As I’ve said before, scientists commonly assert that evolution is not progressive and that organisms occupying lower branches on the evolutionary tree are not anymore primitive or ancestral than organism’s occupying higher branches, because all extant life are, as journalist Peter Knudtson stated, “equivalent cases of time-tested evolutionary success”.
For example, Harvard biologist Stephen Jay Gould wrote “evolution forms a conspicuously branching bush, not a unilinear progressive sequence…earth worms and crabs are not our ancestors; they are not even ‘lower’ or less complicated than humans in any meaningful sense.”
This web page even displays a helpful diagram of an evolutionary tree to debunk the idea of evolutionary rank:
The purpose of this post is not to convince you that evolution is progressive but rather to make a more basic point: A on the above tree should better resemble the common ancestor of A, B, C, and D, then B which should better resemble it than C or D. Many scientists disagree arguing that all four have been evolving for the same amount of time, thus all four are equally distant from the common ancestor. “Pumpkin doesn’t understand that A, B, C and D are all cousins, so one can not be ancestral to the other,” is what they’d think.
Yes they’re all cousins and not ancestors vs descendants, but precisely because C and D are cousins, you don’t know whether the common ancestor of them both better resembled C or D, and thus your best guess of what it was like is a hybrid: 50% C and 50% D.
Now what was the common ancestor of B, C and D like? Well, we already guessed that the common ancestor of C and D would be 50% C and 50% D, and so the common ancestor that this common ancestor shares with B would be a hybrid of itself and B, and thus appear 50% B, and 25% C and 25% D. Now you might say the common ancestor of B, C and D could resemble a perfect three way split between all three which is possible, but since C and D provide competing information on what their common ancestor was like, but B has a monopoly on what its ancestor was like, our best guess for what the common ancestor of all three will be skewed towards B.
Applying the same logic to the common ancestor of A, B, C and D, our best guess for what the common ancestor of all four was like, is 50% A, 25% B, 12.5% C, and 12.5% D. That doesn’t mean that really is what the common ancestor of A, B, C and D, was like, but if all we had to go by was the evolutionary tree itself, that’d be our best guess.
So as you can see, the earlier your ancestors branched off the evolutionary tree (and stopped branching), the more similar they’re likely to be to the tree’s root.
Now we don’t have to use provocative language like A is likely “less evolved” and “more primitive” than B which “less evolved” than C and D, we can merely state that A is likely “most like the common ancestor”; “most basal” and “least derived”.
Why do so many brilliant minds deny even this? I think it’s because it’s what the man on the street thinks, but he thinks it based on gut feeling, so those with better understanding enjoy explaining that “no humans didn’t evolve from apes, apes and humans are cousins.” They never bother to ask whether the layman might be right, despite his lack of understanding. It’s also part of the broader postmodern relativism that is learned in university and serves as a form of status signaling.
Pumpkin Person 
If splits create more differences in species than species that have fewer splits then this makes sense that the closer you are to the original then you have the fewest splits. but this does not work if all splits are even. because all splits are the same for all species.
I agree, but they’re not all the same for all.
“Why do so many brilliant minds deny even this? I think it’s because it’s what the man on the street thinks, but he thinks it based on gut feeling, so those with better understanding enjoy explaining that “no humans didn’t evolve from apes, apes and humans are cousins.” They never bother to ask whether the layman might be right, despite his lack of understanding. It’s also part of the broader postmodern relativism that is learned in university and serves as a form of status signaling.”
Or they do use terms like “Basal” in regards to relative position to LCA (I see it often in population genetics and fossil studies) , the problem is actually the “provacative terms” being more in line with progressive ladder model as oppose to a tree.
“A on the above tree should better resemble the common ancestor of A, B, C, and D, then B which should better resemble it than C or D. ”
Actually, your interpretation is off as the actual point is that this diagram is specified for D and the rest and reflect D’s cousins from closest to least related.
D could be a marine Invertebrate for instance and A could be Humans. This highlights how splits =/= change.
“Many scientists disagree arguing that all four have been evolving for the same amount of time, thus all four are equally distant from the common ancestor. ‘Pumpkin doesn’t understand that A, B, C and D are all cousins, so one can not be ancestral to the other,’ is what they’d think.”
No necessarily, no, it’s just that this non specified Phylogram doesn’t prove it. a Web of some sort or a comprehensive phylogentic tree would.
Or they do use terms like “Basal” in regards to relative position to LCA (I see it often in population genetics and fossil studies) , the problem is actually the “provacative terms” being more in line with progressive ladder model as oppose to a tree.
Have you seen them refer to entire organisms as basal or just certain traits? Gould denied earth worms are our ancestors, and they’re not, but the subtext was they’re not even more ancestor like, & Knudtson claimed splitting off dates are meaningless.
Actually, your interpretation is off as the actual point is that this diagram is specified for D and the rest and reflect D’s cousins from closest to least related.
A & C/D are the least related but the point according to the website is “…an organism’s position on a phylogeny only indicates its relationship to other organisms, not how adaptive or specialized or extreme its traits are. For example, on the tree below, taxon D may be more or less specialized than taxa A, B, and C.” This is false. A will tend to be at one extreme (basal) and C/D will tend to be at the other extreme (derived).
D could be a marine Invertebrate for instance and A could be Humans. This highlights how splits =/= change.
That would be an incomplete because you’re missing so many relatives but I’m talking about apples to apples; comparing taxa of equivalent rank within a given taxa. Some seem to object even to these telling us anything meaningful about basal vs ancestral.
No necessarily, no, it’s just that this non specified Phylogram doesn’t prove it.
But do you agree that on a tree where you’re comparing apples to apples (i.e. species within the same genus), that more splitting correlates with more derived?
They both share a mixture of ancestral and derived traits; ancestral and derived organisms share a mix of ancestral and derived traits from said common ancestor (Crisp and Cook, 2005: 122). Furthermore, ‘early’ does not denote ‘primitiveness’ (Gould, 1997: 36). The correct terms to use are ‘ancestral’ and ‘derived’.
Primitive means earlier stage of development but if you prefer the term ancestral, fine. Do you agree that on trees comparing apples to apples (i.e. species within the same genus)that number of splits correlates with how ancestral or derived the taxon’s overall phenotype is?
“Have you seen them refer to entire organisms as basal or just certain traits? Gould denied earth worms are our ancestors, and they’re not, but the subtext was they’re not even more ancestor like, & Knudtson claimed splitting off dates are meaningless.”
As in the specimens themselves, yes. Your interpretation of the quotes you mention mean little without the actual quotes.
Actually, your interpretation is off as the actual point is that this diagram is specified for D and the rest and reflect D’s cousins from closest to least related.
“A & C/D are the least related but the point according to the website is “…an organism’s position on a phylogeny only indicates its relationship to other organisms, not how adaptive or specialized or extreme its traits are. For example, on the tree below, taxon D may be more or less specialized than taxa A, B, and C.” This is false. A will tend to be at one extreme (basal) and C/D will tend to be at the other extreme (derived).”
Your only evidence for this assertion is based on the assumption that you interpreted the phylogram correctly. See how that’s circular?
So no, you would have to use a comprehensive web/tree like I said.
D could be a marine Invertebrate for instance and A could be Humans. This highlights how splits =/= change.
”
That would be an incomplete because you’re missing so many relatives but I’m talking about apples to apples; comparing taxa of equivalent rank within a given taxa. Some seem to object even to these telling us anything meaningful about basal vs ancestral.”
That’s because, as I said in the beginning and how even the website pointed out, phylograms like the one presented aren’t meant to be comprehensive (hence why suggested an alternative), they are meant to outline basic evolutionary course of a specific taxa.
“But do you agree that on a tree where you’re comparing apples to apples (i.e. species within the same genus), that more splitting correlates with more derived?”
Technically, by means of genetic distance.
However,
“Do you agree that on trees comparing apples to apples (i.e. species within the same genus)that number of splits correlates with how ancestral or derived the taxon’s overall phenotype is?”
That depends on how you define “overall phenotype”. For instance one could infer the “African Clade” as more basal despite having narrower bodies, more gracile skull surfaces, smaller brow ridges, etc.
This conundrum can also be seen in capoids skulls being compared to a variety of ancient Homo skulls and being more distant from them in overall shape compared to negroids who come from a less basal cluster for the most part (I’ve used this in my article on the two groups’ relation).
Features like bone density, cephalic index, and prognathism are simply retained due to climatic adaptations.
Eurasians have more hair, more broadly built, and have shorter legs yet these traits are mostly independent of ancestral traits.
More minor phenotypes, like skull cavities from genetic drift for example, are more indicative.
However, in other cases, Hyraxes are likely indicative of some variation of the ancestors of elephants and manatees.
“Do you agree that on trees comparing apples to apples (i.e. species within the same genus)that number of splits correlates with how ancestral or derived the taxon’s overall phenotype is?”
They would share a mixture. I covered evolutionary tree misconceptions back in October of 2016.
https://notpoliticallycorrect.me/2016/10/25/misconceptions-on-evolutionary-trees-and-more-on-evolutionary-progress/
Of course there’d be a mix but people are evading the question so I’ll ask it again:
Do you agree that on trees comparing apples to apples (i.e. species within the same genus)that number of splits correlates with how ancestral or derived the taxon’s overall phenotype is?
Made a bar graph of my 2015 scores.
Is there anything that can be understood by it?
Just that you score lower on tests that are sensitive to neurological issues/learning disabilities such as working memory or processing speed. The Wechsler general ability index was created for people like you, where instead of calculating full-scale IQ, they calculate a composite score with these sensitive tests excluded. Were you on any drugs when tested?
Perscriptions.
None illegal.
I would like to know more on (g) because it represents resilience to harmful mental stressors? (130 in my general ability index).
I feel like I am burned out all the time. If we can separate (g) from the sensitive areas then some functionality is preserved but not the sensitive functionality.
There are global/local functional brain connectivity and structural brain connectivity. My condition should have something to do with that.
————————————————–
Neural Correlates of Fluid Intelligence
via Functional and Structural Network Connectivity Measures
Click to access
(https://philoneuro.files.wordpress.com/2016/12/vuong_purc_2016_final.pdf)
You right philo because with a 120 IQ, any job is open to you, and you can make for yourself a good life. And besides, Illuminat is a very good « Scandinavian » looking guy, not like me who loioks like a giant stoned ogre, and that should help his propects in life . The sky is the limit. Just need to go for it and be concrete.
My interpretation would be, you have a 120 IQ, you stretch it to a 135 level regularly, and it stresses your performance down to 85. It would call that an IQ hysteria.
If I were you, I would forbid myself from using the IQ word, or any related concept, in particular referring to people aptitudes differences, during a period of 5 years. And I would force myself to acquire a single marketable craft, meaning a profession like air controller or durgustore worker or anything leading to a regular job, with realistic objectives. No more general free research on any subject except the craft you would have decided to pursue.
In my opinion Bruno is jealous of AnimeKittys incredible test scores and how less autistic anime is than Bruno. If Bruno wants to be successful like Animekitty, he should find a new trade like barrel making and become a productive member of society like AnimeKitty.
indeed. animekitty is much better at adapting the situation to his advantage.
How???
“So as you can see, the earlier your ancestors branched off the evolutionary tree (and stopped branching), the more similar they’re likely to be to the tree’s root.
Now we don’t have to use provocative language like A is likely “less evolved” and “more primitive” than B which “less evolved” than C and D, we can merely state that A is likely “most like the common ancestor”; “most basal” and “least derived”.
