info
Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Study Offers New Twist in How the First Humans Evolved
83 views
Skip to first unread message
Matt Beasley
May 19, 2023, 9:05:26 PM5/19/23
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
Study Offers New Twist in How the First Humans Evolved
By Carl Zimmer, May 17, 2023, NY Times
Scientists have revealed a surprisingly complex origin of our species, rejecting the long-held argument that modern humans arose from one place in Africa during one period in time. By analyzing the genomes of 290 living people, researchers concluded that modern humans descended from at least two populations that coexisted in Africa for a million years before merging in several independent events across the continent. The findings were published on Wednesday in Nature. “There is no single birthplace,” said Eleanor Scerri, an evolutionary archaeologist at the Max Planck Institute for Geoarchaeology in Jena, Germany, who was not involved in the new study. “It really puts a nail in the coffin of that idea.”
Paleoanthropologists and geneticists have found evidence pointing to Africa as the origin of our species. The oldest fossils that may belong to modern humans, dating back as far as 300,000 years, have been unearthed there. So were the oldest stone tools used by our ancestors.
Human DNA also points to Africa. Living Africans have a vast amount of genetic diversity compared with other people. That’s because humans lived and evolved in Africa for thousands of generations before small groups — with comparatively small gene pools — began expanding to other continents.
Within the vast expanse of Africa, researchers have proposed various places as the birthplace of our species. Early humanlike fossils in Ethiopia led some researchers to look to East Africa. But some living groups of people in South Africa appeared to be very distantly related to other Africans, suggesting that humans might have a deep history there instead.
Brenna Henn, a geneticist at the University of California, Davis, and her colleagues developed software to run large-scale simulations of human history. The researchers created many scenarios of different populations existing in Africa over different periods of time and then observed which ones could produce the diversity of DNA found in people alive today.
“We could ask what types of models are really plausible for the African continent,” Dr. Henn said.
The researchers analyzed DNA from a range of African groups, including the Mende, farmers who live in Sierra Leone in West Africa; the Gumuz, a group descended from hunter-gatherers in Ethiopia; the Amhara, a group of Ethiopian farmers; and the Nama, a group of hunter-gatherers in South Africa.
The researchers compared these Africans’ DNA with the genome of a person from Britain. They also looked at the genome of a 50,000-year-old Neanderthal found in Croatia. Previous research had found that modern humans and Neanderthals shared a common ancestor that lived 600,000 years ago. Neanderthals expanded across Europe and Asia, interbred with modern humans coming out of Africa, and then became extinct about 40,000 years ago.
The researchers concluded that as far back as a million years ago, the ancestors of our species existed in two distinct populations. Dr. Henn and her colleagues call them Stem1 and Stem2.
About 600,000 years ago, a small group of humans budded off from Stem1 and went on to become the Neanderthals. But Stem1 endured in Africa for hundreds of thousands of years after that, as did Stem2.
If Stem1 and Stem2 had been entirely separate from each other, they would have accumulated a large number of distinct mutations in their DNA. Instead, Dr. Henn and her colleagues found that they had remained only moderately different — about as distinct as living Europeans and West Africans are today. The scientists concluded that people had moved between Stem1 and Stem2, pairing off to have children and mixing their DNA.
The model does not reveal where the Stem1 and Stem2 people lived in Africa. And it’s possible that bands of these two groups moved around a lot over the vast stretches of time during which they existed on the continent. About 120,000 years ago, the model indicates, African history changed dramatically. In southern Africa, people from Stem1 and Stem2 merged, giving rise to a new lineage that would lead to the Nama and other living humans in that region. Elsewhere in Africa, a separate fusion of Stem1 and Stem2 groups took place. That merger produced a lineage that would give rise to living people in West Africa and East Africa, as well as the people who expanded out of Africa. It’s possible that climate upheavals forced Stem1 and Stem2 people into the same regions, leading them to merge into single groups. Some bands of hunter-gatherers may have had to retreat from the coast as sea levels rose, for example. Some regions of Africa became arid, potentially sending people in search of new homes.
Even after these mergers 120,000 years ago, people with solely Stem1 or solely Stem2 ancestry appear to have survived. The DNA of the Mende people showed that their ancestors had interbred with Stem2 people just 25,000 years ago. “It does suggest to me that Stem2 was somewhere around West Africa,” Dr. Henn said. She and her colleagues are now adding more genomes from people in other parts of Africa to see if they affect the models. It’s possible they will discover other populations that endured in Africa for hundreds of thousands of years, ultimately helping produce our species as we know it today. Dr. Scerri speculated that living in a network of mingling populations across Africa might have allowed modern humans to survive while Neanderthals became extinct. In that arrangement, our ancestors could hold onto more genetic diversity, which in turn might have helped them endure shifts in the climate, or even evolve new adaptations.
