Stupid (?) Question

[Olddognewtricks]

E.P.

I guess that having watched these boards for a few years now I should have expected to wake up to this.

Firstly the question posed by the OP is in regard to the implications for AMH Neanderthal admixture given the revised dating of the Neanderthal specimens from Cueva del Boquete de Zafarraya in Western Europe. My answer is a very brief synopsis of a wider review. The answer is Admixture occurred in the Middle East. Further admixture with a completely different signature, between AMH and another Archaic human whose DNA lies outside fo the variablity range for Neanderthal, has been indentified and is believed (it is early days for this new specimen) to have occured in South East Asia and hence the specific admixture signature is observed only in modern Melanesian and Austrailian populations, but this has nothing to do with Neanderthal AMH admixture and the redating of specimens in Western Europe. Please focus on the question being asked.

I note your assertions in regard to my lack of understanding and just being plain wrong. Could you please advise on which of my sources (given below with stable URLs, I am nice like that ) you disagree with (quantitatively reasoned with page numbers please) or in what way you believe my synthesis of the material to be incorrect, quantitativley reasoned please. There are weaknesses within the material but I am not going to give them to you on a plate; however I can confirm that they are not associated with answering the OPs question or the answer I gave.

Aura, J.E. et al, (2012). The Solutrean-Magdalenian transition: A view from Iberia, Quaternary International pp.75-87. [on-line] Available at: <http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.quaint.2012.05.020>

Bar-Yosef, O, 2002. Defining the Aurignacian. In: Towards a definition of the Aurignacian, Proceedings of the Symposium held in Lisbon, Portugal, June 25-30, Eds. Bar-Yosef, O. and Zilhao, J. Lisbon: Instituto Português de Arqueologia [on-line] Available at: <http://www.igespar.pt/media/uploads/tra ... a/45/3.pdf >

Brown, T. and Brown K., 1992. Ancient DNA and the archaeologist. Antiquity, [e-journal] 66, pp.10–23. Available at: <http://www.antiquity.ac.uk.ezphost.dur. ... 660010.pdf >

Eriksson, A. and Manica A., 2012. Effect of ancient population structure on the degree of polymorphism shared between modern human populations and ancient hominins. Proceedings of the national academy of sciences of the United States of America, [e-journal] 109 (35), pp.13956–13960. Available at: < http://www.pnas.org/content/109/35/13956.full.pdf >

Fu, Q., et al. 2013. DNA analysis of an early modern human from Tianyuan Cave, China. Proceedings of the national academy of sciences of the United States of America, [e-journal] Early Edition, pp.1–5. Available at: < http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2013/ ... 8e2d12a1e4 >

Ghirotto, S. et al. 2011. No evidence of Neandertal admixture in the mitochondrial genomes of early European modern
humans and contemporary Europeans. American journal of physical anthropology, [e-journal] 146, pp.242-252. Available at: < http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com.ezphost. ... .21569/pdf >

Green, R.E., et al. 2010. A draft sequence of the Neandertal genome. Science, [e-journal] 328, pp.710–722.
Available at: < http://www.sciencemag.org.ezphost.dur.a ... 0.full.pdf >

Hardy, B. et al, (2001). Stone Tool Function at the Paleolithic Sites of Starosele and Buran Kaya III, Crimea: Behavioural Implications, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America (98) 19 pp.10972-10978. [on-line] Available at: < http://www.jstor.org/stable/3056648>

Hawks, J., 2012. Longer time scale for human evolution. Proceedings of the national academy of sciences of the United States of America, [e-journal] 109 (39), pp.15531–15532. Available at: < http://www.pnas.org/content/109/39/15531.full.pdf >

Lalueza-Fox, C. et al , 2008. Genetic characterization of the ABO blood group in Neandertals. BMC Evolutionary Biology, [e-journal] 8, pp.342-346. Available at: < http://www.biomedcentral.com/content/pd ... -8-342.pdf >

Lalueza-Fox, et al. 2009.Bitter taste perception in Neanderthals through analysis of the TAS2R38 gene. Biology Letters, [e-journal] 5 (6), pp.809-811. Available at: < http://rsbl.royalsocietypublishing.org. ... d535307146 >

Lalueza-Fox, C. et al. 2011. Genetic evidence for patrilocal mating behaviour among Neandertal groups. Proceedings of the national academy of sciences of the United States of America, [e-journal] 108, pp.251-253. Available at: < http://www.pnas.org/content/108/1/250.full.pdf >.

