Re: The taxonomy of Sahelanthropus tchadensis from a craniometric perspective

On 8/5/24 4:03 AM, Mario Petrinovic wrote:

On 5.8.2024. 11:52, Mario Petrinovic wrote:

On 5.8.2024. 6:40, John Harshman wrote:

On 8/4/24 8:48 PM, Mario Petrinovic wrote:

On 4.8.2024. 20:50, John Harshman wrote:

Don't be shy. Just say what you mean. Preferably in a single post.

>
         While we are at that, I will not be shy and I will ask you a question I always wanted to clear it up.
         You have two situations. In Africa you have a lot of separated small tribes, so high genetic diversity. In India you have all humans connected in one big society, so genes exchange among the whole population, and they average over time, so we have low genetic diversity. Now, the question is, in the view of geneticists is India the bottleneck?

>
If you just waited a while before posting and thought more about what you wanted to say, you wouldn't have this problem. Consider that.
>
Meanwhile, I don't understand the question. India is not a bottleneck. What bottleneck? And you misunderstand the nature of African genetic diversity. Most of it is within populations, not between them. Africa has much higher within-population diversity than does the rest of the world.

>
         India - This is from Wikipedia: "A population bottleneck or genetic bottleneck is a sharp reduction in the size of a population due to environmental events such as famines, earthquakes, floods, fires, disease, and droughts; or human activities such as genocide, speciocide, widespread violence or intentional culling. Such events can reduce the variation in the gene pool of a population; thereafter, a smaller population, with a smaller genetic diversity, remains to pass on genes to future generations of offspring. Genetic diversity remains lower, increasing only when..." So, they say that India is a bottleneck, it is not me that is saying this, I know that India isn't a bottleneck.
         Look, I am a retired train driver (who excellently understood simple mathematics when he was kid), I do understand that in homogeneous population genes average. How come scientists have a complete lack of understanding of this, and why their logic is so simple that even kids in kindergarten would be ashamed of it, is beyond me. In other words, when humans are the most advanced, when they have multiple trading connections, when they all live *as one*, then they have the least genetic variation. In other words, what in real life is the most prosperous situation scientists describe as the least prosperous situation. In the most prosperous situation humans advance, which is only logical. But scientists postulate that in the least prosperous situation humans advance. How come? There is few people, and then comes God and does his magic, and that magic advances those few.
         Africa - Yes, of course, this is how variation emerges, you receive influxes from outside, and those influxes create genetic diversity. In a homogeneous population, without outside influxes, Actually, if those outside influxes are very small compared to your big size, you cannot have diversity. So, In Africa you have multiple (because they are separated) sources of genes, which receive, from time to time, influxes from other separated sources.
         In other words, more separation, more genetic diversity, less separation, less genetic diversity. More separation equals less prosperous world, less separation equals prosperous world, just like we have today. Scientists turned everything upside down, and there isn't a single one among them who understands this.
         So, to have genetic variation you got to have a lot of similar sizes separated gene pools. If you have a single gene pool there is no variation.

>
         There is another thing those stupid scientists don't contemplate, gene diversity doesn't necessarily mean bigger abilities.

 Nobody says it does. Where do you get all these strawmen?

If animals are separated in two groups, and both groups separately acquire the same ability, this ability will be represented with different genes among each group. In general, one big gene pool can acquire the same ability, and it will not have gene diversity. Then, it is the question of compatibility. An organism functions as a complete system. If you introduce components from the outside, it will cause friction (although it can bring new abilities) among the existing parts. It is similar to compiling a hi-fi system from different manufacturers. Providing the quality is the same, a hi-fi system sounds the best if it is made by one manufacturer. The advantage of gene mixing is introducing new abilities, the disadvantage, though, is that the whole system functions less fluidly.
         And so on, and so on, those geneticists (just like a lot of other scientists) don't understand a lot of things, and simplify everything (simply because only simple thinks are provable, and scientists work only with provable things). The major problem with them is that they are doing the reverse engineering. They are convinced that genes are producing the changes (of course, because the God is the one who affects the genes, in their christian view, they want to involve God into the story, this way, or that way, this is their only preoccupation), while the real truth is that genes are just the reflection, the mirror image of what is going on, the transporter of the message, not the originator.

 Sorry, but that's just incoherent. Who is it that wants to involve God in the story? Not geneticists, that's certain. What are your trying to say, and why are you so arrogant as to believe you know more than the people who actually study this stuff?