maddogdrivethru.net

Open all night
It is currently Fri Sep 21, 2018 10:23 pm

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Forum rules


It's the Gulag of Fun



Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 42 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: Hard times for men
PostPosted: Sat Jun 09, 2018 11:30 am 
Offline
Sergeant Major
User avatar

Joined: Tue Feb 01, 2011 3:06 pm
Posts: 11484
Location: inside your worst nightmare
Reputation points: 15095
mdiehl wrote:
My information is current and up to date. I publish articles on this and related matters.

So... "foragers are healthier."

Not necessarily. Also it depends. If you're talking about tooth-wear you are correct. If you're talking about fecundity, you are not correct. There is also .. pretty much everywhere... a lag between taking up farming and really big famines. Early farmers had much more reliable access to food than foragers... thus greater fertility rates. Also foragers in some places have injury rates that are rather elevated.

I wont engage on the desirability of more people. Suffice it to say I'd rather by a neolithic farmer than a forager any day, in the event of a zombie apocalypse.


I often disagree with Midol, but in this case, I think he both knows what he is talking about, and is conveying the most likely reality which current evidence suggests.

In 10 years, the available evidence may suggest something a bit different, in 100 years maybe something dramatically different.

_________________
Anthro's NSFW Thread


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: Hard times for men
PostPosted: Sat Jun 09, 2018 1:05 pm 
Offline
Sergeant Major

Joined: Sat Oct 04, 2008 4:43 pm
Posts: 15421
Reputation points: 1459
This thread is not about farming, not the benefits or the disadvantages of farming, but the y-chromosome bottleneck. ;)

Was the bottleneck caused by death or lack of reproduction possibilities? And the possible cause of both.

So stay the course, please.

_________________
The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt

Mit der Dummheit kämpfen selbst Götter vergebens.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: Hard times for men
PostPosted: Sat Jun 09, 2018 3:31 pm 
Offline
Sergeant Major
User avatar

Joined: Tue Feb 01, 2011 3:06 pm
Posts: 11484
Location: inside your worst nightmare
Reputation points: 15095
Was the bottleneck an actual population bottleneck, or was it just a variability bottleneck? How would that be answered?

The thing about molecular paleobiology is that: at best it takes DECADES for a sufficient sample size and number of replicated studies to unfurl to warrant reaching conclusions. Indeed, sufficiently representative samples and generalizable results may NEVER be at hand.

I believe they now have DNA from several hundred (perhaps 1000) Neanderthal individuals? (it may be a lot less than that actually). Neanderthals existed for what? 200,000 years over virtually the entire extent of the north Old World? Maximum simultaneous population sizes probably > 500,000? Maximum total population ever perhaps 10,000,000? Can a non-random convenience sample of 0.0001% a population which changed over the course of its existence ever be considered representative of that population?

This issue is a bit different, but as far as I know, the original data on which the whole Y-chromosome paleo-variability inference models were based was TWO old Chinese brothers! TWO! :mrgreen: In 10 years that may be 50 pairs of brothers, and maybe in 20 years 100 pairs of brothers, at which point the margin of error (which is the actually correct technical term but close enough) for the estimates on which the model is based might be somewhat close to a bare minimum of acceptable?

It is definitely cool stuff, but they never tell the lay public the truth about this stuff: it is generally EXTREMELY speculative when it is first initiated and generally stays that way for decades. Remember as recently as 2000 there were scholars insisting that "Neanderthals are NOT US!" and they had "plenty" of empirical evidence to back up their arguments. Now, with sample sizes that have increased probably 50 or 80 fold compared to those days, we know that such claims were ludicrous. Obviously Neanderthals interbred with modern humans and Northern populations got more of the genetic material than southern ones. It is wise to be skeptical and not get too attached to any specific conclusion for a few years if not decades.

Not to say the arguments made in the article are not interesting--possible even accurate--but there is not really anyway to say at this point. More research is needed.