Lalueza-Fox, C. and Gilbert, M., 2011. Paleogenomics of Archaic Hominins. Current biology, [e-journal] 21, pp.R1002-R1009. Available at: < http://pdn.sciencedirect.com.ezphost.du ... X-main.pdf >.

Lalueza-Fox, C. et al, 2012. Palaeogenetic research at the El Sidron Neanderthal site. Annals of anatomy, [e-journal] 194, pp.136-137. Available at: < http://pdn.sciencedirect.com.ezphost.du ... 1-main.pdf >

Lari, M., et al. 2010. The Microcephalin ancestral allele in a Neanderthal individual. PloS One, [e-journal] 5 (5), pp.10648-10653. Available at: < http://www.plosone.org/article/fetchObj ... tation=PDF >

Liolios, D., 2002. Reflections on the role of bone tools in the definition of the Early Aurignacian In: Towards a definition of the Aurignacian, Proceedings of the Symposium held in Lisbon, Portugal, June 25-30, Eds. Bar-Yosef, O. and Zilhao, J. Lisbon: Instituto Português de Arqueologia [on-line] Available at: <http://www.igespar.pt/media/uploads/tra ... a/45/3.pdf >

Meyer, M., et al. 2012. A high-coverage genome sequence from an archaic Denisovan individual. Science, [e-journal] 338, pp.222–226. Available at: < http://www.sciencemag.org.ezphost.dur.a ... 2.full.pdf >

Moncel, M-H., et al, 2001. The Emergence of Neanderthal Technical Behavior: New Evidence from Orgnac 3 (Level 1, MIS , Southeastern France, Current Anthropology (52) 1 pp.37-75. [on-line] Available at: <http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/658179>

Monnier, G.F., 2006. The Lower/Middle Paleolithic Periodization in Western Europe: An Evaluation, Current Anthropology (47) 5 pp.709-744. [on-line] Available at: <http://www.jstor.org/stable/506280>

Neves, A. and Serva, M., 2012. Extremely rare interbreeding events can explain Neanderthal DNA in living humans. PloS One, [e-journal] 7 (10), pp.47076-47086. Available at: < http://www.plosone.org/article/fetchObj ... tation=PDF >

Renard, C., 2001. Continuity or discontinuity in the Late Glacial Maximum of south-western Europe: the formation of the Solutrean in France, World Archaeology, (43) 4 pp.726-743 [on-line] Available at: <http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00438243.2011.624789 >

Rizzi, E., Lari. M., Gigli, E., De Bellis, G. and Caramelli, D., 2012. Ancient DNA studies: new perspectives on old samples. Genetics Selection Evolution, [e-journal] 44, pp.21-39. Available at: < http://www.gsejournal.org/content/pdf/1 ... -44-21.pdf >

Sanchez-Quinto, F. et al. 2012.North African populations carry the signature of
admixture with Neandertals. PLoS One, [e-journal] 7 (10), pp.47765-47770. Available at: < http://www.plosone.org/article/fetchObj ... tation=PDF >

Sankararaman, S. et al, 2012. The Date of Interbreeding between Neandertals and Modern Humans. PLoS Genet, [e-journal] 8 (10), pp.2947-2955. Available at: < http://www.plosgenetics.org/article/fet ... tation=PDF >

Scally, A. and Durbin R., 2012. Revising the human mutation rate: implications for understanding human evolution. Nature Reviews Genetics, [e-journal] 13 (10), pp.745–753. Available at: < http://www.nature.com.ezphost.dur.ac.uk ... rg3295.pdf >

Stringer, C., 2012. The status of Homo Heidelbergensis (Schoetensack 1908). Evolutionary Anthropology, [e-journal] 21, pp.101–107. Available at: < http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com.ezphost. ... .21311/pdf >

