Neanderthals may have crossed the seas THOUSANDS of years before modern humans

[TylerDurden]

Random evolution is impossible. Epigenetics/Lamarckianism, however,  gives an explanation of how evolution can be controlled.

[TylerDurden]

More data on Neaderthals:-

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-5683345/Skilled-Neanderthals-using-symbolism-long-35-000-years-ago.html

[dariorpl]

If they were that complex, then simple building of rafts like in the Kon-Tiki expedition would have been a doddle.

It's not necessarily so.

Citing animals, all of  whom have extra senses such as the ability to see in the ultra-violet(bees), or ability to sense the earth's magnetic field(pigeons), when humans do not have these kind of abilities, generally.

There's no conclusive evidence that pidgeons even do it through some sort of compass. That's mostly just speculation to explain the fact that they do it. And even a compass can't tell you where to go to reach a destination if you don't know where you are.

Your lack of knowledge of genetics is absurd. Look, all the subsequent descendants are dependent on a tiny gene-pool provided by just 2 individuals. Granted, palaeo-style eugenics such as mass infanticide/predation by large mammals/snakes etc.  might remove a few  negative traits from the gene-pool,  but that would not be enough as the range of dna is so limited in the first place. New dna could only occur with new mutations, which would be rare and often negative, anyway.

Ah, here we have an article with various examples, all debunking your notion of adam and eve neanderthals populating Crete after a swim:-

http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20160113-could-just-two-people-repopulate-earth

I think it's you who, rather than simply lack knowledge in genetics, have mistaken ideas and think they are knowlewdge.

Inbreeding can increase the chances for many types of genetic disorders, but that doesn't mean that all of the descendants will die. Inbreeding is even purposefully used in selective breeding. Let alone the fact that hunter-gatherer tribes were heavily inbred groups, usually of around 20 individuals, and unless a tribe was conquered by another (all the men and children killed, all the women of childbearing age raped), there was usually no mixing of genes between tribes.

And again, chemical toxins and radiation that damages DNA will inevitably create a much increased risk from inbreeding. You can call them "deadly recessive genes", but they might just be mutations caused by DNA damage. Or they could be mostly that.

[TylerDurden]

Wrong again. Palaeo-era HG tribes were c. 150 in number on average:-

http://www.bbc.com/capital/story/20180313-the-stone-age-answer-to-your-desk-job

[dariorpl]

Wrong again. Palaeo-era HG tribes were c. 150 in number on average:-

http://www.bbc.com/capital/story/20180313-the-stone-age-answer-to-your-desk-job

150-200 is the MAXIMUM and is derived from Dunbar's number, not any sort of archeological research. It's not the average. Most were 20 to 40 individuals, usually closer to the lower number.

[TylerDurden]

Incorrect. Temporary groups of 10-50 people are referred to as bands. A tribe is defined as being up to 950 people, which makes sense as, according to  science, one needs a population of 1,000 for best results to avoid inbreeding.More info by Chryses in this thread:-

https://www.reddit.com/r/AskAnthropology/comments/587eeb/what_would_the_average_population_of_a/

"Families consist of 4-5 individuals, residential groups have 14-17 people, social aggregations (e.g. winter camps) 50-60, periodic aggregation of 150-180 people, and an entire ethnic population of 730-950."

The point being that, yes, a population could form a band(not tribe) of 10-50 people at a time, but these bands all mated with other bands within a much larger ethnic tribal group. Anyway, the results of mating between just 2 people , let alone just 50, are dire. We already have cases where several wild species are threatened with extinction due to the effects of inbreeding(cheetahs etc.), so even with natural selection weeding out a few defects per generation, it is still a disaster if genetic variation is too small.

[dariorpl]

Incorrect. Temporary groups of 10-50 people are referred to as bands. A tribe is defined as being up to 950 people, which makes sense as, according to  science, one needs a population of 1,000 for best results to avoid inbreeding.More info by Chryses in this thread:-

https://www.reddit.com/r/AskAnthropology/comments/587eeb/what_would_the_average_population_of_a/

"Families consist of 4-5 individuals, residential groups have 14-17 people, social aggregations (e.g. winter camps) 50-60, periodic aggregation of 150-180 people, and an entire ethnic population of 730-950."

The point being that, yes, a population could form a band(not tribe) of 10-50 people at a time,

They changed the definitions some time ago. What was before known as tribes, is now referred to as bands. Most people lived in what is now called bands. But H-G bands just doesn't have the same ring to it.

but these bands all mated with other bands within a much larger ethnic tribal group.

No they did not. The whole point of a tribe/band is to benefit the survival and reproduction of your groups' genes rather than everybody else's. Why would a female mate with outsiders unless raped? She wouldn't. Why would males allow females in their group to be raped by outsiders? They wouldn't. They'd fight them to the death first.

Ocassionally this might happen anyway, but it was by no means the norm.

Anyway, the results of mating between just 2 people , let alone just 50, are dire. We already have cases where several wild species are threatened with extinction due to the effects of inbreeding(cheetahs etc.), so even with natural selection weeding out a few defects per generation, it is still a disaster if genetic variation is too small.

It's unclear if this is indeed the case. It's more likely that extinction happens because the same phenomena that wiped out most of the species' individuals, resulting in an inbreeding situation, also wipes out the remaining few. Inbreeeding may worsen the situation, but it's not the main driving force.

Also, it's not merely natural selection that weeds out weaker genetic combinations, but also artificial selection. By establishing mating rights and via infanticide, paleo humans established huge eugenic effects, and even had the ability to adapt their population's strenghts and weaknesses as it regards various tasks that needed to be accomplished as the situation and environment changed and called for different types of prowess.

[TylerDurden]

You are, as usual avoiding the issue. The whole point was that a tribe (c.730-950 individuals) had a common genetic background, meaning that the various bands all interbred with each other because they were all from a common ancestry, having the same culture/ language etc. So, they did not rape each other. Besides, to avoid the negative effects of inbreeding, sticking rigidly to just mating between members of one band would  have been necessary.