Why do so many brilliant minds deny even this? ”
I don’t think anyone necessarily denies this, I believe it is seriously just an issue with the langue used to express it. What is more evolved relative to the shared ancestor depends on the trait in question, compared to homo erectus we are more evolved in brain size but not in bipedal functionality. As a side note, whether a particular trait is ancestral or not is also subjective because different genotypes can produce the same phenotype and vice versa.
Essentially the reason we prefer genetic comparisons over phenotypic ones, is that it limits subjective assumptions. Even if it is slightly autistic it does a great job of what it’s supposed to do: categorize organisms. You’re violating Occam’s Razor.
Phenotype, in regard to race, is better than genes in my opinion.
https://notpoliticallycorrect.me/2018/01/04/you-dont-need-genes-to-delineate-race/
I agree, but only if the phenotype was inherited from a common ancestor and didn’t evolve independently.
It’s more than phenotype. Geographic ancestry and morphology too. The minimalist race concept.
So would andaman islanders be considered negroid by your standard? They have negroid morphology which they may have preserved from Africa, but they’ve lived outside Africa for 70,000 years.
They have the skin color, hair type, but not facial morphology. Furthermore their geographic ancestry is not in Africa. The two parts (ancestry and facial structure) along with morphology make up Hardimon’s minimalist race concept.
Such readers should feel free to regard the minimalist concept of race, that is, as a concept that, though in many respects similar to the ordinary concept, is nonetheless distinct from it. What I would insist on is that minimalist races (groups satisfying the minimalist concept of race) are *races* (that is races so properly called)—either because the minimalist concept of race just is the ordinary concept of race or because it captures enough of the ordinary concept of race for minimalist races to be counted as races. My view is that if it can be shown that minimalist races exist, races exist. And if it can be shown that *minimalist race* is real, race is real.
But for these purposes, yes I would suppose that (sans geographic ancestry), so in this instance they aren’t negroid.
I don’t recall where they cluster in regard to genotype I have to check Haak et al and see if he has data.
This face looks pretty Negroid to me:
And they do have ancient geographic ancestry from Africa, as do all races of course, but other races lost their African morphology while Andamers seem to have kept it.
I agree genetics is a bad way to define race because most of our DNA has no correlation with our phenotype, but it still mutates at a random rate, so it clusters people mostly on how recently they shared a common ancestor, not how much of said ancestor they actually look and behave like. So Andamers cluster with non-Africans genetically because they share a recent Out of Africa ancestor, but they may cluster with Africans morphologically, because like Africans, they preserved a lot of the ancient African morphology. As Jm8 noted they have the same black skin DNA as Africans do.
“Phenotype, in regard to race, is better than genes in my opinion.”
I know, swagger jacking as usual. It’s only because humans are so homogeneous, if not I would prefer genomics.
“Geographic ancestry and morphology too. The minimalist race concept.”
Morhpology=phenotype. And geographic ancestry is similarly synonymous to genetic classification. Truthfully, race is not an objective concept and only serves purpose as crude categorization for highly variable data.
I separate it for a reason. The three criteria from Hardimon are sufficient to delineate race.
“are sufficient to delineate race.”
Sufficient how?
“This face looks pretty Negroid to me”
You pretty much know where I’m going with this right? Rhymes with Truperficial Gates
“And they do have ancient geographic ancestry from Africa, as do all races of course, but other races lost their African morphology while Andamers seem to have kept it.”
And I explained how that’s not quite the case either phenotypically or genetically.
“I agree genetics is a bad way to define race because most of our DNA has no correlation with our phenotype, but it still mutates at a random rate, so it clusters people mostly on how recently they shared a common ancestor, not how much of said ancestor they actually look and behave like. ”
1. Depends on what kind of dna, as I’ve already gone over phenotype and relevant DNA with you on this topic.
2. “Look and behavior” are limited scopes relevant to taxonomy in regards to determining a group association.
“So Andamers cluster with non-Africans genetically because they share a recent Out of Africa ancestor, but they may cluster with Africans morphologically, because like Africans, they preserved a lot of the ancient African morphology.”
I’ve already explain why they did not. The traits they share such as build was likely convergent by latitude as ancient humans by the late stone age were more robust in build and all populations recent gracialize to their current state in both bone density and narrow build.
I posted studies on the khoisan that demonstates this.
“As Jm8 noted they have the same black skin DNA as Africans do.”
Refer to my first point.
And I explained how that’s not quite the case either phenotypically or genetically.
And as I’ve explained, the studies that phenotypically clustered Andamaners with non-Africans did so by cherry-picking selectively neutral phenotypes because the entire point of that research was to study population history, not overall phenotype similarity.
“I agree genetics is a bad way to define race because most of our DNA has no correlation with our phenotype, but it still mutates at a random rate, so it clusters people mostly on how recently they shared a common ancestor, not how much of said ancestor they actually look and behave like. ”
1. Depends on what kind of dna, as I’ve already gone over phenotype and relevant DNA with you on this topic.
Except in studies involving genomic predictors of specific phenotypes using SNPs of known origin, DNA studies tell us nothing about phenotypic similarity inherited from a common ancestor because so much of the DNA is non-coding and the coded DNA is controlled by the parts of DNA that activate and supress certain genes.
2. “Look and behavior” are limited scopes relevant to taxonomy in regards to determining a group association.
That’s a subjective statement
I’ve already explain why they did not. The traits they share such as build was likely convergent by latitude as ancient humans by the late stone age were more robust in build and all populations recent gracialize to their current state in both bone density and narrow build.
I’m talking about the traits they share with sub-Saharans in general, not pygmies only.
“And as I’ve explained, the studies that phenotypically clustered Andamaners with non-Africans did so by cherry-picking selectively neutral phenotypes because the entire point of that research was to study population history, not overall phenotype similarity.”
And I responded to those claims.
https://pumpkinperson.com/2017/10/20/the-paleolithic-black-white-iq-gap/#comment-73852
Start from the bottom.
“Except in studies involving genomic predictors of specific phenotypes using SNPs of known origin, DNA studies tell us nothing about phenotypic similarity inherited from a common ancestor because so much of the DNA is non-coding and the coded DNA is controlled by the parts of DNA that activate and supress certain genes.”
Yet if the coding DNA IS different, then the amount of phenotypes determined by gene expression would only make it less obvious. Not only that, but I’ve already covered that phenotypes links them with South Asians on discrete traits (as well as criticizing your craniometric data on Howells and the nature of his vindication) so that suggesting is already thrown out.
“That’s a subjective statement.”
Tell that to those that seperate Golden moles from True moles.
“I’ve already explain why they did not. The traits they share such as build was likely convergent by latitude as ancient humans by the late stone age were more robust in build and all populations recent gracialize to their current state in both bone density and narrow build.
I’m talking about the traits they share with sub-Saharans in general, not pygmies only.”
I was referring to the same, hence why I said “build” and not “stature”.
don’t think anyone necessarily denies this,
Well, I have yet to get anyone here to affirmatively answer my yes or no question, so I’ll try it on you: Do you agree that on trees comparing apples to apples (i.e. species within the same genus)that number of splits correlates with how ancestral or derived the taxon’s overall phenotype is?
What is more evolved relative to the shared ancestor depends on the trait in question, compared to homo erectus we are more evolved in brain size but not in bipedal functionality.
But who do you believe one is more evolved than the other overall? If so, which one: Modern humans or Homo Erectus?
Pumpkin, I don’t know the stuff, but I would say that
1) if there were horizontal transfers of genes – it seems to be possible – due to a factor uncorrelated to tree proximity (like two populations living in the same area ) , then it could theoretically the tree proximity correlation. It is only a logical possibility . I don’t say it is the case. Then you could say it is not really a tree anymore, but that’s the answer (the split would be made irrelevant)
2) you could also – theoretically – have a non linear splitting effect. Some splits would transfer only very ancient trait . Other more recent one . There could be millions of reason for that (rapidity of the split, order of the split etc ). Then it would also ruin the correlation .
It’s only if you can describe the cause and nature of each split, that you can answer your question positively . Else you re just saying, as we don’t know, assuming it’s aleatory, then there is a proven stat correlation between gene proximity and the number of split .
“that number of splits correlates with how ancestral or derived the taxon’s overall phenotype is?”
I’m sure there could be some kind of correlation, though I don’t think it would be as high as you think (like maybe .3-.5).
“But who do you believe one is more evolved than the other overall? If so, which one: Modern humans or Homo Erectus?”
More evolved compared to which ancestor? By “more evolved” do you mean how different a particular set of traits is to the analogous one on the ancestor? Or do you mean absolute genetic change?
I’m sure there could be some kind of correlation, though I don’t think it would be as high as you think (like maybe .3-.5).
Good enough.
“But who do you believe one is more evolved than the other overall? If so, which one: Modern humans or Homo Erectus?”
More evolved compared to which ancestor? By “more evolved” do you mean how different a particular set of traits is to the analogous one on the ancestor? Or do you mean absolute genetic change?
More evolved compared to the most recent common ancestor of both species. More evolved as in more evolutionary change as measured by the overall phenotype. So for example evolving from a human to a plant-like creature shows more evolutionary change than evolving from a human to a Neanderthal-like creature, because in the former case you’re changing kingdoms while in the latter you’re merely changing species.
“more evolutionary change as measured by the overall phenotype.”
Well then sure, The last common ancestor of homo erectus and Homo sapiens was homo ergaster, So i guess Sapiens are more evolved on a primarily phenotypic basis. But like I said, i prefer genetics with good reason. Phenotype can be incredibly misleading on the genotype of an organism and since genes are the main causal agent of evolution I don’t really see a problem using a genetic clock.
i agree with Pumpkins theory 100% those other scientists just want to be PC
Yeah I agree toooo!!
your genetic superior linh dinh thinks oprah is disgusting.
Indoctrinated for decades by relativism, we’re supposed to consider all life styles equal and never pass judgments. There must be legitimate reasons for a culture to embrace, for example, child marriage, bride kidnapping, female circumcision, Oprah Winfrey, or universal, all day long access to pornography.
Off-topic: this post over at Marginal Revolution reminds me of that list you were compiling last year. I wish you had completed it!
http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2018/01/five-influential-public-intellectuals.html
My list is pretty much complete. Just haven’t published it yet.
Cool! I would love to see it!
Over at Marginal Revolution, it’s funny seeing Steve Sailer, Education Realist and Razib Khan (three prominent HBDers) all commenting on an ostensibly non-HBD site.
according to the NTSB what is the likelihood a sober driver or passenger with a sober driver will be killed by a drunk driver given that he dies in a traffic accident?
calculate it for yourself.
the answer is 4%.
36% of fatal traffic accidents involve any alcohol + 11% of fatalities in such accidents are occupants of the another vehicle. that is, drunk drivers kill themselves and their passengers 8x as often as they kill someone in another vehicle. the remaining % is pedestrians.
a counterexample to rich people having higher IQs. i heard jes staley say twice “crisises”. this isn’t a word. he even pronounced the “e” as a a long “e” and not a schwa. the ceo of barclay’s doesn’t know the plural of “crisis” is”crises”. his brother is a famous faggot. sometimes dumb people make it to the top.
Disagree. Crocodiles are a couple splits closer to birds than to lizzards and snakes yet look definitely look and behave more like terrestrial reptiles.
Gorillas are many different species without major discernible differences, they’re some splits closer to the ancestral primates than humans yet are definitely an outlier among all primates in terms of size and are likely much bigger than the ancestor.
Marine mammals split earlier than most terrestrial mammals, yet newer terrestrial likely resemble more the ancestral mammal on most traits.
And so on.
“Number of splits” is not really a thing, just happens as a subgroup of one species comes to occupy a novel ecological niche and/or is reproductively isolated from its ancestral population for any reason.
