|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Hello, cousin! (re: Recent common ancestors to all living humans) | |||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6408 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
When you think about it, it's actually a pretty trivial result (that the common ancestor was very recent, I mean).
Yes, I agree. I see that in the text you quoted, I said "earlier" where I meant "more recent" (in relation to mitochondrial eve).
So I find the idea moderately interesting, but not worth publication in a top journal.
That's my reaction, too.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
quote: I'm sure that you mean "more recent", not "earlier". I would say that it is only the degree of difference that could be counter-intuitive. The mitochondrial Eve is the most recent common ancestor through an unbroken female line. Even without considering the meaning of that qualification we can know that the most recent common ancestor cannot be more distant in time and intuitively should be more recent. When we consider that the possible lines of descent are greatly expanded it at least becomes plausible that the most recent common ancestor could be significantly more recent than the mitochondrial Eve.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
As RAZD has stated this paper is based on mathematical modelling. It is not based on direct evidence, as would be required if it were to be evidence of Noah. Moreover if the Flood story were literally true Noah would be the "Y-chromosome Adam", and likely not the most recent common ancestor. In other words it is the wrong result produced by the wrong method to support your ideas.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1405 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
We agree the result is pointless, no matter what it really is. Unfortunately it seems to be growing legs.
I still agree that the result is totally insignificant. Not if it interferes with real understanding. If the result is portrayed as something it is not (ie at wikipedia) then it is a problem.
The reports I hear, are that there is a lot of sleeping around that actually goes on. And an awful lot of incest and high degrees of inbreeding -- especially in historic populations (ie Darwin & his cousin). Like the "redneck" joke (You may be a "redneck" if you get married for the third time ... and still have the same in-laws ...). I also think we have a false sense of {past life} being highly similar to {our experience} and the sexual freedom of the last several decades ~ couple centuries to breed within a larger population. Look at the oppression of "half=breeds" in our own history and look at similar reactions in other societies (vietnam children). All of these effects can slow down the random mixing rate, which translates directly into the "generation" multiplier factor at one level and into the "town" mixing rates at another, with significant impact on the results. And they already have significant {uncertainty} in their results. As noted before I would be more impressed if they modeled migration factors and then showed how that compared to actual known migration patterns rather than use known migration patterns to put "ports" on the results and artificially block a {possibly very high} migration rate from causing errors at those "ports" -- while allowing it to do so in the rest of the populations. How do they check the rates internal to their island populations? I get a bad feeling of GIGO when I see things like this. Now, if we get a paper on "mitochondial moms" for not only the females but the males, and this was used to generate a genetic possible recent "universal mom(s)" we can expect this result to be between "mtDNA eve" and "handshake jack" -- any bets on which it will be closer to? we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6408 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
It is the kind of result that seems to invite misunderstanding.
I also think we have a false sense of {past life} being highly similar to {our experience} and the sexual freedom of the last several decades ~ couple centuries to breed within a larger population. Look at the oppression of "half=breeds" in our own history and look at similar reactions in other societies (vietnam children).
Maybe. My assumption is that in tribal areas (Australia, parts of Africa for example), most of the intercourse between tribes would occur after inter-tribal warfare, where the victors rape the losers and perhaps take some captive as slaves.
As noted before I would be more impressed if they modeled migration factors and then showed how that compared to actual known migration patterns rather than use known migration patterns to put "ports" on the results and artificially block a {possibly very high} migration rate from causing errors at those "ports" -- while allowing it to do so in the rest of the populations.
But then they would have to do hard work. The authors were pure mathematicians, not empirical scientists. That wasn't intended as a criticism. The expertise of the authors is in mathematics, so that's where they should put their effort. By publishing the results, they make it available to researchers with different kinds of expertise. I would assume that anthropologists are best equipped to fill in some of the missing data. Compassionate conservatism - bringing you a kinder, gentler torture chamber
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
sfs Member (Idle past 2533 days) Posts: 464 From: Cambridge, MA USA Joined: |
quote:Sorry, but I don't understand the question. What are mitochondrial moms for males, and what is "handshake jack"?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
macaroniandcheese  Suspended Member (Idle past 3928 days) Posts: 4258 Joined: |
you get your mitochondria from your mother no mater what you have in your pants. you don't make your mitochondria, they make themselves and are transferred directly to you from your mother in her egg cell.
i don't know what the other one is.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1405 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
you get your mitochondria from your mother no mater what you have in your pants. Correct. And because this is universal we can use it to determine a most likely genetic ancestor time for both male and female halves of the population. There is nothing in the male genes that compares, so a male genetic ancestor cannot be determined from evidence, it can only be speculated. The question is whether such a common mom time be longer or shorter than the mtDNA mom for just the female population -- I suspect about the same elapsed time -- the males of the last generation have their mom's mtDNA eh? "Handshake Jack" refers back to the geneological ancestor that probably\possibly has contributed nothing to the genetic mix even though they may be the theoretical "MRCA" -- the inference being that the lack of genetic import means the relationship is as important as a handshake.
Message 33 That's a different definition of MRCA than is used in genetics. Maybe we should call it most recent individual whose descendants have shaken hands with some ancestor or other of all other individuals. The 6 degrees of freedom thing. Edited by RAZD, : reference we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1405 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
I would assume that anthropologists are best equipped to fill in some of the missing data. Or the'll just say that the results are pure GIGO and ignore it. And even if they don't, if they aren't {fully equiped} to realize the {shortcomings\assumptions} built into the model, they'll propogate false information and won't they then end up with bad speculation on top of unchecked speculation?
The authors were pure mathematicians, not empirical scientists. That wasn't intended as a criticism. The expertise of the authors is in mathematics, so that's where they should put their effort. I repeat, if a model has not been ground-truthed {tested against data to see if the prediction rates simulate real patterns} it is not worth considering. It is not the work of other scientists to do this for them. If they want to move into this area of modeling then they need to form a cooperative effort. we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
sfs Member (Idle past 2533 days) Posts: 464 From: Cambridge, MA USA Joined: |
quote:I'm afraid I still can't figure out what you're talking about, or what you're asking, if indeed you're asking a question.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
sfs Member (Idle past 2533 days) Posts: 464 From: Cambridge, MA USA Joined: |
quote:Your rules for how scientists should conduct science will come as a big shock to all the theoretical physicists out there who routinely construct models without doing the empirical testing themselves.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
macaroniandcheese  Suspended Member (Idle past 3928 days) Posts: 4258 Joined: |
so handshake jack is the proverbial genetic 'gay uncle'?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1405 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Not necessarily. They could be a genetic ancestor of a genetic ancestor, but just had all their genetic material omitted in the division and recombination phases of later progeny. Any other person (of the same sex) could have replaced the actual ancestor with absolutely no effect on the specific descendant(s).
we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
macaroniandcheese  Suspended Member (Idle past 3928 days) Posts: 4258 Joined: |
oh i see.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1405 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
(this may get posted twice -- thought I replied but don't see it)
Your rules for how scientists should conduct science will come as a big shock to all the theoretical physicists ... you should ask cavediver or son goku what I think of such physicists ... And why should it be any different? we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024