_________________
Anthro's NSFW Thread


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: Hard times for men
PostPosted: Sat Jun 09, 2018 5:18 pm 
Offline
Sergeant Major

Joined: Sat Oct 04, 2008 4:43 pm
Posts: 15421
Reputation points: 1459
Anthropoid wrote:
Was the bottleneck an actual population bottleneck, or was it just a variability bottleneck? How would that be answered?

The thing about molecular paleobiology is that: at best it takes DECADES for a sufficient sample size and number of replicated studies to unfurl to warrant reaching conclusions. Indeed, sufficiently representative samples and generalizable results may NEVER be at hand.

I believe they now have DNA from several hundred (perhaps 1000) Neanderthal individuals? (it may be a lot less than that actually). Neanderthals existed for what? 200,000 years over virtually the entire extent of the north Old World? Maximum simultaneous population sizes probably > 500,000? Maximum total population ever perhaps 10,000,000? Can a non-random convenience sample of 0.0001% a population which changed over the course of its existence ever be considered representative of that population?

This issue is a bit different, but as far as I know, the original data on which the whole Y-chromosome paleo-variability inference models were based was TWO old Chinese brothers! TWO! :mrgreen: In 10 years that may be 50 pairs of brothers, and maybe in 20 years 100 pairs of brothers, at which point the margin of error (which is the actually correct technical term but close enough) for the estimates on which the model is based might be somewhat close to a bare minimum of acceptable?

It is definitely cool stuff, but they never tell the lay public the truth about this stuff: it is generally EXTREMELY speculative when it is first initiated and generally stays that way for decades. Remember as recently as 2000 there were scholars insisting that "Neanderthals are NOT US!" and they had "plenty" of empirical evidence to back up their arguments. Now, with sample sizes that have increased probably 50 or 80 fold compared to those days, we know that such claims were ludicrous. Obviously Neanderthals interbred with modern humans and Northern populations got more of the genetic material than southern ones. It is wise to be skeptical and not get too attached to any specific conclusion for a few years if not decades.

Not to say the arguments made in the article are not interesting--possible even accurate--but there is not really anyway to say at this point. More research is needed.

A Doubting Thomas pops up again, like a cork from the water. :lol:

Just use the fucking google: search y chromosome bottleneck gives you about 236,000 hits. Plenty of interesting stuff, scientific papers behind a paywall, popular articles of all kind. Some scientific papers in pdf form.

You will find out why there was a bottleneck, and how the age of the bottleneck can be detected in different areas.

Certain level of skepticism is a good thing, but having paranoid conspiracy theories is not. ;)

_________________
The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt

Mit der Dummheit kämpfen selbst Götter vergebens.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: Hard times for men
PostPosted: Sat Jun 09, 2018 5:37 pm 
Offline
Sergeant Major

Joined: Wed Dec 17, 2008 12:33 pm
Posts: 20768
Location: LV-426
Reputation points: 14927
My point is thar your bottleneck is essentially a statistical claim. From there you may proceed to demographic explanations that could be either elevated mortality with an exception (those whose y-genes passed through the bottleneck because they were not dying as fast as everyone else) or it could be elevated fecundity (those whose y-genes were transmitted to much larger descendant populations because they were successful farmers).

The fact that the bottleneck corresponds well with the spread of farming seems very interesting.

_________________
"Fuck the king." - Sandor Clegane

"And the story was whatever was the song what it was." - Dire Straits


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Hard times for men
PostPosted: Sat Jun 09, 2018 5:55 pm 
Offline
Sergeant Major

Joined: Sat Oct 04, 2008 4:43 pm
Posts: 15421
Reputation points: 1459
mdiehl wrote:
My point is thar your bottleneck is essentially a statistical claim. From there you may proceed to demographic explanations that could be either elevated mortality with an exception (those whose y-genes passed through the bottleneck because they were not dying as fast as everyone else) or it could be elevated fecundity (those whose y-genes were transmitted to much larger descendant populations because they were successful farmers).