Marine mammals probably did a lot of branching after they branched off. Crocodiles and birds both evolved from a common reptile ancestor, but reptiles did less splitting and remained reptiles:
“Marine mammals probably did a lot of branching after they branched off.”
This contradicts your point you made to me on animals and plants in your EQ correlation article on time the branch splits being more important than splits themselves.
“Crocodiles and birds both evolved from a common reptile ancestor, but reptiles did less splitting and remained reptiles:”
Then you are clearly not aware of how True crocodiles appeared.
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/tetrapod-zoology/dissecting-a-crocodile/
See the tree at the bottom, that what many phylogenic trees skip.
The reason why crocodiles remained the way they are is because of their size and metabolism(cold bloodedness) hindering how fast they can evolve.
https://news.ucsc.edu/2014/12/crocodile-genomes.html
Yet if we are to use evolution rates to present an idea of “basalness” then you would come to a different conclusion when comparing chimps and humans.
https://www.livescience.com/46300-chimpanzee-evolution-dna-mutations.html
In a way, this follows partially as the LCA was probably closer to orangutans in that lived in trees and traveled within canopies, thus our bipedal and manual traits are closer to an orangutan than they are to chimps (other features not withstanding like skull proportions)
That, and Humans and Gorillas share LCA dna in their brain not shared by chimps, maybe about 15% or 30% closer to each other in that regard.
This contradicts your point you made to me on animals and plants in your EQ correlation article on time the branch splits being more important than splits themselves.
I don’t think so. It was Rushton who correlated progress (in races) with splitting off dates; I refined his concept by correlating with number of splits because you could be the first branch but then do a lot more branching.
As for the crocodile tree you linked; it’s irrelevant because it didn’t include birds and you could show a high number of splits for any organism if you focus on a low enough taxonomic level, which reminds me that you never answered my question: On trees making apples to apples comparisons (i.e. different species within the same genus), do you deny there’s a positive correlation between number of splits and how derived the species overall phenotype is relative to the tree’s root? It’s either a yes or a no.
By closer to orangutans, I don’t mean in genetics, but rather lifestyle.
“I don’t think so. It was Rushton who correlated progress (in races) with splitting off dates; I refined his concept by correlating with number of splits because you could be the first branch but then do a lot more branching.”
“It’s not how many splits they have that I’ve been measuring, it’s how many splits occur on the tree before they branch off.”
https://pumpkinperson.com/2017/10/03/does-infectious-disease-explain-the-iq-climate-correlation/comment-page-1/#comment-72384
“As for the crocodile tree you linked; it’s irrelevant because it didn’t include birds and you could show a high number of splits for any organism if you focus on a low.”
Yet are you aware of the actual genetic divergence of these taxa? To my knowledge, fairly comparable to different groups of Avemetatarsalia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avemetatarsalia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudosuchia
“which reminds me that you never answered my question: On trees making apples to apples comparisons (i.e. different species within the same genus), do you deny there’s a positive correlation between number of splits and how derived the species overall phenotype is relative to the tree’s root? It’s either a yes or a no.”
Huh…I actually DID answer that if you reread it. To me the relationship is complex depending on how natural selection affect the “overall phenotype”.
“It’s not how many splits they have that I’ve been measuring, it’s how many splits occur on the tree before they branch off.”
I was making a distinction between how many splits occurs on the tree within a taxon, and how many splits the taxon is descended from on the tree that it’s within. It’s the latter that correlates with how derived it is. My model is trees within trees within trees within trees.
The way I look at it is you have a tree comparing equivalent taxa within a given taxon (i.e. phylums within a kingdom) and degree of branching each phylum does on that tree correlates with how derived it is, but then each phylum itself is a taxon which also contains a tree comparing equivalent taxon (i.e. classes within a given phylum) and the degree of branching that class does correlates with how derived it is, so you could have a really derived taxon relative to other taxa within the shared higher taxon, but the shared higher taxon itself is ancestral, so even the most derived taxon within it will tend to be more ancestral to the most ancestral taxon within a more derived higher taxon.
Huh…I actually DID answer that if you reread it. To me the relationship is complex depending on how natural selection affect the “overall phenotype”.
In the time it takes you to explain that you already answered, you could simply answer “yes” or “no”.
BTW,
“It’s either a yes or a no.”
Tsk tsk….Simplifying biology on your terms doesn’t yield accurate conclusion by default, especially isolating it to laymen perceptions.
Tsk tsk….Simplifying biology on your terms doesn’t yield accurate conclusion by default, especially isolating it to laymen perceptions.
Let the record reflect that the witness refused to answer.
“I was making a distinction between how many splits occurs on the tree within a taxon, and how many splits the taxon is descended from on the tree that it’s within. It’s the latter that correlates with how derived it is. My model is trees within trees within trees within trees.”
I understand that hence my response-“This contradicts your point you made to me on animals and plants in your EQ correlation article on time the branch splits being more important than splits themselves.”
And so far you current mode, referring to the point actually made in the article, making your point contradictory as it indicates that “distance from ancestor”, by your judgement aligning with complexity, being determined by number of splits which was what you thought I meant by referring to plants under the other article.
“The way I look at it is you have a tree comparing equivalent taxa within a given taxon (i.e. phylums within a kingdom) and degree of branching each phylum does on that tree correlates with how derived it is, but then each phylum itself is a taxon which also contains a tree comparing equivalent taxon (i.e. classes within a given phylum) and the degree of branching that class does correlates with how derived it is, so you could have a really derived taxon relative to other taxa within the shared higher taxon, but the shared higher taxon itself is ancestral, so even the most derived taxon within it will tend to be more ancestral to the most ancestral taxon within a more derived higher taxon.”
I agree with this….genetically speaking to a degree. The problem is rather than genetics, you are referring to “overall phenotype”.
“In the time it takes you to explain that you already answered, you could simply answer “yes” or “no”.”
….Except that would’ve been so simplistic it would’ve compromised my actual points in favor for you getting misread support.
“Let the record reflect that the witness refused to answer.”
May the record show that PP would rather force a specific answer rather than read the conditions that I’ve stated in which PHENOTYPE would be associated with ancestral distance.
“And so far you current mode, referring to the point actually made in the article, making your point contradictory as it indicates that “distance from ancestor”, by your judgement aligning with complexity, being determined by number of splits which was what you thought I meant by referring to plants under the other article.”
To be clear, I mean that in the context of land mammals and whales, as Afro phrases it, your point on the number splits to explain it in terms of phenotype contradicts you point on complexity in the previous article if Whales branched off earlier.
Therefore, that would make Plants more derived than humans by that logic.
If you divide mammals into only land vs marine, you can’t claim one split off earlier because both split from eachother. Anyway you keep getting into the weeds instead of trying to advance the discussion, I’ve explained my theory in great detail & even provided ways to quantitatively test it so there shouldn’t still be confusion about what I’m saying.
https://pumpkinperson.com/2017/06/29/marching-up-the-evolutionary-tree/
“If you divide mammals into only land vs marine, you can’t claim one split off earlier because both split from eachother.”
Yeah, that clearly not how I phrased it, I was referring specifically to whales from the lineage of earlier land mammals.
Also, using this logic, that can apply to many apples to apples taxa like Chimps and Humans, neither truly being more “basal”
“Anyway you keep getting into the weeds instead of trying to advance the discussion, I’ve explained my theory in great detail & even provided ways to quantitatively test it so there shouldn’t still be confusion about what I’m saying.”
No, I’m readdressing a point that was ignored by you long ago broughtup from a new study on eukaryotes.
You using that article AGAIN would only advance my previous point of you trying to argue the same premise, and that woulf fail seeing how bothg I and RR poked in holes to you “theory” either by statistical calculation or actually evolutionary neurology.
https://notpoliticallycorrect.me/2017/10/11/there-is-no-marching-up-the-evolutionary-tree/?relatedposts_hit=1&relatedposts_origin=11217&relatedposts_position=0
And as for your response below-
“RR, I realize correlation != causation, but at least I’ve provided a plausible explanation for the correlations I documented: when one breeding populations splits into two, it likely encountered environmental change (i.e. migration, droughts or rivers dividing habitats), and more intelligence is needed to adapt to that novelty.”
A possible hypothesis, but your methods were already questioned.
“Except I found the opposite pattern. Some of the highest correlations between brain size and number of splits were in the genus homo and within our own species, suggesting the driven model is more likely than the passive one. For example in the genus Homo I found a 0.995 correlation between number of splits and absolute brain size among four different species, and within the human species, I found a 0.71 correlation between number of splits and brain size in nine genetic clusters chosen by Cavalli-Sforza.”
Assuming the lineages of Homo, very closesly related species, qualifies for the majority of right tail primates.
Not to mention florensis that RR used in response to this, which occured either simulataneously with or suceeding from Erectus which was a major milestone in brain size.
“Although my correlations are robust, they are statistically insignificant, so maybe I just got lucky, or maybe the trends I found are just an artifact of focusing on the line leading to humans.”
Either’s likely.
“I understand Gould’s argument, that a passive evolutionary trend towards complexity is expected because staring at zero complexity, you have nowhere to go but up, however if the trend really is as passive as Gould implies, it should plateau among more complex life like the genus homo, as McShea suggests. Maybe it does, and our species and genus are the exception, not the rule, but given the versatility of intelligence, I don’t think you can rule out the possibility that there’s an evolutionary drive towards it.”
Well you can find a drive towards specific traits in a lineage, say such as flying in birds, or marine life in whales, that proves to be advantageous but overall like those traits in those other animals Human “intelligence” is unique despite similarities with even nonprimate species.
So “versatility” is somewhat of a subjective term, and I’m fairly sure RR highlighted the lack of a general trend in intelligence increases occurring over time.
Yeah, that clearly not how I phrased it, I was referring specifically to whales from the lineage of earlier land mammals.
But you were quoting Afro who said marine mammals. Whales vs land mammals is not an apples to apples comparison.
Also, using this logic, that can apply to many apples to apples taxa like Chimps and Humans, neither truly being more “basal”
First you compare at the genus level: Did the homo genus descend from more splits than the pan genus? No. So the only way to break the tie is at the species level, where we probably did descend from more splits, though very little is known about the evolutionary history of chimps.
A possible hypothesis, but your methods were already questioned.
And all those questions were answered.
Assuming the lineages of Homo, very closesly related species, qualifies for the majority of right tail primates.
Well if you have data on non-positive correlations between brain size/encephalization in non-homo primate genuses I’d be honored to publish it. I looked at all the scientific evidence I, as an amateur, am aware of. If you’re aware of contradictory evidence please share it and that’s how our collective knowledge advances.
Not to mention florensis that RR used in response to this, which occured either simulataneously with or suceeding from Erectus which was a major milestone in brain size.
I never claimed the correlation was anywhere near perfect, so I’m surprised there aren’t a lot more exceptions.
“Although my correlations are robust, they are statistically insignificant, so maybe I just got lucky, or maybe the trends I found are just an artifact of focusing on the line leading to humans.”
Either’s likely.
Which is why I refer to it only as “preliminary evidence”. I’ve provided at least that. You haven’t.
Well you can find a drive towards specific traits in a lineage, say such as flying in birds, or marine life in whales, that proves to be advantageous but overall like those traits in those other animals Human “intelligence” is unique despite similarities with even nonprimate species.
I could be 100% wrong. Maybe there are far more trees in other animal taxa where brain size/encephalization has zero or negative correlation with number of splits and in that case I’ll have to abandon or revise my theory, but so far, what little evidence I’ve gathered supports me.
I’m fairly sure RR highlighted the lack of a general trend in intelligence increases occurring over time.
Quotation needed
Marine mammals surely did less splitting than many terrestrial mammals.
