These ongoing studies are concluding that present-day genetic variation is inconsistent with a simple model where a random-mating ancestral population gives rise to today’s global population by means of a staged out-of-Africa dispersal. They next look at a model with some substantial (possibly complete) isolation between ancient human populations followed by a subsequent out-of-Africa dispersal. They show that this model fits the data significantly better.
Something is wrong here. War, disease, death, destruction, hunger, filth, poverty, torture, crime, corruption, and the Ice Capades. Something is definitely wrong. This is not good work. If this is the best God can do, I am not impressed.
Great! As usual you gave us a tour of the English language whilst dodging the question, which being, not your critique of the Club Mantra, but an alternative, please.
Preferably with some logic or evidence in support.
Roy.
First people deny a thing, then they belittle it, then they say it was known all along! Von Humboldt
Political in that it instills the consequent assumption in people that they're all Africans
That's a real stretch, Uni.
Something is wrong here. War, disease, death, destruction, hunger, filth, poverty, torture, crime, corruption, and the Ice Capades. Something is definitely wrong. This is not good work. If this is the best God can do, I am not impressed.
I do want an answer. If you claim that politics have dictated the 'accepted' view of early Homo I simply ask you to provide some support.
The fact that you may firmly believe that Lord Nelson was a woman in disguise is insufficiently convincing. I have asked in the past for some evidence in support of your opinions, I am still waiting.
Roy.
First people deny a thing, then they belittle it, then they say it was known all along! Von Humboldt
Digit wrote:I do want an answer. If you claim that politics have dictated the 'accepted' view of early Homo I simply ask you to provide some support.
The fact that you may firmly believe that Lord Nelson was a woman in disguise is insufficiently convincing. I have asked in the past for some evidence in support of your opinions, I am still waiting.
The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that spectrum - even encourage the more critical and dissident views. That gives people the sense that there's free thinking going on, while all the time the presuppositions of the system are being reinforced by the limits put on the range of the debate.
The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that spectrum - even encourage the more critical and dissident views. That gives people the sense that there's free thinking going on, while all the time the presuppositions of the system are being reinforced by the limits put on the range of the debate.
Digit wrote:And for every conspicy theory there are some fools who will believe it.