The fact that the bottleneck corresponds well with the spread of farming seems very interesting.

There are tow questions: 1) how to detect the bottleneck, 2) how to date the bottleneck?

I think that I can understand both, but I am not certain that I can educate you now; olen soosissa. But later I try find articles for you and Antman if absolutely necessary. But I'd rather prefer you doing your homework work by yourselves.

But if I can understand 1) & 2), you can understand it even better. ;)

Don't be shy.

_________________
The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt

Mit der Dummheit kämpfen selbst Götter vergebens.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: Hard times for men
PostPosted: Sat Jun 09, 2018 8:08 pm 
Offline
Sergeant Major

Joined: Wed Dec 17, 2008 12:33 pm
Posts: 20768
Location: LV-426
Reputation points: 14927
Quote:
I think that I can understand both, but I am not certain that I can educate you now; olen soosissa. But later I try find articles for you and Antman if absolutely necessary. But I'd rather prefer you doing your homework work by yourselves.


:roll:

Do you ever read what you write or even think about what you write before you hit the "Submit' button?

I do not require further education on it. I have a PhD in anthropology and I specialize in subsistence practices of North American neolithic farming societies. I've edited books on this subject. Read Jared Diamond's book on civilizations and you'll find a book I published with Harvard U Press in the "suggested further readings" list.

You asked for an explanation of the "bottleneck." I explained that the bottleneck can come about EITHER from elevated male mortality among many populations, or from elevated male fecundity among a relatively small number of populations.* You can accept that observation, or not, as it pleases you to do.

I know fully well how they date archaeological remains and for that matter how they imprecisely infer dates based on genetic drift. If you're particularly interested, you could probably take an Adult Education course on the matter. I'm not going to go over that here. It's elementary stuff and written about in plenty of places.

I don't need for you to find articles for me about this subject; any English-language article you can find is something that I have already read. I do not need for you to educate me. You're not qualified. Nor shall I try to educate you. I'm fully qualified, but you're not much of a listener. I do not need to do any remedial "homework;" I'm current on the material. I have to be. It's what I am paid to do. People who are SERIOUS about learning about (some aspects of) archaeology are assigned as homework the articles that I write. My usual reply when I'm told "Hey, I was assigned this article you wrote for M&T" is "I'm sorry!" It's an inside joke that only graduate students that endure required M&T courses will fully appreciate. But I am pleased that they find my writing to be more clear than that of, for example, the late Lewis Binford, or of any "postmodern" archaeologist or "critical theory" archaeologist.

* There is a third explanation that is more complex and involves the particular plants that were being grown as crops and how they were used. I'm sort of saving that explanation because I think it factors into late prehistoric US southwestern population declines that occurred about 100 years before Spaniards arrived in Mexico. I'm still gathering evidence on it, so I'm not going to write about it here.

_________________
"Fuck the king." - Sandor Clegane

"And the story was whatever was the song what it was." - Dire Straits


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Hard times for men
PostPosted: Sun Jun 10, 2018 4:22 am 
Offline
Sergeant Major

Joined: Sat Oct 04, 2008 4:43 pm
Posts: 15421
Reputation points: 1459
mdiehl wrote:
Quote:
I think that I can understand both, but I am not certain that I can educate you now; olen soosissa. But later I try find articles for you and Antman if absolutely necessary. But I'd rather prefer you doing your homework work by yourselves.


:roll:

Do you ever read what you write or even think about what you write before you hit the "Submit' button?

I do not require further education on it. I have a PhD in anthropology and I specialize in subsistence practices of North American neolithic farming societies. I've edited books on this subject. Read Jared Diamond's book on civilizations and you'll find a book I published with Harvard U Press in the "suggested further readings" list.