Incidentally, "bands" have a rather different definition in science than yours:- "Bands have a loose organization. They can split up (in spring/summer) or regroup (in winter camps), as the Inuit, depending on the season, or member families can disperse to join other groups" taken from:-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Band_society

In other words, bands were never monlithic, separate units, but merely  temporary alliances of convenience within a much larger tribal organisation as a whole. The tribal members would routinely interbreed, therefore.

imo, natural selection among wild animals is far more effective than artificial selection by humans. For example, infanticide in palaeo times also included perfectly healthy children. After all, a woman in the Palaeolithic era could not easily raise twins at the same time  so would have had to discard one of them.

[dariorpl]

You are, as usual avoiding the issue. The whole point was that a tribe (c.730-950 individuals) had a common genetic background, meaning that the various bands all interbred with each other because they were all from a common ancestry, having the same culture/ language etc. So, they did not rape each other. Besides, to avoid the negative effects of inbreeding, sticking rigidly to just mating between members of one band would  have been necessary.

Incidentally, "bands" have a rather different definition in science than yours:- "Bands have a loose organization. They can split up (in spring/summer) or regroup (in winter camps), as the Inuit, depending on the season, or member families can disperse to join other groups" taken from:-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Band_society

In other words, bands were never monlithic, separate units, but merely  temporary alliances of convenience within a much larger tribal organisation as a whole. The tribal members would routinely interbreed, therefore.

Like I said, the definitions have changed, and now you are mixing in modern populations like the eskimos with ancient ones.

The social environment you describe makes no sense from an economic, sociological or biological standpoint, and there's no archeological evidence to support it. You're simply taking your own misguided view of how human sexuality should function in the modern world, and injecting it into a completely different situation where it makes just as little sense.

imo, natural selection among wild animals is far more effective than artificial selection by humans.

Obviously, you are severely mistaken, as proven by the fact that humanoids are the only large animal that has continuously increased its numbers while most or all of the others have decreased their numbers, except for those that we breed to feed us (cattle, sheep, goats, pigs, chicken) or those that help us accomplish tasks (dogs, cats, horses, donkeys, camels, oxen)

For example, infanticide in palaeo times also included perfectly healthy children. After all, a woman in the Palaeolithic era could not easily raise twins at the same time  so would have had to discard one of them.

We've gone through this before. A woman would not raise the babies alone. Whether they were killed or not depended on the tribe leaders, the tribe's needs, the supply of food, etc. It's not simply a matter of being healthy, but what each of them is most skilled at. It's no use having healthy runners if what you need is fishers, and vice-versa. It's no use having either if you have nobody who can build efficient tools and weapons. Etc, etc.

[TylerDurden]

All absurd, and incorrect:-

1) A tribe would not have the resources to feed endless  numbers of children in the Palaeolithic era. That is why there was mass infanticide(c.80% of all newborns killed) in the palaeolithic era. Plus, the tribe was simply not large enough to support every healthy child and let it live. That is what the mothers were for. For example, from ancient times, the Romans and even until the end of the 19th century, women would routinely throw their babies into the flowing Tiber river, because they did not have effective contraception and could not support their children - society, in those days, also refused to support such children, which is why premarital sex was frowned upon.So, wrong, the women made the decision as to whether a child lived or died, whether in Palaeolithic times or not.

2) Wrong again, and a classic sign of human hubris. Take domesticated animals for example. Scientists have pointed out that domesticated species are so badly inbred, so inflicted with ill-health etc., that, if, say, all humans died out, and the domesticated species were left alone to themselves outside the fences, then almost all would die out very quickly, with a tiny few gradually reverting back to wild status. So, a few dogs would eventually become wolves after a few generations, a few pigs would become wild boars etc. This is unsurprising, as the domesticated animals survive only on food handouts from humans. Without them, subject to natural selection, the vast majority would have no chance. Only exception are wild hogs in recent years, but even those are being exposed to natural selection, and will eventually become wild boars.After all, the presence of humans prevents  the rise of the  sort of predators that would keep the wild hog population in check.

Humans have all sorts of health problems derived from inbreeding. Jews, Amish, and Muslims have all sorts of genetic defects which cause a myriad different health problems. Even, closer to home, people can have issues. Take me, for example, I endured decades of ill-health, and would have died, simply because I have a rare genetic ill-adaptation to dairy(raw or otherwise), which causes gradual inflammation all over my body. With increased exposure to junk food, infertility is rising inexorably, and, in terms of brain-size/intelligence/physical strength etc., we are a very poor example compared to our healthier, superior ancestors in the Palaeolithic era.Read E M Forster's "The Machine Stops" to see how technology can turn us all into sickly imbeciles.The film Idiocracy focuses on an inevitable future drop in average human intelligence.

The size of modern HG tribes is unlikely to have been much different from Palaeo ones. More to the point, palaeo HG tribes were skilled at killing megafauna and would migrate and hunt herds of such megafauna. Not something that a tiny band of 10-50 people could achieve, especially when the number of men physically capable of hunting such megafauna would be no more than a small handful  in a band of 50.

[dariorpl]

All absurd, and incorrect:-

1) A tribe would not have the resources to feed endless  numbers of children in the Palaeolithic era. That is why there was mass infanticide(c.80% of all newborns killed) in the palaeolithic era. Plus, the tribe was simply not large enough to support every healthy child and let it live.

I didn't say otherwise.

That is what the mothers were for. For example, from ancient times, the Romans and even until the end of the 19th century, women would routinely throw their babies into the flowing Tiber river, because they did not have effective contraception and could not support their children - society, in those days, also refused to support such children, which is why premarital sex was frowned upon.So, wrong, the women made the decision as to whether a child lived or died, whether in Palaeolithic times or not.

