I'm curious to know how they establish these claims as false. Genetic testing?
What's to say it is false? If a man can self identify as a woman, why can't a person of white ancestry identify as African origin?
We can all identify as of African origin, if we look back far enough.
This is now disputed, actually
Really? First I’ve heard. What’s the new theory?
I am happy to be corrected but my understanding is that the "Out Of Africa" theory is now disputed, but that theory only refers to homo sapien sapiens coming out of Africa as the modern species. Newer evidence suggests there was inter breeding between different subspecies of humans post-Africa. But all those sub species in turn came out of Africa so the argument still stands.
Not so.
China. And Asia, more widely
"Most Chinese palaeontologists — and a few ardent supporters from the West — think that the transitional fossils are evidence that Peking Man was an ancestor of modern Asian people. In this model, known as multiregionalism or continuity with hybridization, hominins descended from H. erectus in Asia interbred with incoming groups from Africa and other parts of Eurasia, and their progeny gave rise to the ancestors of modern east Asians, says Wu."
Convergent evolution would explain how they evolved similarly in different continents, and the origin in the same or very similar primate species would explain the ability to interbreed, as proto-Europeans bred with Neanderthals
It is certainly a bit fishy that so much of the evolution is thought to have occurred in the hot dry places in the Rift Valley where fossils are most likely to be preserved.
I’ve just reread/listened to bill bryson’s a short history and one of the many things that stuck out was how little of life is actually preserved in fossils. Th full story of life on this planet will never be known. We can only guess from statistically negligible fragments preserved in the fossil record, most of which is still out there, waiting to be found. There are millions of species that we will never know of.
I expect the consensus story of origin willl change several times throughout my lifetime. And probably still be wrong.
Also have to consider that many parts of the world that would have been ideal places to live during the Ice Age are now up to 100 m (328 ft) underwater, and are unavailable for archaeology or palaeontology.
Such places include Doggerland in the North Sea, the floor of the Persian Gulf, and the Sunda Shelf linking Sumatra, Java and Borneo into one landmass
The latter especially would have had a great climate during the Ice Age, being on the equator.
Here is my Leader Ratings table for the end of October.
At the bottom are the September and October averages of the pollsters last polls, so Boris's Net Lead has improved 0.1 to 5.4 in the last month, but his Gross Positive lead is down 0.4 to 9.4
A flaw in this is that some pollsters haven't done leader ratings this month, so their Sep polls are used. But I think if I keep doing this every month we will see the patterns ok
Maybe it is better to just use October's polls, in which case Boris's Gross Positive lead is down to 8.5 from 9.8 and Net Sat lead is down to 3.8 from 5.3
LOL. Do they eat cake while they are waiting? Having said that, some idiot round here let off a couple at 3am last week. It is like Dawn Butler's gay giraffes (HIGNFY): extraordinary claims require at least a raised eyebrow and a quick google.
Yes, we all know it happened here but apart from smugly pointing that out, so what?
I was fortunate - administrative, professional person - I can WFH and was doing so before it became fashionable. People adapted but yes, the home workers needed a support network including the delivery drivers who brought the food, the drink and the other niceties of life and did we think of the health risks THEY were running?
I've never argued for home working - I've argued against those who would cajole or coerce people back into offices - in truth, the hybrid work model is probably here to stay - but that has in turn created a new tranche of workers whose role is to go round the streets keeping the home workers fed and watered.
It's the same inequality - just different.
A large number of people seem not to make this connections. To them, it is part of The Order Of Things* that they order something and it arrives within hours. That actual people are evolved, and the wages required to make free** delivery possible seems to pass them by.
*Obedience Brings Victory, and Victory is Life. **Ha ha ha
The problem is the ethos of the capitalist system is to try to drive down the costs of production and delivery to enhance affordability and therefore profitability.
If you paid those who are part of the infrastructure (whether in the warehouses or the delivery vans) a higher wage, the cost would be passed to the consumer, some of whom might then refuse to buy the product because it's become too expensive.
It's not as though the Amazons of this world are struggling - though now they have to pay 15% corporation tax everywhere they'll start pleading poverty as well.
A really well-written piece on the increasing societal inequality resulting from the pandemic. It’s from an American perspective, but a lot of the lessons are the same on the other side of the pond.
Oh, and why is it that so much of the best social commentary of the last few years, has written by comedians?
Yes, we all know it happened here but apart from smugly pointing that out, so what?
I was fortunate - administrative, professional person - I can WFH and was doing so before it became fashionable. People adapted but yes, the home workers needed a support network including the delivery drivers who brought the food, the drink and the other niceties of life and did we think of the health risks THEY were running?
There are those whose jobs preclude home working - retail and construction being two obvious candidates as well as those for whom home working isn't an option whether because of the home environment or because they can't psychologically deal with it.
Then there are those whose employers were so distrusting they compelled them into the office because they swallowed the Mail propaganda and claimed home workers were not really working but riding their Pelotons and enjoying an easy life.
I've never argued for home working - I've argued against those who would cajole or coerce people back into offices - in truth, the hybrid work model is probably here to stay - but that has in turn created a new tranche of workers whose role is to go round the streets keeping the home workers fed and watered.
It's the same inequality - just different.
A large number of people seem not to make this connections. To them, it is part of The Order Of Things* that they order something and it arrives within hours. That actual people are evolved, and the wages required to make free** delivery possible seems to pass them by.
*Obedience Brings Victory, and Victory is Life. **Ha ha ha
That's a Jem of a quote.
Ah, A Deep (Space) knowledge you have....
I Hadar good opportunity for a pun, as if I would say Nein.
And In The Pale Moonlight, your morality might be... tailored....
A really well-written piece on the increasing societal inequality resulting from the pandemic. It’s from an American perspective, but a lot of the lessons are the same on the other side of the pond.
Oh, and why is it that so much of the best social commentary of the last few years, has written by comedians?
Yes, we all know it happened here but apart from smugly pointing that out, so what?
I was fortunate - administrative, professional person - I can WFH and was doing so before it became fashionable. People adapted but yes, the home workers needed a support network including the delivery drivers who brought the food, the drink and the other niceties of life and did we think of the health risks THEY were running?
There are those whose jobs preclude home working - retail and construction being two obvious candidates as well as those for whom home working isn't an option whether because of the home environment or because they can't psychologically deal with it.
Then there are those whose employers were so distrusting they compelled them into the office because they swallowed the Mail propaganda and claimed home workers were not really working but riding their Pelotons and enjoying an easy life.
I've never argued for home working - I've argued against those who would cajole or coerce people back into offices - in truth, the hybrid work model is probably here to stay - but that has in turn created a new tranche of workers whose role is to go round the streets keeping the home workers fed and watered.
It's the same inequality - just different.
A large number of people seem not to make this connections. To them, it is part of The Order Of Things* that they order something and it arrives within hours. That actual people are evolved, and the wages required to make free** delivery possible seems to pass them by.
*Obedience Brings Victory, and Victory is Life. **Ha ha ha
Yes, I've spent most of the last decade WFH so am nu no means opposed to it but the zeal of recent converts is alarming. So many see no downsides, or even seem to notice that lots of people cannot work from home. I'm all right, Jack. (The corollary is there are also those who have vested interest in returning to offices.)
I'm curious to know how they establish these claims as false. Genetic testing?
