RugbyRebels

rowan wrote:

Donny osmond wrote:

morepork wrote:

I meant in a peer reviewed journal.

Jesus fucking christ MP, peer reviewed? THE FUCKING INTERNET SAYS SO. Repeat that until you achieve understanding.

Nothing to go into a frothing seizure over, Donny. Just an interesting item I came across, which appears to have been widely published.

Meanwhile, have you actually read Yval Noah Harari's best seller on the topic - 'Sapiens' ?? If not, I suggest you go away and do so before you try to join in any discussion with adults on the subject.

You mutant. Do you know what the peer review process is?

"Best seller", FFS...

I just wonder what goes through the minds of people who react with so much hostility to a link and accompanying article about anthropology. This is a rugby forum, not an international conference on the topic. I posted the article because I thought it might be of interest. You really must have psychological issues to work yourself up about things like this.

But don't get me wrong, I find all this infantile hostility and the frothing seizures over absolutely nothing to be somewhat amusing. So here it is again:

Most everyone knows that the islands of the South Pacific are some of the most remote and unique places on Earth, but a new study reveals just how unique they really are.
According to a report from the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston, researchers have found traces of a previously unknown extinct hominid species in the DNA of the Melanesians, a group living in an area northeast of Australia that encompasses Papua New Guinea and the surrounding islands.
A computer analysis suggests that the unidentified ancestral hominid species found in Melanesian DNA is unlikely to be either Neanderthal or Denisovan, the two known predecessors of humankind to this point.
Archaeologists have found many Neanderthal fossils in Europe and Asia, and although the only Denisovan DNA comes from a finger bone and a couple of teeth discovered in a Siberian cave, both species are well represented in the fossil record.
But now genetic modeling of the Melanesians has revealed a third, different human ancestor that may be an extinct, distinct cousin of the Neanderthals.
“We’re missing a population, or we’re misunderstanding something about the relationships,” researcher Ryan Bohlender told Science News. “Human history is a lot more complicated than we thought it was.”

http://all-that-is-interesting.com/paci ... s-ancestor

Not too much of a surprise, really. & I wouldn't be surprised if a similar discovery is made in the Americas some day either. For some time anthropologists have claimed humankind is divided into four major ethnic groups - African, European, East Asian/Native American and South Asian/Austronesian, with considerable hybridisation involving the latter group in South Asia (with Europeans) and South East Asia (with East Asians). DNA appears to have confirmed all this, but Israeli historian Yval Noah Harari goes a step further in his international best seller 'Sapiens' in suggesting the differences emerged principally through hybridisation with other now extinct species of primitive man. Europeans are considered to carry around 2.5% Neanderthal DNA for example, while Asians and Austronesians were thought to have at least that amount of Dinosovian DNA. However, that doesn't explain the obvious differences between East Asians and South Asians/Austronesians. This new finding does. Sub-Saharan Africans are the only ones who didn't hybridise. This includes both black Africans and the San Bushmen who are a minor separate race.

Ohhhhhh. Poor baby.

"widely published" seems to mean the same website twice, and the Daily Mail.

Sorry, hit send before I was ready as the phone rang. I meant to also say thanks for bringing it to my attention, though without a more reputable source, I'll treat it as more and opinion piece than actual research.

Come on, boys, you can do better than this. Let's see a real toy-throwing, food-spewing, diaper-soiling tantrum over this highly inflammatory article

Most everyone knows that the islands of the South Pacific are some of the most remote and unique places on Earth, but a new study reveals just how unique they really are.
According to a report from the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston, researchers have found traces of a previously unknown extinct hominid species in the DNA of the Melanesians, a group living in an area northeast of Australia that encompasses Papua New Guinea and the surrounding islands.
A computer analysis suggests that the unidentified ancestral hominid species found in Melanesian DNA is unlikely to be either Neanderthal or Denisovan, the two known predecessors of humankind to this point.
Archaeologists have found many Neanderthal fossils in Europe and Asia, and although the only Denisovan DNA comes from a finger bone and a couple of teeth discovered in a Siberian cave, both species are well represented in the fossil record.
But now genetic modeling of the Melanesians has revealed a third, different human ancestor that may be an extinct, distinct cousin of the Neanderthals.
“We’re missing a population, or we’re misunderstanding something about the relationships,” researcher Ryan Bohlender told Science News. “Human history is a lot more complicated than we thought it was.”

