Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Michael on August 5, 2012 at 7:05pm

Not changing the subject, everyone else realizes that Heather. I assume you just want to be rhetorical

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Heather Spoonheim on August 5, 2012 at 7:11pm

No, you are leaping from one failed attempt to the next.  Now admit your failure with these Kow Swamp people or state your point.  What is it about the Kow Swamp people that has brought about such a paradigm shift?  If the paradigm shift hasn't happened, then based on what peer reviewed research do you base your opinion that it should?

You've cited a Cosmos article that didn't even mention the Kow Swamp people, and further stated that there has been little to know research into the site - so where is this elusive evidence of yours?  Is it like your hypothesis about a Bronze Age tribal deity?  You base it all on unfounded faith?

Permalink Reply by archaeopteryx on August 6, 2012 at 7:01pm

RE: "Try to google how many papers address the Habilis attributes of the Kow Swamp people and you will arrive at a dearth of material."

I found one that linked them to homo erectus.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Michael on August 7, 2012 at 1:01am

Yes that is my point. But Pardigm "flat landers" want to force fit him into the ancestry of the Aborigine with no other foundation beyond, he was there before. 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Heather Spoonheim on August 7, 2012 at 7:35am

And your evidence that he was there before, Micheal?  This is just it - you have no evidence for anything that you put up here.  You start by accepting the brainwashing perpetrated upon you.  It doesn't make any sense, so you do everything you can to rationalize it.  No matter how much you scramble scripture and your brain, you can't make an omelet, so you start adding scientific claims.  Check the claims, Michael - you are creating your own unfalsifiable psychosis here.  You choose the Kow Swamp people because you know they can't be investigated due to First Nations treaties and then claim that IF they could be investigate they would prove your point.  You then move on to making wild claims about them as though it's accepted fact.

Now, Micheal, please provide the peer reviewed articles that support your claim that these Kow Swamp people do not descend from homo hablis.  Furthermore, ensure the article clearly states how and why that should be causing a paradigm shift in human evolution.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Kris Feenstra on August 4, 2012 at 9:09pm

That's not a paradigm.  Evolutionary theory doesn't create a record every single species and subspecies across all time and all regions.  It is well known that the current archaeological record does not cover everything.  It also doesn't preclude outliers to general trends in species development. It's actually consistent with the notion that evolution is not a neat and tidy process that allows for perfect and discrete taxonomy.

Models of hominid migration patterns and evolution timetables have been debated for decades.  It is relatively recent that DNA analysis has been able to give us a better picture.  Some DNA extraction methods were only practical within the lest decade or two.  This DNA evidence does lend more support for the Out of Africa model of the multiregional model, but back in the 70s and 80s that wasn't the case.  Even to this very day our current models are not perfectly accurate, though the overall pattern does lend more weight to some models over others.

I'm going to state this shortly because the findings are not clean or concise: based on the analysis of the mtDNA of the Kow Swamp remains, you are largely wrong.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC14622/

For reference, the article uses the abbreviations KS (Kow Swamp) and MRCA (most recent common ancestor).  Using those terms should let you sift through the article faster with a page search.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Michael on August 5, 2012 at 1:20am

"Our data present a serious challenge to interpretation of contemporary human mtDNA variation as supporting the recent out of Africa model. A separate mtDNA lineage in an individual whose morphology is within the contemporary range and who lived in Australia would imply both that anatomically modern humans were among those that were replaced and that part of the replacement occurred in Australia."                                                                                This statement supports my supposition that the entire bush of hominid was replaced after 7000 BCE by the new Adam and Eve. And though anatomically modern humans lived prior to that date. We are not them. 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Kris Feenstra on August 5, 2012 at 2:05am

The study quite clearly does not support that view. Nothing in the quoted section indicates that either. Of the six KS remains tested, at the very least five of them are from the same line as our MRCA.

"These results show that, with the possible exception of KS8 and LM3, the ancient Aboriginal sequences, including those from individuals with both robust and gracile morphologies, are within a clade that includes the sequences of living Aboriginal Australians, and that they therefore diverged after the MRCA of contemporary Aboriginal sequences. mtDNA lineages fail to differentiate individuals with clearly distinct morphologies."

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Michael on August 5, 2012 at 3:59am

Clearly, in the quote above yours:

"Our data present a serious challenge to interpretation of contemporary human mtDNA variation as supporting the recent out of Africa model" This contradicts what you said about Out of Africa.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Kris Feenstra on August 5, 2012 at 4:23am

It doesn't contradict what I wrote at all. I stated that current models are not perfect, and that DNA evidence, meaning the evidence accrued over nemerous different studies and not just this one, leans more toward the Out of Africa model. I don't recall stating that science has dinitively settled the matter or that an Out of Africa model, as proposed, is definitively true.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Michael on August 5, 2012 at 4:36am

I just wrote a paragraph that got truncated. But the long and short of it is that these results are counter intuitive to Out of Africa since there is a gracile population with LM3 that is not found in MRCA. Thus predating Out of Africa and with no trace in MRCA supports my preposition that prior hominids were wipe out before our inception.  The speculation that KS contribute mtDNA  with the morphological phenotype being lost is pure speculation.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Kris Feenstra on August 5, 2012 at 12:45pm

The point about morphological phenotypes is speculative (though not your hyperbolic 'pure speculation').  The point about the mtDNA of five of the six KS samples belonging to the a clade that includes modern Australian aboriginals is based on the same science that excludes LM3 from that same clade.  Whether or not KS directly contributed mtDNA to modern aboriginals is beside the point.

I'm sorry, but you're just accepting evidence that confirms your position and casting off evidence of exactly equal bearing that doesn't mesh with your view.  If you aren't capable of even a modicum of objectivity, there is no point in continuing this dialogue.

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• …
• 23
• 24
• 25
• 26
• 27
• …
• 42
• Next ›
• Page