To be more straightforward, whites have many traits on which they are closer to Neanderthals than to blacks, including skin color genes that they inherited from them. Yet neanderthals split earlier than blacks.
“Splits” in the human lineage just indicate migration. They aren’t real splits actually, they’re clusters. Phenotypes are adaptations to local environments and do not follow the patterns of genetic affinity.
Also, cases of “devolution” .
“But you were quoting Afro who said marine mammals. Whales vs land mammals is not an apples to apples comparison.”
See Afros Response.
First you compare at the genus level: Did the homo genus descend from more splits than the pan genus? No. So the only way to break the tie is at the species level, where we probably did descend from more splits, though very little is known about the evolutionary history of chimps.”
Knowing that last part, how can we even say “probably”?
“And all those questions were answered.”
No they were not, you stopped the conversation on your terms and weren’t even defended in your final response on the topic.
“Well if you have data on non-positive correlations between brain size/encephalization in non-homo primate genuses I’d be honored to publish it. I looked at all the scientific evidence I, as an amateur, am aware of. If you’re aware of contradictory evidence please share it and that’s how our collective knowledge advances.”
I’m not the one performin those analysis, since you are that’s your burden.
“I never claimed the correlation was anywhere near perfect, so I’m surprised there aren’t a lot more exceptions.”
And those exceptions soawn on top of eacher, as in succeeds Erectus, as Floresensis did.
.
“Which is why I refer to it only as “preliminary evidence”. I’ve provided at least that. You haven’t.”
My arguments, advanced by RR, were my counterevidence.
“I could be 100% wrong. Maybe there are far more trees in other animal taxa where brain size/encephalization has zero or negative correlation with number of splits and in that case I’ll have to abandon or revise my theory, but so far, what little evidence I’ve gathered supports me.”
No, that’s not really how that works in the context of RR’s points in his response. As I’ve said then and now, the best it proves is the accepted trend with our lineage in Homo, yet what I’m pointing out now is how the development in intelligence was too narrow to classify as an overall trend.
“Quotation needed.”
Well fortunately he had to reiterate his points in many rebuttal pieces so I reccommend any on his Blog that mention Dawkins, Wilson, and Russel. Personally though, I favor his notes on Allometry,
See Afros Response.
Right now I’m talking to you.
First you compare at the genus level: Did the homo genus descend from more splits than the pan genus? No. So the only way to break the tie is at the species level, where we probably did descend from more splits, though very little is known about the evolutionary history of chimps.”
Knowing that last part, how can we even say “probably”?
Because the current fossil record points in that direction.
No they were not, you stopped the conversation on your terms and weren’t even defended in your final response on the topic.
It’s too bad you felt your questions weren’t answered
I’m not the one performin those analysis, since you are that’s your burden.
But you’re the one claiming that the trees I selected were not representative of the evolution of brain size, so the burden is on you to find alternative trees and brain size data.
And those exceptions soawn on top of eacher, as in succeeds Erectus, as Floresensis did.
Then provide a tree showing no positive correlation between brain size and splitting among species in the genus Homo. Any fool can cite an exception.
.
My arguments, advanced by RR, were my counterevidence.
That’s not counterevidence. A positive correlation between brain size and branching can only be debunked by actual data showing a negative or zero correlation between brain size and branching.
yet what I’m pointing out now is how the development in intelligence was too narrow to classify as an overall trend.
Nice hypothesis but seeing as you’re unwilling or unable to test it, you’re just wasting my time.
Well fortunately he had to reiterate his points in many rebuttal pieces so I reccommend any on his Blog that mention Dawkins, Wilson, and Russel. Personally though, I favor his notes on Allometry,
Stop hiding behind RR and Afro and be a man. Get the data and prove your theory.
“Right now I’m talking to you.”
There’s no point in regurgitating an argument already made.
Knowing that last part, how can we even say “probably”?
“Because the current fossil record points in that direction.”
Ha, now I know you have no idea what you are asserting. We have an IDEA of how Man evolved from the LCA but the reconstruction of the chimp lineage is restraint mostly to a 2005 find of teeth.
https://www.livescience.com/9326-chimp-fossils.html
So we can;t really rely on the fossil record to suggest this.
“It’s too bad you felt your questions weren’t answered.”
Hypocrite much? Just 24 hours ago you were complaining about me not giving you a “yes or no” answer regarding phenotype evolution.
It wasn’t even a disagreeable answer, it was just conditional on natural selection. You’ve could responded
“But you’re the one claiming that the trees I selected were not representative of the evolution of brain size, so the burden is on you to find alternative trees and brain size data.”
No, it’s not. Critiquing your analysis, all I said was that your sample wasn;t reprsented of all “right tailed primates” in intelligence distribution to determine a passive or driven force.
If I said that it was CERTAINLY passive, then it would be my burden, but I didn’t. i said the data was inconclusive.
“Then provide a tree showing no positive correlation between brain size and splitting among species in the genus Homo. Any fool can cite an exception.”
Intelligence increasing among a lineage can still be a trend but passive, Mcshea’s point wasn;t that it was random.
.
“That’s not counterevidence. A positive correlation between brain size and branching can only be debunked by actual data showing a negative or zero correlation between brain size and branching.”
Yes, it is counter evidence to mention the failed attempts by other to prove such a finding, as Deacon did, to point out specific flaws in yours, as I did, and to substitute with a different process by explained by an actual neuroanthropologist, that being Deacon’s point on Allometry that RR already mentioned in response to your article.
“Nice hypothesis but seeing as you’re unwilling or unable to test it, you’re just wasting my time.”
Funny, because people in your position with critics would actually take the correction and mind and would be willing to retest their data, not force the others to test it themselves.
Even Rushton was capable of that.
“Stop hiding behind RR and Afro and be a man. Get the data and prove your theory.”
“Be a man”….You must be joking if you think, as many times as I hade to articulate “Negroid” to you, that I’m incapable of retrieving data to prove I point.
I think it pretty self evident that, beyond being your burden to actually test data at this point, that I refer to other’s points for the sake of not being redundant. Believe or not PP, you being resistant in futile attempts to maintain control by forcing another’s hand is wasting MY time.
Ha, now I know you have no idea what you are asserting. We have an IDEA of how Man evolved from the LCA but the reconstruction of the chimp lineage is restraint mostly to a 2005 find of teeth.
Which is why I said we know so little about chimp evolution. And we’ve found so little because there’s so little to find, because they did so little evolving. If they had as many splits as us in their evolutionary history they would have likely migrated far, leaving a trail of fossils.
Hypocrite much? Just 24 hours ago you were complaining about me not giving you a “yes or no” answer regarding phenotype evolution.
You haven’t asked a question, you’ve just lazily alluded to one in a previous thread. All you do is reference your past comments or the comments of others and when one finds those comments, they in turn reference past comments. You’re one big wild goose chase, except instead of gold at the end of rainbow, there’s just a pile of steaming shit.
It wasn’t even a disagreeable answer, it was just conditional on natural selection. You’ve could responded
I was only asking you to answer yes or no to a correlation, not a causation. Evolutionary change correlates with number of splits largely because number of splits correlates with novel selection which gives rise to speciation and other taxonomic changes, partly because splits occur when at least part of a population migrates to a novel environment. This also causes genetic drift, another cause of evolutionary change. All you had to say was “yes pumpkin, obviously number of splits is correlated with evolutionary change”. It’s so simple, but instead of using your common sense to simply answer “yes” or “no”, you continue to blather on. Reminds me of when Sarah Palin lost the election because she wouldn’t answer the simple question “what magazines you read?”:
“But you’re the one claiming that the trees I selected were not representative of the evolution of brain size, so the burden is on you to find alternative trees and brain size data.”
No, it’s not. Critiquing your analysis, all I said was that your sample wasn;t reprsented of all “right tailed primates” in intelligence distribution to determine a passive or driven force.
No you also said “the development in intelligence was too narrow to classify as an overall trend”. How do you know? Dinosaurs, crows and dolphins also evolved high intelligence in lineages widely separate from our own.
If I said that it was CERTAINLY passive, then it would be my burden, but I didn’t. i said the data was inconclusive.
my point was the correlation with brain size at such a complex stage of evolution is preliminary evidence against the passive argument of “nowhere to go but up”, because they’re already “up”. Preliminary evidence != conclusive
Yes, it is counter evidence to mention the failed attempts by other to prove such a finding, as Deacon did, to point out specific flaws in yours, as I did, and to substitute with a different process by explained by an actual neuroanthropologist, that being Deacon’s point on Allometry that RR already mentioned in response to your article.
Those sources are mostly just denying a vaguely defined trend towards complexity over time. That doesn’t rebut my much more precise correlation of brain size with number of splits on evolutionary trees.
Funny, because people in your position with critics would actually take the correction and mind and would be willing to retest their data, not force the others to test it themselves.
If I come across more data I will do more testing but good evolutionary trees and the brain size numbers to go with it are few and far between. But seeing as I concede the results are inconclusive, I see no urgent need. It’s you claimed “the development in intelligence was too narrow to classify as an overall trend”; a statement you shouldn’t make if you don’t have the data to back it up.
“Be a man”….You must be joking if you think, as many times as I hade to articulate “Negroid” to you, that I’m incapable of retrieving data to prove I point.
I used Negroid in its original sense. You conflated it with Coon’s “Congoid” race as all ignorant people do.
Believe or not PP, you being resistant in futile attempts to maintain control by forcing another’s hand is wasting MY time.
Well to avoid wasting time, before starting an argument, ask yourself “do I actually disagree with the person or am I just bitter? Is what I’m saying advancing the discussion and helping me learn?”
“Which is why I said we know so little about chimp evolution. And we’ve found so little because there’s so little to find, because they did so little evolving. If they had as many splits as us in their evolutionary history they would have likely migrated far, leaving a trail of fossils.”
…….Then by that logic we wouldn’t have creatures called “living fossils” that did leave trails of fossils.
Please, just reread of how somehow came to the conclusion that because a lineage experienced little change that mean remains of dead generation don’t exist.
I mean I understand what you mean with migration, but that would result in fossils having little change, not the quantity.
“You haven’t asked a question, you’ve just lazily alluded to one in a previous thread. All you do is reference your past comments or the comments of others and when one finds those comments, they in turn reference past comments. You’re one big wild goose chase, except instead of gold at the end of rainbow, there’s just a pile of steaming shit.”
Lets see.
1. My answer explained scenarios were Phenotype indicates basalness.
2. Afro’s point on Marine and Land mammls refers to no other comment.
3. RR’s various progressive evolution response which I’m sure by now you are aware off.
My references have clear points to them whether they frustrate you or not, and no amount of colorful swearing and whining will refute what I typed above that any one else can varify.
Furthermore, your recent comment prior to this one basically linked itself to the correlation article we were just talking about .”was flawed, so you are in little position to assert “laziness.”
“I was only asking you to answer yes or no to a correlation, not a causation. Evolutionary change correlates with number of splits largely because number of splits correlates with novel selection which gives rise to speciation and other taxonomic changes, partly because splits occur when at least part of a population migrates to a novel environment.”
I agree, however in certain context, that is when comparing taxa, this can be simplistic as my more elaborate responses explained.
“This also causes genetic drift, another cause of evolutionary change. All you had to say was “yes pumpkin, obviously number of splits is correlated with evolutionary change”. It’s so simple, but instead of using your common sense to simply answer “yes” or “no”, you continue to blather on. Reminds me of when Sarah Palin lost the election because she wouldn’t answer the simple question ‘what magazines you read?’ ”
(Slow Clapping) Fucking knew it. You never wanted scientific commentary, you wanted to tally up thumbs up to verify “conventional wisdom”.