What's to say it is false? If a man can self identify as a woman, why can't a person of white ancestry identify as African origin?
We can all identify as of African origin, if we look back far enough.
This is now disputed, actually
Really? First I’ve heard. What’s the new theory?
I am happy to be corrected but my understanding is that the "Out Of Africa" theory is now disputed, but that theory only refers to homo sapien sapiens coming out of Africa as the modern species. Newer evidence suggests there was inter breeding between different subspecies of humans post-Africa. But all those sub species in turn came out of Africa so the argument still stands.
Not so.
China. And Asia, more widely
"Most Chinese palaeontologists — and a few ardent supporters from the West — think that the transitional fossils are evidence that Peking Man was an ancestor of modern Asian people. In this model, known as multiregionalism or continuity with hybridization, hominins descended from H. erectus in Asia interbred with incoming groups from Africa and other parts of Eurasia, and their progeny gave rise to the ancestors of modern east Asians, says Wu."
Convergent evolution would explain how they evolved similarly in different continents, and the origin in the same or very similar primate species would explain the ability to interbreed, as proto-Europeans bred with Neanderthals
It is certainly a bit fishy that so much of the evolution is thought to have occurred in the hot dry places in the Rift Valley where fossils are most likely to be preserved.
Yes
And now that "mitochondrial Eve" has been largely abandoned, and humans are thought to have evolved in several different places across Africa, then why not outside Africa?
In fact, if I had to bet, I would say they likely did. We are finding too many inexplicable and contradictory fossils in Asia
I have a theory, which is probably bollocks, that the quickest way "out of Africa" to get to S. America is via a boat ride across the Atlantic.
Think there’s a problem with winds and currents
The doldrums perhaps?
Consider: at their closest, Brazil and West Africa are nearer one another than Gibraltar and the Levant.
On topic, at what point does Biden become value for re-election? 17% for the first-term incumbent must be almost unheard of?
He'll be an octogenarian at the next election. He's a lame duck already surely?
If things are going well for Biden then Kamala will be the nominee.
If Biden's approval gets back up again then yes, or Kamala if he decides not to run again, will be favourite. If not then someone younger like Buttigieg or even Joe Kennedy III would come into the frame for the Democratic nomination
Bit of a stretch for Joe Kennedy, for 2024 anyway, seeing as how he got his clock cleaned last year challenging Ed Markey for US Senate in Mass.
He may well run for governor next year in Massachussetts, if he beats the GOP incumbent Charlie Baker or whoever is GOP nominee having won the Dem nomination he will be a contendor for President or VP nominee
IF Joe K III runs, and IF he wins the Democratic primary, and IF he beats Charlie Baker, then MAYBE he MIGHT be a contender.
Personally am a fan of Young(ish) Joe, but like I said, it's a streeeeeeeeeach.
After Trump and Biden, Americans may be ready for some dynastic Presidencies again after the Kennedy and Bush families served their time on the sidelines.
Kennedy would certainly be a better candidate for the Dems than an over 80 Biden by then or the uncharismatic, hard bitten Harris. As indeed would Buttigieg
Kennedy's 2020 campaign verus Ed Markey was a train wreck.
Doubt premise of your 2nd sentence. Might as well look for another Roosevelt or Adams.
And 3rd sentence is just a red herring when it comes to Joe Kennedy III's availablity or lack thereof.
He was facing a Dem incumbent in Markey, for the governorship he is the Dems best hope of unseating a GOP incumbent as governor. If he does he will be a contendor in 2024 for President or VP
As of this summer, Charlie Bakers approval rating as Governor of Mass was over 70% - among Democrats.
Best shot for Joe Kennedy, would be if Trump wing of GOP somehow defeated Baker for renomination. Which is possible but doubtful.
But still more possible methinks than Kennedy beating Baker in 2022 general.
Baker has not yet announced he will run again, if he does the Trumpite Geoff Diehl who worked on Trump's 2020 campaign in the state has already said he will challenge him for the GOP nomination and could well win that nomination.
So Kennedy certainly has a chance and of course in Massachussetts no Democrat should ever be ruled out in the general election either, even against Baker
I'm curious to know how they establish these claims as false. Genetic testing?
What's to say it is false? If a man can self identify as a woman, why can't a person of white ancestry identify as African origin?
We can all identify as of African origin, if we look back far enough.
This is now disputed, actually
Really? First I’ve heard. What’s the new theory?
I am happy to be corrected but my understanding is that the "Out Of Africa" theory is now disputed, but that theory only refers to homo sapien sapiens coming out of Africa as the modern species. Newer evidence suggests there was inter breeding between different subspecies of humans post-Africa. But all those sub species in turn came out of Africa so the argument still stands.
Not so.
China. And Asia, more widely
"Most Chinese palaeontologists — and a few ardent supporters from the West — think that the transitional fossils are evidence that Peking Man was an ancestor of modern Asian people. In this model, known as multiregionalism or continuity with hybridization, hominins descended from H. erectus in Asia interbred with incoming groups from Africa and other parts of Eurasia, and their progeny gave rise to the ancestors of modern east Asians, says Wu."
Convergent evolution would explain how they evolved similarly in different continents, and the origin in the same or very similar primate species would explain the ability to interbreed, as proto-Europeans bred with Neanderthals
It is certainly a bit fishy that so much of the evolution is thought to have occurred in the hot dry places in the Rift Valley where fossils are most likely to be preserved.
I’ve just reread/listened to bill bryson’s a short history and one of the many things that stuck out was how little of life is actually preserved in fossils. Th full story of life on this planet will never be known. We can only guess from statistically negligible fragments preserved in the fossil record, most of which is still out there, waiting to be found. There are millions of species that we will never know of.
I expect the consensus story of origin willl change several times throughout my lifetime. And probably still be wrong.
Also have to consider that many parts of the world that would have been ideal places to live during the Ice Age are now up to 100 m (328 ft) underwater, and are unavailable for archaeology or palaeontology.
Such places include Doggerland in the North Sea, the floor of the Persian Gulf, and the Sunda Shelf linking Sumatra, Java and Borneo into one landmass
The latter especially would have had a great climate during the Ice Age, being on the equator.
The Sunda Shelf could surely reveal some fascinating relics.
I'm curious to know how they establish these claims as false. Genetic testing?
What's to say it is false? If a man can self identify as a woman, why can't a person of white ancestry identify as African origin?
We can all identify as of African origin, if we look back far enough.
This is now disputed, actually
Really? First I’ve heard. What’s the new theory?
I am happy to be corrected but my understanding is that the "Out Of Africa" theory is now disputed, but that theory only refers to homo sapien sapiens coming out of Africa as the modern species. Newer evidence suggests there was inter breeding between different subspecies of humans post-Africa. But all those sub species in turn came out of Africa so the argument still stands.
Not so.
China. And Asia, more widely
"Most Chinese palaeontologists — and a few ardent supporters from the West — think that the transitional fossils are evidence that Peking Man was an ancestor of modern Asian people. In this model, known as multiregionalism or continuity with hybridization, hominins descended from H. erectus in Asia interbred with incoming groups from Africa and other parts of Eurasia, and their progeny gave rise to the ancestors of modern east Asians, says Wu."