“This diversity at the root of our species may have been ultimately the key to our success,” Dr. Scerri said.
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/05/17/science/human-origins-africa.html
By Carl Zimmer, May 17, 2023, NY Times
Scientists have revealed a surprisingly complex origin of our species, rejecting the long-held argument that modern humans arose from one place in Africa during one period in time. By analyzing the genomes of 290 living people, researchers concluded that modern humans descended from at least two populations that coexisted in Africa for a million years before merging in several independent events across the continent. The findings were published on Wednesday in Nature. “There is no single birthplace,” said Eleanor Scerri, an evolutionary archaeologist at the Max Planck Institute for Geoarchaeology in Jena, Germany, who was not involved in the new study. “It really puts a nail in the coffin of that idea.”
Paleoanthropologists and geneticists have found evidence pointing to Africa as the origin of our species. The oldest fossils that may belong to modern humans, dating back as far as 300,000 years, have been unearthed there. So were the oldest stone tools used by our ancestors.
Human DNA also points to Africa. Living Africans have a vast amount of genetic diversity compared with other people. That’s because humans lived and evolved in Africa for thousands of generations before small groups — with comparatively small gene pools — began expanding to other continents.
Within the vast expanse of Africa, researchers have proposed various places as the birthplace of our species. Early humanlike fossils in Ethiopia led some researchers to look to East Africa. But some living groups of people in South Africa appeared to be very distantly related to other Africans, suggesting that humans might have a deep history there instead.
Brenna Henn, a geneticist at the University of California, Davis, and her colleagues developed software to run large-scale simulations of human history. The researchers created many scenarios of different populations existing in Africa over different periods of time and then observed which ones could produce the diversity of DNA found in people alive today.
“We could ask what types of models are really plausible for the African continent,” Dr. Henn said.
The researchers analyzed DNA from a range of African groups, including the Mende, farmers who live in Sierra Leone in West Africa; the Gumuz, a group descended from hunter-gatherers in Ethiopia; the Amhara, a group of Ethiopian farmers; and the Nama, a group of hunter-gatherers in South Africa.
The researchers compared these Africans’ DNA with the genome of a person from Britain. They also looked at the genome of a 50,000-year-old Neanderthal found in Croatia. Previous research had found that modern humans and Neanderthals shared a common ancestor that lived 600,000 years ago. Neanderthals expanded across Europe and Asia, interbred with modern humans coming out of Africa, and then became extinct about 40,000 years ago.
The researchers concluded that as far back as a million years ago, the ancestors of our species existed in two distinct populations. Dr. Henn and her colleagues call them Stem1 and Stem2.
About 600,000 years ago, a small group of humans budded off from Stem1 and went on to become the Neanderthals. But Stem1 endured in Africa for hundreds of thousands of years after that, as did Stem2.
If Stem1 and Stem2 had been entirely separate from each other, they would have accumulated a large number of distinct mutations in their DNA. Instead, Dr. Henn and her colleagues found that they had remained only moderately different — about as distinct as living Europeans and West Africans are today. The scientists concluded that people had moved between Stem1 and Stem2, pairing off to have children and mixing their DNA.
The model does not reveal where the Stem1 and Stem2 people lived in Africa. And it’s possible that bands of these two groups moved around a lot over the vast stretches of time during which they existed on the continent. About 120,000 years ago, the model indicates, African history changed dramatically. In southern Africa, people from Stem1 and Stem2 merged, giving rise to a new lineage that would lead to the Nama and other living humans in that region. Elsewhere in Africa, a separate fusion of Stem1 and Stem2 groups took place. That merger produced a lineage that would give rise to living people in West Africa and East Africa, as well as the people who expanded out of Africa. It’s possible that climate upheavals forced Stem1 and Stem2 people into the same regions, leading them to merge into single groups. Some bands of hunter-gatherers may have had to retreat from the coast as sea levels rose, for example. Some regions of Africa became arid, potentially sending people in search of new homes.
Even after these mergers 120,000 years ago, people with solely Stem1 or solely Stem2 ancestry appear to have survived. The DNA of the Mende people showed that their ancestors had interbred with Stem2 people just 25,000 years ago. “It does suggest to me that Stem2 was somewhere around West Africa,” Dr. Henn said. She and her colleagues are now adding more genomes from people in other parts of Africa to see if they affect the models. It’s possible they will discover other populations that endured in Africa for hundreds of thousands of years, ultimately helping produce our species as we know it today. Dr. Scerri speculated that living in a network of mingling populations across Africa might have allowed modern humans to survive while Neanderthals became extinct. In that arrangement, our ancestors could hold onto more genetic diversity, which in turn might have helped them endure shifts in the climate, or even evolve new adaptations.
