PDA

View Full Version : Ancient birthrates of Haplogroups



Sile
02-08-13, 10:23
I recently read a theory that states that the older the paternal Haplogroup the less chances to produce children. The two main reason where:
1 - low sperm count for males.
2 - females could only conceive if they had an orgasm in the very very old past.

The paper centred on the Australian Aboriginal , a K marker which has been in Australia for over 40000 years, yet when the whiteman arrived in 1780s there was only 3 million aboriginals.
Paper also stated that females in time, mutated sexually to a form to be impregnated without achieving orgasm and later/younger paternal haplogroups produced more healthier sperm. This led to younger markers having a higher percentage of the populace.
Theory is if this original breeding "system" did not change/mutate over time, the worlds population would only be around 1 billion.

my question is how can after 40000 years, there be only 3 million aborignals in a land which was free of diseases in a land of plenty.?

any links on this topic would be appreciated

EDIT: max population was 1.2 million over 52000 years

LeBrok
02-08-13, 16:30
It is wrong on many levels, but I'm going to address two.
Australian Aboriginals were hunter gatherers, that's why their population was much lower than European Farmers or modern population. It is about food production, not sperm count.


my question is how can after 40000 years, there be only 3 million aborignals
no farming


in a land which was free of diseases bulshit



in a land of plenty.? After all it is mostly a desert. Unless you meant plenty of sand?

Sile
02-08-13, 22:17
It is wrong on many levels, but I'm going to address two.
Australian Aboriginals were hunter gatherers, that's why their population was much lower than European Farmers or modern population. It is about food production, not sperm count.


no farming

bulshit


After all it is mostly a desert. Unless you meant plenty of sand?

Australia had an inland sea. central australia is 3 metres below sea level.

Farming only came about due to need for more food, for more people. If food was available in abundance via hunting then farming would not have been required. You answer does not cover the issue of breeding in regards to numbers.

LeBrok
03-08-13, 07:35
Australia had an inland sea. central australia is 3 metres below sea level. Can you cite scientific document about existence of inland sea in last 40k years (time of human inhabitants of Australia).


Farming only came about due to need for more food, for more people. If food was available in abundance via hunting then farming would not have been required. So tell me why we only farm and herd these days, and we don't hunt for food anymore?




You answer does not cover the issue of breeding in regards to numbers. This hypothesis is totally flawed. I don't know where to start to explain?
I think that most important question is: Why do you believe the carp that says that woman in past could only got pregnant when they had orgasm?
1. Because it is mysterious?
2. Because it is unexplainable?
3. Because it can't be proved?
4. Because it is a legend?

Sile
03-08-13, 10:57
Can you cite scientific document about existence of inland sea in last 40k years (time of human inhabitants of Australia).

So tell me why we only farm and herd these days, and we don't hunt for food anymore?



This hypothesis is totally flawed. I don't know where to start to explain?
I think that most important question is: Why do you believe the carp that says that woman in past could only got pregnant when they had orgasm?
1. Because it is mysterious?
2. Because it is unexplainable?
3. Because it can't be proved?
4. Because it is a legend?

Don't both I found the answer, they also did have settlements and agriculture. So Agriculture was not the difference.
The haplogroups are in majority C4 and K* ( from south -east asia ). all information was on diekeses

thanks

ukaj
03-08-13, 11:24
It is wrong on many levels, but I'm going to address two.
Australian Aboriginals were hunter gatherers, that's why their population was much lower than European Farmers or modern population. It is about food production, not sperm count.


no farming

bulshit


After all it is mostly a desert. Unless you meant plenty of sand?
hello,,ive been to australia an have met the aboriginals of NT their is alot of desert their but their is alot of animals their,,aboriginals their eat kangaroos,wombats,goanna an plenty of fish,the whole of australia is surrounded by sea the food source their is amazing,i then went to a place called victoria an their is alot of food source their i infact sat down with the aboriginals of yorta yorta tribe,their lands is along side the murray river,trust me these people had no problem in surviving,

ukaj
03-08-13, 11:26
what i find amazing is that their scull is much thicker than white people an africans,although they migrated from africa in the first african migration,they preserved alot.

LeBrok
03-08-13, 17:54
hello,,ive been to australia an have met the aboriginals of NT their is alot of desert their but their is alot of animals their,,aboriginals their eat kangaroos,wombats,goanna an plenty of fish,the whole of australia is surrounded by sea the food source their is amazing,i then went to a place called victoria an their is alot of food source their i infact sat down with the aboriginals of yorta yorta tribe,their lands is along side the murray river,trust me these people had no problem in surviving,
Nobody doubts they can survive. But can you explain why there is 40 times more white people than aboriginals population ever reached?