Convergent evolution would explain how they evolved similarly in different continents, and the origin in the same or very similar primate species would explain the ability to interbreed, as proto-Europeans bred with Neanderthals
It is certainly a bit fishy that so much of the evolution is thought to have occurred in the hot dry places in the Rift Valley where fossils are most likely to be preserved.
Yes
And now that "mitochondrial Eve" has been largely abandoned, and humans are thought to have evolved in several different places across Africa, then why not outside Africa.
In fact, if I had to bet, I would say they likely did. We are finding too many inexplicable and contradictory fossils in Asia
I have a theory, which is probably bollocks, that the quickest way "out of Africa" to get to S. America is via a boat ride across the Atlantic.
Think there’s a problem with winds and currents
The doldrums perhaps?
Consider: at their closest, Brazil and West Africa are nearer one another than Gibraltar and the Levant.
By great circle?
According to Google: Natal (Brazil) to Monrovia (Liberia) is 2,969 km (1,845 miles). Gibraltar to Tel Aviv is 3,639 km (2,261 miles).
I'm curious to know how they establish these claims as false. Genetic testing?
What's to say it is false? If a man can self identify as a woman, why can't a person of white ancestry identify as African origin?
We can all identify as of African origin, if we look back far enough.
This is now disputed, actually
Not disputed by anyone worth listening to as far as I can see.
Here you go. Some reading
"Asia’s mysterious role in the early origins of humanity Bizarre fossils from China are revealing our species' Asian origins and rewriting the story of human evolution"
"An Asian Origin for Human Ancestors? Myanmar fossil suggests our earliest predecessors may not have come from Africa"
"Researchers agree that our immediate ancestors, the upright walking apes, arose in Africa. But the discovery of a new primate that lived about 37 million years ago in the ancient swamplands of Myanmar bolsters the idea that the deep primate family tree that gave rise to humans is rooted in Asia. If true, the discovery suggests that the ancestors of all monkeys, apes, and humans—known as the anthropoids—arose in Asia and made the arduous journey to the island continent of Africa almost 40 million years ago."
Yes, we all know it happened here but apart from smugly pointing that out, so what?
I was fortunate - administrative, professional person - I can WFH and was doing so before it became fashionable. People adapted but yes, the home workers needed a support network including the delivery drivers who brought the food, the drink and the other niceties of life and did we think of the health risks THEY were running?
I've never argued for home working - I've argued against those who would cajole or coerce people back into offices - in truth, the hybrid work model is probably here to stay - but that has in turn created a new tranche of workers whose role is to go round the streets keeping the home workers fed and watered.
It's the same inequality - just different.
A large number of people seem not to make this connections. To them, it is part of The Order Of Things* that they order something and it arrives within hours. That actual people are evolved, and the wages required to make free** delivery possible seems to pass them by.
*Obedience Brings Victory, and Victory is Life. **Ha ha ha
The problem is the ethos of the capitalist system is to try to drive down the costs of production and delivery to enhance affordability and therefore profitability.
If you paid those who are part of the infrastructure (whether in the warehouses or the delivery vans) a higher wage, the cost would be passed to the consumer, some of whom might then refuse to buy the product because it's become too expensive.
It's not as though the Amazons of this world are struggling - though now they have to pay 15% corporation tax everywhere they'll start pleading poverty as well.
"The problem is the ethos of the capitalist all systems is to try to drive down the costs of production and delivery to enhance affordability and therefore profitability."
Fixed that for you.
Every organised society had tried to drive down the cost of production, since they figured out cost of production.
Hence the Roman enthusiasm for low wage*, immigrant labour**.
*{snigger} **For some reason this reminds me of “We did not land on Plymouth Rock. Plymouth Rock landed on us.” - not sure why
I'm curious to know how they establish these claims as false. Genetic testing?
What's to say it is false? If a man can self identify as a woman, why can't a person of white ancestry identify as African origin?
We can all identify as of African origin, if we look back far enough.
This is now disputed, actually
Not disputed by anyone worth listening to as far as I can see.
Here you go. Some reading
"Asia’s mysterious role in the early origins of humanity Bizarre fossils from China are revealing our species' Asian origins and rewriting the story of human evolution"
"An Asian Origin for Human Ancestors? Myanmar fossil suggests our earliest predecessors may not have come from Africa"
"Researchers agree that our immediate ancestors, the upright walking apes, arose in Africa. But the discovery of a new primate that lived about 37 million years ago in the ancient swamplands of Myanmar bolsters the idea that the deep primate family tree that gave rise to humans is rooted in Asia. If true, the discovery suggests that the ancestors of all monkeys, apes, and humans—known as the anthropoids—arose in Asia and made the arduous journey to the island continent of Africa almost 40 million years ago."
I'm curious to know how they establish these claims as false. Genetic testing?
What's to say it is false? If a man can self identify as a woman, why can't a person of white ancestry identify as African origin?
We can all identify as of African origin, if we look back far enough.
This is now disputed, actually
Really? First I’ve heard. What’s the new theory?
I am happy to be corrected but my understanding is that the "Out Of Africa" theory is now disputed, but that theory only refers to homo sapien sapiens coming out of Africa as the modern species. Newer evidence suggests there was inter breeding between different subspecies of humans post-Africa. But all those sub species in turn came out of Africa so the argument still stands.
Not so.
China. And Asia, more widely
"Most Chinese palaeontologists — and a few ardent supporters from the West — think that the transitional fossils are evidence that Peking Man was an ancestor of modern Asian people. In this model, known as multiregionalism or continuity with hybridization, hominins descended from H. erectus in Asia interbred with incoming groups from Africa and other parts of Eurasia, and their progeny gave rise to the ancestors of modern east Asians, says Wu."
Convergent evolution would explain how they evolved similarly in different continents, and the origin in the same or very similar primate species would explain the ability to interbreed, as proto-Europeans bred with Neanderthals
It is certainly a bit fishy that so much of the evolution is thought to have occurred in the hot dry places in the Rift Valley where fossils are most likely to be preserved.
Yes
And now that "mitochondrial Eve" has been largely abandoned, and humans are thought to have evolved in several different places across Africa, then why not outside Africa.
In fact, if I had to bet, I would say they likely did. We are finding too many inexplicable and contradictory fossils in Asia
I have a theory, which is probably bollocks, that the quickest way "out of Africa" to get to S. America is via a boat ride across the Atlantic.
Think there’s a problem with winds and currents
The doldrums perhaps?
Consider: at their closest, Brazil and West Africa are nearer one another than Gibraltar and the Levant.
By great circle?
According to Google: Natal (Brazil) to Monrovia (Liberia) is 2,969 km (1,845 miles). Gibraltar to Tel Aviv is 3,639 km (2,261 miles).
Sure. But what are we to make of that? Wasn't the context some monkeys doing a KonTiki aeons ago?
I'm curious to know how they establish these claims as false. Genetic testing?
What's to say it is false? If a man can self identify as a woman, why can't a person of white ancestry identify as African origin?
We can all identify as of African origin, if we look back far enough.
This is now disputed, actually
Really? First I’ve heard. What’s the new theory?
I am happy to be corrected but my understanding is that the "Out Of Africa" theory is now disputed, but that theory only refers to homo sapien sapiens coming out of Africa as the modern species. Newer evidence suggests there was inter breeding between different subspecies of humans post-Africa. But all those sub species in turn came out of Africa so the argument still stands.