And I will repeat my answer, with my knowledge of evolutionry diversification that it depends on what level of taxa you use and what natural selection took place.
I wasn’t against that there is an correlation based on “overall phenotype”, but I avoided that as I knew you would simplify it and would ignore the greater relationship. I guess I was expecting too much for you to to actually think bstractly in this scenario, as if you actually cared about what I’ve typed you easily could’ve responded “What if….” then I could’ve agreed with you because then it showed you were taking this seriously.
“No you also said “the development in intelligence was too narrow to classify as an overall trend”. How do you know? Dinosaurs, crows and dolphins also evolved high intelligence in lineages widely separate from our own.”
And just because it occurred in other lineages that suffices as an “overall trend”?
“my point was the correlation with brain size at such a complex stage of evolution is preliminary evidence against the passive argument of “nowhere to go but up”, because they’re already “up”. Preliminary evidence != conclusive”
“such a complex stage”….Exactly what makes our current stage so unique that it gies against a passive argument?
Your argument previously was more focused on it’s alleged consistency through time, not result itself.
Exactly why is our “up” different from “Up” during Erectus time of brain and bipedality adaptation.
“Those sources are mostly just denying a vaguely defined trend towards complexity over time. That doesn’t rebut my much more precise correlation of brain size with number of splits on evolutionary trees.”
Deacon directly refers to brain size/complexity, had you read RR you wouldn’t have said that.
“If I come across more data I will do more testing but good evolutionary trees and the brain size numbers to go with it are few and far between. But seeing as I concede the results are inconclusive, I see no urgent need.”
Concede? I thought tht too, yet you linked to the article as a response and went on and on regarding the human lineage proving something.
It’s you claimed the development in intelligence was too narrow to classify as an overall trend; a statement you shouldn’t make if you don’t have the data to back it up.”
My “evidence” was mentioning your response saying that it applied “at least” to the human lineage, second I was referring to your demonstration with your correlation rather than evolution as a whole.
-“No, that’s not really how that works in the context of RR’s points in his response. As I’ve said then and now, the best it proves is the accepted trend with our lineage in Homo, yet what I’m pointing out now is how the development in intelligence was too narrow to classify as an overall trend.”
*It* as in your findings
In that regard to evolution as a whole, I referred to RR’s rebutals in regards to life’s complexity being progressive.
“I used Negroid in its original sense. You conflated it with Coon’s “Congoid” race as all ignorant people do.”
No, much of the taxonomy/ genetics relevant HBD’rs make the distinction between Negroids and Capoids in a genetic relationship (such as Razib) plus it’s hardly ignored seeing how Coon was verified in the two races’ seperation as of recent.
“Well to avoid wasting time, before starting an argument, ask yourself “do I actually disagree with the person or am I just bitter? Is what I’m saying advancing the discussion and helping me learn?””
….You seem to suffer from amnesia and projection there, because this comment comes to mine.
“It wasn’t even a disagreeable answer, it was just conditional on natural selection.”
And to boot, I might as well paste some key points of my response.
“More minor phenotypes, like skull cavities from genetic drift for example, are more indicative.
However, in other cases, Hyraxes are likely indicative of some variation of the ancestors of elephants and manatees.”
What I expected was clarification on your end on my point of Natural selection and taxa level determining the association. I have no problem explain my point in another way, but acting as if I didn’t answer or wanting me to simplify it to where it can be distorted I will not.
” All you had to say was “yes pumpkin, obviously number of splits is correlated with evolutionary change.”
You see, this is another problem I have. You seem to limit evolutionary change to phenotype (the even more limited of it you have, visible phenotype) when you have previously referred to “overall phenotype” rather than genes which is the more definite answer regarding a creature’s basalness..
You see, this is another problem I have. You seem to limit evolutionary change to phenotype (the even more limited of it you have, visible phenotype) when you have previously referred to “overall phenotype” rather than genes which is the more definite answer regarding a creature’s basalness..
Because genetic distance can be misleading. For example, if Cavalli-Sforza had the DNA of the first modern humans from hundreds of thousands of years ago, they would show an almost equal genetic distance from all races, and that’s because he was using genetic distance as a proxy for time, and thus limited himself to selectively neutral DNA. The genetic distance would probably be slightly closer to Congoids, Capoids and Australoids than to Caucasoids and Mongoloids, but only because the DNA he used was not as PERFECTLY neutral as he wanted it to be. That’s why I think phenotype would illustrate my point better, even though I understand it’s harder to measure scientifically.
“Because genetic distance can be misleading. For example, if Cavalli-Sforza had the DNA of the first modern humans from hundreds of thousands of years ago, they would show an almost equal genetic distance from all races, and that’s because he was using genetic distance as a proxy for time, and thus limited himself to selectively neutral DNA.”
“Selectively neutral Dna” still have functions, even regarding gene expression that you mentioned before.
Thus, they can contribute to modern phenotypes.
“The genetic distance would probably be slightly closer to Congoids, Capoids and Australoids than to Caucasoids and Mongoloids, but only because the DNA he used was not as PERFECTLY neutral as he wanted it to be.”
Nice association there, but let me try.
Theoretically, neutral DNA would technically place it somewhat closer to Bsal Africans, AKA, Pygmies and Khoi San.
Then Negroids, Australoids, Caucasoids, and Mongoloids following. I’m basing this assoication based on the groups’ components.
As for “perfectly neutral, again, see my other point.
“That’s why I think phenotype would illustrate my point better, even though I understand it’s harder to measure scientifically.”
Except it really doesn’t as I’ve even explained this in context of AFrican and Eurasian phenotypes in my comment above responding to you. Of course, you would’ve known that if you bother reading.
This is why I said on certain Taxa levels it’s hard to tell. If you used relatively “lower” taxa asssociations, say with Lat Asian Erectus and Heidi, then your point would be stronger in regards to phenotype.
“Selectively neutral Dna” still have functions, even regarding gene expression that you mentioned before.
Non-coding DNA still has functions, but by definition, selectively neutral DNA has no functions important enough to have been selected, thought it could still affect phenotype as you say.
Theoretically, neutral DNA would technically place it somewhat closer to Bsal Africans, AKA, Pygmies and Khoi San.
Well theoretically, neutral DNA should place it equally close to everyone, because it’s used to measure how long ago different people shared a common ancestor, and if all humans have a common ancestor say 200 kya, the neutral genetic distance between her and us should all be equal since the chronological distance is equal, but since it’s only approximately neutral, it would be slightly closer to whatever races face the same selection pressures the common ancestor faced, because of contamination from selected DNA.
Except it really doesn’t as I’ve even explained this in context of AFrican and Eurasian phenotypes in my comment above responding to you. Of course, you would’ve known that if you bother reading.
Probably depends how phenotype is measured. Just as Cavalli-Sforza used selectively neutral DNA to serve as a clock, other scholars have used selectively neutral cranial traits to serve as a clock, but these selectively neutral phenotypes don’t necessarily reflect overall phenotype or who looks more like who to laymen.
This is why I said on certain Taxa levels it’s hard to tell. If you used relatively “lower” taxa asssociations, say with Lat Asian Erectus and Heidi, then your point would be stronger in regards to phenotype.
I think if we could see the common ancestor of most balanced trees, those taxa descended from fewer splits would tend to look more like the common ancestor than those descended from more splits, in the eyes of laymen. The correlation would not be perfect of course. And looking more like the common ancestor doesn’t necessarily mean you should be grouped with the common ancestor, of course.
“Non-coding DNA still has functions, but by definition, selectively neutral DNA has no functions important enough to have been selected, thought it could still affect phenotype as you say.”
Fair enough.
“Well theoretically, neutral DNA should place it equally close to everyone, because it’s used to measure how long ago different people shared a common ancestor, and if all humans have a common ancestor say 200 kya, the neutral genetic distance between her and us should all be equal since the chronological distance is equal, but since it’s only approximately neutral, it would be slightly closer to whatever races face the same selection pressures the common ancestor faced, because of contamination from selected DNA.”
No, not necessarily. Basal association functions in DNA outside of natural selection, based on how much of variation was maintained in the breeding population, not “perfectly neutral” not being a thing.
For instance, Basal Africans, from the position of the OOA cluster, branch off earlier and thus retain more ancient variation than the OOA population.
The study highlighting this for the Khoisan have genetic distance estimates.
“Probably depends how phenotype is measured. Just as Cavalli-Sforza used selectively neutral DNA to serve as a clock, other scholars have used selectively neutral cranial traits to serve as a clock, but these selectively neutral phenotypes don’t necessarily reflect overall phenotype or who looks more like who to laymen.”
They don’t use them simply as a “clock” they used them for basal assoication on morphological similarities, and in the context of the human cluster I pointed out they are among the best to decipher from as I’ve explained through multiple cranial and superficial traits alone being misleading to what the genes would construct relative to each other which ones is more basal.
“I think if we could see the common ancestor of most balanced trees, those taxa descended from fewer splits would tend to look more like the common ancestor than those descended from more splits, in the eyes of laymen.”
Yet i’m clarifying the taxa level were this would be evident, as it’s not that clear on actual scientific analysis, what the “laymen” might think is irrelevant.
“The correlation would not be perfect of course. And looking more like the common ancestor doesn’t necessarily mean you should be grouped with the common ancestor, of course.”
Again, fair enough. I’m jusy clarifying that the rule would have boundaries.
For instance, Basal Africans, from the position of the OOA cluster, branch off earlier and thus retain more ancient variation than the OOA population
Retain more ancient variation or retain more variation because they’re ancient? In other words, their common ancestor is so old that they’ve had more time to accumulate neutral variation (random neutral mutations). By contrast, the Americas was founded much more recently, so Native Americans have had much less time to accumulate variation.
The whole point of using neutral DNA is it functions as a clock because it mutates at a regular rate (say once every 10,000 years) and since all humans can trace their ancestry back to a common ancestors of all humans, say 200,000 years ago, all should differ from that common ancestor by approximately 20 mutations (200,000/10,000) or whatever the real numbers are, and indeed that’s how we know Eve lived 200 kya. So all neutral DNA is supposed to be able to tell us is how old a population is, not how similar it is to the common ancestor. Now Rushton implied older populations were more primitive, but we can’t test his or my hypothesis by using age itself as a proxy for primitive, because that’s circular logic. Thus I turn to phenotype.
“Retain more ancient variation or retain more variation because they’re ancient? In other words, their common ancestor is so old that they’ve had more time to accumulate neutral variation (random neutral mutations). By contrast, the Americas was founded much more recently, so Native Americans have had much less time to accumulate variation.”
How do you think we use haplogroups for instance in Khoi san to support an African origin? Because the genes relation to that of Eurasians.
Plus, what you described doesn’t make any sense because later lineages that would split STILL gain variation, time not being the factor.
“The whole point of using neutral DNA is it functions as a clock because it mutates at a regular rate (say once every 10,000 years) and since all humans can trace their ancestry back to a common ancestors of all humans, say 200,000 years ago, all should differ from that common ancestor by approximately 20 mutations (200,000/10,000) or whatever the real numbers are, and indeed that’s how we know Eve lived 200 kya. So all neutral DNA is supposed to be able to tell us is how old a population is, not how similar it is to the common ancestor.”
Think about what you said, that Neutral DNA functions as a clock through mutations (changes genetic material) and doesn’t indicate genetic affinity between two populations compared to the common ancestor?
So what determines genetic distance then in the case of comparison to the common ancestor? Recall how the Andamans were using non-coding DNA to determine their basal position.
https://dna-explained.com/2016/06/29/concepts-genetic-distance/
“Now Rushton implied older populations were more primitive, but we can’t test his or my hypothesis by using age itself as a proxy for primitive, because that’s circular logic. Thus I turn to phenotype.”