“This diversity at the root of our species may have been ultimately the key to our success,” Dr. Scerri said.
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/05/17/science/human-origins-africa.html
JTEM is my hero
May 20, 2023, 1:40:27 AM5/20/23
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
Matt Beasley wrote:
It's not science, it's not a study, it's the social program we call paleo anthropology.
The message is, "We all came from Africa!"
-- --
https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/717509061438029824
Matt Beasley
May 21, 2023, 2:20:28 AM5/21/23
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
JTEM is my hero wrote:
> Matt Beasley wrote:
> It's not science, it's not a study, it's the social program we call paleo anthropology.
> The message is, "We all came from Africa!"
------------------
> Matt Beasley wrote:
> It's not science, it's not a study, it's the social program we call paleo anthropology.
> The message is, "We all came from Africa!"
MORE HISTORY OF SLAVERY
A Centuries-Old Mystery: Did This Elusive Viking City Exist?
By Andrew Higgins, May 18, 2023, NY Times
It has long been known that Nordic warriors established outposts more than a millennium ago on Poland’s Baltic coast, enslaving indigenous Slavic peoples to supply a booming slave trade, as well trading in salt, amber and other commodities.
Not known, however, was the location of the Vikings’ biggest settlement in the area, a town and military stronghold that early 12th-century texts called Jomsborg and linked to a possibly mythical mercenary order known as Jomsvikings.
Some modern scholars believe that Jomsborg was never a real place, but instead a legend handed down and embroidered through the ages. The findings at Hangmen’s Hill on Wolin Island might alter that view.
“It is very exciting,” said Dr. Wojciech Filipowiak, a scholar in Wolin with the archaeology and ethnology section of Poland’s Academy of Sciences. “It could solve a mystery going back more than 500 years: Where is Jomsborg?”
Interest in Vikings, once largely confined to a niche field of academic study, has surged in recent years as television series like “Game of Thrones,” movies, graphic novels and video games have embraced — and distorted — Norse themes, clothing and symbols. The Viking Age, or at least a rough approximation of it, has become a fixture of popular culture.
This has been good news for the tourism business in Wolin. “Vikings are sexy and attract a lot of interest,” said Ewa Grzybowska, the mayor of Wolin, which includes a town and a wider island district with same name.
But the mayor bemoaned that far fewer visitors come to her domain than to a nearby beach resort. She said more money was needed to carry out excavation work and develop Wolin as a world-class destination for Viking researchers and amateur enthusiasts.
Pointing out of her window in City Hall to a square that is believed to contain a treasure of unexcavated early medieval artifacts, she said: “Wherever you go here, there is a piece of history.”
That history, however, has often been a source of discord.
Nazi archaeologists scoured Wolin, which was part of Germany until 1945, for evidence of the presence of Vikings — and for proof of what the Nazis believed was the superiority of the Nordic race and its dominance in the early medieval period over local Slavic peoples, who later came to identify themselves as Poles and claimed the land for Poland.
When Poland took control of Wolin after World War II, Polish archaeologists hunted for artifacts that would enhance their country’s hold on former German lands and help reinforce a sense of national identity.
Schools in Wolin organized re-enactments of Viking invasions of Poland’s Baltic coast and, for decades after World War II, “far more kids wanted to be Slavs defending the island,” said Karolina Kokora, director of Wolin’s history museum.
That changed after Poland ditched communism and began turning West, away from Russia and its emphasis on Slavic pride. “After 1989, everyone wanted to be a Viking,” Ms. Kokora recalled.
Public fascination with Vikings has also led to a surge in historical sleuthing by amateurs.
Among them is Marek Kryda, a Polish American amateur historian and author of a polemical 2019 book that denounced Polish archaeology as a morass of ethnic chauvinism mostly blind to the role Vikings played in the early formation of Poland.
Mr. Kryda set off a storm of controversy last summer in Poland after he announced in The Daily Mail, a British tabloid, that he had located the likely grave of Harald Bluetooth, the historical Danish Viking king who once ruled in this area.
The consensus view among historians is that Harald probably died in the region at the end of the 10th century but had been buried in Denmark.
Mr. Marek said he had placed Harald’s likely burial mound in Wiejkowo, a tiny village inland from Wolin, by using satellite imaging. Dr. Filipowiak dismissed that as “pseudoscience.”