Not so.
China. And Asia, more widely
"Most Chinese palaeontologists — and a few ardent supporters from the West — think that the transitional fossils are evidence that Peking Man was an ancestor of modern Asian people. In this model, known as multiregionalism or continuity with hybridization, hominins descended from H. erectus in Asia interbred with incoming groups from Africa and other parts of Eurasia, and their progeny gave rise to the ancestors of modern east Asians, says Wu."
Convergent evolution would explain how they evolved similarly in different continents, and the origin in the same or very similar primate species would explain the ability to interbreed, as proto-Europeans bred with Neanderthals
It is certainly a bit fishy that so much of the evolution is thought to have occurred in the hot dry places in the Rift Valley where fossils are most likely to be preserved.
Yes
And now that "mitochondrial Eve" has been largely abandoned, and humans are thought to have evolved in several different places across Africa, then why not outside Africa.
In fact, if I had to bet, I would say they likely did. We are finding too many inexplicable and contradictory fossils in Asia
I have a theory, which is probably bollocks, that the quickest way "out of Africa" to get to S. America is via a boat ride across the Atlantic.
Think there’s a problem with winds and currents
The doldrums perhaps?
Consider: at their closest, Brazil and West Africa are nearer one another than Gibraltar and the Levant.
By great circle?
According to Google: Natal (Brazil) to Monrovia (Liberia) is 2,969 km (1,845 miles). Gibraltar to Tel Aviv is 3,639 km (2,261 miles).
Yes, Brazil is a whole lot further East than is generally thought.
I'm curious to know how they establish these claims as false. Genetic testing?
What's to say it is false? If a man can self identify as a woman, why can't a person of white ancestry identify as African origin?
We can all identify as of African origin, if we look back far enough.
This is now disputed, actually
Really? First I’ve heard. What’s the new theory?
Aren't we the result of hybridization between apes and aliens?
Read more wisely.
Monkeys and aliens?
I think you're going wrong with the aliens bit.
Perhaps I spend too much time watching 'Ancient Aliens' on Blaze.
Ah.. yes... er, no. Obviously I don't have the slightest clue what you're talking about.
When I was quite young I read the books of Eric Von Daniken. So disappointing to find out he was a fraud.
More of a nutter than a fraud?
Try Graham Hancock for an updated, more sophisticated and intelligent version. He is very good at describing the problems presented by the existence of aztec masonry, Gobekli Tepe, the stones at Baalbek, the peculiarities of the Ark of the Covenant etc even if you don't go along with his solutions.
I'm curious to know how they establish these claims as false. Genetic testing?
What's to say it is false? If a man can self identify as a woman, why can't a person of white ancestry identify as African origin?
We can all identify as of African origin, if we look back far enough.
This is now disputed, actually
Really? First I’ve heard. What’s the new theory?
I am happy to be corrected but my understanding is that the "Out Of Africa" theory is now disputed, but that theory only refers to homo sapien sapiens coming out of Africa as the modern species. Newer evidence suggests there was inter breeding between different subspecies of humans post-Africa. But all those sub species in turn came out of Africa so the argument still stands.
Not so.
China. And Asia, more widely
"Most Chinese palaeontologists — and a few ardent supporters from the West — think that the transitional fossils are evidence that Peking Man was an ancestor of modern Asian people. In this model, known as multiregionalism or continuity with hybridization, hominins descended from H. erectus in Asia interbred with incoming groups from Africa and other parts of Eurasia, and their progeny gave rise to the ancestors of modern east Asians, says Wu."
Convergent evolution would explain how they evolved similarly in different continents, and the origin in the same or very similar primate species would explain the ability to interbreed, as proto-Europeans bred with Neanderthals
It is certainly a bit fishy that so much of the evolution is thought to have occurred in the hot dry places in the Rift Valley where fossils are most likely to be preserved.
Yes
And now that "mitochondrial Eve" has been largely abandoned, and humans are thought to have evolved in several different places across Africa, then why not outside Africa.
In fact, if I had to bet, I would say they likely did. We are finding too many inexplicable and contradictory fossils in Asia
I have a theory, which is probably bollocks, that the quickest way "out of Africa" to get to S. America is via a boat ride across the Atlantic.
Think there’s a problem with winds and currents
The doldrums perhaps?
Consider: at their closest, Brazil and West Africa are nearer one another than Gibraltar and the Levant.
By great circle?
According to Google: Natal (Brazil) to Monrovia (Liberia) is 2,969 km (1,845 miles). Gibraltar to Tel Aviv is 3,639 km (2,261 miles).
Sure. But what are we to make of that? Wasn't the context some monkeys doing a KonTiki aeons ago?
How about early humans doing a Kontiki within the last 200,000 years? If monkeys could do it 40 million years ago, why not humans much more recently?
I'm curious to know how they establish these claims as false. Genetic testing?
What's to say it is false? If a man can self identify as a woman, why can't a person of white ancestry identify as African origin?
We can all identify as of African origin, if we look back far enough.
This is now disputed, actually
Really? First I’ve heard. What’s the new theory?
I am happy to be corrected but my understanding is that the "Out Of Africa" theory is now disputed, but that theory only refers to homo sapien sapiens coming out of Africa as the modern species. Newer evidence suggests there was inter breeding between different subspecies of humans post-Africa. But all those sub species in turn came out of Africa so the argument still stands.
Not so.
China. And Asia, more widely
"Most Chinese palaeontologists — and a few ardent supporters from the West — think that the transitional fossils are evidence that Peking Man was an ancestor of modern Asian people. In this model, known as multiregionalism or continuity with hybridization, hominins descended from H. erectus in Asia interbred with incoming groups from Africa and other parts of Eurasia, and their progeny gave rise to the ancestors of modern east Asians, says Wu."
Convergent evolution would explain how they evolved similarly in different continents, and the origin in the same or very similar primate species would explain the ability to interbreed, as proto-Europeans bred with Neanderthals
It is certainly a bit fishy that so much of the evolution is thought to have occurred in the hot dry places in the Rift Valley where fossils are most likely to be preserved.
Yes
And now that "mitochondrial Eve" has been largely abandoned, and humans are thought to have evolved in several different places across Africa, then why not outside Africa.
In fact, if I had to bet, I would say they likely did. We are finding too many inexplicable and contradictory fossils in Asia
I have a theory, which is probably bollocks, that the quickest way "out of Africa" to get to S. America is via a boat ride across the Atlantic.
Think there’s a problem with winds and currents
The doldrums perhaps?
Consider: at their closest, Brazil and West Africa are nearer one another than Gibraltar and the Levant.
By great circle?
According to Google: Natal (Brazil) to Monrovia (Liberia) is 2,969 km (1,845 miles). Gibraltar to Tel Aviv is 3,639 km (2,261 miles).
Sure. But what are we to make of that? Wasn't the context some monkeys doing a KonTiki aeons ago?
How about early humans doing a Kontiki within the last 200,000 years? If monkeys could do it 40 million years ago, why not humans much more recently?
I'm curious to know how they establish these claims as false. Genetic testing?
What's to say it is false? If a man can self identify as a woman, why can't a person of white ancestry identify as African origin?
We can all identify as of African origin, if we look back far enough.
