Another Human Ancestry Discovery

dilettante

dilettante

Well-known Member
Location
Michigan
It's kind of funny to watch experts and amateurs alike try to draw conclusions from sparse evidence colored by so much wishful thinking and academic investment. But at least we get more information little by little over time.

The distinction between Neanderthals and "modern humans" seems amusing to me. Considering the timescale, distances for people on foot, and geologic obstacles like changing terrain, glaciers, flooding and draining low areas, etc. the differences are probably more akin to exaggerated versions of the racial divisions today.

In a controversial new interview, Harvard University geneticist David Reich stated that all non-Africans are essentially "evolved Neanderthals". Furthermore, He makes the case that rather than only 2 or 3% of our DNA coming from Neanderthals, Europeans are actually up to 20% Neanderthal. This is because Neanderthal DNA was removed from our genomes due to natural selection over the last 50,000 years. Neanderthals, who disappeared from the archaeological record around 40,000 years ago, have long been regarded as our closest evolutionary relatives. However, since the first discovery of Neanderthal remains in the 1850s, scientists have debated whether Neanderthals are a separate species or an extinct subset of our own species, 'Homo sapiens'.​

 

There is a lot of fake science out there designed to control opinion. I agree it's not Godzilla, acting on its own, but a fiction invoked by manipulators - often chanting the mantra "follow the science" which actually means the opposite: bow to authority.
 
dilettante said:
It's kind of funny to watch experts and amateurs alike try to draw conclusions from sparse evidence colored by so much wishful thinking and academic investment. But at least we get more information little by little over time.

The distinction between Neanderthals and "modern humans" seems amusing to me. Considering the timescale, distances for people on foot, and geologic obstacles like changing terrain, glaciers, flooding and draining low areas, etc. the differences are probably more akin to exaggerated versions of the racial divisions today.

In a controversial new interview, Harvard University geneticist David Reich stated that all non-Africans are essentially "evolved Neanderthals". Furthermore, He makes the case that rather than only 2 or 3% of our DNA coming from Neanderthals, Europeans are actually up to 20% Neanderthal. This is because Neanderthal DNA was removed from our genomes due to natural selection over the last 50,000 years. Neanderthals, who disappeared from the archaeological record around 40,000 years ago, have long been regarded as our closest evolutionary relatives. However, since the first discovery of Neanderthal remains in the 1850s, scientists have debated whether Neanderthals are a separate species or an extinct subset of our own species, 'Homo sapiens'.​
Click to expand...

I'm not really getting this. You start with "from sparse evidence colored by so much wishful thinking and academic investment.", and then lean heavily into one persons "wishful thinking and academic investment". There seems to be, if I have this right, a dismissal of academic investment, while calling it to support your post. Our DNA tells no lies.
 
gruntlabor said:
It lied to us. Science in its arrogance persists in presenting its theories as truth/fact.
Click to expand...

Sorry, but this displays a lack of understanding on what science is and does.

1) There is no single body of "science".
2) Science offers the best explanation based on available evidence.
3) As we learn more, the scientific consensus can change. This is perfectly normal.
4) Science demands a theory is reproducible and peer reviewed. Only after it has been reproduced/peer reviewed can it be offered as a theory.
5) No other belief system offers the same safe guards that science does. Science is the bets method for truth humans have invented.
 
VaughanJB said:
Our DNA tells no lies.
Click to expand...
Our DNA tells us nothing.

Instead we use what we understand about it along with fragmented and few samples to try to propose hypotheses. Academia quickly slips into orthodoxy and fights to preserve its treasured hypotheses even in the face of contradictory evidence. Where possible contradictory evidence is suppressed and where not such evidence is ridiculed.

It's more intense when the orthodoxy uses control of a subject to support an agenda for power or profit.
 
VaughanJB said:
Sorry, but this displays a lack of understanding on what science is and does.

1) There is no single body of "science".
2) Science offers the best explanation based on available evidence.
3) As we learn more, the scientific consensus can change. This is perfectly normal.
4) Science demands a theory is reproducible and peer reviewed. Only after it has been reproduced/peer reviewed can it be offered as a theory.
5) No other belief system offers the same safe guards that science does. Science is the bets method for truth humans have invented.
Click to expand...
Presently, Science is as corrupt as Politics.
 
dilettante said:
Our DNA tells us nothing.

Instead we use what we understand about it along with fragmented and few samples to try to propose hypotheses. Academia quickly slips into orthodoxy and fights to preserve its treasured hypotheses even in the face of contradictory evidence. Where possible contradictory evidence is suppressed and where not such evidence is ridiculed.

It's more intense when the orthodoxy uses control of a subject to support an agenda for power or profit.
Click to expand...

DNA tells us an awful lot. I have no idea why you'd claim it tells us "nothing".

Academia is what, exactly? If there an organization called "academia"? Do all academics think the same way? What contradictory evidence is suppressed?

Again - our knowledge is based on the best explanation given the available evidence. That and consensus. This tiresome attack on academia is simply suggesting that actual knowledge is worthless, and some guy on Youtube knows more than someone who has dedicated their life to being an expert in something.

Would you do away with academics?
 
gruntlabor said:
Presently, Science is as corrupt as Politics.
Click to expand...

There is no "science". There are scientists.

But the basic principles of science remain sound.

Science is
  • Empiricism: knowledge comes from observation and experimentation.
  • Parsimony: the simplest explanation is most likely the correct one.
  • Replicability: experimental results must be reproducible.
  • Falsifiability: scientific theories must be able to be tested and potentially disproved.

That a scientist might, through media, tell a lie does not fault science - it faults the individual.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top