Molecular Evolution of Later Hominids

[Leif]

Hi,

Now I have revised (Philips?) updated site. It's pretty
obvious that he as usually is chosing to ignore evidence. 75%
centered around mtDNA studies, which in fact has been proved
to be useless in studies of hybrid wolf populations in the US.
(I can provide a link to this if someone wants it tomorrow).

So, now I'll give Philip the evidence of hybridization, much
of which he had been ignored at the site:

PDHA1 (present, but the argumentation doesn't center around
the paper): http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/96/6/3320

DRD4 (no comment):
http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/abstract/99/1/309

Cystic Fibrosis (no comment): http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/ent-
rez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_ui
ds=8827370&dopt=Abstract

SLE (no comment): http://www.borg.labmed.umn.edu/Immunology/c-
lasses/Topic%2011/Wakeland/suppor
t.pdf

Hemochromatis (no comment):
http://www.americanhs.org/celtic.htm

All this support Templetons conclusion, and the estimated
introduction of all of those alleles are estimated to 40-60ky,
which is constent with a hybdrization theory. All of them are
now found in high frequencies Euroasia.

Here is a list of traits that stem from the Neanderthal
environment:

-Skin color -Body proportions -Red hair

Seasonal affective disorder (SAD): Similarities to
hibernation: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cm-
d=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_ui ds=11735838&dopt=Abstract

SAD people have a seasonal clock:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db-
=PubMed&list_ui ds=11735838&dopt=Abstract

Seasonal breeding: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.f-
cgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_ui ds=11506380&dopt=Abstract

Celiacs origin (Europe, hunters)
http://www.celiac.com/history.html

Topological theory of autism: http://www.autismtheory.org/

Of course, the whole psychiatric complex seems to be related
to hybridization, which David Comings have shown doesn't
contain specific alleles per "disorder", rather virtually all
"disorders" share most of the genetic components with other
"disorders", and with people without any "disorder" at all.
Most allele frequencies of associated alleles lie in the
10-25% interval in the overall population.

Leif

[Ejudy]

"leif" wrote:
>
> Here is a list of traits that stem from the Neanderthal
> environment:
>
> -Skin color -Body proportions -Red hair

This is setting up an argument to lead an unsubstantiated set
of traits where you desire them to point... You take vague
possibilities and push them into falsely higher confidence.
Each piece of evidence that you use could be broken down and
rated on a hogwash scale.

>
> Seasonal affective disorder (SAD): Similarities to
> hibernation: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?-
> cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_ui ds=11735838&dopt=Abstract
>
> SAD people have a seasonal clock:
>
> http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&-
> db=PubMed&list_ui ds=11735838&dopt=Abstract
>
> Seasonal breeding: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query-
> .fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_ui
> ds=11506380&dopt=Abstract
>
> Celiacs origin (Europe, hunters)
> http://www.celiac.com/history.html
>
> Topological theory of autism: http://www.autismtheory.org/
>
>

This is your idea of evidence? Leif, you are not improving....

ejudy

[Philip Dei]

On 28 Apr 2002 20:25:58 -0700, ejudy@my-deja.com (ejudy)
wrote:

>"leif" wrote:
>>
>> Here is a list of traits that stem from the Neanderthal
>> environment:
>>
>> -Skin color -Body proportions -Red hair
>
>This is setting up an argument to lead an unsubstantiated set
>of traits where you desire them to point... You take vague
>possibilities and push them into falsely higher confidence.
>Each piece of evidence that you use could be broken down and
>rated on a hogwash scale.

Once a person enters my killfile I no longer respond to
them. I recommend others should also killfile as per the
way to handle

Ape theorist Creationist Miscellaneous Fruitloops.

In general Liefs has selected some of the weakest papers in
the literature, the strongest of which is LPDA gene which was
criticized very early on for a lack of sequeunce
representation given its depth of diversity (which everyone
is in agreement on). Because of the PDHA1 i placed the mean
expected exoafrican contribution of 0.8%; however, if this
paper is corrected with more sequence information it might go
to 0. The basic problem with bleed through variations is that
one captures alleles at different stages of the fixation
process, from many alleles to the point were an allele is
almost eliminated. If a population expansion occurs close to
the point of elimination then that 'minor' allele will be
biased to one group on expansion. Therefore if this alleles
appears in populations in africa that appear to be
representatives of early branches (it does) then it can
either be a minor remnant bleed through alleles or a back
flow allele from exoafrican contribution. Statistics and the
proper dating of entry into contriction can tell us how
'expected' this might be once we have hundreds of loci with
africa/exoafrica spread. Even with the best statistics
however it is impossible to discern whether <1% of DNA came
into the population from exoafrican hominid contribution.
This is what I said in my site.

While Lief brings up the issue of PDHA1, I should remind
everyone that the overwhelming majorite of 'unfixed' genes
demonstrate an african origin, suggesting bleed through or
post constriction african contribution, the only exception
of genes with deep diversity is the PDHA1 gene, but the work
is burdened by poor sampling. The rest of what Lief has to
say is not worth responding to. Philip <pdeitik at
bcm.tmc.edu

[Leif]

ejudy:
> > Here is a list of traits that stem from the Neanderthal
> > environment:
> >
> > -Skin color -Body proportions -Red hair
>
> This is setting up an argument to lead an unsubstantiated
> set of traits where you desire them to point... You take
> vague possibilities and push them into falsely higher
> confidence. Each piece of evidence that you use could be
> broken down and rated on a hogwash scale.

Really? Just because I present a long list of circumstantial
evidence, that clearly wouldn't evlove in Africa naturally,
and your / Philips' only evidence is mtDNA studies and a
presumed larger diversity in Africa, you want to place what's
inconvinient on a hogwash scale? Where exactly does this place
you? The net-loon criteria comes to mind...

As for the reliability of mtDNA studies when hybridization is
present read this: http://www.science.mcmaster.ca/biology/CBC-
N/genetics/gup_coyote.htm

Excerpts about mtDNA findings:

"Further, hybridization was commonly observed only in areas
where the coyote range had recently expanded into the wolf's
distribution(6)."

"Of note, none of the coyote genotypes observed showed any
similarity to the gray wolf samples observed(6). Thus coyote
samples showed no evidence of wolf-derived mtDNA, indicating
the introgression of coyote mtDNA into the sympatric North
American gray wolf population is unidirectional from coyotes
into wolves(6). The authors of the article provide some
explanation as to how this could have occurred(6)."