http://all-that-is-interesting.com/paci ... s-ancestor

Not too much of a surprise, really. & I wouldn't be surprised if a similar discovery is made in the Americas some day either. For some time anthropologists have claimed humankind is divided into four major ethnic groups - African, European, East Asian/Native American and South Asian/Austronesian, with considerable hybridisation involving the latter group in South Asia (with Europeans) and South East Asia (with East Asians). DNA appears to have confirmed all this, but Israeli historian Yval Noah Harari goes a step further in his international best seller 'Sapiens' in suggesting the differences emerged principally through hybridisation with other now extinct species of primitive man. Europeans are considered to carry around 2.5% Neanderthal DNA for example, while Asians and Austronesians were thought to have at least that amount of Dinosovian DNA. However, that doesn't explain the obvious differences between East Asians and South Asians/Austronesians. This new finding does. Sub-Saharan Africans are the only ones who didn't hybridise. This includes both black Africans and the San Bushmen who are a minor separate race.

Give me details. I want to know what SNPs distinguish this line of ancestry from others. How much sequence homolgy is there? Was mitochondrial DNA looked at?

Please don't cut and paste from the same link again.

Yuval Noah Harari ought to do some research on some of you chumps. I think that Neanderthal factor might just need multiplying - a few dozen times...

Chimps.


What is the Neanderthal factor? Is it a biological metric you read about?

morepork wrote:Chimps.


What is the Neanderthal factor? Is it a biological metric you read about?

According to Harari we fought long and difficult battles with Neanderthals in Europe, and for a long time were coming off second best. They had already been in Europe for, like, a hundred thousand years or so and were well-adapted to the terrain. They were relatively short and stocky - and smart, too. But somehow we started to get the upper hand, probably due to our superior weaponry. Homo Sapiens were big game hunters, unlike Neanderthals who mostly lived on small game and fish. So we conquered them and wiped them out, and probably raped a lot of their womenfolk in the process. Harari says the chances of offspring from hybridisation would have been very slim indeed, but on rare occasions it did happen, and often enough for Europeans to retain about 2.5% Neanderthal DNA to this very day. A similar process is thought to have occurred involving modern man and Denisovans over in Asia, but we always knew the full story was a lot bigger and more complicated than that. Hopefully this new discovery in Melanesia will help to shed more light on it.

This is what I was after Captain.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27654910


Fill yer boots

morepork wrote:This is what I was after Captain.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27654910


Fill yer boots

Not so entertaining, I'm afraid. I'll stick with my books and articles and documentaries. I've actually been interested in this topic for a very long time, and spent many hours of my youth in Wellington Public Library researching it purely out of curiosity. The Australian anthropologist Dr Peter Bellwood was one of my favourites.

cashead wrote:Does anyone go to the National Center for Biotechnology Information for purposes of entertainment?

Haplessly misses the point again. . .

cashead wrote:laffo

rowan wrote:I'll stick with my books and articles and documentaries.

This little statement says all, really.

You might be a little less hapless if you tried it yourself.

rowan wrote:

morepork wrote:This is what I was after Captain.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27654910


Fill yer boots

Not so entertaining, I'm afraid. I'll stick with my books and articles and documentaries. I've actually been interested in this topic for a very long time, and spent many hours of my youth in Wellington Public Library researching it purely out of curiosity. The Australian anthropologist Dr Peter Bellwood was one of my favourites.

