDNA mutation rate in somatic cells is an
indication that this hypothetical system for eliminating mutations that
cause distortions in double-stranded mtDNA has failed in those cells.
It is worth noting that if such a system is at work in the mitochondria
of female germline cells it might have evolved to different degrees in
different species of animal.
For example, the development of higher intelligence and memory and the
acquisition of language in humans might have depended on a simultaneous
evolution of a lower mtDNA mutation rate in human brain cells in
particular. However, the lower rate might have been achieved generally,
in all cells. In that case it is possible that the mtDNA mutation rate
in human female germline cells is much lower than has been assumed in
studies of human evolution based on the 'mtDNA sequence divergence
rate'. As far as I know this rate has never been objectively measured.
Some indication of whether mitochondria do use the hypothetical system
outlined above could perhaps be gained on cell cultures in vitro, using
X-irradiation as a mutagenic agent to accelerate the mutation rate.
Andrew Gyles
Ron, the multiregional hypothesis assumes that the most recent common
mitochondrial ancestor of humans lived in Africa roughly two million
years ago. I accept that the neanderthal mitochondrial lineages died
out. I suggested that there were several ways in which some of the
neanderthal nuclear genes might have entered the gene pool of
cromagnons without the neanderthal mtDNA accompanying them. By the way,
was Arnanson's lab connected with Cann, Stoneking and Wilson's work?
Andrew
__________________
On my site at http://www.geocities.com/acgyles I present ideas
supporting the hypothesis of the Multiregional Evolution of Humans. I
point out weaknesses in the rival Out of Africa theory, which is based
on unproved assumptions about the mitochondrial mutation rate in humans.
Adam Noel Harris
:same thing. But of course, having detected a chromosome distorted by a
:mutation they cannot destroy the chromosome. If they did that they
:would not have an unmutated copy to replicate and so make good the
:loss. The homologous chromosome is not an identical copy. So the best
:they can do is to 're-pair' the distorted part of the double-stranded
:nuclear DNA. This is a chancey business because they cannot 'know'
:which base or bases to leave in and which to cut out. But it is better
:than doing nothing.
I thought that some repair systems _do_ distinguish between newer and
older strands when detecting a missense mutation, due to different
methylation patterns.
Also, there are repair systems which use homologous chromosomes as
templates too.
As for your theory, it's interesting, but if I'm understanding Ron, it's
at odds with the data. That is, it might explain low polymorphism rates
between humans, but it is at odds with the divergence of humans and chimps
from their common ancestor. That is, both lineages have a similar number
of substitutions (branch length) in mtDNA. You can learn about
the ancestral sequence by looking at an outgroup like orangs.
Apart from that, it seems like a great deal of extrapolation away from the
data you do try to explain. OK, you want to say there is a different
mutation rate. But what evidence supports your particular repair
mechanism over any other being the culprit?
rokimo...@my-deja.com
Andrew Gyles <acg...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> In article <8pc9e4$dj5$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> rokimo...@my-deja.com wrote:
> > In article <8pbnmu$ppc$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> > Andrew Gyles <acg...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> > > In article <8pbbeq$adr$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> > > rokimo...@my-deja.com wrote:
> > > > In article <slrn8rgqr2...@elaine40.Stanford.EDU>,
> > > > ad...@stanford.edu.XX (Adam Noel Harris) wrote:
> > > > > rokimo...@my-deja.com <rokimo...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> > > > > [...]
>
snip
Arnanson does a lot of mitochondrial DNA sequences from reptiles to
primates. As far as I know he is not associated with Wilson's past
group. His lab is in Europe. I don't think that it would matter even
if he had been associated with Wilson's group. Do you think that he
fudged his data to make the multiregional hypothesis look untenable?
You state a possible mechanism, but the data indicate that even if this
mechanism is the one that is working the other apes are evolving at the
same rate as humans. This means that they either have the same
mechanism or one that produces similar results.
Your explanation can't save the multiregional hypothesis. The data
does not support a lower substitution rate in the hominid lineage. You
will have to come up with another alternative. The only one that I can
think of is that the African lineage acquired substitutions that made
it significantly more efficient than other hominid lineages and it took
over the other regions by selection.
We would expect that nuclear gene frequencies and lineages would
reflect their regional origin, but the mitochondrial lineages would
not. I do not think that the allele frequencies of nuclear genes is
much help for the regional hypothesis. Don't these tend to follow the
mitochondrial lineages? I think that you are stuck with the recent out
of Africa hypothesis until you can come up with some data that says
that the African lineages (at least the ones that left Africa) are more
efficient than the mitochondrial lineages that they displaced. The
neandertal sequence is your best hope for demonstrating this. I think
that you have to agree that the neandertal sequence represents a
lineage that must have been displaced.
rokimo...@my-deja.com
Andrew Gyles <acg...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> In article <8pc9e4$dj5$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> rokimo...@my-deja.com wrote:
> > In article <8pbnmu$ppc$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> > Andrew Gyles <acg...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> > > In article <8pbbeq$adr$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> > > rokimo...@my-deja.com wrote:
> > > > In article <slrn8rgqr2...@elaine40.Stanford.EDU>,
> > > > ad...@stanford.edu.XX (Adam Noel Harris) wrote:
> > > > > rokimo...@my-deja.com <rokimo...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> > > > > [...]