The furor over where Harald Bluetooth is buried has turned the Viking king — celebrated as a unifier of feuding Nordic fiefs and the inspiration for the name of a wireless technology designed to unite devices — into an agent of noisy division.
Ms. Grzybowska, the mayor, said she was not qualified to judge whether Harald was buried in her district but added that she would be delighted if true. “It would add special splendor and grandeur to our island,” she said.
Ms. Grzybowska’s district has a Slavs and Viking Village, dotted with thatched wooden huts and a stone inscribed with runes celebrating Harald Bluetooth. But these are modern fakes — representations of a distant Viking past that excites the imagination but has been hard to pin down with certainty despite the decades of digging by archaeologists looking for traces of Jomsborg.
Ms. Kokora, the museum director, described the elusive 10th-century settlement as a “medieval New York on the Baltic” — a trading entrepôt with a mixed population of Vikings, Germanic people and Slavs — that had mysteriously vanished from the map, leaving only whiffs of its existence in archaic texts.
It is said to have had thousands of inhabitants, a fortress and a long pier to accommodate the Viking ships that sailed to and from Scandinavia and as far as North America. Traces of enslaved Slavs traded along the Baltic coast in the first millennium have been found thousands of miles away in Morocco.
Sifting through shards of excavated pottery on a cluttered table in her museum, Ms. Kokora said the Vikings hadn’t bothered much with making pots and were not very good at it. “They just took from the Slavs,” she said.
In the 1930s, German archaeologists, eager to challenge Polish claims that the area had originally been settled mainly by Slavs, excavated a mound on the opposite side of town from Hangmen’s Hill in the hope of finding traces of Jomsborg — and proof that Scandinavians, an important pillar of the Nazi ideology of Aryan supremacy, had been there first. They found some artifacts but no evidence of a Viking stronghold.
Parts of Hangmen’s Hill had been excavated before Dr. Filipowiak started digging, but not the area selected for construction. The archaeologist said his serendipitous find of what he thinks could be the ramparts of 10th-century Jomsborg’s stronghold still needed more analysis, but he believes there is already “80 percent certainty” that this is the site.
The debate over Jomsborg’s location — or if it really existed — has been “a very long discussion,” Dr. Filipowiak said. “Hopefully, I can help end it.”
Andrew Higgins is the bureau chief for East and Central Europe based in Warsaw. Previously a correspondent and bureau chief in Moscow for The Times, he was on the team awarded the 2017 Pulitzer Prize in International Reporting, and led a team that won the same prize in 1999 while he was Moscow bureau chief for The Wall Street Journal.
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/05/18/world/europe/poland-vikings-wolin-jomsborg.html
--
--
marc verhaegen
May 21, 2023, 6:25:29 PM5/21/23
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
Op zaterdag 20 mei 2023 om 07:40:27 UTC+2 schreef JTEM is my hero:
> Matt Beasley wrote:
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/05/17/science/human-origins-africa.html
> It's not science, it's not a study, it's the social program we call paleo anthropology.
> The message is, "We all came from Africa!"
:-) Yes.
But sigh: what more can we do about these afrocentric prejudices??
> Matt Beasley wrote:
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/05/17/science/human-origins-africa.html
> It's not science, it's not a study, it's the social program we call paleo anthropology.
> The message is, "We all came from Africa!"
But sigh: what more can we do about these afrocentric prejudices??
JTEM is my hero
May 22, 2023, 1:00:28 AM5/22/23
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
marc verhaegen wrote:
> :-) Yes.
> But sigh: what more can we do about these afrocentric prejudices??
Similar studies:
> :-) Yes.
> But sigh: what more can we do about these afrocentric prejudices??
https://www.nbcnews.com/sciencemain/all-europeans-are-related-if-you-go-back-just-1-6c9826523
So everyone in Europe is related to everyone else, going back
a thousand years. That's like a FIFTH of the time since the
first great pyramid was built.
These DNA "Studies" simply do not and can not "Prove" jack.
They're like using a fire hose to eat your eggs in the
morning. They are NOT a tool capable of doing what they
claim to be doing.
https://www.nationalgeographic.com/history/article/130423-european-genetic-history-dna-archaeology-science
As I like to point out, but nobody is allowed to "Get," billions
of people alive today trace their ancestry to a Eurasian
population that lived *Long* before any Mitochondrial Eve.
But we would never know this -- we'd be incapable of
knowing this -- if it weren't for the fact that some mtDNA
from that extremely ancient population made the leap
over to Chromosome 11, where it now remans...
Do people honestly believe that their one and only archaic
ancestor is also the one that copied some mtDNA over
onto Chromosome 11? That there were no others?