It's the science behind the PR you are linking here. It gives a certain validity to the discussion. It's not meant to be entertaining so much as informative. You understand that yeah?

morepork wrote:This is what I was after Captain.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27654910


Fill yer boots

98 authors! Do they just list everyone who works in the building or something?!

zer0 wrote:

morepork wrote:This is what I was after Captain.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27654910


Fill yer boots

98 authors! Do they just list everyone who works in the building or something?!

It's a collaborative effort between institutions that have either access to raw material or the machine that goes *PING*!

morepork wrote:

rowan wrote:

morepork wrote:This is what I was after Captain.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27654910


Fill yer boots

Not so entertaining, I'm afraid. I'll stick with my books and articles and documentaries. I've actually been interested in this topic for a very long time, and spent many hours of my youth in Wellington Public Library researching it purely out of curiosity. The Australian anthropologist Dr Peter Bellwood was one of my favourites.

It's the science behind the PR you are linking here. It gives a certain validity to the discussion. It's not meant to be entertaining so much as informative. You understand that yeah?

But this is a rugby chat forum, right? not an international science conference or anything.

rowan wrote:

morepork wrote:

rowan wrote:
Not so entertaining, I'm afraid. I'll stick with my books and articles and documentaries. I've actually been interested in this topic for a very long time, and spent many hours of my youth in Wellington Public Library researching it purely out of curiosity. The Australian anthropologist Dr Peter Bellwood was one of my favourites.

It's the science behind the PR you are linking here. It gives a certain validity to the discussion. It's not meant to be entertaining so much as informative. You understand that yeah?

But this is a rugby chat forum, right? not an international science conference or anything.

No it's not. Neither is it an anecdotal anthropology forum or The World Irony Championship. The point stands.

morepork wrote:

rowan wrote:

morepork wrote:

It's the science behind the PR you are linking here. It gives a certain validity to the discussion. It's not meant to be entertaining so much as informative. You understand that yeah?

But this is a rugby chat forum, right? not an international science conference or anything.

No it's not. Neither is it an anecdotal anthropology forum or The World Irony Championship. The point stands.

No, you just made that up because you're a bitter sort of fellow with some obvious personal problems.

I have to admit I am struggling to see the relevance of that criticism (irony context aside). Think this through. Anthropological studies hypothesise the existence of a novel branch of evolution, the members of which are long gone. Molecular biology and bioinformatics provide hard data supporting this, and each complements the other. What's the problem here? A contrasting example would be Thor Hyerdahl's theory of the populating of Polynesia citing the spread of Taro as a staple crop. He hypothesised Polynesians originated in South America based on Taro but subsequent analyses of Taro mitochondrial DNA showed this crop originated in Asia. Resolution through two independent points of observation.

morepork wrote:I have to admit I am struggling to see the relevance of that criticism (irony context aside). Think this through. Anthropological studies hypothesise the existence of a novel branch of evolution, the members of which are long gone. Molecular biology and bioinformatics provide hard data supporting this, and each complements the other. What's the problem here? A contrasting example would be Thor Hyerdahl's theory of the populating of Polynesia citing the spread of Taro as a staple crop. He hypothesised Polynesians originated in South America based on Taro but subsequent analyses of Taro mitochondrial DNA showed this crop originated in Asia. Resolution through two independent points of observation.

The South American sweet potato has been prevalent in the Pacific Islands for about 1000 years, and is known to the Maori as the kumera, which closely resembles the word cumal which is still used by the Quechua natives of the Andes region. So there may well have been contact between Polynesians and South American natives long before Europeans arrived on the scene, and given the former were the ones who sailed their double-hulled canoes all over the Pacific, it's certainly possible they reached South America at some point but did not settle there, as there is no trace of their DNA on that continent.