This is now disputed, actually
Really? First I’ve heard. What’s the new theory?
Aren't we the result of hybridization between apes and aliens?
Read more wisely.
Monkeys and aliens?
I think you're going wrong with the aliens bit.
Perhaps I spend too much time watching 'Ancient Aliens' on Blaze.
Ah.. yes... er, no. Obviously I don't have the slightest clue what you're talking about.
When I was quite young I read the books of Eric Von Daniken. So disappointing to find out he was a fraud.
More of a nutter than a fraud?
Try Graham Hancock for an updated, more sophisticated and intelligent version. He is very good at describing the problems presented by the existence of aztec masonry, Gobekli Tepe, the stones at Baalbek, the peculiarities of the Ark of the Covenant etc even if you don't go along with his solutions.
On topic, at what point does Biden become value for re-election? 17% for the first-term incumbent must be almost unheard of?
He'll be an octogenarian at the next election. He's a lame duck already surely?
If things are going well for Biden then Kamala will be the nominee.
If Biden's approval gets back up again then yes, or Kamala if he decides not to run again, will be favourite. If not then someone younger like Buttigieg or even Joe Kennedy III would come into the frame for the Democratic nomination
Bit of a stretch for Joe Kennedy, for 2024 anyway, seeing as how he got his clock cleaned last year challenging Ed Markey for US Senate in Mass.
He may well run for governor next year in Massachussetts, if he beats the GOP incumbent Charlie Baker or whoever is GOP nominee having won the Dem nomination he will be a contendor for President or VP nominee
IF Joe K III runs, and IF he wins the Democratic primary, and IF he beats Charlie Baker, then MAYBE he MIGHT be a contender.
Personally am a fan of Young(ish) Joe, but like I said, it's a streeeeeeeeeach.
After Trump and Biden, Americans may be ready for some dynastic Presidencies again after the Kennedy and Bush families served their time on the sidelines.
Kennedy would certainly be a better candidate for the Dems than an over 80 Biden by then or the uncharismatic, hard bitten Harris. As indeed would Buttigieg
Kennedy's 2020 campaign verus Ed Markey was a train wreck.
Doubt premise of your 2nd sentence. Might as well look for another Roosevelt or Adams.
And 3rd sentence is just a red herring when it comes to Joe Kennedy III's availablity or lack thereof.
He was facing a Dem incumbent in Markey, for the governorship he is the Dems best hope of unseating a GOP incumbent as governor. If he does he will be a contendor in 2024 for President or VP
As of this summer, Charlie Bakers approval rating as Governor of Mass was over 70% - among Democrats.
Best shot for Joe Kennedy, would be if Trump wing of GOP somehow defeated Baker for renomination. Which is possible but doubtful.
But still more possible methinks than Kennedy beating Baker in 2022 general.
Baker has not yet announced he will run again, if he does the Trumpite Geoff Diehl who worked on Trump's 2020 campaign in the state has already said he will challenge him for the GOP nomination and could well win that nomination.
So Kennedy certainly has a chance and of course in Massachussetts no Democrat should ever be ruled out in the general election either, even against Baker
Indeed the latest poll of GOP voters in Massachussetts has Diehl beating Baker for the nomination if he runs again, with 50% to just 29% for Baker
54% of Republican voters have an unfavourable view of Baker. Trump has already endorsed Diehl, saying of Baker 'Baker is definitely not an American First or Make America Great Again kind of guy. Geoff Diehl, on the other hand, is a true patriot, a believer in low energy costs and our independent energy policy' https://twitter.com/skoczela/status/1450790427846717449?s=20
On topic, at what point does Biden become value for re-election? 17% for the first-term incumbent must be almost unheard of?
He'll be an octogenarian at the next election. He's a lame duck already surely?
If things are going well for Biden then Kamala will be the nominee.
If Biden's approval gets back up again then yes, or Kamala if he decides not to run again, will be favourite. If not then someone younger like Buttigieg or even Joe Kennedy III would come into the frame for the Democratic nomination
Bit of a stretch for Joe Kennedy, for 2024 anyway, seeing as how he got his clock cleaned last year challenging Ed Markey for US Senate in Mass.
He may well run for governor next year in Massachussetts, if he beats the GOP incumbent Charlie Baker or whoever is GOP nominee having won the Dem nomination he will be a contendor for President or VP nominee
IF Joe K III runs, and IF he wins the Democratic primary, and IF he beats Charlie Baker, then MAYBE he MIGHT be a contender.
Personally am a fan of Young(ish) Joe, but like I said, it's a streeeeeeeeeach.
After Trump and Biden, Americans may be ready for some dynastic Presidencies again after the Kennedy and Bush families served their time on the sidelines.
Kennedy would certainly be a better candidate for the Dems than an over 80 Biden by then or the uncharismatic, hard bitten Harris. As indeed would Buttigieg
Kennedy's 2020 campaign verus Ed Markey was a train wreck.
Doubt premise of your 2nd sentence. Might as well look for another Roosevelt or Adams.
And 3rd sentence is just a red herring when it comes to Joe Kennedy III's availablity or lack thereof.
He was facing a Dem incumbent in Markey, for the governorship he is the Dems best hope of unseating a GOP incumbent as governor. If he does he will be a contendor in 2024 for President or VP
As of this summer, Charlie Bakers approval rating as Governor of Mass was over 70% - among Democrats.
Best shot for Joe Kennedy, would be if Trump wing of GOP somehow defeated Baker for renomination. Which is possible but doubtful.
But still more possible methinks than Kennedy beating Baker in 2022 general.
Baker has not yet announced he will run again, if he does the Trumpite Geoff Diehl who worked on Trump's 2020 campaign in the state has already said he will challenge him for the GOP nomination and could well win that nomination.
So Kennedy certainly has a chance and of course in Massachussetts no Democrat should ever be ruled out in the general election either, even against Baker
In the great Commonwealth of Massachusetts "unenrolled" voters can vote in either Democratic or Republican primary.
As of February 2021, according to Mass Secretary of State, of total registration of 4.7m, by party: > registered Democrats 32% > registered Republicans 10% > other 1% > unenrolled 57%
In a primary battle between Charlie Baker and Geoff Diehl, plenty of Dem-leaning unenrolled voters would gravitate to the Republican to aid Baker.
The same kind of voters that Kennedy would be counting to prevail versus progressive in the Democratic primary.
I'm curious to know how they establish these claims as false. Genetic testing?
What's to say it is false? If a man can self identify as a woman, why can't a person of white ancestry identify as African origin?
We can all identify as of African origin, if we look back far enough.
This is now disputed, actually
Really? First I’ve heard. What’s the new theory?
I am happy to be corrected but my understanding is that the "Out Of Africa" theory is now disputed, but that theory only refers to homo sapien sapiens coming out of Africa as the modern species. Newer evidence suggests there was inter breeding between different subspecies of humans post-Africa. But all those sub species in turn came out of Africa so the argument still stands.
Not so.
China. And Asia, more widely
"Most Chinese palaeontologists — and a few ardent supporters from the West — think that the transitional fossils are evidence that Peking Man was an ancestor of modern Asian people. In this model, known as multiregionalism or continuity with hybridization, hominins descended from H. erectus in Asia interbred with incoming groups from Africa and other parts of Eurasia, and their progeny gave rise to the ancestors of modern east Asians, says Wu."
