Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Hello, cousin! (re: Recent common ancestors to all living humans)
nwr
Member
Posts: 6408
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 61 of 76 (330755)
07-11-2006 8:43 AM
Reply to: Message 60 by sfs
07-11-2006 8:22 AM


Re: I stand corrected - now lets deal with the math problem ...
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by sfs, posted 07-11-2006 8:22 AM sfs has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 62 of 76 (330758)
07-11-2006 8:50 AM
Reply to: Message 58 by nwr
07-11-2006 12:00 AM


Re: I stand corrected - now lets deal with the math problem ...
quote:
The interesting thing is that it is far earlier than the time of mitochondrial eve. Note that this is interesting in the sense that it is counter-intuitive.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by nwr, posted 07-11-2006 12:00 AM nwr has seen this message but not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 63 of 76 (330764)
07-11-2006 9:01 AM
Reply to: Message 50 by randman
07-10-2006 12:07 AM


Re: Noah?
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by randman, posted 07-10-2006 12:07 AM randman has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 64 of 76 (331920)
07-15-2006 8:40 AM
Reply to: Message 58 by nwr
07-11-2006 12:00 AM


So what is this good for? Unchecked speculation?
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?

Join the effort to unravel {AIDSHIV} with Team EvC! (click)

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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by nwr, posted 07-11-2006 12:00 AM nwr has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 65 by nwr, posted 07-15-2006 9:21 AM RAZD has replied
 Message 66 by sfs, posted 07-15-2006 10:21 PM RAZD has not replied

  
nwr
Member
Posts: 6408
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 65 of 76 (331930)
07-15-2006 9:21 AM
Reply to: Message 64 by RAZD
07-15-2006 8:40 AM


Re: So what is this good for? Unchecked speculation?
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by RAZD, posted 07-15-2006 8:40 AM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 69 by RAZD, posted 07-16-2006 9:18 PM nwr has seen this message but not replied

  
sfs
Member (Idle past 2534 days)
Posts: 464
From: Cambridge, MA USA
Joined: 08-27-2003


Message 66 of 76 (332089)
07-15-2006 10:21 PM
Reply to: Message 64 by RAZD
07-15-2006 8:40 AM


Re: So what is this good for? Unchecked speculation?
quote:
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?
Sorry, but I don't understand the question. What are mitochondrial moms for males, and what is "handshake jack"?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by RAZD, posted 07-15-2006 8:40 AM RAZD has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 67 by macaroniandcheese, posted 07-16-2006 1:28 PM sfs has not replied

  
macaroniandcheese 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3928 days)
Posts: 4258
Joined: 05-24-2004


Message 67 of 76 (332211)
07-16-2006 1:28 PM
Reply to: Message 66 by sfs
07-15-2006 10:21 PM


Re: So what is this good for? Unchecked speculation?
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by sfs, posted 07-15-2006 10:21 PM sfs has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 68 by RAZD, posted 07-16-2006 9:08 PM macaroniandcheese has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 68 of 76 (332349)
07-16-2006 9:08 PM
Reply to: Message 67 by macaroniandcheese
07-16-2006 1:28 PM


Handshake Jack
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

Join the effort to unravel {AIDSHIV} with Team EvC! (click)

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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by macaroniandcheese, posted 07-16-2006 1:28 PM macaroniandcheese has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 70 by sfs, posted 07-16-2006 9:26 PM RAZD has not replied
 Message 72 by macaroniandcheese, posted 07-16-2006 9:59 PM RAZD has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 69 of 76 (332355)
07-16-2006 9:18 PM
Reply to: Message 65 by nwr
07-15-2006 9:21 AM


but good science is cross-checked
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.

Join the effort to unravel {AIDSHIV} with Team EvC! (click)

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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by nwr, posted 07-15-2006 9:21 AM nwr has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 71 by sfs, posted 07-16-2006 9:30 PM RAZD has replied

  
sfs
Member (Idle past 2534 days)
Posts: 464
From: Cambridge, MA USA
Joined: 08-27-2003


Message 70 of 76 (332358)
07-16-2006 9:26 PM
Reply to: Message 68 by RAZD
07-16-2006 9:08 PM


Re: Handshake Jack
quote:
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?
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by RAZD, posted 07-16-2006 9:08 PM RAZD has not replied

  
sfs
Member (Idle past 2534 days)
Posts: 464
From: Cambridge, MA USA
Joined: 08-27-2003


Message 71 of 76 (332360)
07-16-2006 9:30 PM
Reply to: Message 69 by RAZD
07-16-2006 9:18 PM


Re: but good science is cross-checked
quote:
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.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by RAZD, posted 07-16-2006 9:18 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 75 by RAZD, posted 07-16-2006 10:11 PM sfs has replied

  
macaroniandcheese 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3928 days)
Posts: 4258
Joined: 05-24-2004


Message 72 of 76 (332375)
07-16-2006 9:59 PM
Reply to: Message 68 by RAZD
07-16-2006 9:08 PM


Re: Handshake Jack
so handshake jack is the proverbial genetic 'gay uncle'?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by RAZD, posted 07-16-2006 9:08 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 73 by RAZD, posted 07-16-2006 10:06 PM macaroniandcheese has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 73 of 76 (332380)
07-16-2006 10:06 PM
Reply to: Message 72 by macaroniandcheese
07-16-2006 9:59 PM


Re: Handshake Jack
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).

Join the effort to unravel {AIDSHIV} with Team EvC! (click)

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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by macaroniandcheese, posted 07-16-2006 9:59 PM macaroniandcheese has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 74 by macaroniandcheese, posted 07-16-2006 10:11 PM RAZD has not replied

  
macaroniandcheese 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3928 days)
Posts: 4258
Joined: 05-24-2004


Message 74 of 76 (332382)
07-16-2006 10:11 PM
Reply to: Message 73 by RAZD
07-16-2006 10:06 PM


Re: Handshake Jack
oh i see.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by RAZD, posted 07-16-2006 10:06 PM RAZD has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 75 of 76 (332383)
07-16-2006 10:11 PM
Reply to: Message 71 by sfs
07-16-2006 9:30 PM


theoretical physicists ...
(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?

Join the effort to unravel {AIDSHIV} with Team EvC! (click)

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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by sfs, posted 07-16-2006 9:30 PM sfs has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 76 by sfs, posted 07-16-2006 11:08 PM RAZD has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024