-- --
https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/717463906482847744
jillery
May 22, 2023, 1:52:01 AM5/22/23
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
Oh wait... neither of you know what "evidence" means... nevermind.
--
You're entitled to your own opinions.
You're not entitled to your own facts.
Matt Beasley
May 23, 2023, 1:15:36 AM5/23/23
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
JTEM is my hero wrote:
> Matt Beasley wrote:
> [ . . . ]
> Matt Beasley wrote:
> It's not science, it's not a study, it's the social program we call paleo anthropology.
> The message is, "We all came from Africa!"
-------------------
> The message is, "We all came from Africa!"
At another venue, someone wrote:
"You can't prove anything with computer models. All models contain variables
and choices in how to choose values for them. You can make models support
or refute any hypothesis. This why social engineering based in data analysis is moronic.
----
---
broger...@gmail.com
May 23, 2023, 6:10:30 AM5/23/23
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
Matt Beasley
May 23, 2023, 3:00:31 PM5/23/23
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
In the field of Human Behavior, there's always been the elementary issue of whether
to be honest and unselfish, or to dishonest and selfish. That's what we examine in great
detail in the spiritual recovery programs. Most experts in the field know about "Leave No
Stone Unturned", but they've all left this stone unturned; that is, they don't know about and
recognize that the spiritual recovery program can also be adapted for that OTHER group
of chronic troublemakers, the political class (and also troublemakers in the business class
or the working class). So, in my role as the enlightened outsider, I will continue to smash y'all
over the head with this solution, until y'all get down on your knees and say: "Uncle!"
--
--
Öö Tiib
May 23, 2023, 3:35:30 PM5/23/23
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
understanding of computer models is skewed. The benefit of those is to reduce
cost of "exploratory" experiments and learning by trial and failure. Thinking,
calculating, planning are similar activities to modeling and simulating, beneficial
before doing something (but not replacement). Models help only to estimate
to where to look, what to try and what to expect. Giving bad input data can give
wrong answers, as will give defective or biased (like over-fitting or under-fitting)
models. So actual facts come from real world data and experiments not from
models.
Bob Casanova
May 23, 2023, 6:55:30 PM5/23/23
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On Tue, 23 May 2023 12:33:14 -0700 (PDT), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by 嘱 Tiib <oot...@hot.ee>:
The statement "I acknowledge that I am selfish" would
indicate both honesty and selfishness. You may believe no
one would ever make such a statement, but you'd be wrong;
I've both heard and read it, from different individuals.
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
appeared in talk.origins, posted by 嘱 Tiib <oot...@hot.ee>:
>At least be honest with yourself. Selfishness and honesty are orthogonal.
>
All else in this thread aside, that statement is incorrect.
>
The statement "I acknowledge that I am selfish" would
indicate both honesty and selfishness. You may believe no
one would ever make such a statement, but you'd be wrong;
I've both heard and read it, from different individuals.
>
> Your
>understanding of computer models is skewed. The benefit of those is to reduce
>cost of "exploratory" experiments and learning by trial and failure. Thinking,
>calculating, planning are similar activities to modeling and simulating, beneficial
>before doing something (but not replacement). Models help only to estimate
>to where to look, what to try and what to expect. Giving bad input data can give
>wrong answers, as will give defective or biased (like over-fitting or under-fitting)
>models. So actual facts come from real world data and experiments not from
>models.
--
> Your
>understanding of computer models is skewed. The benefit of those is to reduce
>cost of "exploratory" experiments and learning by trial and failure. Thinking,
>calculating, planning are similar activities to modeling and simulating, beneficial
>before doing something (but not replacement). Models help only to estimate
>to where to look, what to try and what to expect. Giving bad input data can give
>wrong answers, as will give defective or biased (like over-fitting or under-fitting)
>models. So actual facts come from real world data and experiments not from
>models.
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
Ernest Major
May 23, 2023, 7:10:30 PM5/23/23
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On 23/05/2023 23:54, Bob Casanova wrote:
> On Tue, 23 May 2023 12:33:14 -0700 (PDT), the following
> appeared in talk.origins, posted by Öö Tiib <oot...@hot.ee>:
> On Tue, 23 May 2023 12:33:14 -0700 (PDT), the following
or more or less uncorrelated (if you're being informal). You seem to
have interpreted it as meaning anti-correlated.
