N
Noman
Guest
100% junk science. It's not even that estimates are off, it's just an invalid way to estimate and completely meaningless.
If you know math a little better you wouldn't need an explanation (and now I will probably hear all about how great at math you are, but suffice to say no anthropologist is on the same planet as me on the subject). I touched on it a little but I could spend days on the topic and some still would poo poo me.
And again if you actually read original OoA theorie papers and all about nonsensical serial founder effects you have to realize this is completely contradictory. Either that or they are trying desperately to paint whole genotypes as founded by genocidal murderers. Except oh wait, all of europe shows huge amount of outbreeding compared to actual quick expanding populations like arabs and zulu, who did do large scale genocides of their neighbors. And again in 5k years the signs of this much inbreeding and genocide would be very clear, if they actually existed.
Change happens slowly but it's getting there. But I wouldn't bother to argue it. For starters there's not enough data to tell. Also the fact that the estimates we see keep climbing and are way off from the obvious numbers we get out of derived attributes is coherent with the idea of natural selection. Even in the most remore part of africa a lot of neanderthal genes have become fixed in the population, and as I said there's clades in the DNA of africans with neanderthal at the top as oldest, proving the case for multiregionalism.
Yeah, of course there's not, just sound how nonsensical those words are strung together. We are speaking english so I guess we are Angles, eh?
Kiev must have had half a billion people if you think they populated all of europe like that. No, it was more like the Angles and Visigoths. Like sile said they came through and picked up locals as they went. We have documentation of this in historic times too, that's how the huns worked. Ten locals for each hun, and actual huns had no real impact on europe outside hungary.
And like I said there's refugiums they don't speak IE language at all, those are the places with the heaviest r1b. Sorry, this is busted. Of course you don't get r1b looking for it in the neolithic farmers. The more I think about that the more I think it was intentional. There's endless bones from standing stones tombs to test but maybe they are trying to make a political statement that europeans are all invaders and genocidal maniancs.
In ireland non IE language also survived almost to present times. So they never got replaced yet are r1b. Not only that but among the heaviest in r1b so they didn't get it out of any invasion.
If you read a few papers and look at how many lies and ridiculous gaffs you see in archaeology after following it as a hobby a few years, you realize it's about 80% politics, 10% scholarship, 10% science is being very generous.
For example for years and years they have been saying chimps are 99% human. NOPE! If you know about genetics, you know this is complete crap anyway. It's not just a bad estimate but a bald faced lie. Now it's down to 94% or something, but even two humans side by side can have more variation than that base pair by base pair. It's just made of nonsense.
Similarly they have said chimp is the nearest ancestor of man even though archaeology for any other species would say it's impossible. A human walks upright. So do gorillas. They are the closest, end of story. Recently they finally sequence a gorilla and guess what? 15% closer than a chimp.
Of course if you don't believe in natural selection you get some strange ideas in your head, but nobody would make this mistake for butterflies. You don't evolve upright walking one afternoon just for kicks. Once an upright walker exists then that niche is filled and no other species can benefit from moving in that direction because they'll be outcompeted, so they don't fo to that niche. That's why the lungfish has been stuck for a billion years in place. Lungfish are the ones who came out of the water and because mammals and reptiles and avians but they can't do anything but stay where they are now that all those animals are in the way.
Of course it's speculative. The IE complete repalcement is speculative, too. And in about 5 seconds of thinking and posting in this thread, pretty much disproven.
Things like that and out of africa make plenty of sense if you don't believe in natural selection, don't know ANY history at all, and COMPLETELY ignore all archeology. Only when I looked close at the archaeology did I realize it is impossible for humans to have evolved in africa, or for an exodus.
Modern humans suddenly show up in africa right along the arabian border (where at some times they could walk right from australia).
At the same time the rest of africa is under the sway of the most archaic looking human ancestors imaginable, and now we have proof after they got to africa modern humans interbred with them. Now think a second. They interbred with them but those genes stayed in africa! Meaning they didn't migrate out at all...and how could they, they just arrived from elsewhere.
Probably almost everyone spoke IE before bell beaker even came to be. Like Siles said a language is not a tribe! Lingua franca of italic mediterranean is still the basis of spanish and portuguese and there was probably no gene flow at all.
I gave some of the reasons behind it and pointed out that there's way too much spread of I to be accounted for in this time.
We don't have anything for things you seem to regard as fact. We have no idea just supposition. Everything I posit for I fits the facts. Pre-classic greeks are totally unaccounted for but there's endless reams of archaeology to back this up.
Dieneke is an ok guy and actually looks at archaeology unlike most of these clowns, but even he goes into a fit when you look at archaeology about his homeland. Not just pots we have (and endless other artifacts), but endless nordic skulls from pre-classic greek. We also have way more blondes in greece than would logically come out of any r1b stock we know about (NONE!). And the further back we go the more blondes we have, more nordic features, etc.
The handwaving is pretty funny, too. Well we do have a lot of blondes is some areas but (lots of nonsense with populations) they're not that big a difference from and average of other european places! :lol: You mean the other european places that have a lot of I in them?
As if all physical traits are just random, like you could easily find michelle pfeiffer walking in the calahari, or in the russian steppes, or in a fishing village near beijing. Well you might, but they came from somewhere, and obviously archaeology says they were a big part of greece a long time. They are also what the spartans and macedonions were (and oh how any greek will deny the existence of macedonia).
Possibly yes, these are even the pre-classic greeks.
It's an even wager to me at this point as to whether archaeology displays or hides more items, just try to get access to skulls at malta or clean side view pictures of natufian skulls. Don't like those answers, eh?