But Thor was an ass who clung to his theories long after they had been disproved because his ego was more important to him than discovery of the truth.

rowan wrote:

morepork wrote:I have to admit I am struggling to see the relevance of that criticism (irony context aside). Think this through. Anthropological studies hypothesise the existence of a novel branch of evolution, the members of which are long gone. Molecular biology and bioinformatics provide hard data supporting this, and each complements the other. What's the problem here? A contrasting example would be Thor Hyerdahl's theory of the populating of Polynesia citing the spread of Taro as a staple crop. He hypothesised Polynesians originated in South America based on Taro but subsequent analyses of Taro mitochondrial DNA showed this crop originated in Asia. Resolution through two independent points of observation.

The South American sweet potato has been prevalent in the Pacific Islands for about 1000 years, and is known to the Maori as the kumera, which closely resembles the word cumal which is still used by the Quechua natives of the Andes region. So there may well have been contact between Polynesians and South American natives long before Europeans arrived on the scene, and given the former were the ones who sailed their double-hulled canoes all over the Pacific, it's certainly possible they reached South America at some point but did not settle there, as there is no trace of their DNA on that continent.

But Thor was an ass who clung to his theories long after they had been disproved because his ego was more important to him than discovery of the truth.

Yes, I know what kumara is, I'm Kiwi. The point is that the mitochondrial genome of Taro shows more homology with Asian nightshade species than it does South American species. Here's a little bioinformatics Top Tip: mitochondria are exclusively maternal in origin which halves the potential variance presented by sexual recombination. I didn't cut and paste that by the way.

Science bitch. Embrace it.

morepork wrote:

rowan wrote:

morepork wrote:I have to admit I am struggling to see the relevance of that criticism (irony context aside). Think this through. Anthropological studies hypothesise the existence of a novel branch of evolution, the members of which are long gone. Molecular biology and bioinformatics provide hard data supporting this, and each complements the other. What's the problem here? A contrasting example would be Thor Hyerdahl's theory of the populating of Polynesia citing the spread of Taro as a staple crop. He hypothesised Polynesians originated in South America based on Taro but subsequent analyses of Taro mitochondrial DNA showed this crop originated in Asia. Resolution through two independent points of observation.

The South American sweet potato has been prevalent in the Pacific Islands for about 1000 years, and is known to the Maori as the kumera, which closely resembles the word cumal which is still used by the Quechua natives of the Andes region. So there may well have been contact between Polynesians and South American natives long before Europeans arrived on the scene, and given the former were the ones who sailed their double-hulled canoes all over the Pacific, it's certainly possible they reached South America at some point but did not settle there, as there is no trace of their DNA on that continent.

But Thor was an ass who clung to his theories long after they had been disproved because his ego was more important to him than discovery of the truth.

Yes, I know what kumara is, I'm Kiwi. The point is that the mitochondrial genome of Taro shows more homology with Asian nightshade species than it does South American species. Here's a little bioinformatics Top Tip: mitochondria are exclusively maternal in origin which halves the potential variance presented by sexual recombination. I didn't cut and paste that by the way.

Science bitch. Embrace it.

Best post of 2017

The South American sweet potato has been prevalent in the Pacific Islands for about 1000 years, and is known to the Maori as the kumera, which closely resembles the word cumal which is still used by the Quechua natives of the Andes region. So there may well have been contact between Polynesians and South American natives long before Europeans arrived on the scene, and given the former were the ones who sailed their double-hulled canoes all over the Pacific, it's certainly possible they reached South America at some point but did not settle there, as there is no trace of their DNA on that continent.

What's really amazing, and which we still have relatively little knowledge about, is how peoples ethnically akin to the Polynesians and regarded as part of the same language family, crossed the Indian Ocean from South East Asia two millenia ago and reached Madagascar. & although they are ethnically more African than Polynesian today (Arab traders are thought to have first introduced African natives to the island), is it any coincidence that they too have taken to rugby more than soccer? Madagascar is the third biggest rugby-playing nation in Africa (narrowly behind Zimbabwe) and is one of the very few which lists rugby (not soccer) as its national sport.

Here's a little mitochondrial DNA blast from the past for you:


https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1199379/

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19535740

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25880430

http://www.nature.com/news/dna-study-li ... ns-1.12710