We've gone through this before, you obviously refuse to learn anything. A mother would only kill their own baby if she had other babies to feed and feeding that one would starve the others. This doesn't happen anywhere else in nature. It goes against every basic tenet of behavioral biology. In H-G tribes the baby was killed by the tribe, not the mother. And if the mother killed the baby it was because the tribe ordered her to do so. As even if resources were scarce, it's not genetically advantageous to kill your own offspring so that the offspring of others in the tribe can survive.

2) Wrong again, and a classic sign of human hubris.

LOL let me know when you discuss something with a non-human.

Take domesticated animals for example. Scientists have pointed out that domesticated species are so badly inbred, so inflicted with ill-health etc., that, if, say, all humans died out, and the domesticated species were left alone to themselves outside the fences, then almost all would die out very quickly, with a tiny few gradually reverting back to wild status. So, a few dogs would eventually become wolves after a few generations, a few pigs would become wild boars etc. This is unsurprising, as the domesticated animals survive only on food handouts from humans. Without them, subject to natural selection, the vast majority would have no chance. Only exception are wild hogs in recent years, but even those are being exposed to natural selection, and will eventually become wild boars.After all, the presence of humans prevents  the rise of the  sort of predators that would keep the wild hog population in check.

Of course they would die out, but not due to inbreeding, but due to the fact that we've bred them to be fit for OUR purposes, not to survive in the wild. The evolutionary advantage of such beings lies in the fact that via becoming symbiants with us, they became much more fit to their environment, and their environment is one where being useful to humans is the way to be fit. If that means they stand no chance against predators, so be it.

Humans have all sorts of health problems derived from inbreeding. Jews, Amish, and Muslims have all sorts of genetic defects which cause a myriad different health problems. Even, closer to home, people can have issues. Take me, for example, I endured decades of ill-health, and would have died, simply because I have a rare genetic ill-adaptation to dairy(raw or otherwise), which causes gradual inflammation all over my body. With increased exposure to junk food, infertility is rising inexorably, and, in terms of brain-size/intelligence/physical strength etc., we are a very poor example compared to our healthier, superior ancestors in the Palaeolithic era.Read E M Forster's "The Machine Stops" to see how technology can turn us all into sickly imbeciles.The film Idiocracy focuses on an inevitable future drop in average human intelligence.

The human species has never been more outbred in all of its history. Nowadays people from one continent can and often do breed with people from other continents, and this trend is increasing, with many so-called "rebels" rejecting their own natural desire to breed with their own, and preferring instead to breed with people as different from them as they can find. And yet, as you pointed out, all of the signs of disease have skyrocketed. How you manage to blame this on inbreeding is not just beyond me, it's pure unadulterated nonsense, with a gigantic dose of BIAS that you refuse to even acknowledge. (the most dangerous type)

The size of modern HG tribes is unlikely to have been much different from Palaeo ones. More to the point, palaeo HG tribes were skilled at killing megafauna and would migrate and hunt herds of such megafauna. Not something that a tiny band of 10-50 people could achieve, especially when the number of men physically capable of hunting such megafauna would be no more than a small handful  in a band of 50.

Hard to say how many healthy, cunning and strong paleo men it took to bring down a mammoth. It's possible they were simply made to run around until exhaustion. In any case, this was not the basis of the human diet. Deer, zebras, seals... Those were the main staple in most of the world. I suppose it also depends on how you define megafauna. Is a bison or a wildebeest, megafauna? Because clearly there's a huge difference between killing a bison and killing a bear or a rhinoceros, let alone a mammoth.

Also, there are big differences in modern tribes because most engange in various forms of trade that didn't exist before. They also live in a context where there is very little competition for resources, as the number of humans living off wild animals and plants has been reduced enourmosly, much more than the proportional reduction of wild land that has taken place. The only exception is wild fish, but even most of that is taken from the deep ocean, where paleo humans could never have ventured out.

[TylerDurden]

We've gone through this before, you obviously refuse to learn anything. A mother would only kill their own baby if she had other babies to feed and feeding that one would starve the others. This doesn't happen anywhere else in nature. It goes against every basic tenet of behavioral biology. In H-G tribes the baby was killed by the tribe, not the mother. And if the mother killed the baby it was because the tribe ordered her to do so. As even if resources were scarce, it's not genetically advantageous to kill your own offspring so that the offspring of others in the tribe can survive.

I already pointed out that throughout history women have been quietly disposing of babies in rivers like the Tiber etc., without telling anybody else. No tribal leader was ever asked for permission or any such nonsense. They did not have contraceptions, so, if resources were sometimes scarce, the Palaeo-era  woman had to kill the only child she had, sometimes. And, yes, indeed, infanticide by the mother occurs in the wild as well, all the time:-
https://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2014/03/140328-sloth-bear-zoo-infanticide-chimps-bonobos-animals/

LOL let me know when you discuss something with a non-human.

Again, you miss the point. Hubris is a human characteristic where someone believes that a human or humans are basically all-powerful gods/masters  of a sort. We humans are subject to Nature's laws like any other species.

Of course they would die out, but not due to inbreeding, but due to the fact that we've bred them to be fit for OUR purposes, not to survive in the wild. The evolutionary advantage of such beings lies in the fact that via becoming symbiants with us, they became much more fit to their environment, and their environment is one where being useful to humans is the way to be fit. If that means they stand no chance against predators, so be it.

Well, here you admit I'm right. As regards adapting to environments, this is absurd:- most domesticated animals raised in intensive-farming areas tend to be in extreme ill-health, with chickens being forced, via inbreeding, to grow unnaturally large breasts etc.Sure, they may be adapted to ill-health, but they are not superior to their wild counterparts, just more numerous.

The human species has never been more outbred in all of its history. Nowadays people from one continent can and often do breed with people from other continents, and this trend is increasing, with many so-called "rebels" rejecting their own natural desire to breed with their own, and preferring instead to breed with people as different from them as they can find. And yet, as you pointed out, all of the signs of disease have skyrocketed. How you manage to blame this on inbreeding is not just beyond me, it's pure unadulterated nonsense, with a gigantic dose of BIAS that you refuse to even acknowledge. (the most dangerous type)

What you are referring to is "outbreeding depression" which also carries its own health-problems just like with inbreeding. Inbreeding is obviously not the only negative factor, therefore, but also ill-health influencing future generations via epigenetics, among other issues.

