NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.cnn.com/2008/TECH/04/24/close.call.ap/index.html

A very interesting article I must say and something that I would love to study more to learn more about the history of this great planet of ours.

What are your thoughts?

http://www.cnn.com/2008/TECH/04/24/close.call.ap/index.html

A very interesting article I must say and something that I would love to study more to learn more about the history of this great planet of ours.

What are your thoughts?

Old news to me, but its good its getting out there!

It shows just how versatile we humans are!

I blame the Jews.

apparently because of drought

OMG. Global Warming. OMG.

I blame the Jews.

They were around but they too were affected by drought. I could go into something biblical about part of this but that's a whole different discussion.

We're not now though!! :D

http://www.cnn.com/2008/TECH/04/24/close.call.ap/index.html

A very interesting article I must say and something that I would love to study more to learn more about the history of this great planet of ours.

What are your thoughts?

Well, my computer wouldn't allow me to follow the link, but apparently at one point archaeologists suggest that at some point in the far past a catastrophe happened and the human race was reduced to 100 individuals or so. Can't remember for the life of me what the catastrophe was though....

They were around but they too were affected by drought. I could go into something biblical about part of this but that's a whole different discussion.

It's still their fault! :mad:

Back when we were apes, we didn't have these silly problems.

Back when we were apes, we didn't have these silly problems.

Back in Eden we didn't have these issues and neither did the apes.

Well, my computer wouldn't allow me to follow the link, but apparently at one point archaeologists suggest that at some point in the far past a catastrophe happened and the human race was reduced to 100 individuals or so. Can't remember for the life of me what the catastrophe was though....

I believe it was Krakatoa going off.

a catastrophe happened and the human race was reduced to 100 individuals or so
Three words....Chuck-Freaking-Norris

Three words....Chuck-Freaking-Norris

2003 wants their lame-ass jokes back.

Back when we were apes, we didn't have these silly problems.

On the contrary, many ape species have disappeared within the last 2 million years or so.

ok...lemme revise

Bear-Freaking-Grylls

It doesn't surprise me, given the number of species that have become extinct over the years. Our greatest advantage seems to be our intelligence & our ability to adapt.

ok...lemme revise

Bear-Freaking-Grylls

Yeah, maybe his camera crew will do it all for him then film him "doing" it so he looks badass.

I believe it was Krakatoa going off.

If you're talking about its recent explosion, it didn't reduce us to 100 people.

Maybe he's talking about a great flood. No wait. Only 8 people survived that :D

Yeah, maybe his camera crew will do it all for him then film him "doing" it so he looks badass.

Les-Freaking-Stroud!

There, problem solved(in 7 days or less).

On the contrary, many ape species have disappeared within the last 2 million years or so.

Because they turned into humans.

Back in Eden we didn't have these issues and neither did the apes.

Eden is a myth.

Eden is a myth.

*must resist stating the p word*

*must resist stating the p word*

Parrot?

Because they turned into humans.

Beside those apes and hominids.

The early...fuck...miocene? Saw an explosion of ape species, but the diversity in ape species greatly dwindled by the end of the miocene (i'm pretty sure it was miocene...)

Beside those apes and hominids.

The early...fuck...miocene? Saw an explosion of ape species, but the diversity in ape species greatly dwindled by the end of the miocene (i'm pretty sure it was miocene...)

As apes evolved, of course the population would dwindle. The human population, on the other hand..

Eden is a myth.
Tell that to God.
*must resist stating the p word*

Poop.

As apes evolved, of course the population would dwindle. The human population, on the other hand..

...

?

Are you being serious here?

There used to be more species of apes than there are now.

Not all of them evolved into a new species. Some just went extinct.

Tell that to God.
If he existed..
There used to be more species of apes than there are now.

Not all of them evolved into a new species. Some just went extinct.

As they evolved and mated wit each other, they created us and not their species.

As they evolved and mated wit each other, they created us and not their species.

What the heck are you arguing?

If he existed..


As they evolved and mated wit each other, they created us and not their species.

and thus someone really needs to brush up on history just a bit. Not every species of apes transformed in to Humans.

What the heck are you arguing?

He's not arguing anything but spoutin off stuff that he's heard in subpar science classes.