"Another problem may be the sheer size differences that exist
between male coyotes and female wolves(ie wolves are on
average much larger), thus making physical courtship and
mating between the two less likely(6). "

"The results found indicated that the captive red wolf
population had mtDNA virtually indistinguishable from mtDNA of
coyotes sampled from the wild(8). Thus, indicating that the
red wolves being held in captivity were more closely related
to coyotes than wolves(8). The blood samples taken in the
mid-seventies indicated that the majority of samples showed a
closer genetic relationship to current wild coyote population
samples(58%)(8). A smaller number of the samples corresponded
directly to red wolf/coyote hybrids(31%)(8). The samples least
corresponded to gray wolf mtDNA(11%)(8). Thus, the high
frequency of morphologic hybrids, the poor correspondence
between mtDNA and morphologic classifications, and the
presence of only coyote and gray wolf genotypes, suggest
hybridization occurred between these two species in the source
population before 1974(8)."

Now, everyone that has elimentary reading-skills and knowledge
of genetics would know what this implicates for the human
mtDNA studies. One word is enough: WORTHLESS.

If grey-wolf mtDNA can virtually disappear in red-wolf hybrids
within just a few generations, this clearly put's human mtDNA
studies in the field of pseudo-science.

Add this to the list of things that "Molecular Evolution of
Later Hominids" must explain, and most importantly, assure
that the same mechanism was not also present during AMH -
Neanderthal hybridization.

> > Seasonal affective disorder (SAD): Similarities to
> > hibernation:
> >
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db-
=PubMed&list_ui
> > ds=11735838&dopt=Abstract
> >
> > SAD people have a seasonal clock:
> >
> >
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db-
=PubMed&list_ui
> > ds=11735838&dopt=Abstract
> >
> > Seasonal breeding:
> >
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db-
=PubMed&list_ui
> > ds=11506380&dopt=Abstract
> >
> > Celiacs origin (Europe, hunters)
> > http://www.celiac.com/history.html
> >
> > Topological theory of autism: http://www.autismtheory.org/
> >
> >
>
> This is your idea of evidence? Leif, you are not
> improving....

As I wrote above, this is the circumstanial part. The part you
snipped out is the primary, hard, genetic evidence. Try to
comment on that instead!

Leif

[Anne V. Gi]

Lief:

The Resident Wolf Expert Speaks(again)!

> As for the reliability of mtDNA studies when hybridization
> is present read this: http://www.science.mcmaster.ca/biolog-
> y/CBCN/genetics/gup_coyote.htm
>
This study doesn't really prove or disprove your thesis. While
it's true members of the genus Canis are all interfertile(and
this has been shown both in the wild and in the laboratory),
we don't and can't know at the present time whether the same
goes for later hominids. I hasten to say I think it probably
does, but we simply *can't know*. So at present, all we have
partial mtDNA from Neandertals that looks different from that
of current AMH, and various people are reading various things
into this. Whether any of these prove true or not, we have to
wait and see. Anne G

---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG
anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.351 /
Virus Database: 197 - Release Date: 4/19/02

[Bob Keeter]

Leif,

Just a piece of advice. The louder and shriller you try to
champion your views, the less likely anyone is going to be
to pay any attention. You end up hiding any morsels of
evidence under hostility and ad hominem attacks. You start
groping around and touting questionable concepts as proof to
your theories. All of it ends up totally counterproductive.
Even good ole Philip would have to agree that his manner
tends to turn off many people EVEN when he may be stating a
fact on solid ground. When you are proposing a new
interpretation, a "theory", a "hypothesis" or even a
"conjecture" in the realm of science that goes "against the
grain" you are forced to live with a higher standard of
proof! HARD evidence, incontrovertable evidence, evidence
that PROVES that the current theory is deficient, logic that
Socrates would praise and documentary science! "I want it to
be this way" is not a reason. "I want to publish a paper" is
not a reason. "I think it is this way" is not a reason
UNLESS you can present issues and evidence that the current
theories absolutely can not explain!

For example, your proposal that "Red Hair" is an item of
evidence that hss and hn hybridized. . . . . . . How do you
KNOW that the Neanderthals had red hair? Is it perhaps that
red hair only occurs in areas previosly inhabited by
Neanderthals? Is it a characteristic of ALL areas that
Neanderthals previosly inhabited? Or perhaps is it found in
those areas "visited" by Norsemen in the 10th century? The
only "higher ape" that I can think of with "red hair" (other
than humans of course) is the Orangutan. Does Red hair in hss
intimate a hybridization or descent from the Orangutan?
Actually, red hair is just too tenuous of a connection. The
SAME logic, possibly with even a stronger as you term it
"circumstancial" case, could apply to blonde hair!

As for physical stature. . . . . The physical stature of a
southern Italian, a Tibetan, a Laplander, an Equadorian
highland Indian or a Far Eastern Siberian Tungut might not
be all that different. Short sturdy arms and legs, sturdy
torso muscular neck. . . . Does that mean that ALL are
descendents of the hss/Neanderthal hybridization? If so, why
did not the red hair show up in the Tunguts or the
Equadoreans? Why are there tall and skinny members of
practially all of these groups?

Those are the kind of holes that people can pick in the really
tenuous "support" cases, and in picking those holes, the
entire house of cards starts looking more and more shakey and
the final conclusion weaker and weaker.

Bottom line: Any scientific theory, even if very sparsely
supported by hard evidence, is a whole lot more credible
than a conjecture supported by a plethora of "unsupported
facts", mis-interpretations, unsupportable assumptions,
"must have beens", "has to have beens", "I want it to be's"
and NO HARD DATA!

Define for yourself what your "objective" really is. If its
just to be the butt of jokes and the designated "village
idiot" by offering up "support" for your theory without
testing that support against the measure of truth and
demonstrable fact, continue. You are doing admirably. If your
objective is to advance a credible scientific theory, to the
point that others will actually help you complete the
supporting arguement, well there are rules for that as well!

Had a tossup between just "lighting you up" for picking on the
lady and offering some friendly advice. Quite frankly, your
disagreement with Philip, sweet and lovable fellow that he is,
pushed me in this direction. So . . . . . . . . be sure to
thank him! 8-)

Seriously though, think about it for a while. What is it that
you wish to accomplish and given that, how do you go about it.
Bet the answer is a lot less shrill and a lot more based on
HARD facts and not "evidence" even less supportable than the
theory that it supposedly proves!