Hard to say how many healthy, cunning and strong paleo men it took to bring down a mammoth. It's possible they were simply made to run around until exhaustion. In any case, this was not the basis of the human diet. Deer, zebras, seals... Those were the main staple in most of the world. I suppose it also depends on how you define megafauna. Is a bison or a wildebeest, megafauna? Because clearly there's a huge difference between killing a bison and killing a bear or a rhinoceros, let alone a mammoth.

All meaningless as humans hunted plenty of megafauna in the palaeolithic era, killing cave-bears, mammoths and other giant mammals present in those times.It is ridiculous to assume that palaeo-era peoples could bring down a mammoth without a large number of hunters helping to corral them in etc.

[TylerDurden]

More evidence that debunks the likelihood of "accidental migration via the sea":-
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5751673/Aboriginal-settlement-revealed-MH370-search-technology-proves-migration-no-accident.html

[dariorpl]

And, yes, indeed, infanticide by the mother occurs in the wild as well, all the time:-
https://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2014/03/140328-sloth-bear-zoo-infanticide-chimps-bonobos-animals/

I didn't say it never happens. Now show me an example of this happening in the wild (not in a zoo), where the offspring is healthy, and when then mother has no other offspring to care for and isn't starving herself.

You continue to be blind to the simple biological fact that a mother who sacrifices her own offspring for the benefit of the tribe, unless the tribe as a whole encourages and values that activity, will soon be outcompeted genetically by a mother who does not, and who in fact does everything in her power to benefit her own offspring and not the whole tribe. And so over the generations, the men and women who survived and reproduced, were the children of the mothers who did not sacrifice their offspring to benefit others with nothing to gain for herself and any other offspring of hers.

Well, here you admit I'm right. As regards adapting to environments, this is absurd:- most domesticated animals raised in intensive-farming areas tend to be in extreme ill-health, with chickens being forced, via inbreeding, to grow unnaturally large breasts etc.Sure, they may be adapted to ill-health, but they are not superior to their wild counterparts, just more numerous.

From an evolutionary standpoint, more numerous means more successful, means more fit to their environment. And most of the health problems come from poor factory farm conditions.

A plant that cannot reproduce without the aid of bees to pollinate their flowers is not automatically "less healthy" than a plant that does its reproduction via wind, simply because the bees are a living organism and the wind is not. Just as there are times when there can be no bees around, there are times when there can be not enough wind around. And bees can carry the pollen further and wider than wind can.

Just as the bee pollinated plants outcompete others if and when there are bees around, domesticated animals and plants succeed and outcompete others when there are humans around. Your blind adherence to wild foods as superior continues to make it impossible for you to understand this simple biological fact.

What you are referring to is "outbreeding depression" which also carries its own health-problems just like with inbreeding. Inbreeding is obviously not the only negative factor, therefore, but also ill-health influencing future generations via epigenetics, among other issues.

No, I'm not referring to an outbreeding depression. I'm talking about the fact that humans are less inbred now than they have every been in all of human history, and the trend is towards less inbreeding at an ever scalating pace, with plenty of people now meeting partners during vacation trips or even online, who live great distances from each other and could never have come in contact with one another in paleo times; Yet you insist on blaming the ever increasing health problems on inbreeding. Again you show a complete lack of understanding of what you're even saying.

All meaningless as humans hunted plenty of megafauna in the palaeolithic era, killing cave-bears, mammoths and other giant mammals present in those times.It is ridiculous to assume that palaeo-era peoples could bring down a mammoth without a large number of hunters helping to corral them in etc.

None of us knows how they did it. It's possible they didn't even hunt mammoths, but rather simply waited for them to die of natural causes and then feasted on the carcasses.

[TylerDurden]

I didn't say it never happens. Now show me an example of this happening in the wild (not in a zoo), where the offspring is healthy, and when then mother has no other offspring to care for and isn't starving herself.

You continue to be blind to the simple biological fact that a mother who sacrifices her own offspring for the benefit of the tribe, unless the tribe as a whole encourages and values that activity, will soon be outcompeted genetically by a mother who does not, and who in fact does everything in her power to benefit her own offspring and not the whole tribe. And so over the generations, the men and women who survived and reproduced, were the children of the mothers who did not sacrifice their offspring to benefit others with nothing to gain for herself and any other offspring of hers.

A quite stupid remark, in view of the fact that a tribe of a 1,000 individuals are so related to each other, that the elimination  of a few offspring by 1 mother means absolutely nothing re removing that mother's dna. Absurd!


Here is more info on mothers eliminating their offspring in the wild:-
http://www.bbc.co.uk/nature/18035811

From an evolutionary standpoint, more numerous means more successful, means more fit to their environment. And most of the health problems come from poor factory farm conditions.

A plant that cannot reproduce without the aid of bees to pollinate their flowers is not automatically "less healthy" than a plant that does its reproduction via wind, simply because the bees are a living organism and the wind is not. Just as there are times when there can be no bees around, there are times when there can be not enough wind around. And bees can carry the pollen further and wider than wind can.

Just as the bee pollinated plants outcompete others if and when there are bees around, domesticated animals and plants succeed and outcompete others when there are humans around. Your blind adherence to wild foods as superior continues to make it impossible for you to understand this simple biological fact.

Quite remarkable ignorance! More numbers does NOT imply superiority. The fact that there are no genuine aliens, implies that Fermi's Paradox is correct, meaning that humans will eventually become extinct. Once that happens, as I have shown, all domesticated plants and animals will either become extinct, or , in a very few cases, evolve to become like their wild counterparts.