What the heck are you arguing?
You're the one saying apes died off. I'm proving you wrong.
and thus someone really needs to brush up on history just a bit. Not every species of apes transformed in to Humans.

It's not history, it's science.

If he existed..

I see what you did there. Heathen.
What the heck are you arguing?

My interpretation is that IL Ruffino is arguing that by mating with and producing humans instead of their own kind, their numbers decreased while ours increased.

evolution is crap.

evolution is crap.

Sunshine is daisies.

You're the one saying apes died off. I'm proving you wrong.


The number of ape species now is less than before.

There may be more apes now, as there are a shit ton of people on the planet, but diversity of apes has dwindled.

He's not arguing anything but spoutin off stuff that he's heard in subpar science classes.

Thanks for answering questions that were directed at me.

Why, if I thought like you (Thank Ape I don't.), I would always let you talk for me.

Sorry, but that's not the case.

You're the one saying apes died off. I'm proving you wrong.

Badly and without proof.

It's not history, it's science.

And this is not part of History? WOW!! Go back to school son. Maybe you missed something that everything is interconnected to one another.

evolution is crap.

lulz, why?

Sunshine is daisies.

And I have a daisy cutter laying around here somewhere....

*goes off to look for it and a C-130 to deliver it*

I see what you did there. Heathen.

Source?
My interpretation is that IL Ruffino is arguing that by mating with and producing humans instead of their own kind, their numbers decreased while ours increased.
This.^
evolution is crap.
Source?
Sunshine is daisies.
Sunshine is a beauty pageant.
The number of ape species now is less than before.

There may be more apes now, as there are a shit ton of people on the planet, but diversity of apes has dwindled.

Because of bispecies mating.

And I have a daisy cutter laying around here somewhere....

*goes off to look for it and a C-130 to deliver it*

Congratulations on the no-longer-bachelor thing.

This either means you are dying or getting married.

One of which is merely the figurative version of the other without the literal side effects. (usually)

Badly and without proof.



And this is not part of History? WOW!! Go back to school son. Maybe you missed something that everything is interconnected to one another.

What is it with you? Why do you always attack people?

Wait, no, don't reply. I'm not going to take your bait.

Source?

Because of bispecies mating.

:headbang:

I hope you are joking...

Source?

Uhm.. the Bibble.. lollol.
This.^
Thanks. Glad my common sense and reading comprehension widgets still work.

What is it with you? Why do you always attack people?

Wait, no, don't reply. I'm not going to take your bait.

excuse me but you have yet to supply proof to your assertions that apes have 1)mated outside of their species thus the dwindlement and 2) that by mating outside their species, created humans and thus dwindled their population.

Until you supply this proof, your arguments mean nothing. I'm not attacking you, just attacking the substance of your post.

:headbang:

I hope you are joking...

IL Ruffino for the Award for Outstanding Sarcasm.
This is Ruffy's nth nomination and first win.

^

If he existed..


As they evolved and mated wit each other, they created us and not their species.

whut?
so... you.... WERE joking? :S

It doesn't surprise me, given the number of species that have become extinct over the years. Our greatest advantage seems to be our intelligence & our ability to adapt.

erm.... I would just like to point out at this.... erm... point, that human's actually havn't proven themselves to have any 'evolutionary advantage'. We tend to think of ourselves as the pinnacle of evolution, or at least as, evolutionary wise, highly succesful creature. However, evolutionary success is measured ONLY by how long you survive. And, compared to many other species, humans have achieved really very little.

You're gonna need to wait a few million years before talking about what our evoluionary advantages are ;p
(if, that is, we're alive... because, you could possibly talk about us as evolutionary success' if it seemed likely that we had conquored the planest and were gonna be around for a long, long time.... but that doesn't seem to be the case. there are many differant ways we could meet our demise, some of them quite likely to occur......)

erm.... I would just like to point out at this.... erm... point, that human's actually havn't proven themselves to have any 'evolutionary advantage'. We tend to think of ourselves as the pinnacle of evolution, or at least as, evolutionary wise, highly succesful creature. However, evolutionary success is measured ONLY by how long you survive. And, compared to many other species, humans have achieved really very little.

