Re: Out of Africa, Not Once But Twice

On Mar 19, 5:51 pm, "benli...@xxxxxxxxxx" <benli...@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Mar 20, 10:19 am, Jack Linthicum <jacklinthi...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

On Mar 19, 5:02 pm, "benli...@xxxxxxxxxx" <benli...@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

I posted the articles because you act as if the simplest possible
description is beyond you. Go collect the skulls from everywhere in
the entire Continent of Asia, New Guinea, Australia, and anywhere else
you demand to have a source. I think the idea of gaps in knowledge has
found a poster child in you.

***, I even answered the question myself, and you still don't get it.

Ross Clark

From a
purely parochial point of view, of course, I would want to know what
New Zealand skull(s) he has in his comparison, since the oldest would
be 1,000 years old, if that. "Huge time gap", indeed!

More likely than what? That's what I thought he was talking about. But
what sort of historical scenario would account for these
characteristics turning up again in NZ 49,000 years later?

And "heredity" is not a historical scenario.
If some genetic connection is being suggested between people living
ca.
50 kya in Israel, Indonesia, Australia, and people living ca.1 kya in
NZ, I would like to know where the intervening hundreds of generations
lived? Should we expect to find the same features in Polynesian and
Melanesian skulls? I guess we have to wait for the published version
to see just what he is comparing.

Quite. And that is not a historical scenario, any more than
"Dialogue" is a theatrical scenario.
A scenario would include at least something about "who", "where" and
"when".
He seems to be sketching something when he refers to "early
Australasians". But if by that he means the people who reached
Australia/New Guinea ca.50 kya, those people did not reach New
Zealand. There is absolutely no trace of human beings in NZ anywhere
near that date. So my question, again, is: where was all this
"heredity" going on for 49.000 years?

My question was about some skulls from 50 kya in Australia, and some
skulls (we don't know how many or how selected) from 1 kya (at most)
from New Zealand. If you'll check your world map you'll see that these
are two different places, separated by quite a bit of water. I also
pointed out that NZ had no human population until about 1 kya, which
is not much different from modern on the scale we're talking about.


So...do the old Aus skull features descend by direct "heredity" to the
present (Aboriginal) population of Australia? If so, is Schillaci
suggesting a late direct migration from Aus to NZ? Or would he be
going with the standard view, which is that the Maori population of
New Zealand are descendants of people who came via the Pacific
islands from Southeast Asia?

(In the latter case we might expect to
find these skull features also in Polynesia or Melanesia.)

I seem to remember that there is usually more than one line in
heredity, that's how we get larger populations. You really work hard
on not understanding or drawing inferences where there are no
suggestions of such. Do you really think that this skull feature has
appeared in every descendant of the original African population?
.

Loading