Convergent evolution would explain how they evolved similarly in different continents, and the origin in the same or very similar primate species would explain the ability to interbreed, as proto-Europeans bred with Neanderthals
It is certainly a bit fishy that so much of the evolution is thought to have occurred in the hot dry places in the Rift Valley where fossils are most likely to be preserved.
Yes
And now that "mitochondrial Eve" has been largely abandoned, and humans are thought to have evolved in several different places across Africa, then why not outside Africa.
In fact, if I had to bet, I would say they likely did. We are finding too many inexplicable and contradictory fossils in Asia
I have a theory, which is probably bollocks, that the quickest way "out of Africa" to get to S. America is via a boat ride across the Atlantic.
Think there’s a problem with winds and currents
The doldrums perhaps?
Consider: at their closest, Brazil and West Africa are nearer one another than Gibraltar and the Levant.
By great circle?
According to Google: Natal (Brazil) to Monrovia (Liberia) is 2,969 km (1,845 miles). Gibraltar to Tel Aviv is 3,639 km (2,261 miles).
Sure. But what are we to make of that? Wasn't the context some monkeys doing a KonTiki aeons ago?
How about early humans doing a Kontiki within the last 200,000 years? If monkeys could do it 40 million years ago, why not humans much more recently?
Thor Heyerdahl's point, I think.
His theory was the Pacific Islands being populated FROM South America.
I'm curious to know how they establish these claims as false. Genetic testing?
What's to say it is false? If a man can self identify as a woman, why can't a person of white ancestry identify as African origin?
We can all identify as of African origin, if we look back far enough.
This is now disputed, actually
Really? First I’ve heard. What’s the new theory?
Aren't we the result of hybridization between apes and aliens?
Read more wisely.
Monkeys and aliens?
I think you're going wrong with the aliens bit.
Perhaps I spend too much time watching 'Ancient Aliens' on Blaze.
Ah.. yes... er, no. Obviously I don't have the slightest clue what you're talking about.
When I was quite young I read the books of Eric Von Daniken. So disappointing to find out he was a fraud.
More of a nutter than a fraud?
Try Graham Hancock for an updated, more sophisticated and intelligent version. He is very good at describing the problems presented by the existence of aztec masonry, Gobekli Tepe, the stones at Baalbek, the peculiarities of the Ark of the Covenant etc even if you don't go along with his solutions.
I found the video below fairly interesting, if somewhat arcane (and probably one for the lawyers). Basically: this guy got called in for the defence on a court case about some erosion around a housing development. He rather holes the plaintiff's expert witness' testimony.
Whilst the expert's evidence is very poor, the question I'm left with is how I'd calculate the amount of erosion between 2006 and 2019, what data sources would I use? And is it even feasible to measure with any accuracy?
I can imagine there's all sorts of poor expert evidence floating around in the court system - especially in unusual cases.
Dated air photos? Google Earth has time sequences to some extent, for instance (not availoable on vanilla Google Maps, though). Ditto sat mapping depending on scale.
OS Mapping? Probably not, unless the OS were working there in 2006 and you got a surveyor in today.
It was in the US. He goes into some of the problems with aerial photos: not only were the photos used at different resolutions, you have to correct for the height and angle the photo was taken at, all of which can add little differences. When you are just talking about a few feet of difference, and a pixel is a foot, it becomes really difficult.
I bet a method has been devised to accurately measure coastal erosion; but that might just be proper surveys.
Thanks. That sort of accuracy is pretty extreme - I was thinking in terms of tens of metres, and of course the rate of erosion is uneven from year to year.
I know some people looking at coastal erosion and landslipping - not easy at all.
I'm curious to know how they establish these claims as false. Genetic testing?
What's to say it is false? If a man can self identify as a woman, why can't a person of white ancestry identify as African origin?
We can all identify as of African origin, if we look back far enough.
This is now disputed, actually
Really? First I’ve heard. What’s the new theory?
I am happy to be corrected but my understanding is that the "Out Of Africa" theory is now disputed, but that theory only refers to homo sapien sapiens coming out of Africa as the modern species. Newer evidence suggests there was inter breeding between different subspecies of humans post-Africa. But all those sub species in turn came out of Africa so the argument still stands.
Not so.
China. And Asia, more widely
"Most Chinese palaeontologists — and a few ardent supporters from the West — think that the transitional fossils are evidence that Peking Man was an ancestor of modern Asian people. In this model, known as multiregionalism or continuity with hybridization, hominins descended from H. erectus in Asia interbred with incoming groups from Africa and other parts of Eurasia, and their progeny gave rise to the ancestors of modern east Asians, says Wu."
Convergent evolution would explain how they evolved similarly in different continents, and the origin in the same or very similar primate species would explain the ability to interbreed, as proto-Europeans bred with Neanderthals
It is certainly a bit fishy that so much of the evolution is thought to have occurred in the hot dry places in the Rift Valley where fossils are most likely to be preserved.
Yes
And now that "mitochondrial Eve" has been largely abandoned, and humans are thought to have evolved in several different places across Africa, then why not outside Africa.
In fact, if I had to bet, I would say they likely did. We are finding too many inexplicable and contradictory fossils in Asia
I have a theory, which is probably bollocks, that the quickest way "out of Africa" to get to S. America is via a boat ride across the Atlantic.
Think there’s a problem with winds and currents
The doldrums perhaps?
Consider: at their closest, Brazil and West Africa are nearer one another than Gibraltar and the Levant.
By great circle?
According to Google: Natal (Brazil) to Monrovia (Liberia) is 2,969 km (1,845 miles). Gibraltar to Tel Aviv is 3,639 km (2,261 miles).
I'm curious to know how they establish these claims as false. Genetic testing?
What's to say it is false? If a man can self identify as a woman, why can't a person of white ancestry identify as African origin?
We can all identify as of African origin, if we look back far enough.
This is now disputed, actually
Not disputed by anyone worth listening to as far as I can see.
Here you go. Some reading
"Asia’s mysterious role in the early origins of humanity Bizarre fossils from China are revealing our species' Asian origins and rewriting the story of human evolution"
"An Asian Origin for Human Ancestors? Myanmar fossil suggests our earliest predecessors may not have come from Africa"
"Researchers agree that our immediate ancestors, the upright walking apes, arose in Africa. But the discovery of a new primate that lived about 37 million years ago in the ancient swamplands of Myanmar bolsters the idea that the deep primate family tree that gave rise to humans is rooted in Asia. If true, the discovery suggests that the ancestors of all monkeys, apes, and humans—known as the anthropoids—arose in Asia and made the arduous journey to the island continent of Africa almost 40 million years ago."
Myanmar isn't a million miles from the submerged Sunda Shelf mentioned upthread.
If all primates come from Asia then it is highly plausible that these primates evolved into hominids in Asia, at roughly the same time as they evolved into hominids in Africa, and they would be able to interbreed if they met again
Hence, multiple origins
Mitochondrial Eve and Out of Africa always seemed glib and eurocentric to me. The theory was a pretty good explanation for the origins of Europeans - we probably DID come from Africa - and was confirmed by selection bias - we excavated in Africa, as colonial overlords. South Africa, Kenya, Tanzania: is where we found so many crucial fossils. Funny, that.