No, I'm not referring to an outbreeding depression. I'm talking about the fact that humans are less inbred now than they have every been in all of human history, and the trend is towards less inbreeding at an ever scalating pace, with plenty of people now meeting partners during vacation trips or even online, who live great distances from each other and could never have come in contact with one another in paleo times; Yet you insist on blaming the ever increasing health problems on inbreeding. Again you show a complete lack of understanding of what you're even saying.

No, YOU are showing a complete lack of understanding of what I am saying. My point was that there are a lot of severely inbred populations, which are NOT interbreeding with others in a big way, such as Fundamentalist Middle-Eastern Muslims, Hasidic/Orthodox Jews, the Amish, which are exploding in numbers. More to the point, outbreeding depression occurs when one has wildly different gene-populations interbreeding with each other, just as you are claiming, which causes other severe problems, in addition to those involved with inbreeding.Past posts have already mentions a myriad mental and physical problems involved with mixed-race offspring for example.

None of us knows how they did it. It's possible they didn't even hunt mammoths, but rather simply waited for them to die of natural causes and then feasted on the carcasses.

Err, dumbass, there are reports of damage to the bones via tools etc.:-

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/humans-were-arctic-10000-years-earlier-thought-180957819/

The problem with you is that your main, deluded, philosophy is that modern humans are superior, no matter what. The (raw) palaeolithic philosophy is that ancient humans were (mostly) superior, and modern science has shown this again and again.

[dariorpl]

A quite stupid remark, in view of the fact that a tribe of a 1,000 individuals are so related to each other, that the elimination  of a few offspring by 1 mother means absolutely nothing re removing that mother's dna. Absurd!

Not a stupid remark at all, if you understand that whosoever in the "tribe" (using your definition) manages to provide their offspring with the best conditions among all relevant members of the group, and if such knowledge and ability is passed on to their offspring, either through learning or through genetics, will have a genetic makeup that, over time, becomes more prevalent within the given relevant group. So even if everybody else shares most of your own genes they don't share all of your genes, nor have them in the same combinations you do, so you still have a biological incentive to be selfish. It's only via culture that you can pretend to go against this, and usually it's just for show, to gain benefits.

Here is more info on mothers eliminating their offspring in the wild:-
http://www.bbc.co.uk/nature/18035811

Do you even read something before you link to it? Horribly formatted site, super small font and long text saying nothing except everything I've already been saying - animals kill young of their own species for three reasons: 1) Because they're not THEIR offspring, but someone else's. 2) Because they are too ill and will soon die anyway, and to spend resources raising them instead of having more offspring who have a better chance of survival and reproduction would be a waste. 3) Because they already have other offspring to take care of, and can't manage to care for all of them, so they choose the least fit and eliminate them. Or if the mother is starving and calculates it's better to eliminate her offspring now, so that she can survive and have offspring in the future which have a better chance to survive and reproduce.

Quite remarkable ignorance! More numbers does NOT imply superiority. The fact that there are no genuine aliens, implies that Fermi's Paradox is correct, meaning that humans will eventually become extinct. Once that happens, as I have shown, all domesticated plants and animals will either become extinct, or , in a very few cases, evolve to become like their wild counterparts.

Nonsense based on a ton of assumptions with no evidence to back up any of them.

What if life as we know it is much more rare than we think? What if the development of high intelligence like that of humans is much more rare than we think even in planets where life exists? (it apparently took 3.5 billion years to develop on Earth even after life got started, which apparently took another billion years)

What if the Universe isn't as old as we think? What if interstellar travel at a near or faster than light speed is physically impossible?

What if the aliens have already been here but they don't necessarily want us to know about them? We could even be their ant farm for all we know (think: God)

No, YOU are showing a complete lack of understanding of what I am saying. My point was that there are a lot of severely inbred populations, which are NOT interbreeding with others in a big way, such as Fundamentalist Middle-Eastern Muslims, Hasidic/Orthodox Jews, the Amish, which are exploding in numbers.

Even these populations are much less inbred now than they were before. But your claims were that the general decrease in health in the human population was caused by this, not only in particular groups. (and by the way, most of those particular groups usually have way better health than the average for the human population)

Err, dumbass, there are reports of damage to the bones via tools etc.:-

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/humans-were-arctic-10000-years-earlier-thought-180957819/

Typical. You start to see your arguments fall down so you start calling names. You're making a good job at showing who, if any of us, is the dumb one.

I wasn't aware that in butchering and eating animals, you wouldn't damage their bones with tools! Especially to get to that tasty bone marrow inside. In fact when you are trying to kill an animal of a much larger size than you, attempting to break or damage its bones is a terrible idea. What you do is target their organs and vital areas, or to a lesser extent at least the soft muscle. Even after removing all of the skin and meat, breaking a mammoth's bones with stone age tools would be a challenge. Attempting to do so as a means of killing the animal would be idiotic, if not suicidal.

To be clear, I never said humans didn't hunt mammoths. Just like I never said Neanderthals didn't build ships.

The problem with you is that your main, deluded, philosophy is that modern humans are superior, no matter what. The (raw) palaeolithic philosophy is that ancient humans were (mostly) superior, and modern science has shown this again and again.

You don't even define a loaded word like "superior" and still use it to talk about what you think I think.

The raw paleo philosophy is that humans have evolved to thrive on a raw paleo diet, and so a raw paleo diet is our natural diet and the diet we do best on. If you will, it's the superior diet for us.

So if you're talking about health, then yes, obviously, paleo people were superior to us. If you're talking about power, achievements, intelligence or morality, then we are.

In any case, we are what they became by succeeding at what they did. Some of that is great. Some of that needs to be improved upon. some of that needs to be flipped around 180 degrees.

[TylerDurden]

Not a stupid remark at all, if you understand that whosoever in the "tribe" (using your definition) manages to provide their offspring with the best conditions among all relevant members of the group, and if such knowledge and ability is passed on to their offspring, either through learning or through genetics, will have a genetic makeup that, over time, becomes more prevalent within the given relevant group. So even if everybody else shares most of your own genes they don't share all of your genes, nor have them in the same combinations you do, so you still have a biological incentive to be selfish. It's only via culture that you can pretend to go against this, and usually it's just for show, to gain benefits.