> > > > > :If I recall correctly I don't think that your explanation can
> > > stand up
> > > > > :to the data as it is already known. I certainly do not
recall
> a
> > > human
> > > > > :branch length that was 10 times shorter than other apes. If
Here is the reference using Gibbons. I don't think that this is the
paper that I read, but I bet it compares chimps and humans too.
Arnason may have a more recent paper. Look up his name in GenBank and
you'll get all of the references.
AUTHORS Arnason,U., Gullberg,A. and Xu,X.
TITLE A complete mitochondrial DNA molecule of the white-handed
gibbon,
Hylobates lar, and comparison among individual
mitochondrial genes
of all hominoid genera
JOURNAL Hereditas 124, 185-189 (1996)
Andrew Gyles
ad...@stanford.edu.XX (Adam Noel Harris) wrote:
I know of no evidence that supports my hypothesis at present. That is
why I suggested in my previous message: 'Some indication of whether
mitochondria do use the hypothetical system outlined above could
perhaps be gained on cell cultures in vitro, using X-irradiation as a
mutagenic agent to accelerate the mutation rate'.
I described this in a little more detail on my website. The idea would
be to do the work in vitro on cultures of chimpanzee cells (in one
dish) and human cells (in another dish). Of course the dishes would
have to be replicated. Other species could be included in the work. I
remarked that a more suitable mutagen might be selected by workers with
expert knowledge. I suggested that the work be done on female germline
cells if practicable. I do not pretend to be an expert in this field; I
do not work in a laboratory.
There are indications that my hypothesis might be correct: the multiple
copies of mtDNA. The fact that bacteria sometimes do eject a part, or
all, of their chromosome after replicating it: it is a bacterial
behaviour, and mitochondria are thought to have a bacterial ancestor.
The fact that the mutation rate of mtDNA in some somatic cells can
sometimes be extraordinarily high: it's a harsh environment inside a
mitochondrion, and that might have favoured the evolution of a system
of eliminating mutations in mtDNA, either by destroying a mutated copy
or by ejecting it.
As I said earlier, I accept that the most recent common mitochondrial
ancestor of living humans was a woman who lived in Africa. The argument
is about when she lived in Africa.
I accept that the divergence of the human line and the chimpanzee line
from their common ancestor of five million years ago would show a
similar number of mtDNA substitutions in both lines for the first three
million years. But I suggest that as the human line evolved higher
intelligence and acquired language it simultaneously evolved a lower
mtDNA mutation rate, perhaps beginning two million years ago.
I have placed a summary of this hypothesis at the top of my webpage; it
is not much different from what I've said here.
Andrew Gyles
Andrew Gyles
rokimo...@my-deja.com wrote:
> In article <8pe05n$6nu$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> Andrew Gyles <acg...@my-deja.com> wrote:
snip
> > Ron, the multiregional hypothesis assumes that the most recent
common
> > mitochondrial ancestor of humans lived in Africa roughly two million
> > years ago. I accept that the neanderthal mitochondrial lineages died
> > out. I suggested that there were several ways in which some of the
> > neanderthal nuclear genes might have entered the gene pool of
> > cromagnons without the neanderthal mtDNA accompanying them. By the
> way,
> > was Arnanson's lab connected with Cann, Stoneking and Wilson's work?
> > Andrew
>
> Arnanson does a lot of mitochondrial DNA sequences from reptiles to
> primates. As far as I know he is not associated with Wilson's past
> group. His lab is in Europe. I don't think that it would matter even
> if he had been associated with Wilson's group. Do you think that he
> fudged his data to make the multiregional hypothesis look untenable?
No, I do not think that Arnanson fudged his data to make the
Multiregional hypothesis look untenable. In fact I was hoping that
Arnanson was connected with Wilson et al. The Modern Mitochondrial Eve
hypothesis was Wilson's, wasn't it, so I rather thought we should be
looking at Wilson's mtDNA data.
Ron, Thank you very much for the reference (in your next post) to the
work of Arnason et al using Gibbons; I shall look it up.
Andrew Gyles
__________________
On my site at http://www.geocities.com/acgyles I present ideas
supporting the hypothesis of the Multiregional Evolution of Humans. I
point out weaknesses in the rival Out of Africa theory, which is based
on unproved assumptions about the mitochondrial mutation rate in humans.