Re: Out of Africa, Not Once But Twice

On Mar 21, 12:33 pm, Jack Linthicum <jacklinthi...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
On Mar 20, 6:06 pm, "benli...@xxxxxxxxxx" <benli...@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:



On Mar 21, 1:04 am, Jack Linthicum <jacklinthi...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

On Mar 20, 7:37 am, "benli...@xxxxxxxxxx" <benli...@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Mar 20, 11:30 pm, Jack Linthicum <jacklinthi...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

On Mar 19, 9:17 pm, "benli...@xxxxxxxxxx" <benli...@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Mar 20, 11:28 am, Jack Linthicum <jacklinthi...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

On Mar 19, 6:04 pm, Jack Linthicum <jacklinthi...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

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?

May I suggest that if you have questions you contact Dr. Schillaci?

schill...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Hey, I'm not _that_ concerned. I'll wait until the paper is actually
published. But in the meantime there's no reason why we can't discuss,
question and speculate. Happens all the time on sci.arch. What puzzles
me is why you're suddenly so touchy about this particular paper?

Ross Clark

When my daughter was 4 or so her favorite word was "why?" No follow-up
just "why". You say that

No I don't. What the hell is wrong with you?
The ratio of boneheaded insult to serious discussion in your posts is
alarmingly high.

"If these skull traits arrived in Australia with the earliest humans,
we ought to find them in New Guinea too (if we have any skulls that
early). They could thus also have been part of the genetic package
that the earliest colonists of Remote Oceania took with them,es and,
ultimately, found their way to New Zealand. If this is what happened,
we could expect to find these traits in some skulls from Polynesia and
Melanesia. OK?"

It's really good of you to give all my comments a second run around,
but what's the point? Why not just answer them the first time?

which raises the question as to why you seemed to think all of the
other things you brought up were necessary for proof of Dr.
Schillaci's thesis?

We are not talking about "proof", and the various things I brought up
were not meant to be "necessary for proof". Perhaps this fundamental
misconception is at the root of your otherwise mysterious hostility.

Or do you just like to pose situations that are

obviously not cogent, such as needing Australian immigration to New
Zealand to account for traits in a New Zealand skull?

I mentioned that only as a conceivable _alternative_ to the standard
route.

If, as you say,

you knew the answer to your own question, why raise so many false
trails?

But I did not say I knew the answer. I proposed an answer, followed by
"OK?". Instead of responding to that, you decided you'd enjoy another
round of sneering.

Let me try one last time to make you understand what I was getting at.
If Schillaci's skull traits in all these places are in fact a common
inheritance, we need a human path to get them to NZ. If that path is
the generally accepted one from SE Asia via New Guinea and the
islands, the traits must have been present in Polynesia and Melanesia.
But Schillaci doesn't mention finding them there. This could be
because he didn't look. (We still have no idea how he decided which
skulls to measure.) Or it could be because there aren't many skulls
from there and/or the traits are at such low frequency that they don't
happen to show up. If, however, none of these applies, then it seems
to me we would have to consider either some alternative migration path
(the most obvious of which I mentioned) or the possibility that the
skull features are local developments.

I was hoping to work through some of this in discussion with others
who might know more about the subject. But it didn't happen.

The quotes of your posts were intended to offer you a look at your own
thinking or lack of it.

A little bit more condescending *** to finish off the day, huh?

Ross Clark

Which is why, of course, the characteristics recently outlined for the
people who populated the Americas no longer exist in Siberia, a place
they are considered to have come from. The explanation was the long
time period of 6,000 years. I wonder what an extra 33,000 does to that
theory? It is quite possible for a population to carry certain
characteristics which are not retained in all or even part of the
population they leave.

The Chinese theory is that the skull they recently found represents a
population that never left China.

I was not referring to the modern populations of Polynesia/Melanesia,
but to skulls of comparable antiquity to the ones mentioned in
Australia. The material we have mentions "ancient and modern" skulls
studied by Schallici, but does not make it clear which modern
populations, if any, are supposed to preserve these traits. (Of
course, as I pointed out, on the time scale in question, any NZ skulls
are effectively modern.)

Ross Clark

Guess, you don't seem to be able to reason. Why not wait for some
input from Schallici, or do you have some incurable disease and two
days to live?

Well, I explained a few hours ago that I was quite happy to wait for
the publication of Schallici's paper, but you don't seem to pay much
attention to what I write. Whatever it is that's wrong with you, I
hope it's curable.

Ross Clark
.