You're gonna need to wait a few million years before talking about what our evoluionary advantages are ;p
(if, that is, we're alive... because, you could possibly talk about us as evolutionary success' if it seemed likely that we had conquored the planest and were gonna be around for a long, long time.... but that doesn't seem to be the case. there are many differant ways we could meet our demise, some of them quite likely to occur......)

Very good point.

There are species that have remained basically unchanged for millions of years.

Neanderthals, our last living relative, survived for 200,000 or so years. Modern homo sapiens sapiens have only been around for about 50-60,000 years. (though homo sapiens have been around for about 100,000 [i think])

Very good point.

There are species that have remained basically unchanged for millions of years.

Neanderthals, are last living relative, survived for 200,000 or so years. Modern homo sapiens sapiens have only been around for about 50-60,000 years. (though homo sapiens have been around for about 100,000 [i think])


The mother of all of us was 200k years ago aka "Eve". At least that is what the scientist say.

The mother of all of us was 200k years ago aka "Eve". At least that is what the scientist say.

I find it very hard to believe that we could all come from one female. A small group yes. I've heard the number that we need at least 500 females to repopulate the planet.

I don't think genetically the species would continue from a single female.

But the point I was trying to make is that we still have a few hundred thousand years to go before we are successful in an evolutionary sense or not.

I find it very hard to believe that we could all come from one female. A small group yes. I've heard the number that we need at least 500 females to repopulate the planet.

I don't think genetically the species would continue from a single female.

But the point I was trying to make is that we still have a few hundred thousand years to go before we are successful in an evolutionary sense or not.


Logic would have it we wouldn't come from a single mother. However scientist think otherwise.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/neanderthals/mtdna.html

I don't make this stuff up.

Logic would have it we wouldn't come from a single mother. However scientist think otherwise.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/neanderthals/mtdna.html

I don't make this stuff up.

Oh no, I've heard this before. I wasn't trying to say you were making it up at all! Soz if I sounded like I was accusing you!

It is an interesting notion, and I'll be interested to out more about it.

I blame the Jews.

Well I blame the Jew blamers.

Logic would have it we wouldn't come from a single mother. However scientist think otherwise.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/neanderthals/mtdna.html

I don't make this stuff up.

The thing about mitochondrial DNA is that it can be the same for a fairly large population of humans, I believe. So not just one Eve, but a whole bunch of them.

Well, my computer wouldn't allow me to follow the link, but apparently at one point archaeologists suggest that at some point in the far past a catastrophe happened and the human race was reduced to 100 individuals or so. Can't remember for the life of me what the catastrophe was though....

That catastrophe was me. Damn those 100 who got away! One day I'll get you, too! MWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!

I don't think genetically the species would continue from a single female.

Then what the hell was Charles Heston thinking in Planet of the Apes?

The thing about mitochondrial DNA is that it can be the same for a fairly large population of humans, I believe. So not just one Eve, but a whole bunch of them.

It's just a common ancestor, not the "mother" of everyone. Meaning, eventually all picked up her DNA, through mating etc., not necessarily that some woman a few tens of thousands of years ago had every man on the planet's baby. I'm sure someone with actual training and such in such things could explain it much better than myself. There's an "Adam", as well.

The thing about mitochondrial DNA is that it can be the same for a fairly large population of humans, I believe. So not just one Eve, but a whole bunch of them.

I may be mistaken but the article suggested "one" mother and they didn't suggest it how you say it. Not saying you are wrong because I never studied the subject of DNA. However it seems they are suggesting one and not a set of similar females.

I don't think genetically the species would continue from a single female.



Wouldn't think so without direct influence from a outside source.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/TECH/04/24/close.call.ap/index.html

A very interesting article I must say and something that I would love to study more to learn more about the history of this great planet of ours.

What are your thoughts?

We're all cousins! We're inbreeding! This could explain a lot about human stupidity.

Wouldn't think so without direct influence from a outside source.

well that's ok, coz it wasn't just one ;p
read the article peeps
'the most recent 'common ancestor'- there were other women, but their lines had, at some point, only sons and the passnig on of mitochondrial dna stopped. this woman is teh ultimate mother. but there were other mothers before here, and at the same time as her. she was not the only one.

This is old news.