Regards bk

[Bob Keeter]

in article
hahz8.3247$Z01.111035617@newssvr17.news.prodigy.com, ANNE V.
GILBERT at avgilbert@prodigy.net wrote on 4/29/02 2:29 PM:

> Lief:
>
> The Resident Wolf Expert Speaks(again)!
>
>> As for the reliability of mtDNA studies when hybridization
>> is present read this: http://www.science.mcmaster.ca/biolo-
>> gy/CBCN/genetics/gup_coyote.htm
>>
> This study doesn't really prove or disprove your thesis.
> While it's true members of the genus Canis are all
> interfertile(and this has been shown both in the wild and in
> the laboratory), we don't and can't know at the present time
> whether the same goes for later hominids. I hasten to say I
> think it probably does, but we simply *can't know*. So at
> present, all we have partial mtDNA from Neandertals that
> looks different from that of current AMH, and various people
> are reading various things into this. Whether any of these
> prove true or not, we have to wait and see.
>

Even if the genus Canis is fertile across the entire breadth
of the genus, Id offer up the example of the St. Bernard and
the Great Dane (iirc on the breeds). They are two large
examples of the domestic dog that from one logic would say
should "interbreed easily". Again IIRC, a cross between a St.
Bernard and a Great Dane is likely to be a very poor example
of a pitifully freakish animal best put out of its misery.
Both animals have been "selected" for size but by the luck of
the draw have gone down different paths. Cross the two and the
"paths", in just about any combination, are found to be
incompatible.

Simple genetic compatiblility, to the point of being a fertile
mating, does not mean that the offspring is viable. Not sure
how we could demonstrate that this kind of outcome, or for
that matter outright genetic incompatibility between hss and
hn was the case, but. . . . . . St Bernards and Great Danes
are DEFINITELY considered to be in the same species and they
have problems. If HSS and HN are even DEBATABLY different
species, would not the problems for any theory of compatible
genetics and viable offspring be even greater?

Regards bk

[Leif]

Bob Keeter:
> For example, your proposal that "Red Hair" is an item of
> evidence that hss and hn hybridized. . . . . . .

It's not proof. It's only one of many circumstantials.
The whole science of paleoanthro is built on
circumstantial evidence.

>"I want it to be's" and NO HARD DATA!

But the hard data is there too. Some of it is in Templetons
paper, which Philip hasn't bothered to comment on. Most
importantly, it's in the DRD4 study, which relates
hybridization with ADHD. Actually, if you evaluate it with the
same required level of evidence as mtDNA data, it will be just
as strong.

The red-wolf story also tells us that mtDNA is not sufficient
for determining anything else than main heritage. Proponents
of this theory is calculating perceptages of certainty, when
they really don't have a hint about this. They also go on and
speak about all neutral alleles having an African origin. So
what? This is of course pretty natural, if low-frequency
hybridization occured. I bet you can see the same thing in
red-wolves, at least you will if wolves go extinct in US, and
you let 2000 generations pass. The truth is that we don't
know the extent of hybridization, only that it was
low-frequency. This means the only way to solve the issue is
to study autosomals, something Philips obviously is scared to
death for..

> Define for yourself what your "objective" really is.

I very well know my objective. It's to prove that "psychiatric
disorders" are no "disorders", rather another personality
sometimes so different from "normals" that it can be
considered belonging to a different species. The origin of
this is in the hybridization with Neanderthals.

I also have a step-by-step list to prove this:

1. Strict OoA must be disproved or made unlikely.
2. Neanderthals must have been different in behaviour.
3. "Disordered" behavoiur would work in another context.
4. Reconstructing Neanderthal behavoiur with "disordered"
behaviour would be consistent with archeological evidence.
5. Psychiatry must be made study "disorders" in a paleanthro
perspective.
6. Time will eventually solve the issue, especially with
inexpensive whole-genome sequencing techniques.

1-4 are already proved to a large extent here: www.rdos.net,
The Neanderthal theory

Leif

[Leif]

ANNE:
> This study doesn't really prove or disprove your thesis.
> While it's true members of the genus Canis are all
> interfertile(and this has been shown
both
> in the wild and in the laboratory), we don't and can't know
> at the present time whether the same goes for later
> hominids. I hasten to say I think it probably does, but we
> simply *can't know*. So at present, all we have partial
> mtDNA from Neandertals that looks different from that of
> current AMH, and various people are reading various things
> into this. Whether any of these prove true or not, we have
> to wait and see.

Of course it doesn't prove my thesis. It only acts on priority
#1 on my list, strict OoA.

Think about what would happen if you let gray-wolves go
extinct in the US. Additionally, you let 2000 generations
pass. What would the odds of finding gray-wolf mtDNA in
red-wolf be? Already 30 years in isolation have reduced the
gray-wolf mtDNA of captive red-wolves to a point where you can
no longer detect their origin with mtDNA analysis! This is
what put's mtDNA studies in ridicule and in the field of
pseudo-science. mtDNA studies are very potent at detecting the
main heritage, but as soon as you claim it proves ALL genetic
heritage, you've crossed the line between science and fiction.

Leif

[Leif]

Bob:
> Even if the genus Canis is fertile across the entire breadth
> of the genus, Id offer up the example of the St. Bernard and
> the Great Dane (iirc on the breeds). They are two large
> examples of the domestic dog that from one logic would say
> should "interbreed easily". Again IIRC, a cross between a
> St. Bernard and a Great Dane is likely to be a very poor
> example of a pitifully freakish animal best put out of its
> misery. Both animals have been "selected" for size but by
> the luck of the draw have gone down different paths. Cross
> the two and the "paths", in just about any combination, are
> found to be incompatible.

Bad example. There is no evidence that a HSS x HN hybrid
would not be successful. Rather the opposite, if you study
what happened after this event. Yes, I know that is too
circumstantial, but the rapid advance in technology at
least is real, and it has no credible explaination from the
strict OoA camp.

BTW, dogs have been diversified several times with wolf
crossings. Although such crossings are often problematic in
the short run, they are the driving force for new, successful
dog races.

> Simple genetic compatiblility, to the point of being a
> fertile mating,
does
> not mean that the offspring is viable. Not sure how we could
> demonstrate that this kind of outcome, or for that matter
> outright genetic incompatibility between hss and hn was the
> case, but. . . . . . St
Bernards
> and Great Danes are DEFINITELY considered to be in the same
> species and
they
> have problems. If HSS and HN are even DEBATABLY different
> species, would not the problems for any theory of compatible
> genetics and viable
offspring
> be even greater?