LeBrok
03-08-13, 18:02
Don't both I found the answer, they also did have settlements and agriculture. So Agriculture was not the difference.

Really?! You're not even comparing apples to oranges. You're comparing blueberry to watermelon. For you there is no difference because they are both called fruit.

How much field you can plow with wooden tools pulled by kangaroo? Europeans brought very advanced farming and herding with horses, iron tools, milk cows, pigs, chickens, manure fertilizing, irrigation systems etc.

ukaj
07-08-13, 11:08
Nobody doubts they can survive. But can you explain why there is 40 times more white people than aboriginals population ever reached?
Sure not a problem,A man called Captain James Cook, (7 November 1728 – 14 February 1779) was a British explorer, navigator, cartographer, and captain in the Royal Navy.He went to austalia an An was met by australian aboriginals it was not a happy greeting,cut story short,Alot of natives were killed by the british this is was their is low population of australian aboriginals.The high population of white people is very simple,When the british settled their They took many people from irsh background an british an settled them their if they were criminals.thousands of irsih were settled their whom were convicts>i read that even woman were sent to australia because they stole a piece of bread,But you will find in NT outback the population their is pure aboriginals.I drove through alot of places where not 1 white man was seen.An the aboriginals their are a very friendly people.but in the main citys such as sydney they are not so but most of them are half aboriginals.Not racist to much just from what i have seen.

nordicwarrior
07-08-13, 12:31
I recently read a theory that states that the older the paternal Haplogroup the less chances to produce children. The two main reason where:1 - low sperm count for males.2 - females could only conceive if they had an orgasm in the very very old past.The paper centred on the Australian Aboriginal , a K marker which has been in Australia for over 40000 years, yet when the whiteman arrived in 1780s there was only 3 million aboriginals. Paper also stated that females in time, mutated sexually to a form to be impregnated without achieving orgasm and later/younger paternal haplogroups produced more healthier sperm. This led to younger markers having a higher percentage of the populace.Theory is if this original breeding "system" did not change/mutate over time, the worlds population would only be around 1 billion.my question is how can after 40000 years, there be only 3 million aborignals in a land which was free of diseases in a land of plenty.?any links on this topic would be appreciatedEDIT: max population was 1.2 million over 52000 years While I don't agree with your postulation, I did find it humorous. It implies that the more "advanced" haplogroups (and trust me, I have a BIG problem with this line of thinking but that's another thread) have greater difficulty bringing women to orgasm. Now that's funny! Thank you for the chuckle. However, the real reason why some y-haplogroups have achieved inflated success comes from a much more obvious reason... although I haven't seen it addressed directly on this or any other site.

Sile
07-08-13, 13:07
While I don't agree with your postulation, I did find it humorous. It implies that the more "advanced" haplogroups (and trust me, I have a BIG problem with this line of thinking but that's another thread) have greater difficulty bringing women to orgasm. Now that's funny! Thank you for the chuckle. However, the real reason why some y-haplogroups have achieved inflated success comes from a much more obvious reason... although I haven't seen it addressed directly on this or any other site.

and, you still did not address the question: why after 52000 years only 1.2 million people before the white man arrived. Proven was they had agriculture and settled ( I include Torres Strait islanders )?

It would be interesting to find why younger haplotypes have a greater % of the world's populace

nordicwarrior
07-08-13, 17:18
There is no younger or more advanced or "higher" haplogroup(s). All are the same age. If you want to believe that y hg. S is "higher" than hg. G or that hg. Q is younger than hg. J... then be my guest. This Celto-specific ranking system was developed by a few gentlemen of British Isle extraction that had huge gaps in their theories (missed both Neanderthal and Denisovan admixtures for example).

nordicwarrior
07-08-13, 17:31
I'd like to see what Paabo's diagram of tribal movements would look like. He has been far more accurate in his work, and I doubt his model would have the same orientation as the Celtic group from Stanford/Oxford. Also, the reason Australia had that number of humans for so long is because that's how many the natural environment could support.

LeBrok
07-08-13, 17:38
Sure not a problem,A man called Captain James Cook, (7 November 1728 – 14 February 1779) was a British explorer, navigator, cartographer, and captain in the Royal Navy.He went to austalia an An was met by australian aboriginals it was not a happy greeting,cut story short,Alot of natives were killed by the british this is was their is low population of australian aboriginals.The high population of white people is very simple,When the british settled their They took many people from irsh background an british an settled them their if they were criminals.thousands of irsih were settled their whom were convicts>i read that even woman were sent to australia because they stole a piece of bread,But you will find in NT outback the population their is pure aboriginals.I drove through alot of places where not 1 white man was seen.An the aboriginals their are a very friendly people.but in the main citys such as sydney they are not so but most of them are half aboriginals.Not racist to much just from what i have seen.
The number of aborigines before British Invasion is estimated at around 500 thousand.

