Post reply

Reply to the message by David Turell

Name:

E-mail: (optional, won't be displayed directly)

Leave this field empty:

Homepage: (optional)

Leave this field empty:

Location: (optional)

Remember me (cookie)

Category:

Subject:

Formatting help

skip to input

format text bold: [b]bold text[/b]
format text italic: [i]italic text[/i]
insert hyperlink: [link=http://example.com/]link text[/link] / [link]http://example.com/[/link]
set text color: [color=#rgb]colored text[/color]
font size: [size=small]small text[/size]; [size=large]large text[/size]
insert list: [list][*]list item[/list]
insert image: [img]http://example.com/image.jpg[/img]; left: [img=left]http://example.com/image.jpg[/img]; right: [img=right]http://example.com/image.jpg[/img]; thumbnail: [img=thumbnail]http://example.com/image.jpg[/img]; thumbnail left: [img=thumbnail-left]http://example.com/image.jpg[/img]; thumbnail right: [img=thumbnail-right]http://example.com/image.jpg[/img]

:-)
;-)
:-P
:-D
:-|
:-(

Message:

> > QUOTE: [b][i]Neanderthals had smaller populations than moderns, and small populations tend to accumulate deleterious mutations, especially on the X and Y sex chromosomes.[/i][/b] (David’s bold)
> >  
> > DAVID: [i]Still sorting out our evolution. Note the bold about deleterious mutations in small populations an opposite point to small populations creating punctuated equilibrium. Lots of Darwin theory is just supposition.[/i]
> > 
> > dhw: Sorry, but I think you’re getting confused. Punctuated equilibrium is Gould’s theory (not Darwin’s) that speciation occurs in bursts between long periods of stasis. The opposite of Darwin’s gradualism. I thought it was already a known fact that interbreeding within small numbers is liable to produce deleterious mutations. 
> 
> You are correct. My problem is with the distortions of the  purveyors of his theory. 
> 
> >dhw: But as you rightly pointed out on the corvid thread:
> >  
> > DAVID: [i]Hominins and homos were in small population numbers before we advanced 50,000 years ago and began to build a large population. [b]This fits Gould's concept of small isolated populations causing rapid or large evolutionary advances[/b]. [/i]
> > 
> > dhw: Hence my proposal that sapiens may have branched off from the apes because local conditions may have forced particular groups to descend from the trees, whereas elsewhere the apes were able to carry on as before.
> 
> Well, what does fit is that the early forms walked upright while still having heavy tree climbing upper body and small brains. You appeal to a natural cause while I favor God. But first all were groups of apes using trees. Do trees suddenly disappear over night? No, it was gradual, which means the ape groups could easily followed the retreat of the trees. Your natural theory, as usual, has huge holes.