And of course the idea of an Eve chimed with western Christian origin myths
Asia is much bigger than Africa and better connected to the rest of the world - down to Australasia, merged with Europe, and a short sea hop to the Americas. It actually makes a more likely source for humans, in many ways
On topic, at what point does Biden become value for re-election? 17% for the first-term incumbent must be almost unheard of?
He'll be an octogenarian at the next election. He's a lame duck already surely?
If things are going well for Biden then Kamala will be the nominee.
If Biden's approval gets back up again then yes, or Kamala if he decides not to run again, will be favourite. If not then someone younger like Buttigieg or even Joe Kennedy III would come into the frame for the Democratic nomination
Bit of a stretch for Joe Kennedy, for 2024 anyway, seeing as how he got his clock cleaned last year challenging Ed Markey for US Senate in Mass.
He may well run for governor next year in Massachussetts, if he beats the GOP incumbent Charlie Baker or whoever is GOP nominee having won the Dem nomination he will be a contendor for President or VP nominee
IF Joe K III runs, and IF he wins the Democratic primary, and IF he beats Charlie Baker, then MAYBE he MIGHT be a contender.
Personally am a fan of Young(ish) Joe, but like I said, it's a streeeeeeeeeach.
After Trump and Biden, Americans may be ready for some dynastic Presidencies again after the Kennedy and Bush families served their time on the sidelines.
Kennedy would certainly be a better candidate for the Dems than an over 80 Biden by then or the uncharismatic, hard bitten Harris. As indeed would Buttigieg
Kennedy's 2020 campaign verus Ed Markey was a train wreck.
Doubt premise of your 2nd sentence. Might as well look for another Roosevelt or Adams.
And 3rd sentence is just a red herring when it comes to Joe Kennedy III's availablity or lack thereof.
He was facing a Dem incumbent in Markey, for the governorship he is the Dems best hope of unseating a GOP incumbent as governor. If he does he will be a contendor in 2024 for President or VP
As of this summer, Charlie Bakers approval rating as Governor of Mass was over 70% - among Democrats.
Best shot for Joe Kennedy, would be if Trump wing of GOP somehow defeated Baker for renomination. Which is possible but doubtful.
But still more possible methinks than Kennedy beating Baker in 2022 general.
Baker has not yet announced he will run again, if he does the Trumpite Geoff Diehl who worked on Trump's 2020 campaign in the state has already said he will challenge him for the GOP nomination and could well win that nomination.
So Kennedy certainly has a chance and of course in Massachussetts no Democrat should ever be ruled out in the general election either, even against Baker
Indeed the latest poll of GOP voters in Massachussetts has Diehl beating Baker for the nomination if he runs again, with 50% to just 29% for Baker
54% of Republican voters have an unfavourable view of Baker. Trump has already endorsed Diehl, saying of Baker 'Baker is definitely not an American First or Make America Great Again kind of guy. Geoff Diehl, on the other hand, is a true patriot, a believer in low energy costs and our independent energy policy' https://twitter.com/skoczela/status/1450790427846717449?s=20
Will say that the one (and really only) thing that attracts me about your Kennedy crush, is that his record before & during his service in Congress shows that he is NOT a show pony (or just that) but a work horse. He's a serious guy with a serious interest beyond mere ego or sheer dynasticism.
On topic, at what point does Biden become value for re-election? 17% for the first-term incumbent must be almost unheard of?
He'll be an octogenarian at the next election. He's a lame duck already surely?
If things are going well for Biden then Kamala will be the nominee.
If Biden's approval gets back up again then yes, or Kamala if he decides not to run again, will be favourite. If not then someone younger like Buttigieg or even Joe Kennedy III would come into the frame for the Democratic nomination
Bit of a stretch for Joe Kennedy, for 2024 anyway, seeing as how he got his clock cleaned last year challenging Ed Markey for US Senate in Mass.
He may well run for governor next year in Massachussetts, if he beats the GOP incumbent Charlie Baker or whoever is GOP nominee having won the Dem nomination he will be a contendor for President or VP nominee
IF Joe K III runs, and IF he wins the Democratic primary, and IF he beats Charlie Baker, then MAYBE he MIGHT be a contender.
Personally am a fan of Young(ish) Joe, but like I said, it's a streeeeeeeeeach.
After Trump and Biden, Americans may be ready for some dynastic Presidencies again after the Kennedy and Bush families served their time on the sidelines.
Kennedy would certainly be a better candidate for the Dems than an over 80 Biden by then or the uncharismatic, hard bitten Harris. As indeed would Buttigieg
Kennedy's 2020 campaign verus Ed Markey was a train wreck.
Doubt premise of your 2nd sentence. Might as well look for another Roosevelt or Adams.
And 3rd sentence is just a red herring when it comes to Joe Kennedy III's availablity or lack thereof.
He was facing a Dem incumbent in Markey, for the governorship he is the Dems best hope of unseating a GOP incumbent as governor. If he does he will be a contendor in 2024 for President or VP
As of this summer, Charlie Bakers approval rating as Governor of Mass was over 70% - among Democrats.
Best shot for Joe Kennedy, would be if Trump wing of GOP somehow defeated Baker for renomination. Which is possible but doubtful.
But still more possible methinks than Kennedy beating Baker in 2022 general.
Baker has not yet announced he will run again, if he does the Trumpite Geoff Diehl who worked on Trump's 2020 campaign in the state has already said he will challenge him for the GOP nomination and could well win that nomination.
So Kennedy certainly has a chance and of course in Massachussetts no Democrat should ever be ruled out in the general election either, even against Baker
In the great Commonwealth of Massachusetts "unenrolled" voters can vote in either Democratic or Republican primary.
As of February 2021, according to Mass Secretary of State, of total registration of 4.7m, by party: > registered Democrats 32% > registered Republicans 10% > other 1% > unenrolled 57%
In a primary battle between Charlie Baker and Geoff Diehl, plenty of Dem-leaning unenrolled voters would gravitate to the Republican to aid Baker.
The same kind of voters that Kennedy would be counting to prevail versus progressive in the Democratic primary.
There are multiple progressive candidates already declared on the Democratic side including Harvard professor Danielle Young and state Senator Sonia Chiang-Diaz.
Kennedy therefore could win in theory with just over a third of Democratic primary voters only, the progressive vote will be split, not united as it was behind Markey (and even then Joe Kennedy got 44.5% of the primary vote v Markey which would be enough to win if the progressive vote is split)
I'm curious to know how they establish these claims as false. Genetic testing?
What's to say it is false? If a man can self identify as a woman, why can't a person of white ancestry identify as African origin?
We can all identify as of African origin, if we look back far enough.
This is now disputed, actually
Really? First I’ve heard. What’s the new theory?
I am happy to be corrected but my understanding is that the "Out Of Africa" theory is now disputed, but that theory only refers to homo sapien sapiens coming out of Africa as the modern species. Newer evidence suggests there was inter breeding between different subspecies of humans post-Africa. But all those sub species in turn came out of Africa so the argument still stands.
Not so.
China. And Asia, more widely
"Most Chinese palaeontologists — and a few ardent supporters from the West — think that the transitional fossils are evidence that Peking Man was an ancestor of modern Asian people. In this model, known as multiregionalism or continuity with hybridization, hominins descended from H. erectus in Asia interbred with incoming groups from Africa and other parts of Eurasia, and their progeny gave rise to the ancestors of modern east Asians, says Wu."