>>
>> Your
>> understanding of computer models is skewed. The benefit of those is to reduce
>> cost of "exploratory" experiments and learning by trial and failure. Thinking,
>> calculating, planning are similar activities to modeling and simulating, beneficial
>> before doing something (but not replacement). Models help only to estimate
>> to where to look, what to try and what to expect. Giving bad input data can give
>> wrong answers, as will give defective or biased (like over-fitting or under-fitting)
>> models. So actual facts come from real world data and experiments not from
>> models.
--
alias Ernest Major
>> Your
>> understanding of computer models is skewed. The benefit of those is to reduce
>> cost of "exploratory" experiments and learning by trial and failure. Thinking,
>> calculating, planning are similar activities to modeling and simulating, beneficial
>> before doing something (but not replacement). Models help only to estimate
>> to where to look, what to try and what to expect. Giving bad input data can give
>> wrong answers, as will give defective or biased (like over-fitting or under-fitting)
>> models. So actual facts come from real world data and experiments not from
>> models.
--
Bob Casanova
May 23, 2023, 7:47:18 PM5/23/23
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On Wed, 24 May 2023 00:09:16 +0100, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Ernest Major
<{$to$}@meden.demon.co.uk>:
>On 23/05/2023 23:54, Bob Casanova wrote:
>> On Tue, 23 May 2023 12:33:14 -0700 (PDT), the following
>> appeared in talk.origins, posted by 嘱 Tiib <oot...@hot.ee>:
If this were a statement of a mathematical relationship,
which it isn't, I'd probably agree. I interpreted it, in
this context, as meaning that one cannot be both honest and
selfish. YMMV.
in talk.origins, posted by Ernest Major
<{$to$}@meden.demon.co.uk>:
>On 23/05/2023 23:54, Bob Casanova wrote:
>> On Tue, 23 May 2023 12:33:14 -0700 (PDT), the following
which it isn't, I'd probably agree. I interpreted it, in
this context, as meaning that one cannot be both honest and
selfish. YMMV.
>
>>> Your
>>> understanding of computer models is skewed. The benefit of those is to reduce
>>> cost of "exploratory" experiments and learning by trial and failure. Thinking,
>>> calculating, planning are similar activities to modeling and simulating, beneficial
>>> before doing something (but not replacement). Models help only to estimate
>>> to where to look, what to try and what to expect. Giving bad input data can give
>>> wrong answers, as will give defective or biased (like over-fitting or under-fitting)
>>> models. So actual facts come from real world data and experiments not from
>>> models.
--
>>> Your
>>> understanding of computer models is skewed. The benefit of those is to reduce
>>> cost of "exploratory" experiments and learning by trial and failure. Thinking,
>>> calculating, planning are similar activities to modeling and simulating, beneficial
>>> before doing something (but not replacement). Models help only to estimate
>>> to where to look, what to try and what to expect. Giving bad input data can give
>>> wrong answers, as will give defective or biased (like over-fitting or under-fitting)
>>> models. So actual facts come from real world data and experiments not from
>>> models.
--
DB Cates
May 23, 2023, 8:12:11 PM5/23/23
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On 2023-05-23 5:54 PM, Bob Casanova wrote:
> On Tue, 23 May 2023 12:33:14 -0700 (PDT), the following
> appeared in talk.origins, posted by Öö Tiib <oot...@hot.ee>:
> On Tue, 23 May 2023 12:33:14 -0700 (PDT), the following
>> Your
>> understanding of computer models is skewed. The benefit of those is to reduce
>> cost of "exploratory" experiments and learning by trial and failure. Thinking,
>> calculating, planning are similar activities to modeling and simulating, beneficial
>> before doing something (but not replacement). Models help only to estimate
>> to where to look, what to try and what to expect. Giving bad input data can give
>> wrong answers, as will give defective or biased (like over-fitting or under-fitting)
>> models. So actual facts come from real world data and experiments not from
>> models.
--
Don Cates ("he's a cunning rascal" PN)
Bob Casanova
May 23, 2023, 8:25:30 PM5/23/23
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On Tue, 23 May 2023 19:05:39 -0500, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by DB Cates <cate...@hotmail.com>:
>On 2023-05-23 5:54 PM, Bob Casanova wrote:
>> On Tue, 23 May 2023 12:33:14 -0700 (PDT), the following
>> appeared in talk.origins, posted by 嘱 Tiib <oot...@hot.ee>:
Answered elsethread.
in talk.origins, posted by DB Cates <cate...@hotmail.com>:
>On 2023-05-23 5:54 PM, Bob Casanova wrote:
>> On Tue, 23 May 2023 12:33:14 -0700 (PDT), the following
>
>>> Your
>>> understanding of computer models is skewed. The benefit of those is to reduce
>>> cost of "exploratory" experiments and learning by trial and failure. Thinking,
>>> calculating, planning are similar activities to modeling and simulating, beneficial
>>> before doing something (but not replacement). Models help only to estimate
>>> to where to look, what to try and what to expect. Giving bad input data can give
>>> wrong answers, as will give defective or biased (like over-fitting or under-fitting)
>>> models. So actual facts come from real world data and experiments not from
>>> models.