There is a vast amount of evidence that genetic
incompatibility is not involved as a species delimiter in
mammals. Behaviour is the species conserving component, and
I'm sure this applies to humans as well. The reason for this
evolutionary mechanism might very well be increased risk for
auto-immune deseases when "soft" species barriers are crossed.
The reinforcement theory essentially says the same thing.
However, "soft" species barriers will inevitably be crossed if
you live side-by-side for 100s of generations. This obviously
was the case when the red wolf "speciated".

There is also a growing amount of evidence supporting the
hypothesis that hybridization is one of the most important
factors in speciation, if not the most important.

Leif

[Bob Keeter]

in article aaldut$bguiq$1@ID-78319.news.dfncis.de, Leif at
leif@rdos.net wrote on 4/30/02 1:35 AM:

> Bob Keeter: For example, your proposal that "Red Hair" is an
> item of evidence that hss and hn hybridized. . . . . . .
>
> It's not proof. It's only one of many circumstantials. The
> whole science of paleoanthro is built on circumstantial
> evidence.
>
But you see, circumstantial evidence means NOTHING in science.
Let me offer you and example. . . .I find the fossil of a
long, aerodynamically shaped animal with wings and I see a
swan fly by. Does that mean that two earlier animals have
"hybridizes" and the hybrid is now the swan flying overhead?
Both have wings, both are adapted to flight, one is a flying
fish! Even though both share the cirmstance of having wings,
only the vaguest of relations, somewhere back in the Cambrian
perhaps for the LCA!

>> "I want it to be's" and NO HARD DATA!
>>
> But the hard data is there too. Some of it is in Templetons
> paper, which Philip hasn't bothered to comment on. Most
> importantly, it's in the DRD4 study, which relates
> hybridization with ADHD. Actually, if you evaluate it with
> the same required level of evidence as mtDNA data, it will
> be just as strong.
>

The HARD data is the ONLY data. When you say "is there too", .
. .is there with WHAT. Start tossing out that other stuff,
i.e. whatever is not hard data, and you undermine your ideas.
Stick SOLELY with the hard data and no matter how "spacey"
your ideas might sound, they will be grudgingly accepted
UNLESS the preponderance of hard evidence goes against them!

Actually, for the purist, the basic logic is that a theory
must match ALL of the hard data. One tiny piece of relevant
hard data not covered by the theory is grounds to dump the
theory for a new one! Newton's physics work just fine for
99.99999% of the real world situations, but Einstein's physics
came along and trashed Mr. Newton simply because he could show
that the world did not obey Newton's laws at ALL velocities!
That is the kind of logic that the old Greeks would
appreciate. Anything else was fodder for their plays, not
their scientific discussion. 8-)

Snip
>
>> Define for yourself what your "objective" really is.
>>
> I very well know my objective. It's to prove that
> "psychiatric disorders" are no "disorders", rather another
> personality sometimes so different from "normals" that it
> can be considered belonging to a different species. The
> origin of this is in the hybridization with Neanderthals.
>

But you see, this is not a "scientific" reason. and that last
statement . .
. .well, sorry. Science is a very bad place for personal
agendas. Plenty of examples and proofs of that right here on
SAP. I cant force you to change your mind, wouldnt try if I
could. At the same time, I would like to think that somehow
I might convince you that you are simply wasting your time.
It MAY turn out that HSS and HN did interbreed. I doubt it,
but if proven or even demonstrated convincingly, I could
accept it. Could you (Would you) do the same if the tale of
te tape came back that HN and HSS WERE totally incompatible
and separated by more of a gulf than the most wishful
hybridization theory could support? From your agenda which
you included below, I doubt it. So. . . . . Did my good deed
for the day. If you choose to continue with this kind of
agenda, good luck and adios!

> I also have a step-by-step list to prove this:
>
> 1. Strict OoA must be disproved or made unlikely. 2.
> Neanderthals must have been different in behaviour. 3.
> "Disordered" behavoiur would work in another context. 4.
> Reconstructing Neanderthal behavoiur with "disordered"
> behaviour would be consistent with archeological
> evidence. 5. Psychiatry must be made study "disorders" in
> a paleanthro perspective. 6. Time will eventually solve
> the issue, especially with inexpensive whole-genome
> sequencing techniques.
>
> 1-4 are already proved to a large extent here: www.rdos.net,
> The Neanderthal theory
>
> Leif
>

Regards and regrets bk

[Bob Keeter]

in article aalfsm$bsk2g$1@ID-78319.news.dfncis.de, Leif at
leif@rdos.net wrote on 4/30/02 2:08 AM:

> Bob: Even if the genus Canis is fertile across the entire
> breadth of the genus, Id offer up the example of the St.
> Bernard and the Great Dane (iirc on the breeds). They are
> two large examples of the domestic dog that from one logic
> would say should "interbreed easily". Again IIRC, a cross
> between a St. Bernard and a Great Dane is likely to be a
> very poor example of a pitifully freakish animal best put
> out of its misery. Both animals have been "selected" for
> size but by the luck of the draw have gone down different
> paths. Cross the two and the "paths", in just about any
> combination, are found to be incompatible.
>
> Bad example. There is no evidence that a HSS x HN hybrid
> would not be successful. Rather the opposite, if you study
> what happened after this event. Yes, I know that is too
> circumstantial, but the rapid advance in technology at least
> is real, and it has no credible explaination from the strict
> OoA camp.
>
Actually its a very good example, only because I wanted you to
pick it apart. Not that hard now was it! Even though I have
hard evidence of one its not transferable to the other! It was
an "overgeneralization". Since we DONT know the full genetic
compatibility of HN and HSS, and the available evidence tends
to point at incompatibility, why should one assume
hybridization? What FACT immutably points to hybridization as
the ONLY answer. It may seem like a game in wordsmanship but
this game of logic is the only thing that separates scientists
and novelists. A novelist is not constrained by the need to
demonstrate that his dreams and fantasies are real.

>
> BTW, dogs have been diversified several times with wolf
> crossings. Although such crossings are often problematic in
> the short run, they are the driving force for new,
> successful dog races.
>

Which as you have pointed out above, bad example and totally
meaningless in the discussions of HN and HSS hybridization.
This is another example of that "gropeing around" that I
mentioned. You cant discount the fact that St. Bernards and
Great Danes cant interbreed successfully, and then try to wrap
up some "parallelism" with dog-wolf interbreeding. That is the
kind of shennigan that causes most people to just look the
other way in these discussions.