White, M.J. and Pettitt, P.B., 2011. The British Late Middle Palaeolithic: An Interpretative Synthesis of Neanderthal Occupation at the Northwestern Edge of the Pleistocene World , Journal of World Prehistory (24) pp.25-97. [on-line] Available at: <http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10963-011-9043-9>
Yang, M., et al. 2012. Ancient Structure in Africa Unlikely to Explain Neanderthal and Non-African Genetic Similarity. Molecular Biology and Evolution, [e-journal] 29 (10), pp.2987–2995. Available at: < http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org.ezphost.d ... 7.full.pdf >

Finally Woods' results are entirely based upon an improved R14 dating protocol, completely refuting your assertion. I assume you also noted that the dating was not carried out in the part of the cave where the Neanderthal remains were found and hence a contextual anomally exists between the revised dates and the Neanderthal remains. Your reference to Isoptopes leads me to believe you are confused with the paper on the Middle Pleistoscene mandible (Serbia) which is based upon electron spin resonance, uranium isotope series (just radioactive decay) and thermo luminesence, all of which have significant error bars associated with them.

Regarding your "impact". Dated to when? by who? and using which methods and to what error bar? Impact tephra distribution? Independently confirmed ? Are contemporous and consistant changes observed in the faunal and palynological records thus providing corroboration? Until that is forth coming you simply have some pretty pictures of absolutely no standing whatsoever. That said I do suspect that impacts have not always received the attention they should have as an intervention source; but that does not mean the answer to everything is impact.

[E.P. Grondine]

Hi OD -

This looks like some old tricks to me.

Prattling on authoritatively in very poorly defined language about very weak hypothesis in very certain and strong language.

Such as "admixture" between "two groups" when neither "group" is well defined and there may well have been no "admixing" involved. Oh well... onwards....

E.P.
I guess that having watched these boards for a few years now I should have expected to wake up to this.

If Chelyabinsk did not wake you up, there's likely nothing I can do that will.

Regarding your "impact". Dated to when? by who? and using which methods and to what error bar? Impact tephra distribution? Independently confirmed ? Are contemporous and consistant changes observed in the faunal and palynological records thus providing corroboration? Until that is forth coming you simply have some pretty pictures of absolutely no standing whatsoever. That said I do suspect that impacts have not always received the attention they should have as an intervention source; but that does not mean the answer to everything is impact.

Zhamashan Crater is not "my" impact.
That Big Hole in the Ground is there whether you want to see it or not.
The literature on that particular Big Hole in the Ground is extensive,
including guesses on the amount of energy released and climate effects.
Yes, there were changes, including in this case, in hominids.
A necessary corollary of the formation of the Big Hole in Ground.
The problem is that that Big Hole in the Ground stands, and stands independent of the entire field of hominid evolutionists, and whatever particular group's view you are citing.

Now why are you asking me to do your work for you?

My answer is a very brief synopsis of a wider review. The answer is Admixture occurred in the Middle East. Further admixture with a completely different signature, between AMH and another Archaic human whose DNA lies outside of the variability range for Neanderthal, has been indentified and is believed (it is early days for this new specimen) to have occurred in South East Asia and hence the specific admixture signature is observed only in modern Melanesian and Australian populations, but this has nothing to do with Neanderthal AMH admixture and the re-dating of specimens in Western Europe. Please focus on the question being asked.

Christ, I went through this sh*t some 7 years ago when my book came out, when I was dragged across the coals for using "Heidelbergensis" instead of some other word, even though I set out my response to that in the footnote.

At that time, hominid evolutionary fossil biologists would have intense fights on this kind of stuff. Now its the DNA teams.

And I'm g*d d*mned tired of getting caught up in any of your fights, as from my point of view all the sides in them are usually d*mned ignorant, as they ignore the Big Holes in the Ground.

So as a suggestion, would you folks get your act together so people outside of your own bailiwick can make use of your results? I know its tough to get funding, but it is particularly annoying to have to use 3 to 4 different terms for the same thing, and then to get sh*t thrown at you by one or another group of "evolved" hominids for choosing to use the words of any one of them.

I note your assertions in regard to my lack of understanding and just being plain wrong.

And what part of Big Hole in Ground that killed hominids in middle of hominid range didn't you understand?