>
>--
--
>>> Your
>>> understanding of computer models is skewed. The benefit of those is to reduce
>>> cost of "exploratory" experiments and learning by trial and failure. Thinking,
>>> calculating, planning are similar activities to modeling and simulating, beneficial
>>> before doing something (but not replacement). Models help only to estimate
>>> to where to look, what to try and what to expect. Giving bad input data can give
>>> wrong answers, as will give defective or biased (like over-fitting or under-fitting)
>>> models. So actual facts come from real world data and experiments not from
>>> models.
>
>--
--
DB Cates
May 23, 2023, 10:32:21 PM5/23/23
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On 2023-05-23 7:22 PM, Bob Casanova wrote:
> On Tue, 23 May 2023 19:05:39 -0500, the following appeared
> in talk.origins, posted by DB Cates <cate...@hotmail.com>:
>
>> On 2023-05-23 5:54 PM, Bob Casanova wrote:
>>> On Tue, 23 May 2023 12:33:14 -0700 (PDT), the following
>>> appeared in talk.origins, posted by Öö Tiib <oot...@hot.ee>:
> On Tue, 23 May 2023 19:05:39 -0500, the following appeared
> in talk.origins, posted by DB Cates <cate...@hotmail.com>:
>
>> On 2023-05-23 5:54 PM, Bob Casanova wrote:
>>> On Tue, 23 May 2023 12:33:14 -0700 (PDT), the following
speaker, and therefor might have incorrectly used the term, he was in
reply to Beasly making an explicit linkage of the terms ("be honest and
unselfish, or to dishonest and selfish") So that is unlikely.
You made a mistake. We all do from time to time.
>>
>>>> Your
>>>> understanding of computer models is skewed. The benefit of those is to reduce
>>>> cost of "exploratory" experiments and learning by trial and failure. Thinking,
>>>> calculating, planning are similar activities to modeling and simulating, beneficial
>>>> before doing something (but not replacement). Models help only to estimate
>>>> to where to look, what to try and what to expect. Giving bad input data can give
>>>> wrong answers, as will give defective or biased (like over-fitting or under-fitting)
>>>> models. So actual facts come from real world data and experiments not from
>>>> models.
>>
>> --
--
>>>> Your
>>>> understanding of computer models is skewed. The benefit of those is to reduce
>>>> cost of "exploratory" experiments and learning by trial and failure. Thinking,
>>>> calculating, planning are similar activities to modeling and simulating, beneficial
>>>> before doing something (but not replacement). Models help only to estimate
>>>> to where to look, what to try and what to expect. Giving bad input data can give
>>>> wrong answers, as will give defective or biased (like over-fitting or under-fitting)
>>>> models. So actual facts come from real world data and experiments not from
>>>> models.
>>
>> --
--
JTEM is my hero
May 24, 2023, 12:52:28 AM5/24/23
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
jillery wrote:
> Since you
You don't know what you're talking about. You never do. DNA "Evidence"
simply is incapable of making the determinations claimed, and even a
cursory glimpse at the other studies would be enough to clue you in
to this fact.
Speaking rhetorically.
-- --
https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/717611036225748992
> Since you
You don't know what you're talking about. You never do. DNA "Evidence"
simply is incapable of making the determinations claimed, and even a
cursory glimpse at the other studies would be enough to clue you in
to this fact.
Speaking rhetorically.
-- --
https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/717611036225748992
Bob Casanova
May 24, 2023, 12:52:28 AM5/24/23
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On Tue, 23 May 2023 21:25:59 -0500, the following appeared
>Almost certainly incorrectly. While 嘱 Tiib is not a native English
exchange:
[Ernest Major]
"If this were a statement of a mathematical relationship,
which it isn't, I'd probably agree. I interpreted it, in
this context, as meaning that one cannot be both honest and
selfish. YMMV."
...specifically referring back to Beasley's comment
("...honest and unselfish, or to dishonest and selfish.")
