Re: For Sean Pitman: Some real nested hierarchies
- From: Ernest Major <{$to$}@meden.demon.co.uk>
- Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2008 17:22:25 +0000
In message <371c52d5-7571-46fa-8868-b4b759d9c261@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Seanpit <seanpitnospam@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes
On Mar 14, 9:20 am, hersheyh <hershe...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
< snip >
> That's only as far as the supposed time since the MRCA. The different
> branch points have been used as an argument that Neandertals should be
> given a different species classification. Of course, this argument
> has political impliations as well for various modern races of humans.
Why would it? What it would imply is that neanderthals arose from a
subgroup *within* an already locally diversified interbreeding human
species. You keep trying to introduce the false idea that the
neanderthal subspecies or species *must* be primitive and ancestral to
advanced derived humans rather than, possibly, being derived from and
not ancestral to modern humans. Survivor's guilt?
Simply the suggestion that Neandertals are a different "species" based
on differences in the origin of their proposed tree branch is
politically charged. It is the basis for a lot of conflict between
various races of modern humans. The suggestion that a particular
group of modern humans may not even be of the same "species" as
another group has a lot of implications - right or wrong. It has
nothing to do with "survivor guilt" at all. If you can't see that,
you don't know much about history.
And the only person making that suggestion is you. The rest of us are all telling you that the data does not support that interpretation. (For a start, as I've already told you upthread, the tree is a tree of haplotypes, not a tree of populations, and that's not the only flaw in your argument - John Harshman has already mentioned some of the others.)
You can't make the data go away by falsely claiming that it supports racist interpretations.
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
--
alias Ernest Major
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: For Sean Pitman: Some real nested hierarchies
- From: Seanpit
- Re: For Sean Pitman: Some real nested hierarchies
- References:
- For Sean Pitman: Some real nested hierarchies
- From: John Harshman
- Re: For Sean Pitman: Some real nested hierarchies
- From: Seanpit
- Re: For Sean Pitman: Some real nested hierarchies
- From: Ernest Major
- Re: For Sean Pitman: Some real nested hierarchies
- From: Seanpit
- Re: For Sean Pitman: Some real nested hierarchies
- From: Ernest Major
- Re: For Sean Pitman: Some real nested hierarchies
- From: hersheyh
- Re: For Sean Pitman: Some real nested hierarchies
- From: Seanpit
- Re: For Sean Pitman: Some real nested hierarchies
- From: Gene Poole
- Re: For Sean Pitman: Some real nested hierarchies
- From: John Harshman
- Re: For Sean Pitman: Some real nested hierarchies
- From: Seanpit
- Re: For Sean Pitman: Some real nested hierarchies
- From: John Harshman
- Re: For Sean Pitman: Some real nested hierarchies
- From: Seanpit
- Re: For Sean Pitman: Some real nested hierarchies
- From: John Harshman
- Re: For Sean Pitman: Some real nested hierarchies
- From: Seanpit
- Re: For Sean Pitman: Some real nested hierarchies
- From: hersheyh
- Re: For Sean Pitman: Some real nested hierarchies
- From: Seanpit
- For Sean Pitman: Some real nested hierarchies
- Prev by Date: Re: Don't you think it's time...
- Next by Date: Re: The Common Origin of Coin Flips
- Previous by thread: Re: For Sean Pitman: Some real nested hierarchies
- Next by thread: Re: For Sean Pitman: Some real nested hierarchies
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|