Could you please advise on which of my sources (given below with stable URLs, I am nice like that ) you disagree with (quantitatively reasoned with page numbers please) or in what way you believe my synthesis of the material to be incorrect, quantitativley reasoned please.

Christ, why are you asking me to do your work?
Since most of them deal with hominid evolution without accounting for impact events, you can be certain that most of them are wrong in one way or another.

There are weaknesses within the material but I am not going to give them to you on a plate; however I can confirm that they are not associated with answering the OPs question or the answer I gave.

Let' see. So not only are you asking me to do your work, you intend to make it as difficult as possible to do it, and at the same time not send along a really really big pile of cash?

Who can resist that kind of offer?

Okay here's what you do: Go through that entire "pile" of works, and where any of them have anything that remotely accords with the physical reality of the real world, including the Big Holes in Ground, then they are right. Anywhere where any of them have anything that does not, then they are wrong.

Of course, if any of the authors were real scientists, they''d check their own work and admit they were mistaken when they made mistakes that do not accord with physical reality.

But since you and I both know they won't, You've got your work cut out for you.
And here's my final offer on funding and salary: $0.00.

Finally Woods' results are entirely based upon an improved R14 dating protocol, completely refuting your assertion. I assume you also noted that the dating was not carried out in the part of the cave where the Neanderthal remains were found and hence a contextual anomaly exists between the revised dates and the Neanderthal remains. Your reference to Isotopes leads me to believe you are confused with the paper on the Middle Pleistocene mandible (Serbia) which is based upon electron spin resonance, uranium isotope series (just radioactive decay) and thermo luminescence, all of which have significant error bars associated with them.
.

Well, OD, your understanding of my assertions is as bad as the rest of your note here.

Let me try this one once again: 14C has a useful range, but a lot of hominid evolution falls outside of that dating method.

Without accounting for impacts [Big Holes in Ground] and their effects on hominid populations, the "groups", any speculation on "admixture" between hominid groups is pretty much confused, as the groups are not well defined.

And this is the part that irritates me.
So could you hominid evolutionists agree among yourselves in at least in some small way, at least on words?

[Olddognewtricks]

My interest in your unsubstantiated assertions, uninformed ramblings and unjustified personal attacks is absolutely zero. I hope that is clear enough, even to you.

I am content that the OP, despite your best efforts, now has a correct answer to what was a very sensible question, which is the purpose of my post.

I will only be posting on the mundane but important questions and topics, such as this; therefore the good news is that you will have a clear field upon which to speculate and conjure in regard to the more 'colourful' subjects.

[E.P. Grondine]

Hi OD -

My interest in your unsubstantiated assertions, uninformed ramblings and unjustified personal attacks is absolutely zero. I hope that is clear enough, even to you.

The images shown above of one BIG HOLE IN THE GROUND are not unsubstantiated assertions, nor uninformed ramblings.

Now I'm real sorry, but not only I am not going to do your work for free, it appears that you're incapable of doing it yourself due to some poorly understood mental condition of yours that prevents you from perceiving BIG HOLES IN THE GROUND.

I am content that the OP, despite your best efforts, now has a correct answer to what was a very sensible question, which is the purpose of my post.
I will only be posting on the mundane but important questions and topics, such as this; therefore the good news is that you will have a clear field upon which to speculate and conjure in regard to the more 'colourful' subjects.

OD, you can speculate and conjure on as much as you like,
but until you are able to see BIG HOLES IN THE GROUND,
you will be spouting speculations and conjurations:
your work will be not be MUNDANE, as it ignores the world (mundus)
nor important (as it will be flawed and rather useless for practical purposes).

[Minimalist]

Let's not forget Toba which, ahem, killed all HSS outside of Africa and reduced the population in Africa to a couple of thousand...but which did not bother HNS, Erectus, or the mega fauna at all.

Now THAT is one highly specific volcano.

[circumspice]

This is almost as fun as watching RS butt heads with Michelle!

Wheee!!!

[E.P. Grondine]

This is almost as fun as watching RS butt heads with Michelle!

Wheee!!!

