By Stephen Jay Gould and Richard C. Lewontin
http://www.aaas.org/spp/dser/evoluti...spandrel.shtml
The Spandrels of San Marco and the Panglossian Paradigm:
A Critique of the Adaptationist Programme

dsaklad@zurich.csail.mit.edu wrote:

Lewontin forgot about the *patterns* of genes, and by just fucussing on
individual gene frequencies was led into serious scientific error about
races, which are real, despite his proclamation. Gould knew better.

jimbat

"Erasmus" <jimbat@verizon.net> schreef in bericht
news:h3c%d.8191$wL6.2501@trnddc03...
Races, or sub-species "are real" in the biological world in general.
Just not in modern, living humans. Sub-species is a very specific
term, which requires a minimum intra-species genetic diversity of
at least 20-25%. Modern humans don't come anywhere near that
diversity, as Lewontin proved.

And Lewontin has been proved right again and again by the lack
of genetic diversity among living humans, as discovered by geneticists
in independent research.

Alex

Alex wrote:
extremely instructive to study the cichlids of Lake Taganyika, where
just a change of color puts a female off, despite no real genetic
change. However, I would challenge the 20-25% genetic diversity
criterion. No one denies that we and chimps and bonobos are separate
*species*, yet our genetic difference is a mere 1.5% or so. I don't
think either of their genomes has been sequenced yet, but I hope soon.

The "little men" (Flores hominids) whose remains were discovered in
Indonesia were probably much more closely related genetically to
Neandertals than to us, as the line that ended in the Neandertal split
off from us some 500,000 years before *we* left Africa. I consider
myself an African, and everyone else too, except for my Neandertal
cousin 50 times removed.

That is incorrect. In another thousand years there may be no diversity,
unless Yellowstone blows. There are differences of patterns and in the
expression of different genes, especially in cytoplasmic DNA. How do
you think all the different 'Eves' (from 5 to 19 by different counts)
have been traced? All breeds of dogs have the same wolf DNA - even the
veriest tiny bit of hyperactive coyote bait - but the breeds arise from
differences in expression. Did you know that, for instance, all human
fetuses, of whatever race, have blue eyes? The color changes after
birth with exposure to light. Expression, again.

Lewontin did good work, but he did not understand statistics, and so
went astray. There is a subfield of statistics called "finding groups
in data" by hoi polloi, which any statistician ignores at his peril.
Statistics is probably the least understood vital subject among
scientists. Straight lines are preferred.

BTW, I'm just a retired astrophysicist. My only formal training in
genetics was six weeks by Watson, when he was assembling the genetic
code on the blackboard in his office, which we were all invited to see.
It was like being Present at the Creation, in the words of Dean Acheson.

I thank you for your intelligent post. If you pay attention to what
I've said, you will be an even better scientist.

jimbat

"Erasmus" <jimbat@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:TCu%d.13025$mq2.11675@trnddc08...
Actualy based on the skeletal configuration, brain shapes and fossil age
that is not the case at all. The "little men" of the Indonesian island were
decended from Homo erectus and divirged genetically from them around 2
million years ago. They also out lived Neandertals in that they seem to have
been on the island of Flores until about 18,000 years ago, well after Homo
Sapiens had moved into the area of the Indonesian Island chain. While
Neanderthals died out shortly after Homo Sapiens moved into Europe. There
are some gentitisists that believe there may have been some cross breeding
of late Homo Erectus with early Homo Sapiens though the genitic evidence is
not conculsive on that debate.

Gary Stein

Gary Stein wrote:
<boggles at apparent definition of "shortly after" in use in above
paragraph>

Aqua

"Aqua" <aqua@internode.on.net> wrote in message
news:d4g6h2-14.ln1@transparent.jamver.id.au...
I've heard that there's some (academic) debate as to whether
they died out, or were (at least partially) absorbed.

Ruth

Gary Stein wrote:

[...]

Please watch your spelling. I try, but make typos.

Of course they outlived Neanderthals as they were pretty isolated from
us, but your dates are wrong. They went extinct no more than ~13,000
yrs ago, from the few skeletons that have been recovered, probably
killed by a heavy deposit of volcanic ash.

They do not have the appearance of Homo erectus, but that does not
demonstrate that they did not evolve from them, as we did back in
Africa. But your date for divergence is pretty wild, as 2 m.y. ago is
more the time of Homo habilis, not Homo erectus, which were closer to 1
m.y. ago, but took some time to spread to Indonesia (Java Man), what
with the ocean going up and down. There are too few fossils to trace
them. What about Homo pekinensis, which is considered a form of Homo
erectus but only about 500,000 yrs old; too bad the Japanese denied us
of their fossils.

I think cross-breeding between H erectus and H sapiens most unlikely, in
fact I don't think we even existed contemporaneously, ever as the first
H sapiens did not predate ~200,000 yr ago, by which time H erectus wa
probably extinct, or we made them extinct when we emigrated from Africa
about 80,000 yrs ago. The Toba super-volcanic explosion almost made us
extinct, and would surely have extinguished any remaining H erectus.
For this reason I don't think H floiensis is likely descended from H
erectus, but may have snuck over after Toba.

But then considering that the Neandertal ancestry split off from ours
about 500,000 yrs ago, it might seem unlikely that we could interbreed
with them either, yet the evidence is that we did, as in the old
multi-frame cartoon, "Gum gissa grl". Neanderthals and we had evolved
through a process of parallel evolution into rather similar phenotypes,
but genotypes? One may well wonder.

Anyway, this is a very rich field for future research so that we may not
be able to forget about Weidenreich after all, except for our own
origins. Right now, everyone is only guessing, including me, so don't
be too sure of yourself. More fossils may well be discovered to toss us
all on our butts.

Aqua wrote:

spelling...

jimbat

Note I wrote "intra"-species, not "inter"-species.

We're talking about genetic variety within a species, when we're looking
at "races" or sub-species.

Alex

Alex wrote:
I can read. So much the worse, as different species almost always have
more difference in their genomes than subspecies. Aqua, I know your
frontal lobes glow, if sometimes at low wattage other times at high, but
this is an extraordinary CYA statement.
some respect.

jimbat