I may have misinterpreted Oo Tiib's intent, but that's how
it seemed to me. On reflection, it could have meant the
opposite, again referring back to the Beasley comment, that
*Beasley* made that correlation error and Tiib disagreed. If
so, mea culpa, and I apologize for misreading Tiib's
statement.
in talk.origins, posted by DB Cates <cate...@hotmail.com>:
>On 2023-05-23 7:22 PM, Bob Casanova wrote:
>> On Tue, 23 May 2023 19:05:39 -0500, the following appeared
>> in talk.origins, posted by DB Cates <cate...@hotmail.com>:
>>
>>> On 2023-05-23 5:54 PM, Bob Casanova wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 23 May 2023 12:33:14 -0700 (PDT), the following
>>>> appeared in talk.origins, posted by 嘱 Tiib <oot...@hot.ee>:
>On 2023-05-23 7:22 PM, Bob Casanova wrote:
>> On Tue, 23 May 2023 19:05:39 -0500, the following appeared
>> in talk.origins, posted by DB Cates <cate...@hotmail.com>:
>>
>>> On 2023-05-23 5:54 PM, Bob Casanova wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 23 May 2023 12:33:14 -0700 (PDT), the following
>speaker, and therefor might have incorrectly used the term, he was in
>reply to Beasly making an explicit linkage of the terms ("be honest and
>unselfish, or to dishonest and selfish") So that is unlikely.
>You made a mistake. We all do from time to time.
>>>
Quite possibly; it wouldn't be the first time. This was the
>reply to Beasly making an explicit linkage of the terms ("be honest and
>unselfish, or to dishonest and selfish") So that is unlikely.
>You made a mistake. We all do from time to time.
>>>
exchange:
[Ernest Major]
"In this context orthogonal means uncorrelated (if you're
being strict) or more or less uncorrelated (if you're being
informal). You seem to have interpreted it as meaning
anti-correlated."
Tp which I replied...
being strict) or more or less uncorrelated (if you're being
informal). You seem to have interpreted it as meaning
anti-correlated."
"If this were a statement of a mathematical relationship,
which it isn't, I'd probably agree. I interpreted it, in
this context, as meaning that one cannot be both honest and
selfish. YMMV."
("...honest and unselfish, or to dishonest and selfish.")
I may have misinterpreted Oo Tiib's intent, but that's how
it seemed to me. On reflection, it could have meant the
opposite, again referring back to the Beasley comment, that
*Beasley* made that correlation error and Tiib disagreed. If
so, mea culpa, and I apologize for misreading Tiib's
statement.
>
>>>>> Your
>>>>> understanding of computer models is skewed. The benefit of those is to reduce
>>>>> cost of "exploratory" experiments and learning by trial and failure. Thinking,
>>>>> calculating, planning are similar activities to modeling and simulating, beneficial
>>>>> before doing something (but not replacement). Models help only to estimate
>>>>> to where to look, what to try and what to expect. Giving bad input data can give
>>>>> wrong answers, as will give defective or biased (like over-fitting or under-fitting)
>>>>> models. So actual facts come from real world data and experiments not from
>>>>> models.
>>>
>>> --
>
>--
--
>>>>> Your
>>>>> understanding of computer models is skewed. The benefit of those is to reduce
>>>>> cost of "exploratory" experiments and learning by trial and failure. Thinking,
>>>>> calculating, planning are similar activities to modeling and simulating, beneficial
>>>>> before doing something (but not replacement). Models help only to estimate
>>>>> to where to look, what to try and what to expect. Giving bad input data can give
>>>>> wrong answers, as will give defective or biased (like over-fitting or under-fitting)
>>>>> models. So actual facts come from real world data and experiments not from
>>>>> models.
>>>
>>> --
>
>--
--
JTEM is my hero
May 24, 2023, 12:58:00 AM5/24/23
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
broger...@gmail.com wrote:
> In a certain sense, that's true. If you include enough free parameters in your model you can adjust it to fit any data set. Surprisingly, people who make computer models have actually noticed this, too. They therefore try to reduce the number of free parameters as much as possible, and to test the model against data sets that were not used in its development. There's always someone on the internet who will identify an elementary issue in a field and come to believe that everybody in the field has overlooked it and that it just needed an enlightened outsider to point it out.
There's always people who love, trust & believe the media, think the media is
> In a certain sense, that's true. If you include enough free parameters in your model you can adjust it to fit any data set. Surprisingly, people who make computer models have actually noticed this, too. They therefore try to reduce the number of free parameters as much as possible, and to test the model against data sets that were not used in its development. There's always someone on the internet who will identify an elementary issue in a field and come to believe that everybody in the field has overlooked it and that it just needed an enlightened outsider to point it out.
"Science" and despite being let down again & again ad nauseam cling to the
media like a drowning man to a life preserver.
The simple fact is that "The Study" talked about here is incapable of making
the determinations claims. DNA simply does not work that way.
-- --
https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/717611036225748992
0 new messages