White skin only came on the scene 7 or 8 thousand years ago. Humans in europe came in various skin colors from tan to black prior to that. https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smar...peans-quickly-evolved-lighter-skin-180954874/ Hunter gathers are always looking for the happy hunting ground. "Come gang, its just over that next mountain range - man, all the mammoth you can eat and they got GRAPES!
I literally just popped off both short term and long term advantages). And your question is a bit goofy anyway...these early humans were not calculating for the future generations of their societies,or even really forming societies. They were utterly ignorant of the concepts of "north" and "south". The short span they migrated in their own lifetimes likely brought little climate change to them, save for some concentrated, local variations (e.g., lake effect). The advantages of dispersal, to them, were very short-term and occurred over small distances. They weren't planting crops or holding livestock and lived very short lives, and so were not attempting to transfer an entire, warm-weather culture to colder climes. You are asking me why no blacks in Europe? I thought you asked experts, Robert? My, you sure do change lanes quickly. Before I give you this very easy to find information...have you bothered to ask an expert? And what did that expert say?
Here: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17717188 Temporal fragmentation of speciation in bacteria. Retchless AC1, Lawrence JG. Abstract Because bacterial recombination involves the occasional transfer of small DNA fragments between strains, different sets of niche-specific genes may be maintained in populations that freely recombine at other loci. Therefore, genetic isolation may be established at different times for different chromosomal regions during speciation as recombination at niche-specific genes is curtailed. To test this model, we separated sequence divergence into rate and time components, revealing that different regions of the Escherichia coli and Salmonella enterica chromosomes diverged over a approximately 70-million-year period. Genetic isolation first occurred at regions carrying species-specific genes, indicating that physiological distinctiveness between the nascent Escherichia and Salmonella lineages was maintained for tens of millions of years before the complete genetic isolation of their chromosomes. ............................................................................................. You will have to join AAAS to read the full text of the study. Doing so is free and can be done here: https://purchase.aaas.org/order/177...1.1661155936.1539048333-1914663371.1539048333 But, you can read the abstract above. Do you understand what is being shown by the study?
That must be one helluva an algorithm to model sequence divergence over mega years. Do you know what the general metrics are?
Excellent question. Probably related to the North African monsoon for which the Neolithic Sub-pluvial is a part
In general, yes, I do. A standard model of diversion to time is used across the entire fauna and Flora of the planet. We compare the results of sudies of gene groups between species and amonng individuals of species with the fossil and geological evidence , along with genetic experiments in the lab on divergence of genes, and are them able to tweak this model and vary it for different gene groups. Then, using this entire body of information, we can then target a single divergence and approximate the times involved for the divergence of particular gene groups (and, thus, the true and final divergence point of the two species, as well as constraining the point of time when there was yet no divergence.). And, since we have done such a great job of refining these methods, the new results are also all mutually supportive.
Oh sure, what scientist wouldn't consider his hypothesis proven long before it was verified by observation, right? Yeah, well I'm pretty sure I didn't miss anything important. Get real, I know it for a stone cold fact; and if you didn't have such a hopelessly cockamamie idea of what a human being is, you'd know it as well. Damned if I know, and damned if I care.
You have no idea what you are saying. Observing fossils and living species is observation. Observing mutation and adaption and intermediates is observation.Just as the solar radiation and outer structure of the Sun is observational evidence of fusion at the sun's core, we observe evolution indirectly (and, actually, despite your claims to the contrary, directly, in the lab...quite unlike fusion, which is too small to watch). Just as the theoretical evidence DEMANDS that there be fusion at the Sun's core, the physics of genetics and procreation DEMANDS evolution occur. You literally could not stop it if you tried. Just as we don't have to travel to the center of the Sun to know that fusion at its core is a fact, we don't have to put aside 100 million years to watch a dinosaur become a chicken to know that it is a fact that Dinos evolved into chickens. We have never seen an electron. Then how do we know they exist? ""What scientist??" indeed. How about...nearly every single one of them alive? That answers that.
Here is the climate map of Africa. I can see them migrating in particular directions, just not to Europe.
Correction. You have no evidence. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC21352/ http://www.pnas.org/content/105/23/7899
Your picture is of a dry Sahara not a wet N Africa which I why Homo DID migrate to the Middle East then Europe.
Yes, a satellite view with years of compiled climate data may have come in very handy for them. But your average small group of nomadic hunters did not possess such a luxury. Furthermore, it doesn't really matter what any of us "imagine" should have happened. The evidence compels us to go where it takes us. A rational person comes up with explanations that account for the evidence. He doesn't imagine the evidence is all wrong or faked and come up with what his gut tells him instead. Also, have you looked at the charts, based on mtDNA? You can watch the people migrate right up the fertile land of the Nile. IN fact, these people migrated to Asia before even crossing the desert to North Africa, which actually ended up being populated across the straight of Gibraltar from Europe. So the "climatic obstacles" you are throwing up more serve to explain the migration than undermine it.
You don't know much of this material hence you need proof. Many of us carry it around in a cerebrum formed by years of education. What you are actually doing is deflecting by demanding proof then deflecting more when people spoon feed you what you ask. Your responses are pitiful and totally without the benefit of facts. Note this is not an ad hominim attack but factual. I've not seen you present any facts.
Above are articles related to E coli and evolution which are peer reviewed. Who do you think you are demanding people spoon feed you articles and an education well equipped to converse about evolution? You merely use this tactic to advance a non-scientific agenda or one evidenced by little to no facts. You bring nothing else to the debate.
Why? Find them yourself. Unless you are claiming they are also in on the vast conspiracy. Go ahead, claim it.
Very well. If you have no factual, evidentiary based arguments, i can ignore you like i do the other hecklers who only disrupt with ad hom and ridicule. You have ad hom and other fallacies, but no evidence for your beliefs. I'll give you the last word, then put you on ignore, since you don't seem to want a scientific debate. Good luck and enjoy the forum.
Lots of ad hom, but i see no arguments or references to e coli. The unlabeled, no comment links? Thats not how this debate goes. You have to make your own points, not expect me to debate every link you can find..
LOL. I gave you evidence above about evolution with the transduction of E coli and Salmonella. You've given very little facts.
Let me pick your brain since to you this is all settled. Why is there such confusion over the evolution of the common bird? Some believe it and Dinosaurs are related. Others dispute this. Explain.
You've given implied belief, innuendo, and ad hom. ..no facts, arguments, or evidence. Sorry it did not work out for a debate. Thanks and good luck.
Most folks pick a tiny part of evolution and draw sweeping conclusions. Such as what was the very first life. What formed the very first life. I believe I know, but I want your view. Did you study the good book i shall reference to you? I have.