>> Simple genetic compatiblility, to the point of being a
>> fertile mating, does not mean that the offspring is viable.
>> Not sure how we could demonstrate that this kind of
>> outcome, or for that matter outright genetic
>> incompatibility between hss and hn was the case, but. . . .
>> . . St Bernards and Great Danes are DEFINITELY considered
>> to be in the same species and they have problems. If HSS
>> and HN are even DEBATABLY different species, would not the
>> problems for any theory of compatible genetics and viable
>> offspring be even greater?
>>
> There is a vast amount of evidence that genetic
> incompatibility is not involved as a species delimiter in
> mammals. Behaviour is the species conserving component, and
> I'm sure this applies to humans as well. The reason for this
> evolutionary mechanism might very well be increased risk for
> auto-immune deseases when "soft" species barriers are
> crossed. The reinforcement theory essentially says the same
> thing. However, "soft" species barriers will inevitably be
> crossed if you live side-by-side for 100s of generations.
> This obviously was the case when the red wolf "speciated".
>

Guess I just dont know about those "soft species boundaries".
Even when the species boundaries are VERY close and VERY
shallow, it just does not work. Where do mules come from?

> There is also a growing amount of evidence supporting the
> hypothesis that hybridization is one of the most important
> factors in speciation, if not the most important.
>
> Leif
>

Leif, this is the kind of statement that a scientist would
offer up a raft of supporting evidence. A novelist would just
toss it out for evryone to accept based on his skill as a
storyteller. Which would you prefer to be?

Regards bk

[Leif]

Bob:
> But you see, circumstantial evidence means NOTHING in
> science.

If that's true, paleoanthro just don't have a single evidence.
All genetics is built on statistics, and thus are indeed
circumstantial

> Actually, for the purist, the basic logic is that a theory
> must match ALL
of
> the hard data.

Hahaha.

Since when did OoA match all hard data?

Hahaha

Leif

[Ejudy]

Bob Keeter <rkeeter@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> But you see, this is not a "scientific" reason. and that
> last statement . .
> . .well, sorry. Science is a very bad place for personal
> agendas. Plenty of examples and proofs of that right here
> on SAP. I cant force you to change your mind, wouldnt try
> if I could. At the same time, I would like to think that
> somehow I might convince you that you are simply wasting
> your time.
>>
> Regards and regrets bk

So why do you poison the air here with your toxic personal
agenda towards one particular person who hasn't been reading
your stuff for quite a while now????

Isn't that more than slightly hypocritical? Maybe you could
quit.... And i wish you would killfile me. But you won't cuz i
am your platform from which to launch little rockets aimed at
your personal vendetta recipient. Get real and grow up.

ejudy

[Leif]

Bob:
> Guess I just dont know about those "soft species
> boundaries". Even when
the
> species boundaries are VERY close and VERY shallow, it just
> does not work. Where do mules come from?

Even mules can occasionally produce fertile offspring. I
guess you didn't know that, did you? But, the problem with
you're argumentation is that neither mules nor wolf are as
closely related genetically as Neanderthals vs AMH. So why
don't you just through your genetic incompatibilty hypothesis
in the thrash?

> > There is also a growing amount of evidence supporting the
> > hypothesis
that
> > hybridization is one of the most important factors in
> > speciation, if not
the
> > most important.
> >
> > Leif
> >
>
> Leif, this is the kind of statement that a scientist would
> offer up a raft of supporting evidence. A novelist would
> just toss it out for evryone to accept based on his skill as
> a storyteller. Which would you prefer to be?

It's not my statement. It can be read at various universities,
but I leave it up to yourself to research that.

Leif

[Leif]

ejudy:
> So why do you poison the air here with your toxic personal
> agenda towards one particular person who hasn't been reading
> your stuff for quite a while now????
>
> Isn't that more than slightly hypocritical? Maybe you could
> quit.... And i wish you would killfile me. But you won't cuz
> i am your platform from which to launch little rockets aimed
> at your personal vendetta recipient. Get real and grow up.

I case you don't know it, you triggered my new posts on this
list. I really consider this list something the dog brought
in. There are far more interesting discussion groups on the
Internet. I just like to pester here from time to time.

As for Philip, in fact he promised a while ago to evaluate,
and he obviously did a lousy job.

And no, I don't kill-file people that don't share my ideas.

Leif

[Ejudy]

Leif, You perhaps didn't notice that i was writing what i
wrote not to you but to Mr. Keeter. I haven't been thinking
unkindly thoughts towards you, leif, as you haven't been
hiding your personal digs at someone else underhandedly in
replies to me. I actually doubt you would do that sorta thing
even. Its just not all that fine of an endeavor. What with
hounding my personal email box and telling me what to do,
lecturing and simply trashing another person who has every
right to his own opinion with 28k rantings and then saying no
its not hate----well i think psychiatry may actually have seen
this type of thing before. Maybe prozac could help ~relax~ Mr.
keeter in his vebdetta stalker outfit before he tips too many
of his "guts" out on the floor. He seems to have a lot to
offer and he used to have a better attitude but i think
something must have triggered this recent wave of sneaky
biting behavior and frankly i have just hit my limit. And if
anyone wonders why i haven't tried ridding myself of this in
private email exchanges well....you just don't know the half
of it. I would love to give everyone forgiveness and a clean
slate but limits are limits. I don't think he would have
hassled a guy like this either. Forget the knight's
role....BAH!

So leif, relax. Enjoy the sunshine. I notice the trees are
forcing little leaves or at least they are all budded out
around here. Spring means go turn over the soil in the garden,
watch the flooding rivers, listen to the birds, tons of deer
this year......wasting disease has been getting in the deer
and elk here in our country so we gotta wonder if science will
solve the prion disease puzzles before we all get kuru disease
and die (or become vegetarians ;-).

So many reasons to study study study and teach our children to
do good work in school and try to help be part of the
solutions to our world's massive environmental crushing
problems we are seeing begin..........