But you do understand the limitations and unreliability?
Hence why this is not longer in practice- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phenetics
By comparison, Cladistics that we use to construct modern population cladograms are more reliable and is how we do consider basalness.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cladistics
Phenotypes regarding modern populations were pretty much insignificant.
How do you think we use haplogroups for instance in Khoi san to support an African origin? Because the genes relation to that of Eurasians.
Caucasoids and Mongoloids differ by let’s say 4 neutral muations, so they’re assumed to share a common ancestor 40 kya. Causasoids/Mongoloids differ from Congoids by let’s say 7 neutral mutations, implying they share a common ancestor 70 kya. Caucasoids/Mongoloids/Congoids differ from Capoids by let’s say 30 neutral mutations (excluding recent mixing), implying a common ancestor 300 kya. So those that branched off the family tree earliest, forming more ancient haplogroups, live in Africa, leading to the expectations that humans started in Africa, but in theory all four of those races should differ by an equal amount from the common African ancestor in neutral mutations, regardless of where they live or what they look like, because all four have survived until today, thus all four have had the same amount of time to accumulate random mutations from the common ancestor which occur at say once per 10,000 years. Since the whole point of neutral DNA is to serve as a clock, and not to measure phenotypic similarity, if one extant race resembles the common ancestor more on neutral DNA, then it’s not neutral DNA, or it’s differences in generation time skewed the clock. Either way it’s error.
Now neutral DNA can correlate with phenotype because parts of the phenotype are also selectively neutral, but these are aspects of the phenotype that all groups (even arctic Mongoloids) should share equally with the common African ancestor.
Plus, what you described doesn’t make any sense because later lineages that would split STILL gain variation, time not being the factor.
The more recently a population split off, the less neutral variation it has. For example, a news article stated:
The study also revealed that Native Americas showed less genetic diversity than Europeans. Its proof that the part of the world they lived in was the last to be settled. They are descendents of the Yakruts of Eastern Siberia who entered North America about 10,000 years ago.
The researchers study proved that life did start in Africa with Africans having the greatest amount of genetic diversity, followed by Middle Easterners, then Europeans, South Asians and finally East Asians.
Think about what you said, that Neutral DNA functions as a clock through mutations (changes genetic material) and doesn’t indicate genetic affinity between two populations compared to the common ancestor?
So what determines genetic distance then in the case of comparison to the common ancestor? Recall how the Andamans were using non-coding DNA to determine their basal position.
What type of genetic distance? Neutral distance or non-neutral distance. On the former all populations should be equally distant from the common ancestor, but on the latter I believe Mongoloids are most distant from the common ancestor, because ancestral traits were probably tropical and thus selected against in the cold.
“Now Rushton implied older populations were more primitive, but we can’t test his or my hypothesis by using age itself as a proxy for primitive, because that’s circular logic. Thus I turn to phenotype.”
But you do understand the limitations and unreliability?
Ideally I would want genomic predictors of phenotype using SNPs of known origin, but that’s still years away in most cases.
“Caucasoids and Mongoloids differ by let’s say 4 neutral muations, so they’re assumed to share a common ancestor 40 kya. Causasoids/Mongoloids differ from Congoids by let’s say 7 neutral mutations, implying they share a common ancestor 70 kya. Caucasoids/Mongoloids/Congoids differ from Capoids by let’s say 30 neutral mutations (excluding recent mixing), implying a common ancestor 300 kya. So those that branched off the family tree earliest, forming more ancient haplogroups, live in Africa, leading to the expectations that humans started in Africa, but in theory all four of those races should differ by an equal amount from the common African ancestor in neutral mutations, regardless of where they live or what they look like, because all four have survived until today, thus all four have had the same amount of time to accumulate random mutations from the common ancestor which occur at say once per 10,000 years. Since the whole point of neutral DNA is to serve as a clock, and not to measure phenotypic similarity, if one extant race resembles the common ancestor more on neutral DNA, then it’s not neutral DNA, or it’s differences in generation time skewed the clock. Either way it’s error.”
1. I just established a link that explained that neutral DNA WASN”T established to serve as a “clock”, it can just be used like one.
2. You don’t form more ancient haplogroups, you just have more ancient haplogroups.
3. Why continue to use phenotype similarity and not, as I said, genetic similarity? As said in my response, we can already use molecular data to prove that and we have.
“Now neutral DNA can correlate with phenotype because parts of the phenotype are also selectively neutral, but these are aspects of the phenotype that all groups (even arctic Mongoloids) should share equally with the common African ancestor.”
Again, this over reliance of phenotype miss the points on what “Basal” means in biology. Your only defense is that it reflects parts of the DNA that would be traits of the common ancestor but that’s simply not how it works.
“The more recently a population split off, the less neutral variation it has. For example, a news article stated:
The study also revealed that Native Americas showed less genetic diversity than Europeans. Its proof that the part of the world they lived in was the last to be settled. They are descendents of the Yakruts of Eastern Siberia who entered North America about 10,000 years ago.
The researchers study proved that life did start in Africa with Africans having the greatest amount of genetic diversity, followed by Middle Easterners, then Europeans, South Asians and finally East Asians.”
Yet this actually proved my point, because I said that they would’ve have the same by YOUR logic, not mine.
But this shows my earlier point on how more basal populations have more variation from the *start* of divergence, not simply accumulating more, is how it works.
“What type of genetic distance? Neutral distance or non-neutral distance. On the former all populations should be equally distant from the common ancestor, but on the latter I believe Mongoloids are most distant from the common ancestor, because ancestral traits were probably tropical and thus selected against in the cold.”
There is no such distinction of “neutral” versus “non neutral”. You would undertsnad this as genetic distance IS the primary use of neutral DNA, molecular clock is just a correlated extrapolation.
“Ideally I would want genomic predictors of phenotype using SNPs of known origin, but that’s still years away in most cases.”
“Years away” hardly. And regardless we can use coding regions already which would aurtomatically included most phenotype related sequences through selection.
1. I just established a link that explained that neutral DNA WASN”T established to serve as a “clock”, it can just be used like one.
And how can it be used as one if some extant populations are closer on neutral DNA to the common ancestor than others? All extant humans are equally distant in time from the common ancestor, so all must be equally distant in neutral DNA if neutral DNA can serve as a clock.
2. You don’t form more ancient haplogroups, you just have more ancient haplogroups.
Splitting hairs
3. Why continue to use phenotype similarity and not, as I said, genetic similarity? As said in my response, we can already use molecular data to prove that and we have.
Because if the genetic similarity is measured from neutral sites on the genome, then all races are equally similar to the common ancestor because neutral DNA in theory mutates at a constant rate for all lineages, and all lineages descended from the common ancestor at the same time.
Again, this over reliance of phenotype miss the points on what “Basal” means in biology. Your only defense is that it reflects parts of the DNA that would be traits of the common ancestor but that’s simply not how it works.
All I’m saying is neutral DNA can’t be used to argue one extant descendent is closer to the common ancestor than another extant descendent, because in theory it will show them all being equally close. Think about it: if neutral DNA mutates say once every generation in every lineage, and every race is a roughly equal number of generations from a common ancestor, how can you argue some races are closer to the common ancestor than others on neutral DNA?
Yet this actually proved my point, because I said that they would’ve have the same by YOUR logic, not mine.
By my logic they would have been the same neutral genetic distance from the SPECIES common ancestor, but they would all be differ in distances from their RACIAL common ancestor because once again, neutral DNA is a clock, so young populations (Native Americans) are going to show much less variability, because they are short distance in time (and thus neutral DNA) from the founder of the Americas, while old populations (Africans) will show long distance in time (and thus neutral DNA) from their racial common ancestor and this will result in Africans being variable, because different African lineages have been diverging from the common ancestor of Africa for about as long as the species has existed.
But this shows my earlier point on how more basal populations have more variation from the *start* of divergence, not simply accumulating more, is how it works.
Older populations have had more time to diverge from their racial ancestor, so they have more differences among themselves, then newer populations, who have had less time to accumulate differences among themselves, but all populations have had the same amount of time to accumulate differences from the SPECIES common ancestor, thus all people are equally distant from said ancestor.
There is no such distinction of “neutral” versus “non neutral”. You would undertsnad this as genetic distance IS the primary use of neutral DNA, molecular clock is just a correlated extrapolation.
Scientists specifically look for neutral sites when measuring genetic distance so that genetic differences between races will accumulate at a constant clock-like rate and not be skewed by selection. So it’s not overall genetic distance, because it only samples the neutral sites (or tries to). Thus if they sampled only non-neutral sites, we could call it “non-neutral genetic distance”
And regardless we can use coding regions already which would aurtomatically included most phenotype related sequences through selection.
They could simply using non-neutral DNA
“And how can it be used as one if some extant populations are closer on neutral DNA to the common ancestor than others? All extant humans are equally distant in time from the common ancestor, so all must be equally distant in neutral DNA if neutral DNA can serve as a clock.”
You can tell by looking at genetic variation, which isn;t caused by “more time to accumulate” as you tried to rationalize, because when splits occur you have one population that served as the “base” population and a isolate.
Overtime, yes, both will change but one will contain more basal variation. Otherwise, how did genes (not phenotypes) reconstruct OOA through clades that are currents used and have been used since the 90s?
“Splitting hairs”
No, it’s keeping scientific concepts CONSISTENT. Otherwise it causes misunderstandongs, which often happenes even within professionals.
“Because if the genetic similarity is measured from neutral sites on the genome, then all races are equally similar to the common ancestor because neutral DNA in theory mutates at a constant rate for all lineages, and all lineages descended from the common ancestor at the same time.”
Yet you were the one you automatically said “neutral” rather than whole genomes attempts or variation comparisons, whic is what we use. Your method is essentially useless because we already can determine basalness through genes which you seem not to get.
“All I’m saying is neutral DNA can’t be used to argue one extant descendent is closer to the common ancestor than another extant descendent, because in theory it will show them all being equally close. Think about it: if neutral DNA mutates say once every generation in every lineage, and every race is a roughly equal number of generations from a common ancestor, how can you argue some races are closer to the common ancestor than others on neutral DNA?”
Assuming each race has the same mutation rate and that they have the same demographic profiles from the start of divergences.
BTW, you again assume exclusive “neutral” dna when I mentioned genotype originally.
“By my logic they would have been the same neutral genetic distance from the SPECIES common ancestor, but they would all be differ in distances from their RACIAL common ancestor because once again, neutral DNA is a clock,”
No it is not simply “a clock”, see the link in the previous comment.
“so young populations (Native Americans) are going to show much less variability, because they are short distance in time (and thus neutral DNA) from the founder of the Americas,”
They have lower variability because they came from a portion of the original population, not because of distance in time/ You misused the article’s meaning because nowhere in your quote did it imply this is how it worked.
Also, now you are being inconsistent, cause apparantly if races vary in neutral dna based on time accumulation then you CAN use it to determine basalness by variation. That is, you can tell who’s closer to the original species population by comparing variation between each other.
“while old populations (Africans) will show long distance in time (and thus neutral DNA) from their racial common ancestor and this will result in Africans being variable, because different African lineages have been diverging from the common ancestor of Africa for about as long as the species has existed.”
This miscontrues the whole point of basalness and genetic diversity. Diversity doesn’t mean they are older and thus accumulated variation, it;s that founder population originally had larger variation compared to descendents that branhced off in smaller isolated populations.
Otherwise, give me a link that states directly what you explain.
‘Older populations have had more time to diverge from their racial ancestor, so they have more differences among themselves, then newer populations, who have had less time to accumulate differences among themselves, but all populations have had the same amount of time to accumulate differences from the SPECIES common ancestor, thus all people are equally distant from said ancestor.”