Pure bullsh*t. As I pointed out, the genetic variation between 1,000 closely-related individuals is not extreme enough to mean that 1 mother's offspring's death will be a serious loss of genetic data.

Do you even read something before you link to it? Horribly formatted site, super small font and long text saying nothing except everything I've already been saying - animals kill young of their own species for three reasons: 1) Because they're not THEIR offspring, but someone else's. 2) Because they are too ill and will soon die anyway, and to spend resources raising them instead of having more offspring who have a better chance of survival and reproduction would be a waste. 3) Because they already have other offspring to take care of, and can't manage to care for all of them, so they choose the least fit and eliminate them. Or if the mother is starving and calculates it's better to eliminate her offspring now, so that she can survive and have offspring in the future which have a better chance to survive and reproduce.

All 3  perfectly good enough reasons for a mother to kill her own offspring. And, just a few of the possible other examples...

Nonsense based on a ton of assumptions with no evidence to back up any of them.

What if life as we know it is much more rare than we think? What if the development of high intelligence like that of humans is much more rare than we think even in planets where life exists? (it apparently took 3.5 billion years to develop on Earth even after life got started, which apparently took another billion years)

What if the Universe isn't as old as we think? What if interstellar travel at a near or faster than light speed is physically impossible?

What if the aliens have already been here but they don't necessarily want us to know about them? We could even be their ant farm for all we know (think: God)

Again, pure nonsense. If aliens were already here, we would be extinct. Likelihood is, that aliens would have had enough impact on the Earth's ecosystem to wipe out mankind  long ago. Besides, why oh why have we never found genuine evidence of aliens, unless they never came here?

Even these populations are much less inbred now than they were before. But your claims were that the general decrease in health in the human population was caused by this, not only in particular groups. (and by the way, most of those particular groups usually have way better health than the average for the human population)

Again, moronically wrong. Just look at this article for confirmation:-

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/health/children/11723308/First-cousin-marriages-in-Pakistani-communities-leading-to-appalling-disabilities-among-children.html

http://www.pennlive.com/news/2016/02/genetic_disease_is_ravaging_la.html

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medical_genetics_of_Jews#Ashkenazi_diseases

Wrong again, but , in this case, so wrong it is rather painful!

Typical. You start to see your arguments fall down so you start calling names. You're making a good job at showing who, if any of us, is the dumb one.

So, at least you admit you were wrong. You admit that ancinet hominids did indeed hunt mammoths etc. So your notions re neanderthals swimming without boats are also obviously deluded.

You don't even define a loaded word like "superior" and still use it to talk about what you think I think.

The raw paleo philosophy is that humans have evolved to thrive on a raw paleo diet, and so a raw paleo diet is our natural diet and the diet we do best on. If you will, it's the superior diet for us.

So if you're talking about health, then yes, obviously, paleo people were superior to us. If you're talking about power, achievements, intelligence or morality, then we are.

In any case, we are what they became by succeeding at what they did. Some of that is great. Some of that needs to be improved upon. some of that needs to be flipped around 180 degrees.

Wrong again, I have already shown that average human brain-szie/intelligence has decreased greatly since the Neolithic era, along with health/tribal-patterns/diet  etc,

[dariorpl]

Pure bullsh*t. As I pointed out, the genetic variation between 1,000 closely-related individuals is not extreme enough to mean that 1 mother's offspring's death will be a serious loss of genetic data.

Who's talking about a "loss in genetic data"? Unless you mean HER genetic data...

I don't know how to make this more simple so you can understand it. However small the differences from her genetic code to everybody else in the group, if she benefits her offspring more than the group, there will be a higher prevalence of her genetic makeup in the group. If she sacrifices her offspring to benefit the group, the opposite will happen.

Over many generations, those genes that survive and reproduce the most, and become the prevalent ones, are those that make mothers who don't mindlessly sacrifice their children to benefit other women's children; unless in doing so she gains favor with the group so that her future chilldren are allowed to live and/or are better cared for, or have a higher status which will enable them to mate if they're males, or to have their children stay alive and fed if they're female.

All 3  perfectly good enough reasons for a mother to kill her own offspring. And, just a few of the possible other examples...

But those are all the reasons I've always said exist in nature, whereas yours, which go against the genetic fitness of the entity by needlessly reducing their viable offspring to benefit others, don't.

Again, pure nonsense. If aliens were already here, we would be extinct. Likelihood is, that aliens would have had enough impact on the Earth's ecosystem to wipe out mankind  long ago.

Now who is the one with human hubris? Haha. You're making assumptions about the motives and behavior of a lifeform we've never encountered, and which would have to be so much beyond our capacities, that they would in effect be gods to us.

Besides, why oh why have we never found genuine evidence of aliens, unless they never came here? Again, moronically wrong. Just look at this article for confirmation:-

Again we have to repeat this... Just because you haven't found something, doesn't mean it's not there. And of course, there are many who claim that such evidence does in fact exist, but rather than having this evidence examined, what most researchers, scientists, and the media do, with few exceptions, is ridicule those who claim to have seen such evidence.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/health/children/11723308/First-cousin-marriages-in-Pakistani-communities-leading-to-appalling-disabilities-among-children.html

http://www.pennlive.com/news/2016/02/genetic_disease_is_ravaging_la.html

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medical_genetics_of_Jews#Ashkenazi_diseases

What, like the ashkenazis who have the highest average IQ of all races and one of the highest life expectancy? Like the amish who have some of the lowest incidences of most diseases? Not everything is black and white.

Wrong again, but , in this case, so wrong it is rather painful! So, at least you admit you were wrong. You admit that ancinet hominids did indeed hunt mammoths etc. So your notions re neanderthals swimming without boats are also obviously deluded.