This list ~can~ be a lot better and i was just attempting to
face the problem i am pestered by strait on and see if there
is any give. I doubt bob can let it go. Prozac works really
well.... Sorry about the misunderstood recipient of my note.
Relax mr. leif......go take a river float or something ;-)

ejudy

"leif" <leif@rdos.net> wrote in article
<HQVz8.4645$p56.1078743@newsb.telia.net> :
>ejudy:
>> So why do you poison the air here with your toxic personal
>> agenda towards one particular person who hasn't been
>> reading your stuff for quite a while now????
>>
>> Isn't that more than slightly hypocritical? Maybe you could
>> quit.... And i wish you would killfile me. But you won't
>> cuz i am your platform from which to launch little rockets
>> aimed at your personal vendetta recipient. Get real and
>> grow up.
>
>I case you don't know it, you triggered my new posts on this
>list. I really consider this list something the dog brought
>in. There are far more interesting discussion groups on the
>Internet. I just like to pester here from time to time.
>
>As for Philip, in fact he promised a while ago to evaluate,
>and he obviously did a lousy job.
>
>And no, I don't kill-file people that don't share my ideas.
>
>Leif

[Bob Keeter]

in article sjOz8.34907$n4.7432050@newsc.telia.net, leif at
leif@rdos.net wrote on 5/1/02 4:11 AM:

> Bob:
>> But you see, circumstantial evidence means NOTHING in
>> science.
>
> If that's true, paleoanthro just don't have a single
> evidence. All genetics is built on statistics, and thus are
> indeed circumstantial

Well, to start off, paleoanthro is not just a matter of
genetic bean counting, although in truth, there is quite a bit
lurking around in the gerome. The "trick" if you will is
putting together all of the bits and pieces into a coherent
story. For example, if the genetic "trail" shows a divergence
of a pair of species at 1.5 mya and the fossil record shows a
common ancestor at 2.0 mya well, the bones dont lie. Without a
good set of bones from either side of the LCA, you have to do
with what you've got, and that may be genetics, that may be
language differences (as is being attempted with American
Indian languages), it may be cultural items like the cave
paintings, or the appearance of bone tools. . . . The "art" is
putting those pieces together.

As for "statistics"and genetics, yes there is an interplay
there, but then calling statistics "circumstancial" is perhaps
a bit far of the mark. Statistics is a PROVABLE mathematical
discipline, right alongside algebra, geometry, calculus and
the laws of physics. If you flip an "honest" coin 100 times or
100 million times, the most likely answer is still 50/50 or
something very nearly that. If you cross a fruit fly with
turned up wings with a fruit fly with turned down wings, a
careful study of the nature of the "wing turning gene" and a
little bit of statistics will usually give you a pretty fair
model for the polulation's characteristics after 1, 2, 3, or
many generations. Dont discount the message because of the
messanger, Genetics is a very real tool, we may just not have
the firmest grip on it yet.

The thing that I think we perhaps need to do is to get an
agreeable definition of "circumstancial". Without resorting to
a dictionary, I think of circumstancial being a smoking gun,
of known registry, without fingerprints. If you find a well
fashioned stone point in a given place, it is circumstancial
evidence of human habitation. That is NOT to say that the
location could NOT have been totally uninhabited, just that
there is reason to doubt that it was. Find a LOT of
circumstancial evidence and you start making some pretty
credible hypotheses, but you dont get to "pick and choose"
amongst the evidence and you certainly dont get to "overlook"
inconvenient facts.

For example, if I found a Mousterian hand axe on the beach in
the lagoon at Santorinii, could I use it as "Proof" that
Neanderthals had camped by that shore, survived off of seaweed
and eaten shellfish? The circumstancial evidence might suggest
it, until I find out that Santorini was a major island with
human habitation until it exploded in historic (Minoan) times!
The explosion of Santorini is a FACT, the "circumstancial
evidence" of the Mousterian axe is simply not meaningful. All
of the circumstancial evidence in the world piled against the
one fact that the lagoon is a caldera of recent creation just
does not make a basis of a theory!

In some circles there is a belief that some Roman coins found
in the harbor at Buenos Aires is evidence of Roman
trans-atlantic voyages. While its quite possible that the
ships of roman times could have made the trip, its more
logical and reasonable in the light of the absence of any
documentary evidence that the coins came off of the beach at
Lisbon and Cadiz. The coins sound really attractive to the
"theoriticians" but the practical mind realizes that a lot of
beach sand was used to ballast down the treasure ships for
their return voyages. Roughly scooped into the holds of the
ships, who knows what the sand would have contained and it
would have been dumped at the end to take on the gold and
silver bound for Europe. Couple the circumstancial evidence of
the Buenos Aires coins with the demonstrable fact that Roman
coins can still be found on the beaches in Cadiz and Lisbon
after a storm, and the documentary fact that the treasure
ships were ballasted with sand. . . . . . 8-))

>
>> Actually, for the purist, the basic logic is that a theory
>> must match ALL of the hard data.
>>
> Hahaha.
>
> Since when did OoA match all hard data?

And what HARD data, and be careful here, I mean HARD data is
not supported by an OOA theory? No "i think that's" or "I want
to believe's" allowed here. HARD facts! (Admittedly hard to
come by, but that was YOUR gauntlet that hit the floor! ;-)

To knock the king of the hill off his seat you need HARD
facts, otherwise its just a pointless SAP yelling contest.

Regards bk

[Leif]

Bob:
> Well, to start off, paleoanthro is not just a matter of
> genetic bean counting, although in truth, there is quite a
> bit lurking around in the gerome. The "trick" if you will is
> putting together all of the bits and pieces into a coherent
> story. For example, if the genetic "trail" shows a
> divergence of a pair of species at 1.5 mya and the fossil
> record shows a common ancestor at 2.0 mya well, the bones
> dont lie. Without a good set
of
> bones from either side of the LCA, you have to do with what
> you've got,
and
> that may be genetics, that may be language differences (as
> is being attempted with American Indian languages), it may
> be cultural items like
the
> cave paintings, or the appearance of bone tools. . . . The
> "art" is
putting
> those pieces together.

Yes, and then when new studies like the DRD4 and other
examples come along, researchers will either look the other
way, or adjust with a couple of bottle-necks here and a couple
there. Adjust LCA in one direction here and another there.
This is not what I call a theory, it's exactly what you've
been accusing me of. Matching the theory to the facts as they
come along.

And besides, LCA is based on so few mutations, just like the
mtDNA differences between HSS and HSN, that it essentially
doesn't prove a thing.

On top of that, OoA of course cannot explain how 6 mutations
could have occured on DRD4, within the last 40ky, and without
a trace for intermediates! If it's caused by a gene-conversion
event (highly unlikely, since it also requires recombination),
OoA must in that case be able to prove that.

> As for "statistics"and genetics, yes there is an interplay
> there, but then calling statistics "circumstancial" is
> perhaps a bit far of the mark. Statistics is a PROVABLE
> mathematical discipline, right alongside algebra, geometry,
> calculus and the laws of physics. If you flip an "honest"
> coin 100 times or 100 million times, the most likely answer
> is still 50/50 or something very nearly that. If you cross
> a fruit fly with turned up wings with a fruit fly with
> turned down wings, a careful study of the nature of the
> "wing turning gene" and a little bit of statistics will
> usually give
you
> a pretty fair model for the polulation's characteristics
> after 1, 2, 3, or many generations. Dont discount the
> message because of the messanger, Genetics is a very real
> tool, we may just not have the firmest grip on it yet.