See above comment by me to show how this is all inconsistent, because not only does your explanation imply neutral DNA ISN’T misleading, but that it indeed makes phenotypes irrelevant.
“Scientists specifically look for neutral sites when measuring genetic distance so that genetic differences between races will accumulate at a constant clock-like rate and not be skewed by selection. So it’s not overall genetic distance, because it only samples the neutral sites (or tries to). Thus if they sampled only non-neutral sites, we could call it “non-neutral genetic distance”
Do you see how you contradicted yourself by inserting the speculative “would”? Give me an example of where they HAVE, not theoretical “would” do what you calim on non-neutral distance.
As much as you previously dismissed cladistics, you seem to understand little of it.
“They could simply using non-neutral DNA.”
Yet that would limit themselves to functional and expressed sequences, not overall shared sequences or how that would be reconstructed to population history.
You can tell by looking at genetic variation, which isn;t caused by “more time to accumulate” as you tried to rationalize, because when splits occur you have one population that served as the “base” population and a isolate.
Overtime, yes, both will change but one will contain more basal variation. Otherwise, how did genes (not phenotypes) reconstruct OOA through clades that are currents used and have been used since the 90s?
Because if taxon A and B differ from each other by only 1 neutral mutation, while both A and B differ from C by 2 neutral mutations, then A and B must share a common ancestor that is not shared with C, and the most recent common ancestor of A, B and C must be twice as old as the most recent common ancestor of A and B. Clades are simply a visual depiction of this information with common ancestors placed at the nodes and the length of each line reflecting time:
So it has nothing to do with anyone retaining more basal variation, it has to do with some populations having less shared neutral DNA than other populations, suggesting they split from the family tree early, and thus their neutral DNA has had more time to diverge from everyone else’s.
Yet you were the one you automatically said “neutral” rather than whole genomes attempts or variation comparisons, whic is what we use.
I said neutral because many studies specifically use neutral, and since most of our DNA is neutral, even when the entire genome is used, neutral DNA will dominate
Also, now you are being inconsistent, cause apparantly if races vary in neutral dna based on time accumulation then you CAN use it to determine basalness by variation. That is, you can tell who’s closer to the original species population by comparing variation between each other.
All that tells you is how low long they’ve been a continuous population (i.e. how long ago they colonized their land) or how long ago they branched off the evolutionary tree. No one disputes that some populations are older and that some races split off earlier, but what is disputed is the idea that they are therefore more similar to the common ancestor. Since all extant populations have been evolving for the same amount of time, the conventional wisdom is that all are equally evolved or equally changed from the common ancestor, and indeed when it comes to neutral DNA, all would be equally changed, but when it comes to important phenotypes, and non-neutral DNA (which no one looks exclusively at afaik) I predict that populations that are newer and/or have done more branching, will be more changed from the common ancestor.
This miscontrues the whole point of basalness and genetic diversity. Diversity doesn’t mean they are older and thus accumulated variation, it;s that founder population originally had larger variation compared to descendents that branhced off in smaller isolated populations.
It means both
Otherwise, give me a link that states directly what you explain.
Here’s one:
“Given the fact that modern humans arose in Africa, they have had time to accumulate dramatic changes” in their genes, explained lead researcher Sarah Tishkoff, a geneticist at the University of Pennsylvania.
And the same logic applies to languages. Linguists independently came to the same conclusion that geneticists did about humans originating in Africa, because Africa has the most diverse language families, suggesting humans have lived in Africa long enough for languages to so diversify.
See above comment by me to show how this is all inconsistent, because not only does your explanation imply neutral DNA ISN’T misleading, but that it indeed makes phenotypes irrelevant.
No you’re mixing two different concepts: Neutral DNA can tell us which population is older and which population split off first because people in older populations differ more AMONG THEMSELVES in neutral DNA while younger populations differ less AMONG THEMSELVES, however what neutral DNA can NOT tell us is which is population differs more from the common ancestor of all populations. This is because neutral DNA correlates with TIME, and older populations have had more time to accumulate within population differences, however they have not had more time to accumulate differences from the common ancestor of all humans because everyone has been evolving from that ancestor for the same amount of time. Thus a different variable is needed to measure difference from the common ancestor. Phenotype is one such proxy, although non-neutral DNA might be more precise.
Do you see how you contradicted yourself by inserting the speculative “would”? Give me an example of where they HAVE, not theoretical “would” do what you calim on non-neutral distance.
It’s never been done afaik. It’s just something I’m suggesting might yield interesting results.
As much as you previously dismissed cladistics, you seem to understand little of it.
With all due respect, it’s you who’s not understanding.
Yet that would limit themselves to functional and expressed sequences, not overall shared sequences or how that would be reconstructed to population history.
Neutral DNA is needed to infer population history, but non-neutral DNA would better reflect actual degree of evolutionary change. For example, a living fossil that preserved the same phenotype from millions of years ago would still differ greatly from its ancestor in neutral DNA but differ little in non-neutral DNA because the former is a proxy for time while the latter is a proxy for important functions.
“Because if taxon A and B differ from each other by only 1 neutral mutation, while both A and B differ from C by 2 neutral mutations, then A and B must share a common ancestor that is not shared with C, and the most recent common ancestor of A, B and C must be twice as old as the most recent common ancestor of A and B. Clades are simply a visual depiction of this information with common ancestors placed at the nodes and the length of each line reflecting time.”
Yet even by your analogy, C would logically be more basal if we applied that to your article above.
“So it has nothing to do with anyone retaining more basal variation, it has to do with some populations having less shared neutral DNA than other populations, suggesting they split from the family tree early, and thus their neutral DNA has had more time to diverge from everyone else’s.”
And thus you can make inferences to affinity to the Last common ancestor, as rationalized by your article.
“I said neutral because many studies specifically use neutral, and since most of our DNA is neutral, even when the entire genome is used, neutral DNA will dominate”
And you got this from Jensen’s second hand studies from the 90s as opposed to more advance cladisitics of the present.
“All that tells you is how low long they’ve been a continuous population (i.e. how long ago they colonized their land) or how long ago they branched off the evolutionary tree. No one disputes that some populations are older and that some races split off earlier, but what is disputed is the idea that they are therefore more similar to the common ancestor. Since all extant populations have been evolving for the same amount of time, the conventional wisdom is that all are equally evolved or equally changed from the common ancestor, and indeed when it comes to neutral DNA, all would be equally changed, but when it comes to important phenotypes, and non-neutral DNA (which no one looks exclusively at afaik) I predict that populations that are newer and/or have done more branching, will be more changed from the common ancestor.”
1. Define “important phenotypes”, because in science there are only phenotypes shared by ancestry or genotypes shared by ancestry to determine relation.
2. We do look at coding regions, not necessarily ones based on selection but the thing is that it would be the fodder so those that share similar “fodder” would therefore be closer.
“It means both”
Yet most of the accumulation would be due prior to the splits.
“Here’s one:
“Given the fact that modern humans arose in Africa, they have had time to accumulate dramatic changes” in their genes, explained lead researcher Sarah Tishkoff, a geneticist at the University of Pennsylvania.
And the same logic applies to languages. Linguists independently came to the same conclusion that geneticists did about humans originating in Africa, because Africa has the most diverse language families, suggesting humans have lived in Africa long enough for languages to so diversify.”
AGain, as said before, none of this explains when this all happens relative to splits occurring. This just explains why they had more variation to begin with and doesn’t say both OOA groups and intial Africans had the same amount at the start, cause if they did, they afterwards they would’ve have the same regardless.
“No you’re mixing two different concepts: Neutral DNA can tell us which population is older and which population split off first because people in older populations differ more AMONG THEMSELVES in neutral DNA while younger populations differ less AMONG THEMSELVES, however what neutral DNA can NOT tell us is which is population differs more from the common ancestor of all populations.”
Yet in turn, based on your article, neutral DNA splits would correlate with similarity to the common ancestor. And, if they theoretically did resemble the common ancestor more on phenotype, it would be due to closer coding regions (which we study) to use close non-neutral DNA.
“This is because neutral DNA correlates with TIME, and older populations have had more time to accumulate within population differences, however they have not had more time to accumulate differences from the common ancestor of all humans because everyone has been evolving from that ancestor for the same amount of time. Thus a different variable is needed to measure difference from the common ancestor. Phenotype is one such proxy, although non-neutral DNA might be more precise.”
Unnecessary seeing how coding DNA misspoke days earlier when I said (non coding), as I explained before, can reflect that as well as it was done with the Andaman Islanders under their Y chromosome.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC378623/
Their variant was more basal relative to that of other mainland Asians, making phenotype unnecessary.
“It’s never been done afaik. It’s just something I’m suggesting might yield interesting results.”
Fair enough.
“With all due respect, it’s you who’s not understanding.”
No, I do understand. I understand the greater methods, outside of biological clocks, in which molecular DNA can determine Basalness by both genetic variation, based on the common argument that Non African were a small genetically less diverse groups compared to original Africans, and Haplogroup phylogeny.
“Neutral DNA is needed to infer population history, but non-neutral DNA would better reflect actual degree of evolutionary change. For example, a living fossil that preserved the same phenotype from millions of years ago would still differ greatly from its ancestor in neutral DNA but differ little in non-neutral DNA because the former is a proxy for time while the latter is a proxy for important functions.”
We actually can;t really say that because, due to the limits of fossils, we can only make inferences on general morphology, not it’s physiology or biological processes which would be under change.
“Coelacanths disappeared from the fossil record some 80 million years ago (upper Cretaceous) and to the extent that they exhibit low rates of morphological evolution, extant species qualify as living fossils. It must be emphasised that this criterion reflects fossil evidence, and is totally independent of whether the taxons had been subject to selection at all, which all living populations continuously are, whether they remain genetically unchanged or not. This in turn gives rise to a great deal of confusion; for one thing, the fossil record seldom preserves much more than the general morphology of a specimen; to determine much about its physiology is seldom possible. To determine much about its noncoding DNA is hardly ever possible, but even if a species were hypothetically unchanged in its physiology, it is to be expected from the very nature of the reproductive processes, that its non-functional genomic changes would continue at more or less standard rates. It follows that a fossil lineage with apparently constant morphology need not imply equally constant physiology for example, and certainly neither implies any cessation of the basic evolutionary processes such as natural selection, nor reduction in the usual rate of change of the noncoding DNA. In short, not even the most dramatic examples of living fossils can be expected to be without changes, no matter how persistently constant their fossils and their extant specimens might seem.[14]”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Living_fossil#Long-enduring
“Because if taxon A and B differ from each other by only 1 neutral mutation, while both A and B differ from C by 2 neutral mutations, then A and B must share a common ancestor that is not shared with C, and the most recent common ancestor of A, B and C must be twice as old as the most recent common ancestor of A and B. Clades are simply a visual depiction of this information with common ancestors placed at the nodes and the length of each line reflecting time.”
Yet even by your analogy, C would logically be more basal if we applied that to your article above.
The word basal is ambiguous and in retrospect I shouldn’t have used it because it’s confusing the issue. There are two different concepts : 1) branch on the family tree, 2) similarity to the common ancestor. I’m arguing there’s a correlation between these two variables, however it seems many scientist deny that correlation, even though the term basal is used by scientists describe both branching and more ancestral traits.
“So it has nothing to do with anyone retaining more basal variation, it has to do with some populations having less shared neutral DNA than other populations, suggesting they split from the family tree early, and thus their neutral DNA has had more time to diverge from everyone else’s.”
And thus you can make inferences to affinity to the Last common ancestor, as rationalized by your article.