Errr no. Again, I have to repeat myself. I didn't say Neanderthals didn't build boats, nor that humans didn't hunt Mammoths. I said it's hard to tell whether they did or did not.

Wrong again, I have already shown that average human brain-szie/intelligence has decreased greatly since the Neolithic era, along with health/tribal-patterns/diet  etc,

Even if "raw" intelligence has decreased, abstract concepts intelligence has skyrocketed.

[TylerDurden]

Who's talking about a "loss in genetic data"? Unless you mean HER genetic data...

I don't know how to make this more simple so you can understand it. However small the differences from her genetic code to everybody else in the group, if she benefits her offspring more than the group, there will be a higher prevalence of her genetic makeup in the group. If she sacrifices her offspring to benefit the group, the opposite will happen.

Over many generations, those genes that survive and reproduce the most, and become the prevalent ones, are those that make mothers who don't mindlessly sacrifice their children to benefit other women's children; unless in doing so she gains favor with the group so that her future chilldren are allowed to live and/or are better cared for, or have a higher status which will enable them to mate if they're males, or to have their children stay alive and fed if they're female.

You are missing the point. The point being that the mother in a tribal community of c.1,000 shares so many genes with others in the tribe that killing her own child is no big deal, no real loss.More importantly, these women HAD to kill their children or face starvation and eventual death if they kept on sparing them. They did not have contraception in those days. Strange though it might seem, people, in desperate circumstances, or even wild animals, will inevitably kill their own baby if that means they survive and are thus able to have children in the future.

But those are all the reasons I've always said exist in nature, whereas yours, which go against the genetic fitness of the entity by needlessly reducing their viable offspring to benefit others, don't.

Wild animals also sometimes  kill their children even if they are healthy. so, meaningless...A case in point are some birds which deliberately feed the older chick(the  first one out of the shell), so that, if they have more chicks than just one, the others die even if they are ultra-healthy.

Now who is the one with human hubris? Haha. You're making assumptions about the motives and behavior of a lifeform we've never encountered, and which would have to be so much beyond our capacities, that they would in effect be gods to us.

If they are gods to us, then their impact on Earth would be devastating. The evidence of UFOs is anyway bogus, and a lot of people who report UFOs have a hidden agenda to report such fakes.

What, like the ashkenazis who have the highest average IQ of all races and one of the highest life expectancy? Like the amish who have some of the lowest incidences of most diseases? Not everything is black and white.

  The ashkenazi jews iq studies were highly flawed. They were too small and were hopelessly biased, being accused of not being truly representative of that population, and called "bad science". Indeed, I read once that the  average IQ of  Israelis is a mere 94 IQ, which makes more sense in the light of inbreeding.As regards the Amish, they have numerous genetic diseases as well, but, perhaps because of their healthier, ancestral diet(raw milk etc.) are less inclined to have the more modern diseases.
https://newrepublic.com/article/77727/groups-and-genes

Errr no. Again, I have to repeat myself. I didn't say Neanderthals didn't build boats, nor that humans didn't hunt Mammoths. I said it's hard to tell whether they did or did not.

Iit is, however, reasonable to assume in light of Occam's Razor, and the fact that it has been shown that the Aborigines crossed the Ocean in the Palaeolithic with boats.

Even if "raw" intelligence has decreased, abstract concepts intelligence has skyrocketed.

Culture/technology etc.  are separate from intelligence.

Anyway, this is all aside the point. The study I mentioned before indirectly supports the notion that Neanderthals built boats and went thereby to Crete.

[dariorpl]

You are missing the point. The point being that the mother in a tribal community of c.1,000 shares so many genes with others in the tribe that killing her own child is no big deal, no real loss.More importantly, these women HAD to kill their children or face starvation and eventual death if they kept on sparing them. They did not have contraception in those days. Strange though it might seem, people, in desperate circumstances, or even wild animals, will inevitably kill their own baby if that means they survive and are thus able to have children in the future. Wild animals also sometimes  kill their children even if they are healthy. so, meaningless...A case in point are some birds which deliberately feed the older chick(the  first one out of the shell), so that, if they have more chicks than just one, the others die even if they are ultra-healthy.

Again, they would not willingly and happily kill their own children to benefit other children in the tribe/band/group/whatever, it doesn't matter how small the difference in genetics is, there's a difference.

And you keep failing to recognize that a mother in paleo times did not provide herself with all of the resources required for survival, she's not a bear. H-G humans lived in groups and shared resources in a communistic style. Which is why communism is so attractive for people who don't understand economics and don't understand that the paradigm shifted 180 degrees with the development of agriculture and civilization.

If they are gods to us, then their impact on Earth would be devastating. The evidence of UFOs is anyway bogus, and a lot of people who report UFOs have a hidden agenda to report such fakes.

More anthropomorphism... Or worse, you only grant them the worse human qualities in these terms. You often argue against destroying the Earth,  that means you must believe humans have the capacity to not destroy the Earth. Then an infinitely powerful and infinitely wise being would be infinitely able to do this as well (infinite in relative terms to our power and wisdom)

The evidence of UFOs is anyway bogus, and a lot of people who report UFOs have a hidden agenda to report such fakes.

Most people have seen UFOs. By definition, anytime you've seen something moving across the sky and you don't know what it is, you've seen a UFO. Personally I've seen many, and 2 in particular I can't explain in any other way than a superior intelligence, or a hidden technology so far beyond my understanding that it seems like a superior intelligence. Either that, or they might have been hallucinations. I obviously can't tell.

The ashkenazi jews iq studies were highly flawed. They were too small and were hopelessly biased, being accused of not being truly representative of that population, and called "bad science".

Haha, you obviously haven't encountered many. The difference is so big that once you've met a few dozen of them at random, you immediately realize it's true.

Indeed, I read once that the  average IQ of  Israelis is a mere 94 IQ, which makes more sense in the light of inbreeding.