As it sits, this is almost as much "fun" as dealing with the "Clovis Firsters".
I would prefer for science to progress, and would rather have help than hinderance,
but I suppose if they are determined to stand firmly in the way,
then I suppose they should not be surprised to end up as road kill.
Somehow in this particular case somehow it has fallen to me to be the driver.

Scientific Darwinism at work, I suppose, with the fittest hypothesis surviving.

By the way, it looks like a comet or parts of a comet will be hitting Mars in 2014.

CS, do you live feed your pets?

[prmystic]

I've been watching the Neanderthals issue with great interest these last few years. It seems like it took forever for science to move away from the homo-supremacy model to genuine curiosity.

I never bought the "even if we existed in the same time/place we would NEVER hit that!" model.


Mystic.

[E.P. Grondine]

I've been watching the Neanderthals issue with great interest these last few years. It seems like it took forever for science to move away from the homo-supremacy model to genuine curiosity.

I never bought the "even if we existed in the same time/place we would NEVER hit that!" model.

Mystic.

Hi PR -

Hardacher's (sp- Chris?) Observation.

From my point of view, the problem and question is who is left around to "hit" what after the hits.

My current guess is that speciation did not occur after "out of Africa"; the problem is that it is not well defined "who" left "out of Africa". A "robust" Erectus? Heidelbergensis? Neanderthal? Denisovian? Use any of those terms and you end up having sh*t thrown at you.

In any case, the group of these that evolved to Homo Sapien appears to have been located at first in "Asia", though as I noted before, the world was different then. My guess is that they spread back into Africa, and that these remains are being taken to indicate their move out of Africa instead.

In my opinion, that is the only way to account for the early advanced hominid fossils in Asia, as well as the DNA distribution.

After the Zamanshan impact, the isolated group in Europe evolved into Neanderthal.

Feel free to disagree, but unless you are able to acknowledge and discuss the existence of the Big Holes in the Ground in the hominid ranges, you will become road kill.

[prmystic]

Thank you for your polite reply.

I apologize for coming in late on the discussion. Is it your contention that only 1 group/species came out of Africa?

For myself, I was interested to see some work that appeared to identify independent tool use among the Neanderthal populations, including some that pointed to the use of boats.

I hope I'm not getting into controversy here.

Regards,

mystic.

[prmystic]

Hi

This is the article that I'm referring to that seemed to indicate a higher level of sophistication among the neanderthal.


http://www.sail-world.com/cruising/usa/ ... lors/94471

Regards,

mystic

[uniface]

Courtesy of Charlie H :

H.n.s. bifaces:

http://bandstex.globat.co...wtopic.php?f=12&t=59

http://bandstex.globat.co...k=t&sd=a&start=1

http://bandstex.globat.co...k=t&sd=a&start=2

http://bandstex.globat.co...k=t&sd=a&start=3

http://bandstex.globat.co...k=t&sd=a&start=4

[prmystic]

Hi Uniface,

Unfortunately, I cannot get anything from the links. They seem to have been truncated. Thank you for chiming in with a response though.

I would like it if you could repost the whole links.

Regards,

mystic

[uniface]

Sorry. Links were to each separate page of this thread :

http://bandstex.globat.com/preclovisfor ... ?f=12&t=59

[E.P. Grondine]

Thank you for your polite reply.

I apologize for coming in late on the discussion. Is it your contention that only 1 group/species came out of Africa?

For myself, I was interested to see some work that appeared to identify independent tool use among the Neanderthal populations, including some that pointed to the use of boats.

I hope I'm not getting into controversy here.

Regards,

mystic.

Hi PR -

My opinion is that the common ancestor of Heidelbergensis, Neanderthal, and Denisovan came out of Africa. I used "Heidelbergensis" to describe this robust erectus. Since then, 2005, more early advanced hominid fossils have been found in Asia and published, with some identified as Heidelbergensis.

A few of the homo sapiens "out of africa" people have been very obtuse in their "arguments", and it is as pointless to be polite with them as it is to be polite with "clovis firsters". Both live in world free of data, but full of rationalizations, and it is a waste of my time to deal with them.

Early maritime technology has been discussed here at this bbs frequently, including the finds on Crete you mention; you can find them using the "search" function here.
My guess is that Neanderthal never developed it.