You asked for an explanation of the "bottleneck." I explained that the bottleneck can come about EITHER from elevated male mortality among many populations, or from elevated male fecundity among a relatively small number of populations.* You can accept that observation, or not, as it pleases you to do.

I know fully well how they date archaeological remains and for that matter how they imprecisely infer dates based on genetic drift. If you're particularly interested, you could probably take an Adult Education course on the matter. I'm not going to go over that here. It's elementary stuff and written about in plenty of places.

I don't need for you to find articles for me about this subject; any English-language article you can find is something that I have already read. I do not need for you to educate me. You're not qualified. Nor shall I try to educate you. I'm fully qualified, but you're not much of a listener. I do not need to do any remedial "homework;" I'm current on the material. I have to be. It's what I am paid to do. People who are SERIOUS about learning about (some aspects of) archaeology are assigned as homework the articles that I write. My usual reply when I'm told "Hey, I was assigned this article you wrote for M&T" is "I'm sorry!" It's an inside joke that only graduate students that endure required M&T courses will fully appreciate. But I am pleased that they find my writing to be more clear than that of, for example, the late Lewis Binford, or of any "postmodern" archaeologist or "critical theory" archaeologist.

* There is a third explanation that is more complex and involves the particular plants that were being grown as crops and how they were used. I'm sort of saving that explanation because I think it factors into late prehistoric US southwestern population declines that occurred about 100 years before Spaniards arrived in Mexico. I'm still gathering evidence on it, so I'm not going to write about it here.

Oh boy, you are such a snowflake, no sense of humor, sensitive as a princess.

Image

OTOH it is a pity that we can not discuss in a civilized manner. :(

Take care.

_________________
The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt

Mit der Dummheit kämpfen selbst Götter vergebens.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: Hard times for men
PostPosted: Sun Jun 10, 2018 6:43 am 
Offline
Sergeant Major

Joined: Sat Oct 04, 2008 4:43 pm
Posts: 15421
Reputation points: 1459
Just found this article: An evolutionary model explaining the Neolithic transition from egalitarianism to leadership and despotism.

Interesting.

_________________
The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt

Mit der Dummheit kämpfen selbst Götter vergebens.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: Hard times for men
PostPosted: Sun Jun 10, 2018 8:57 am 
Offline
His Most Gracious Majesty, Commie of the Year
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 28, 2009 12:44 pm
Posts: 7880
Reputation points: 17300
mdiehl wrote:
My point is thar your bottleneck is essentially a statistical claim. From there you may proceed to demographic explanations that could be either elevated mortality with an exception (those whose y-genes passed through the bottleneck because they were not dying as fast as everyone else) or it could be elevated fecundity (those whose y-genes were transmitted to much larger descendant populations because they were successful farmers).

The fact that the bottleneck corresponds well with the spread of farming seems very interesting.


In the study of history these claims that are mentioned above are nothing but hypotheses.

"I am going to throw a ball towards the wall, my hypothesis is that it will explode a huge hole to the wall"

And the problem with history is that studying things that happened *really long ago* most of the evidence has been dealt by entropy.


ANY historical hypothesis is just make belief unless it's supported by facts. Even mere "it must have been thus"-types of hypotheses are not credible. They are just potential explanations or attempts to *imagine* what *could have been*.

For simple things that are reasonable easy to verify and test we've had things like historic contemporary depictions discredited by historians insisting "oh, no man could possible have the strength" and "it can't be done!" arguments and only later we find actual evidence that proves that the contemporary records were actually true.

Things like the existence of the city of Troy were regarded as fantasy and "fictious stories" by consensus of historians.


For all we know the populations could have been stable at all times but the societies could have been extremely patriarchal harem-type affairs. The harems could have been either based on coercion/social convention or even free will - wanting a father who can feed the family and thus choosing the lord of the farm rather than some stable boy.

No explanation for the cause can be verified or be in any real way credible. They're just "maybe they all fell in a pit".

_________________
Screw you nero


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 42 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group