Askenazis only make up 30% of Israel's population, and in fact they are much less inbred in Israel than they are anywhere else in the world, since in Israel they frequently mix with non ashkenazi jews, whereas in other parts of the world, they don't do it as much (at least the religious ones), simply because they don't live in close proximity to other jewish groups in large numbers. Other jewish populations have roughly the same IQ as the broader race they belong to, it's only ashkenazis that have much higher IQ.

So yes, an average IQ of all Israeli people is irrelevant when calculating the ashkenazi IQ, and even a study of ashkenazi IQ in Israel should be taken with a grain of salt.

And of course, your claim that inbreeding to a mild extent like that seen by these groups decreases IQ and longevity is again disproven.

As regards the Amish, they have numerous genetic diseases as well, but, perhaps because of their healthier, ancestral diet(raw milk etc.) are less inclined to have the more modern diseases.

So even though they're genetically much worse off, they're much healthier. Then your claim that most of human ill health is caused by inbreeding is again proved to be nonsense.

[TylerDurden]

Again, they would not willingly and happily kill their own children to benefit other children in the tribe/band/group/whatever, it doesn't matter how small the difference in genetics is, there's a difference.

And you keep failing to recognize that a mother in paleo times did not provide herself with all of the resources required for survival, she's not a bear. H-G humans lived in groups and shared resources in a communistic style. Which is why communism is so attractive for people who don't understand economics and don't understand that the paradigm shifted 180 degrees with the development of agriculture and civilization.

More nonsense. I had pointed out that a mother would indeed be willing to sacrifice perfectly healthy children in order to save her own life, so that she could bear healthy children in subsequent years. Just a matter of self-interest.

More anthropomorphism... Or worse, you only grant them the worse human qualities in these terms. You often argue against destroying the Earth,  that means you must believe humans have the capacity to not destroy the Earth. Then an infinitely powerful and infinitely wise being would be infinitely able to do this as well (infinite in relative terms to our power and wisdom)

Wrong again. I DO believe that humans will destroy the Earth and themselves.I just think it is worth trying to fight against the inevitability, that's all.As regards aliens, the Fermi Paradox proves the lack of starfaring aliens. It is absurd to assume that an alien species would be 100% benevolent. Being alien, they would not even behave in human terms. Plus, belonging to a civilisation possessing superior technology, they are highly likely to wipe out others by mistake. After all, the definition of technology is the increasing ability to manipulate one's environment.....

Most people have seen UFOs. By definition, anytime you've seen something moving across the sky and you don't know what it is, you've seen a UFO. Personally I've seen many, and 2 in particular I can't explain in any other way than a superior intelligence, or a hidden technology so far beyond my understanding that it seems like a superior intelligence. Either that, or they might have been hallucinations. I obviously can't tell.

https://www.nytimes.com/1999/07/06/science/alien-abduction-science-calls-it-sleep-paralysis.html

Haha, you obviously haven't encountered many. The difference is so big that once you've met a few dozen of them at random, you immediately realize it's true.

I have met quite a number, living in Europe as I do, and being next to areas where they live(Hampstead Heath etc.). None of them portrayed any sign of higher intelligence.Quite the reverse.Which makes sense since inbreeding causes lower intelligence and lower fertility etc.

Askenazis only make up 30% of Israel's population, and in fact they are much less inbred in Israel than they are anywhere else in the world, since in Israel they frequently mix with non ashkenazi jews, whereas in other parts of the world, they don't do it as much (at least the religious ones), simply because they don't live in close proximity to other jewish groups in large numbers. Other jewish populations have roughly the same IQ as the broader race they belong to, it's only ashkenazis that have much higher IQ.

Having read Haaretz in recent times, I have noted that, in Israel/the US, those Jews with the highest birth-rates are Ashkenazi Jews, so much so that in 1 generation it has been estimated by secular Israelis that Israeli citizens will be 40% Ashkenazi Orthodox Jewish and 40% Arab-Israeli. Also, Ashkenazi Jews form  47.5% of the Israeli Jewish population. The fact that overall average intelligence is so low in Israel, despite such a high percentage of Ashkenazi Jews proves my point. Also, Ashkenazis do not necessarily mix with other types of Jews, indeed there is a lot of racism towards other types in Israel:-
https://972mag.com/the-roots-of-anti-mizrahi-racism-in-israel/114424/

So yes, an average IQ of all Israeli people is irrelevant when calculating the ashkenazi IQ, and even a study of ashkenazi IQ in Israel should be taken with a grain of salt.

According to scientists studying this topic, they point out that the many genetic diseases that Ashkenazi Jews(and other Jews) have actually led to reduced intelligence, not greater intelligence:-

https://newrepublic.com/article/77727/groups-and-genes

And of course, your claim that inbreeding to a mild extent like that seen by these groups decreases IQ and longevity is again disproven.

I happen to have read on the subject of inbreeding, and know the facts, unlike you. For example, one of the key characteristics of Jewish law is that an uncle is allowed to marry his niece.:-

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_views_on_incest

The point being that, unlike with Islam which only allows 1st-cousin-marriages, Jewish law allows, er "much further flexibility" as regards incest.So my point that Ashkenazi Jews are severely inbred has been proven beyond doubt:-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medical_genetics_of_Jews#Ashkenazi_diseases

Oh,and Jews do indeed have higher rates of infertility, in line with what we know about the effects of inbreeding:-
http://jewishweek.timesofisrael.com/the-silent-struggle-of-infertility/

So even though they're genetically much worse off, they're much healthier. Then your claim that most of human ill health is caused by inbreeding is again proved to be nonsense.

Meaningless as longevity is not linked to level of inbreeding. Churchill lived till 90 despite being an alcoholic drunkard, incompetent, and a severe cigar-smoker.I did NOT claim that most human ill-health was caused by inbreeding, I merely stated the obvious that inbreeding caused many genetic diseases , especially if the genetically-defective were not weeded out(eg:-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_among_the_Amish

)