I obviously agree, but for those who deny one’s branch on the family tree predicts ancestral similarity, empirical evidence is needed such as actual morphological or functional genetic affinity between early branching extant taxon and the extinct ancestor. But even I don’t claim branching correlates perfectly with being like the common ancestor. I just argue there’s a correlation, so again a more direct measure is needed.
“I said neutral because many studies specifically use neutral, and since most of our DNA is neutral, even when the entire genome is used, neutral DNA will dominate”
And you got this from Jensen’s second hand studies from the 90s as opposed to more advance cladisitics of the present.
Jensen never said most DNA was neutral, I read that elsewhere. But Jensen did say neutral DNA was preferred in the type of work Cavalli-Sforza was doing
“All that tells you is how low long they’ve been a continuous population (i.e. how long ago they colonized their land) or how long ago they branched off the evolutionary tree. No one disputes that some populations are older and that some races split off earlier, but what is disputed is the idea that they are therefore more similar to the common ancestor. Since all extant populations have been evolving for the same amount of time, the conventional wisdom is that all are equally evolved or equally changed from the common ancestor, and indeed when it comes to neutral DNA, all would be equally changed, but when it comes to important phenotypes, and non-neutral DNA (which no one looks exclusively at afaik) I predict that populations that are newer and/or have done more branching, will be more changed from the common ancestor.”
1. Define “important phenotypes”, because in science there are only phenotypes shared by ancestry or genotypes shared by ancestry to determine relation.
Important phenotypes are those that are selected for or against.
2. We do look at coding regions, not necessarily ones based on selection but the thing is that it would be the fodder so those that share similar “fodder” would therefore be closer.
If the goal is to determine how long ago A and B shared a common ancestor, either coding or non-coding DNA are fine, as long as both are selectively neutral. The problem with using non-neutral DNA to determine shared ancestry is the DNA that codes for black skin is so similar among Africans and Australoids that you would be tricked into thinking they share a very recent common ancestor, when it reality, they merely preserved an ancient ancestor’s skin because skin changes were selected against in both groups.
“Here’s one:
“Given the fact that modern humans arose in Africa, they have had time to accumulate dramatic changes” in their genes, explained lead researcher Sarah Tishkoff, a geneticist at the University of Pennsylvania.
And the same logic applies to languages. Linguists independently came to the same conclusion that geneticists did about humans originating in Africa, because Africa has the most diverse language families, suggesting humans have lived in Africa long enough for languages to so diversify.”
AGain, as said before, none of this explains when this all happens relative to splits occurring. This just explains why they had more variation to begin with and doesn’t say both OOA groups and intial Africans had the same amount at the start, cause if they did, they afterwards they would’ve have the same regardless.
It said Africans had more TIME to accumulate changes, meaning Africans are more variable because they’ve lived in Africa longer than non-Africans have lived in Eurasia. If they wanted to make your point they would have said “Africans never left Africa, thus never left behind some of their variation”
“No you’re mixing two different concepts: Neutral DNA can tell us which population is older and which population split off first because people in older populations differ more AMONG THEMSELVES in neutral DNA while younger populations differ less AMONG THEMSELVES, however what neutral DNA can NOT tell us is which is population differs more from the common ancestor of all populations.”
Yet in turn, based on your article, neutral DNA splits would correlate with similarity to the common ancestor. And, if they theoretically did resemble the common ancestor more on phenotype, it would be due to closer coding regions (which we study) to use close non-neutral DNA.
Or they could resemble the common ancestor because non-coding DNA activates the same genes that were activated in the common ancestor
“Coelacanths disappeared from the fossil record some 80 million years ago (upper Cretaceous) and to the extent that they exhibit low rates of morphological evolution, extant species qualify as living fossils. It must be emphasised that this criterion reflects fossil evidence, and is totally independent of whether the taxons had been subject to selection at all, which all living populations continuously are, whether they remain genetically unchanged or not. This in turn gives rise to a great deal of confusion; for one thing, the fossil record seldom preserves much more than the general morphology of a specimen; to determine much about its physiology is seldom possible.
If living fossils resemble their ancestors in preserved phenotype, chances are they resemble them in perishable phenotype, we just can’t observe the latter. The preserved is a sample of the total phenotype.
To determine much about its noncoding DNA is hardly ever possible, but even if a species were hypothetically unchanged in its physiology, it is to be expected from the very nature of the reproductive processes, that its non-functional genomic changes would continue at more or less standard rates.
Exactly my point! Non-function DNA (neutral DNA) serves as a clock because it changes at a constant rate, just like a clock, so even though living fossils are much more similar in phenotype to the common ancestor (as far as we can tell from the fossil record), they are as distant in non-neutral DNA as all other descendants, because the same amount of time (and thus neutral mutations) separates all extant taxa from their common ancestor.
Cavalli-Sforza’s work is almost three decades old. Razib chastised Rushton for using that data a decade ago. Surely it’s even more outdated today.
“The word basal is ambiguous and in retrospect I shouldn’t have used it because it’s confusing the issue. There are two different concepts : 1) branch on the family tree, 2) similarity to the common ancestor. I’m arguing there’s a correlation between these two variables, however it seems many scientist deny that correlation, even though the term basal is used by scientists describe both branching and more ancestral traits.”
The problem with your assertion is even more mabniguioty by relying on “similarity to common ancester”, that it is, in what CONSISTENT regard and how to quantify it.
I resort to coding regions of DNA because that, overall, covers much of the non-regular mutations and expressed functional DNA.
“I obviously agree, but for those who deny one’s branch on the family tree predicts ancestral similarity, empirical evidence is needed such as actual morphological or functional genetic affinity between early branching extant taxon and the extinct ancestor. But even I don’t claim branching correlates perfectly with being like the common ancestor. I just argue there’s a correlation, so again a more direct measure is needed.”
Hence see my proposals.
“Jensen never said most DNA was neutral, I read that elsewhere. But Jensen did say neutral DNA was preferred in the type of work Cavalli-Sforza was doing”
That was what I meant, nowadays coding regions are done more often.
1. Define “important phenotypes”, because in science there are only phenotypes shared by ancestry or genotypes shared by ancestry to determine relation.
“Important phenotypes are those that are selected for or against.”
But that limited, because those may be a minority of phenotypes and many more could exist relevant to determing taxonomy. Thta mistake lead to associations that in reality resulted from independent evolution.
2. We do look at coding regions, not necessarily ones based on selection but the thing is that it would be the fodder so those that share similar “fodder” would therefore be closer.
“If the goal is to determine how long ago A and B shared a common ancestor, either coding or non-coding DNA are fine, as long as both are selectively neutral. The problem with using non-neutral DNA to determine shared ancestry is the DNA that codes for black skin is so similar among Africans and Australoids that you would be tricked into thinking they share a very recent common ancestor, when it reality, they merely preserved an ancient ancestor’s skin because skin changes were selected against in both groups.”
Reread what I said, I said that coding DNA would be the basic “fodder” for most selected DNA. Thus, if their similar, that would mean they had similar selective history.
“It said Africans had more TIME to accumulate changes, meaning Africans are more variable because they’ve lived in Africa longer than non-Africans have lived in Eurasia. If they wanted to make your point they would have said “Africans never left Africa, thus never left behind some of their variation”
That concept would apply to my explanation as well. As it said, Modern humans which contributed to modern African lineages lived in Africa Longer that ancestral Eurasians lived in Eurasia, thus they have more time to diversify and have more variation.
“Or they could resemble the common ancestor because non-coding DNA activates the same genes that were activated in the common ancestor”
And in turn, if it did, that would mean it lived in a lifestyle close to the common ancester and thus it would also mean less selection difference in the coding regions of the DNA as well.
“Coelacanths disappeared from the fossil record some 80 million years ago (upper Cretaceous) and to the extent that they exhibit low rates of morphological evolution, extant species qualify as living fossils. It must be emphasised that this criterion reflects fossil evidence, and is totally independent of whether the taxons had been subject to selection at all, which all living populations continuously are, whether they remain genetically unchanged or not. This in turn gives rise to a great deal of confusion; for one thing, the fossil record seldom preserves much more than the general morphology of a specimen; to determine much about its physiology is seldom possible.
“If living fossils resemble their ancestors in preserved phenotype, chances are they resemble them in perishable phenotype, we just can’t observe the latter. The preserved is a sample of the total phenotype.”
Yet it’s a sample from which limited interpretations can be determined. Not only that, the beginning paragraph from the wiki points out how Coelacanths indeed experience non-neutral genetic change and diversity.
“Exactly my point! Non-function DNA (neutral DNA) serves as a clock because it changes at a constant rate, just like a clock, so even though living fossils are much more similar in phenotype to the common ancestor (as far as we can tell from the fossil record), they are as distant in non-neutral DNA as all other descendants, because the same amount of time (and thus neutral mutations) separates all extant taxa from their common ancestor.”
The other point was what I was focusing on, showing the limits of interpretations that can be made of just the fossil record on living fossils versus their ancestors.
I have no qualms about neutral DNA, but living fossils themselves don’y deminstrate no significant phenotypical change in total.
This topic actually came up in my essay, about the absence of female beauty before the mid-20th century. It’s an inconsistent mixture really, because we have some derived traits that imbue pleasant qualia upon the observer (large cranium, flatter face, smaller mouth, full lips, hairless body) and one or two primitive traits that also imbue pleasant qualia (small nose and small chin), while at the same time we have several derived traits that elicit negative qualia (large nose and large chin) and a majority of primitive traits which elicit negative qualia (small cranium/large face combo, prominent brow ridges, sloped forehead, thin lips, hairiness). Positive and negative phenotypical traits are scattered between the primitive and derived categories, rather than lining up uniformly on either side.
“Insofar as a species satisfies the existential demands of its ecological niche, it will not evolve further. This is called an evolutionary dead end, a good example of this being the horseshoe crab. When subject to the pressure of intraspecific competition, the species will undergo cladogenesis and split into a new ecological niche, forming a clade.
Hence, the most recent taxonomic split will always, necessarily be more complicated than its parent, on any level, with the highest level (domain) taking highest priority insofar as determining the complication of a taxa goes.
Diagram from (Woese et al, 1990).
Mammals, primates, humans, homo-sapiens are the most recent split, split, split and therefore the most evolutionarily advanced species on this planet earth.”
(Fenoopy, 2018).
Seriously though, this kind of thing is obvious and to believe that evolution isn’t moving towards negative entropy aka further complication and order is just low IQ.
Hence, the most recent taxonomic split will always, necessarily be more complicated than its parent
Even im not arguing evolution ALWAYS moves in a certain direction, just that there’s a general trend.
But there are cases of what some might call “backward evolution”. Cochran discusses it:
https://westhunt.wordpress.com/2011/11/04/back-to-the-trees/
No, I mean the organism becomes more complex each time the taxa splits from bacteria to mammals etc. I will read about backwards evolution.
Is there any real world example of backwards evolution without extinction?
“Is there any real world example of backwards evolution without extinction?”
Well, “backwards evolution” proper would be advantageous in context of the trend.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3840695/
See here how it applies to Eurkaryotes.
Well, it turns out I’m not as knowledgeable as I thought. My stance moves towards Pumpkin’s aka general trend but not always.
It seems any species moving into a new environment will always simplify and then continue to complexify once adapted. This can apply to parasites, the hobbits, or birds once the ‘meteor’ or whatever the dinosaur extinction event was hit. What do you think?
There does seem to be a cycle (I even recall Rr sending me a study on it), and major extinctions do seem to be a major example. Other mechanics though I’m unsure to pinpoint.
Unless you’re merely saying the tree always gets more complex everytime it splits, which is kind of a trivial point