Earlier quoted context omitted.
They did follow the Egyptian religion IIRC and even tangle with Persians
> and even tangle with Persians Absolutely not. They were gone a hundred years before the beginning of Persia.
My bad, Assyrians
Out of Africa's midlife crisis
61–63 of 63 posts
Re: Out of Africa's midlife crisis
#62Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm not sure what you mean by the other closer groups. My understanding of the field is that when anatomically modern humans expanded out of Africa for the first time 60Kya, they encountered Neanderthals and eventually Denisovans. What other "closer" group was out there for them to encounter? The other anatomically modern humans were all in Africa, and it looks like there's been no interbreeding with them for at leas…
Other Sapiens. People whos descendants would have been group 3, if a descendant population had survived to modern times. 90% of the DNA for groups 2 & 3 comes from those 1000-10,000 individuals. A small smattering from neanderthals denisovans and ghosts. What's the rest? There were anatomically modern humans outside of sub-saharan africa at some point . They just don't have descendants. But, my question applies eithe…
> 90% of the DNA for groups 2 & 3 comes from those 1000-10,000 individuals. A small smattering from neanderthals denisovans and ghosts. What's the rest?
That's not my understanding of the text. Other than the 2-5% Neanderthal & Denisovan contributions, the rest of our (ie, for non-Africans) ancestry arises entirely from this single group of 1-10k, not 90%. Perhaps you're confusing it with this statement?
> ... only 1,000-10,000 lucky humans made it through the impossibly narrow neck. Our best (always provisional) models suggest they dwindled from an earlier population maybe 10 times bigger. So this round of cuts diminished the breeding pool by 90%.
Re: Out of Africa's midlife crisis
#63Earlier quoted context omitted.
People seem really upset at the notion. Even you can't seem to engage with it as anything but a farce. I have to wonder why. I'm just going to start calling it Super-Saharan Africa. When people point out the issue on their map, I'll just flip it 180°. Google Maps conveniently reorients text. The real fun begins when you decide to make longitude the horizontal aspect. Is it Dexterous Africa or Sinister Africa?
> I'm just going to start calling it Super-Saharan Africa. When people point out the issue on their map, I'll just flip it 180°. Google Maps conveniently reorients text. You'll just confuse people and look like a joker when you explain to them that you've decided to change universally accepted geographic nomenclature on your lonesome because you took a whiff of maybe possibly who knows racism.
People could stand to be confused a bit. Sort of a, "Get out of the car and find your own way home," moment for a society that is infamously terrible at analyzing The Reasons Things Are. We used to "universally accept" nomenclature like "Nigger" for place names.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Use_of_nigger_in_proper_name...