The Question is why there wasn't 50 million of them, but only half a million? The answer is simple, their number was (like all populations till 20th century) limited by availability of food. That's simple like that.
It doesn't really matter if they were pure hunter gatherers or not, if they had home gardens of not. Somehow Zanipolo/Sile is going a mystical way blaming lack of orgazms or slow swimmers.

Simple example how it works.
Why there is always same ratio of wolves to deer? Approximately 1 wolf to 100 deer. It means that if you counted 100,000 deer in region, you can expect 1,000 wolves. You will never see 10,000 or 100,000 wolves in this region. Furthermore if deer population declines to 10,000 for some reason, the wolf population will also fall down, to about 100. The population of hunters is always controlled by amount of meat they can catch.
Sure, there are big plagues from time to time trimming number of people, wars and few other causes, but main factor in population control is food availability, and it always has been like this till 20th century when birth controls take the leading role.

Sile
08-08-13, 08:16
The number of aborigines before British Invasion is estimated at around 500 thousand.

The Question is why there wasn't 50 million of them, but only half a million? The answer is simple, their number was (like all populations till 20th century) limited by availability of food. That's simple like that.
It doesn't really matter if they were pure hunter gatherers or not, if they had home gardens of not. Somehow Zanipolo/Sile is going a mystical way blaming lack of orgazms or slow swimmers.

Simple example how it works.
Why there is always same ration of wolves to dear? Approximately 1 wolf to 100 deer. It means that if you counted 100,000 deer in region, you can expect 1,000 wolves. You will never see 10,000 or 100,000 wolves in this region. Furthermore if deer population declines to 10,000 for some reason, the wolf population will also fall down, to about 100. The population of hunters is always controlled by amount of meat they can catch.
Sure there are big plagues from time to time trimming number of people, wars and few other causes, but main factor in population control is food availability, and it always has been till 20th century when birth controls take the leading role.

I doubt that only food is the reason, as per the populace census from 1450 by Fernard Braundel's books The Mediterranean . Italy had 13M, Germany 16M, Spain 6M and England 4M. England is a fertile place, it had food, agriculture, the sea etc etc. There must be other reasons why some populations are in minority.

On the other matter- Since you are an Advisor, then advise me what happened to my main account, I can log in, but anything I click after entering, including settings, I get a message Server is full, log in later. I can only receive private email at home which I cannot answer ( i apologize to these people for lack of response) . seconds later I can log in with this account without issue.

nordicwarrior
08-08-13, 15:01
My edit function is working so I will have to add a fresh statement. When I said all haplogroups were the same age, I meant all human-beings have been on planet Earth for the same amount of time. I wasn't clear earlier with my point. So anyway, did "older" y-groups like C,G, or I stop mutating because they separated from another trunk line? This makes no sense.

ukaj
11-08-13, 09:41
The number of aborigines before British Invasion is estimated at around 500 thousand.

The Question is why there wasn't 50 million of them, but only half a million? The answer is simple, their number was (like all populations till 20th century) limited by availability of food. That's simple like that.
It doesn't really matter if they were pure hunter gatherers or not, if they had home gardens of not. Somehow Zanipolo/Sile is going a mystical way blaming lack of orgazms or slow swimmers.

Simple example how it works.
Why there is always same ratio of wolves to deer? Approximately 1 wolf to 100 deer. It means that if you counted 100,000 deer in region, you can expect 1,000 wolves. You will never see 10,000 or 100,000 wolves in this region. Furthermore if deer population declines to 10,000 for some reason, the wolf population will also fall down, to about 100. The population of hunters is always controlled by amount of meat they can catch.
Sure, there are big plagues from time to time trimming number of people, wars and few other causes, but main factor in population control is food availability, and it always has been like this till 20th century when birth controls take the leading role.Maybe their wasnt that many aboriginals their,I think you need to go to australia an have a look at the food source their,snakes,kangaroos,crocidiles,goanna, wombat,murray cod,etc are some native animals that have been their for long long time,they surrvived well,

LeBrok
11-08-13, 20:03
Maybe their wasnt that many aboriginals their,I think you need to go to australia an have a look at the food source their,snakes,kangaroos,crocidiles,goanna, wombat,murray cod,etc are some native animals that have been their for long long time,they surrvived well,
There was never a question that they didn't survive well. They did. The question was why Europeans overpopulated them in such short time.