Because they turned into humans.Ya thinkin of G W Bush?

ok...lemme revise

Bear-Freaking-Grylls

bears have grylls? i thought only humans had those in their back yards.

but we ARE all going to be starving again from the way we've been screwing up our environment very soon if we don't get our heads out of you know where and stop using combustion to generate energy and propel transportation.

half the world is now, from the way trying to make everything have to begin and end with little green pieces of paper has screwed things up.

mostly because of userious loan aggreements imposed on small nations that many people live in that have made local agriculture impractical. that and local wars where one or both sides are backed by international economic intrests.

the assumption that these troubles and conditions will always spare more powerful and fortunate nations is unfounded.

we need to wake up and realize we don't own the money, the money owns us, and don't give a dam about us either. and by that i don't mean the calusness of people who THINK they control it, but rather that no one does, it controls them, and what they thing their getting out of it, isn't just at the expense of others, but of their own real gratification as well. of what they could have too, in the kind of world, blinded by the myth of finding gratification in accumulation, they are destroying for themselves as much and as well as for everyone else.

little green pieces of paper have no mind, yet they coerce those who do. having no mind, they do not realise that it takes living people to move them arround to be worth anything, not realise that by prioritising only their own increase and concentration they are jepordising the existense of humans which their own existence depends upon, just as humans depend upon their natural environment which the will of little green pieces of paper is motivating them to in callus ignorance destroy.

sure they seem friendly enough when the snuggle down in some unsuspecting pocket, but these are the real alien invaders of planet earth, that have come to destroy it and all life here entirely.

yes i'm streatching a metaphore to make a point. (in this last paragraph or two) but think about it. is it really that much of a stretch from emparical observation?

=^^=
.../\...

http://www.cnn.com/2008/TECH/04/24/close.call.ap/index.html

A very interesting article I must say and something that I would love to study more to learn more about the history of this great planet of ours.

What are your thoughts?
Wow, it truly puts humankind in context seeing this, we could have like so many thousands of other species simply become a part of the dustbin of history, and indeed came within an inch of doing so.

Wow, it truly puts humankind in context seeing this, we could have like so many thousands of other species simply become a part of the dustbin of history, and indeed came within an inch of doing so.

Yes indeedy

http://i235.photobucket.com/albums/ee218/Balderdash71964/Noahs_Ark.jpg

;)

I think I had heard of this before.

Originally Posted by Trollgaard
There used to be more species of apes than there are now.
Not all of them evolved into a new species. Some just went extinct.

As they evolved and mated wit each other, they created us and not their species.
AAARGH! Separate species don't "mate with each other". They can't. That is what makes them separate species.

I may be mistaken but the article suggested "one" mother and they didn't suggest it how you say it. Not saying you are wrong because I never studied the subject of DNA. However it seems they are suggesting one and not a set of similar females.

The m-DNA (mitochondrial) is only passed mother to daughter, and the Y-DNA (male chromosome) only father to son. There were many women back then who are our mother's father's mother's mother's father's ... mothers, but only one who is the mother's mother's mother's mother's .... mother.

Suppose at one time there were five couples: Adam and Andrea, Bobby and Barbara, Charles and Charlotte, Don and Donna, Ed and Eve.
Adam and Andrea have two sons, Andrew and Anatoly. Now Andrea's m-DNA is gone, but she is still an ancestress of the further descendants.
Bobby and Barbara have a son Biff and two daughters, Babs and Brittany. Also, Bobby killed Charles to take Charlotte but she never forgave him and refused to sleep with him; he raped her sometimes, but although she got pregnant once she neglected the child and it died, so the DNA of Charles and Charlotte is completely gone.
Don and Donna have one daughter Dinah and two sons Dan and Dave.
Ed and Eve have three daughters Evonne, Evette, and Edie. Now Ed's Y-DNA is gone, although he is still an ancestor.

In the next generation there are five males to six females, so Andrew marries both Evonne and Evette and has sons and daughters by both of them, while Anatoly marries Babs and has a son and a daughter. Biff marries Edie and has only daughters: now Bobby's Y-DNA is gone. Dan marries Dinah (it happened!) and has only sons: now Donna's m-DNA is gone. Dave marries Brittany and has a son and a daughter: that son is the last to carry Don's Y-DNA (everyone else has Adam's) and that daughter is the last to carry Barbara's m-DNA (everyone else has Eve's). By luck of the gender-draw, eventually every male will have Adam's Y-DNA and everyone will have Eve's m-DNA although they are also carrying non-gender-linked DNA from all the other ancestors (except Charles and Charlotte).