Your coin tale is utterly ridiculous in this context. There
are two primary possible explainations for our past, and both
give the same results in mtDNA and neutral alleles. Could you
then explain to me why we based on our feelings about purity
should select one of them?

If strict OoA was a theory worth the name, it would of course
rule out any possibility that hybridization occured, and that
the effect can only be seen in very few neutral alleles, but
can be observed as balanced selection in a great deal of
alleles, like DRD4, PDHA1 and many more.

It must also be able to explain things that happened after AMH
spread outside of Africa, and why Africa isn't our
technologically leading continent today. It must be able to
explain agriculture. It must be able to explain the long
coexistence. It must explain local traits. It must explain
higher incidence of auto-immune deseases amongst black in the
US. It must explain how a warm-adapted population could win
over a cold-adapted without hybridizing them out of existence.
It must explain ethnical groups. It must explain basque. It
must explain ADHD, autism, Celiac, cystic fibrosis, red-hair,
blue eyes.....

In short, there is a huge mass of things OoA cannot explain.

Leif

[Leif]

ejudy:
> You perhaps didn't notice that i was writing what i wrote
> not to you but to Mr. Keeter.

Hm, it did occur to me after I read the rest of the posts :-)

Oh, yes, I will enjoy the sun and the spring...

Leif

[Bob Keeter]

in article aaqvk0$c5aba$1@ID-78319.news.dfncis.de, Leif at
leif@rdos.net wrote on 5/2/02 4:07 AM:

> Bob:
>
>> Well, to start off, paleoanthro is not just a matter of
>> genetic bean counting, although in truth, there is quite a
>> bit lurking around in the gerome. The "trick" if you will
>> is putting together all of the bits and pieces into a
>> coherent story. For example, if the genetic "trail" shows a
>> divergence of a pair of species at 1.5 mya and the fossil
>> record shows a common ancestor at 2.0 mya well, the bones
>> dont lie. Without a good set of bones from either side of
>> the LCA, you have to do with what you've got, and that may
>> be genetics, that may be language differences (as is being
>> attempted with American Indian languages), it may be
>> cultural items like the cave paintings, or the appearance
>> of bone tools. . . . The "art" is putting those pieces
>> together.
>>
> Yes, and then when new studies like the DRD4 and other
> examples come along, researchers will either look the other
> way, or adjust with a couple of bottle-necks here and a
> couple there. Adjust LCA in one direction here and another
> there. This is not what I call a theory, it's exactly what
> you've been accusing me of. Matching the theory to the facts
> as they come along.
>

Well, I did NOT say that the pot was spick and span either!
8-) The "I want it to be's" come down on both sides of the
arguement when people will not "let go" of personal beliefs
and in sime cases simple ego will not allow them the escape
of admitting that they were wrong. As for the LCA date, I
think that there are definitely some reasons to believe that
its not "pinned down" yet. If for no other reason the
confidence bands on the genetic analyses just dont seem to
match up with the bones!

But then even the "adjusting" you reference is NOT what I an
thinking is really going on. If I have a genetic answer that
is 1.5mya (+/- 1.0my) and a set of bones that somehow show
this answer to really be .75mya, NEITHER answer is wrong, I
just happend to be on one end of the "probability curve" of
the genetic solution. Now if I ran 50 different genetic
analyses (or any kind of statistically significant analyses)
from different samples and STILL came up with a consistent
1.5mya, well then something is wrong with my analysis!

> And besides, LCA is based on so few mutations, just like the
> mtDNA differences between HSS and HSN, that it essentially
> doesn't prove a thing.
>

Wait a minute, I think we have a semantics problem here. The
LCA that Im talking about is the Latest Common Ancestor. Put
the words in your sentence of LCA and it dont make sense.

> On top of that, OoA of course cannot explain how 6 mutations
> could have occured on DRD4, within the last 40ky, and
> without a trace for intermediates! If it's caused by a
> gene-conversion event (highly unlikely, since it also
> requires recombination), OoA must in that case be able to
> prove that.
>

But you see there are LOTS of possible explainations for such
things. 8-) Perhaps some time in the last 40ky or so, a nearby
star took a swing at being a nova and puked out a big burst of
high energy radiation! Perhaps in the "luck of the draw" one
gene back there in history turned up seven or eight random
mutations in one generation with the effects being so
advantageous as to spread. (OBTW, if you were just happen to
find that HN DNO had EXACTLY those six mutations, along with
Europeans and western Asians, but in no other HSS population,
THEN you have got something more than just "circumstancial
daydreams!.) Have you got that evidence?

>> As for "statistics"and genetics, yes there is an interplay
>> there, but then calling statistics "circumstancial" is
>> perhaps a bit far of the mark. Statistics is a PROVABLE
>> mathematical discipline, right alongside algebra, geometry,
>> calculus and the laws of physics. If you flip an "honest"
>> coin 100 times or 100 million times, the most likely answer
>> is still 50/50 or something very nearly that. If you cross
>> a fruit fly with turned up wings with a fruit fly with
>> turned down wings, a careful study of the nature of the
>> "wing turning gene" and a little bit of statistics will
>> usually give you a pretty fair model for the polulation's
>> characteristics after 1, 2, 3, or many generations. Dont
>> discount the message because of the messanger, Genetics is
>> a very real tool, we may just not have the firmest grip on
>> it yet.
>>
> Your coin tale is utterly ridiculous in this context. There
> are two primary possible explainations for our past, and
> both give the same results in mtDNA and neutral alleles.
> Could you then explain to me why we based on our feelings
> about purity should select one of them?
>

WHO is basing any feelings on purity about anything related
even remotely to HN and HSS interactions? Afraid that the ONLY
person that Ive seen advocate anything related to "purity" to
the HN/HSS relationship has been you! I certainly dont look
down on our Neanderthal cousins; proud to have them in the
family. Any hominid that could live through the quarter
million years of existence that the Neanderthals survived can
be the guest of honor at any testimonial you might conceive.
BUT that respect and admiration for the neanderthal
intelligence and durability does not mean that Im compelled to
set out to prove that I share his genes.

It could prove that Europeans do in fact have Neanderthal
genes and traits, I dont think so, but if so, great! If so, it
will be proven with hard facts, not circumstancial or imagined
or simply wanted "facts". What we might want or not want can
not effect the facts unless we lie to ourselves!

