...
Post A Reply
my profile
|
directory
login
|
register
|
search
|
faq
|
forum home
»
EgyptSearch Forums
»
Deshret
»
"Darwinists don't accept direction in evolution." -- Swenet
» Post A Reply
Post A Reply
Login Name:
Password:
Message Icon:
Message:
HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Swenet: [QB] Moving on... Here is one example of so-called Neanderthals 400ky showing phenotypical evidence of admixture with OOA migrants: [IMG]https://i.guim.co.uk/img/static/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2015/5/27/1432753927705/dc3507ba-997b-4174-a3dc-22789f4b7e88-1360x2040.jpeg?w=700&q=55&auto=format&usm=12&fit=max&s=7d075296217f8612b96b4d07de42b16c[/IMG] [URL=https://www.theguardian.com/science/2015/may/27/prehistoric-skull-puncture-wounds-murder-spain-neanderthal]Source[/URL] From this angle (though not necessarily from other angles), this so-called Neanderthal closely resembles AMH. In fact, this 400ky so-called Neanderthal closely resembles Oase I (who is a 40ky old Neanderthal-AMH hybrid): [IMG]http://donsmaps.com/images8/oaseskull.jpg[/IMG] So we have two AMH-Neanderthal hybrids looking very similar (from this angle). They don't look similar because one descends from the other, but because they're both hybrids. That is, they look similar from this angle in the sense that Obama might resemble multiracial people unrelated to him. This resemblance due to similar sources of ancestry is a reliable sign that the so-called Neanderthal above is a hybrid and has AMH ancestry. Relevance? Evidence of behavioural modernity among Neanderthals can't be treated as Neanderthal in origin. Neanderthals are a hybrid population who emerge suddenly [b]after this >400ky admixture took place[/b]. Without these admixture events Middle Pleistocene inhabitants of Europe would continue to look as archaic as pre-Neanderthals, like [URL=https://images.slideplayer.com/32/9862109/slides/slide_34.jpg]Arago 21 and Petralona[/URL], who show limited evidence for modern behaviour. This is a complete contradiction of the current view that Neanderthals evolved out of Middle Pleistocene European archaics, and that the more modern behaviour of Neanderthals (compared to pre-Neanderthals in Europe) is due to Darwinian evolution. And with that, the little remaining evidence of modern behaviour among Eurasian archaics that is consistent with Darwinian evolution, falls away. And it has been falling away ever since the 80s, when multiregionalism proposed 1) that archaics from all global regions contributed to the evolution of modernity, 2) that living humans descend primarily from the archaics that precede them in their regions and 3) that the 'explosion' of modern tools in Eurasia 50-10kya were indigenous and not accompanied by new migrants (note the blatant teleology and 'direction' implied in this model). Then ROA arrived on the scene in the late 80s and assigned all evidence of this explosion of modern tools in Eurasia 50-10ky to Africans involved in one major OOA migration. Then, in the 2000s ROA got more complex and the evidence of modernity in Eurasia seemed to have been brought there in multiple OOA waves, not just one. This meant that evidence of modern behaviour in Eurasia before 50kya (e.g. Aterian-like culture in Arabia and Pakistan) was also spread by African OOA migrants. Then, after 2010 (where we're now) the picture got even more inconsistent with Darwinian evolution. Not only is the evidence of modernity in Eurasia 120-10ky attributable to OOA migrants, but the evidence of significant innovation before 120kya also turns out to be attributable to OOA migrants. So, for instance, the Mousterian used by Neanderthals was also spread my OOA waves [b]before[/b] 120kya. Notice this share of evidence for modernity in Eurasia linked to OOA migrants kept increasing ever since the 80s, when multiregionalism said Africa has no special role in the evolution of modernity. Africa was supposed to be one region out of many, that contributed genes to the global archaic genepool. Then the tool innovations spread in Eurasia 50-10kya were assigned to Africans, then the tool innovations spread in Eurasia 120-50kya were assigned to Africans and now also the main new tools spread in Eurasia 400-120ky. This means that every major innovative tool shift in Eurasia in the last >400ky was introduced by OOA migrants. At this point it's extremely difficult to maintain this all is driven by Darwinian evolution. Why are Eurasian archaics passive recipients in all of these major tool shifts, if they had the same genepool for natural selection to act on? Darwinism has no answer. And now their strategy is going to be to pretend there is no discrepancy in this picture of one human lineage being disproportionately involved in all major tool shifts in Eurasia. Those that won't ignore it (ignoring elephants in the room is a major tool in the bag of Darwinian church members) are going to come up with some contrived narrative that is purely based on making the least amount of concessions, as they always do. (If you want an example of this see, Guild's attempt to wish away the Cantabrian explosion by introducing 'punctuated equilibrium' as the new 'update patch' for broken Darwinism). Even though there is a whole track record from the 80s to today, showing that they had to revise their narrative again and again. First Africa was unimportant genetically and cognitively, then Africa was only important genetically and cognitively as ancestors for living humans, then Africa was also important genetically and cognitively as ancestors of pre-Toba AMHs and now Africa is also important genetically and cognitively in modern behaviour linked to Neanderthals. If you have to revise your narrative again and again, it's a sign that your underlying theory (Darwinism, in this case) is failing you in making accurate predictions. [/QB][/QUOTE]
Instant Graemlins
Instant UBB Code™
What is UBB Code™?
Options
Disable Graemlins in this post.
*** Click here to review this topic. ***
Contact Us
|
EgyptSearch!
(c) 2015 EgyptSearch.com
Powered by UBB.classic™ 6.7.3