The m-DNA (mitochondrial) is only passed mother to daughter, and the Y-DNA (male chromosome) only father to son. There were many women back then who are our mother's father's mother's mother's father's ... mothers, but only one who is the mother's mother's mother's mother's .... mother.

Suppose at one time there were five couples: Adam and Andrea, Bobby and Barbara, Charles and Charlotte, Don and Donna, Ed and Eve.
Adam and Andrea have two sons, Andrew and Anatoly. Now Andrea's m-DNA is gone, but she is still an ancestress of the further descendants.
Bobby and Barbara have a son Biff and two daughters, Babs and Brittany. Also, Bobby killed Charles to take Charlotte but she never forgave him and refused to sleep with him; he raped her sometimes, but although she got pregnant once she neglected the child and it died, so the DNA of Charles and Charlotte is completely gone.
Don and Donna have one daughter Dinah and two sons Dan and Dave.
Ed and Eve have three daughters Evonne, Evette, and Edie. Now Ed's Y-DNA is gone, although he is still an ancestor.

In the next generation there are five males to six females, so Andrew marries both Evonne and Evette and has sons and daughters by both of them, while Anatoly marries Babs and has a son and a daughter. Biff marries Edie and has only daughters: now Bobby's Y-DNA is gone. Dan marries Dinah (it happened!) and has only sons: now Donna's m-DNA is gone. Dave marries Brittany and has a son and a daughter: that son is the last to carry Don's Y-DNA (everyone else has Adam's) and that daughter is the last to carry Barbara's m-DNA (everyone else has Eve's). By luck of the gender-draw, eventually every male will have Adam's Y-DNA and everyone will have Eve's m-DNA although they are also carrying non-gender-linked DNA from all the other ancestors (except Charles and Charlotte).



That sounds like a family I knew in West Virgina :D

Seriously the global event if someone has'nt mentioned this before was the eruption of Lake Toba on sumatra
Which was featured on some science programs a few years ago.....

Tell that to God.

God, Eden is a myth.
Done
;)

AAARGH! Separate species don't "mate with each other". They can't. That is what makes them separate species.

Not entirely true. Tigers and lions, for instance, are separate species. They can mate with each other and sometimes produce offspring, though.

Same with donkeys and horses.

The reason they are still considered to be different species is that the offspring of such pairings are generally infertile.


The m-DNA (mitochondrial) is only passed mother to daughter

This is not correct. A woman passes on her mitochondrial DNA to all of her offspring, not just female offspring.


Anyways, this is all bogus because we all know that the Earth hasn't even been around that long and that evilution is a lie and stuff.

This is not correct. A woman passes on her mitochondrial DNA to all of her offspring, not just female offspring.


Yes, but, and correct me if I'm wrong, a child gets his/her mitochondrial DNAonly from his/her mother, so, while the mother will pass off her mitochondrial DNA to her offspring, for her mitochondrial DNA to survive pass a single generation, she must have at least one girl to pass it on again.

Unlike a father who passes his Y chromosome DNA off to ONLY his sons, a mother passes mitochondrial DNA off to both sons and daughters, but only the daughters can further pass it on..

This is not correct. A woman passes on her mitochondrial DNA to all of her offspring, not just female offspring.

Yes, yes, but the sons don't pass it any further. If you will note at the conclusion of my example:
eventually every male will have Adam's Y-DNA and everyone will have Eve's m-DNA

God, Eden is a myth.
Done
;)

Only Candyland is real.

Yes, but, and correct me if I'm wrong, a child gets his/her mitochondrial DNAonly from his/her mother, so, while the mother will pass off her mitochondrial DNA to her offspring, for her mitochondrial DNA to survive pass a single generation, she must have at least one girl to pass it on again.

Unlike a father who passes his Y chromosome DNA off to ONLY his sons, a mother passes mitochondrial DNA off to both sons and daughters, but only the daughters can further pass it on..

Ah, yes. That would be correct.

ok...lemme revise

Bear-Freaking-Grylls

Les Stroud beats the heck out of Bear Grylls any day.