> If strict OoA was a theory worth the name, it would of
> course rule out any possibility that hybridization occured,
> and that the effect can only be seen in very few neutral
> alleles, but can be observed as balanced selection in a
> great deal of alleles, like DRD4, PDHA1 and many more.
>

Nope! OOA does not have to "disprove" anything, much
less HN/HSS interbreeding! The ball is on the other side
of the net!

> It must also be able to explain things that happened after
> AMH spread outside of Africa, and why Africa isn't our
> technologically leading continent today. It must be able to
> explain agriculture. It must be able to explain the long
> coexistence. It must explain local traits. It must explain
> higher incidence of auto-immune deseases amongst black in
> the US. It must explain how a warm-adapted population could
> win over a cold-adapted without hybridizing them out of
> existence. It must explain ethnical groups. It must explain
> basque. It must explain ADHD, autism, Celiac, cystic
> fibrosis, red-hair, blue eyes.....
>

No it doesnt! Nor more than OOA has to explain tomorrows
weather or the wind direction over Jamaica! OOA is NOT the
"F=MA" of paleontology from whence all other things MUST be
calculated!

> In short, there is a huge mass of things OoA cannot explain.
>

In truth, here I have to agree with you. Except in my case Im
somewhat comforted by that fact rather than threatened by it!
8-) that "lack of explaination" is at least in my mind a
confirmation that there are honest, clear-thinking people out
there that would not wist and bend the facts (not the theory,
which is infinitely flexible!) to gain personal fame or
advance a specific agenda! As long as there is enough
supporting evidence out there, and Im not talking torn,
spindled and mutilated and carefully sifted to to fit, I think
its a sign of honesty! 8-) If you can twist your theory around
all of the facts, you are doing what a good scientist must do.
If you try to bend the facts one iota you are playing with
yourself! 8-)

Regards bk

--
The blindest are those who CHOOSE not to see. The rest of us
are just stumbling around in the dark.

[Leif]

Bob Keeter:
> Well, I did NOT say that the pot was spick and span either!
> 8-) The "I want it to be's" come down on both sides of the
> arguement when people will not "let go" of personal beliefs
> and in sime cases simple ego will not
allow
> them the escape of admitting that they were wrong. As for
> the LCA date, I think that there are definitely some reasons
> to believe that its not
"pinned
> down" yet. If for no other reason the confidence bands
> on the genetic analyses just dont seem to match up with
> the bones!

Actually, the LCA date is utterly stupid, and with no
relevance whatsoever. It only tells us some individual by pure
chance managed to conserve her mtDNA. This is all it tells us.

> But then even the "adjusting" you reference is NOT what I an
> thinking is really going on. If I have a genetic answer that
> is 1.5mya (+/- 1.0my)
and
> a set of bones that somehow show this answer to really be
> .75mya, NEITHER answer is wrong, I just happend to be on one
> end of the "probability
curve"
> of the genetic solution.

In essence, it doesn't matter, since this is only ONE piece of
evidence. It's exactly like your dye example. You make one
attempt, and this happens to be '5', and then you assume all
attempts will end up with '5'.

> Now if I ran 50 different genetic analyses (or any kind
> of statistically significant analyses) from different
> samples and
STILL
> came up with a consistent 1.5mya, well then something is
> wrong with my analysis!

Yes, you can do 4G analyses of mtDNA, and come up with '5'.
This is equivalent to looking 4G times on this dye, and
making sure it's still a '5'. This still doesn't prove a
thing when there is a huge amount of nuclear genetic
information you overlook.

> But you see there are LOTS of possible explainations for
> such things. 8-) Perhaps some time in the last 40ky or so, a
> nearby star took a swing at being a nova and puked out a big
> burst of high energy radiation! Perhaps
in
> the "luck of the draw" one gene back there in history turned
> up seven or eight random mutations in one generation with
> the effects being so advantageous as to spread. (OBTW, if
> you were just happen to find that HN DNO had EXACTLY those
> six mutations, along with Europeans and western Asians, but
> in no other HSS population, THEN you have got something more
> than just "circumstancial daydreams!.) Have you got that
> evidence?

Go back to your circumstantial, statistical evidence. The
scenario you describe above is MAGNITUDES less likely than
mtDNA of Neanderthals beeing different from AMH by mere
sampling error of Neanderthals. In fact, there isn't even any
AMH samples that can tell us if AMH of 30ky ago and todays
humans have the same mtDNA.

> It could prove that Europeans do in fact have Neanderthal
> genes and
traits,
> I dont think so, but if so, great! If so, it will be proven
> with hard facts, not circumstancial or imagined or simply
> wanted "facts". What we might want or not want can not
> effect the facts unless we lie to
ourselves!

It doesn't. I've presented the hybridization-model several
times here, and it anticipates exactly what we see. IOW, it's
just as compatible with the hard data as strict OoA. There is
also several examples from other species that proves my model
in fact also have happened in nature on other occasions.

> > If strict OoA was a theory worth the name, it would of
> > course rule out
any
> > possibility that hybridization occured, and that the
> > effect can only be
seen
> > in very few neutral alleles, but can be observed as
> > balanced selection
in a
> > great deal of alleles, like DRD4, PDHA1 and many more.
> >
>
> Nope! OOA does not have to "disprove" anything, much less
> HN/HSS interbreeding! The ball is on the other side of
> the net!

Sorry, it's not. Those hard data are not compatible with
strict OoA. They conflict. Therefore, since I have conflicting
evidence of strict OoA, OoA must be able to explain how this
can happen.

> > It must also be able to explain things that happened after
> > AMH spread
outside
> > of Africa, and why Africa isn't our technologically
> > leading continent
today.
> > It must be able to explain agriculture. It must be able to
> > explain the
long
> > coexistence. It must explain local traits. It must explain
> > higher
incidence of
> > auto-immune deseases amongst black in the US. It must
> > explain how a warm-adapted population could win over a
> > cold-adapted without
hybridizing them
> > out of existence. It must explain ethnical groups. It must
> > explain
basque. It
> > must explain ADHD, autism, Celiac, cystic fibrosis,
> > red-hair, blue
eyes.....
> >
>
> No it doesnt! Nor more than OOA has to explain tomorrows
> weather or the wind direction over Jamaica! OOA is NOT the
> "F=MA" of paleontology from whence all other things MUST be
> calculated!

I certainly know that. It seems more like OoA doesn't explain
a thing! However, if I have a different model that explains
this, then my model is more likely to be true, isn't it?

Leif