Convergent evolution would explain how they evolved similarly in different continents, and the origin in the same or very similar primate species would explain the ability to interbreed, as proto-Europeans bred with Neanderthals
It is certainly a bit fishy that so much of the evolution is thought to have occurred in the hot dry places in the Rift Valley where fossils are most likely to be preserved.
Yes
And now that "mitochondrial Eve" has been largely abandoned, and humans are thought to have evolved in several different places across Africa, then why not outside Africa.
In fact, if I had to bet, I would say they likely did. We are finding too many inexplicable and contradictory fossils in Asia
I have a theory, which is probably bollocks, that the quickest way "out of Africa" to get to S. America is via a boat ride across the Atlantic.
Think there’s a problem with winds and currents
The doldrums perhaps?
Consider: at their closest, Brazil and West Africa are nearer one another than Gibraltar and the Levant.
By great circle?
According to Google: Natal (Brazil) to Monrovia (Liberia) is 2,969 km (1,845 miles). Gibraltar to Tel Aviv is 3,639 km (2,261 miles).
Sure. But what are we to make of that? Wasn't the context some monkeys doing a KonTiki aeons ago?
How about early humans doing a Kontiki within the last 200,000 years? If monkeys could do it 40 million years ago, why not humans much more recently?
Thor Heyerdahl's point, I think.
His theory was the Pacific Islands being populated FROM South America.
Yes, an instance of migration across an ocean by 'primitive' peoples. Your piece on Sundaland is v interesting btw.
On topic, at what point does Biden become value for re-election? 17% for the first-term incumbent must be almost unheard of?
He'll be an octogenarian at the next election. He's a lame duck already surely?
If things are going well for Biden then Kamala will be the nominee.
If Biden's approval gets back up again then yes, or Kamala if he decides not to run again, will be favourite. If not then someone younger like Buttigieg or even Joe Kennedy III would come into the frame for the Democratic nomination
Bit of a stretch for Joe Kennedy, for 2024 anyway, seeing as how he got his clock cleaned last year challenging Ed Markey for US Senate in Mass.
He may well run for governor next year in Massachussetts, if he beats the GOP incumbent Charlie Baker or whoever is GOP nominee having won the Dem nomination he will be a contendor for President or VP nominee
IF Joe K III runs, and IF he wins the Democratic primary, and IF he beats Charlie Baker, then MAYBE he MIGHT be a contender.
Personally am a fan of Young(ish) Joe, but like I said, it's a streeeeeeeeeach.
After Trump and Biden, Americans may be ready for some dynastic Presidencies again after the Kennedy and Bush families served their time on the sidelines.
Kennedy would certainly be a better candidate for the Dems than an over 80 Biden by then or the uncharismatic, hard bitten Harris. As indeed would Buttigieg
Kennedy's 2020 campaign verus Ed Markey was a train wreck.
Doubt premise of your 2nd sentence. Might as well look for another Roosevelt or Adams.
And 3rd sentence is just a red herring when it comes to Joe Kennedy III's availablity or lack thereof.
He was facing a Dem incumbent in Markey, for the governorship he is the Dems best hope of unseating a GOP incumbent as governor. If he does he will be a contendor in 2024 for President or VP
As of this summer, Charlie Bakers approval rating as Governor of Mass was over 70% - among Democrats.
Best shot for Joe Kennedy, would be if Trump wing of GOP somehow defeated Baker for renomination. Which is possible but doubtful.
But still more possible methinks than Kennedy beating Baker in 2022 general.
Baker has not yet announced he will run again, if he does the Trumpite Geoff Diehl who worked on Trump's 2020 campaign in the state has already said he will challenge him for the GOP nomination and could well win that nomination.
So Kennedy certainly has a chance and of course in Massachussetts no Democrat should ever be ruled out in the general election either, even against Baker
In the great Commonwealth of Massachusetts "unenrolled" voters can vote in either Democratic or Republican primary.
As of February 2021, according to Mass Secretary of State, of total registration of 4.7m, by party: > registered Democrats 32% > registered Republicans 10% > other 1% > unenrolled 57%
In a primary battle between Charlie Baker and Geoff Diehl, plenty of Dem-leaning unenrolled voters would gravitate to the Republican to aid Baker.
The same kind of voters that Kennedy would be counting to prevail versus progressive in the Democratic primary.
There are multiple progressive candidates already declared on the Democratic side including Harvard professor Danielle Young and state Senator Sonia Chiang-Diaz.
Kennedy therefore could win in theory with just over a third of Democratic primary voters only, the progressive vote will be split, not united as it was behind Markey (and even then Joe Kennedy got 44.5% of the primary v Markey which would be enough to win if the progressive vote is split)
Yeah, but the progs can count also, they will tend to coalesce IF it looks likely they are dividing and conquering themselves like they did this year in New York City for mayor.
The biggest problem for Joe Kennedy last year was NOT Markey, it was fact that he never did define and communicate any particular reason WHY he should be in the US Senate, instead of Markey OR in his own right.
Methinks that he's the kind of guy who can learn from his mistakes (like Uncle Ted did from his, including intra-party election defeats). And IF he does, then MAYBE there's a chance for your bet.
On topic, at what point does Biden become value for re-election? 17% for the first-term incumbent must be almost unheard of?
He'll be an octogenarian at the next election. He's a lame duck already surely?
If things are going well for Biden then Kamala will be the nominee.
If Biden's approval gets back up again then yes, or Kamala if he decides not to run again, will be favourite. If not then someone younger like Buttigieg or even Joe Kennedy III would come into the frame for the Democratic nomination
Bit of a stretch for Joe Kennedy, for 2024 anyway, seeing as how he got his clock cleaned last year challenging Ed Markey for US Senate in Mass.
He may well run for governor next year in Massachussetts, if he beats the GOP incumbent Charlie Baker or whoever is GOP nominee having won the Dem nomination he will be a contendor for President or VP nominee
IF Joe K III runs, and IF he wins the Democratic primary, and IF he beats Charlie Baker, then MAYBE he MIGHT be a contender.
Personally am a fan of Young(ish) Joe, but like I said, it's a streeeeeeeeeach.
After Trump and Biden, Americans may be ready for some dynastic Presidencies again after the Kennedy and Bush families served their time on the sidelines.
Kennedy would certainly be a better candidate for the Dems than an over 80 Biden by then or the uncharismatic, hard bitten Harris. As indeed would Buttigieg
Kennedy's 2020 campaign verus Ed Markey was a train wreck.
Doubt premise of your 2nd sentence. Might as well look for another Roosevelt or Adams.
And 3rd sentence is just a red herring when it comes to Joe Kennedy III's availablity or lack thereof.
He was facing a Dem incumbent in Markey, for the governorship he is the Dems best hope of unseating a GOP incumbent as governor. If he does he will be a contendor in 2024 for President or VP
As of this summer, Charlie Bakers approval rating as Governor of Mass was over 70% - among Democrats.
Best shot for Joe Kennedy, would be if Trump wing of GOP somehow defeated Baker for renomination. Which is possible but doubtful.
But still more possible methinks than Kennedy beating Baker in 2022 general.
Baker has not yet announced he will run again, if he does the Trumpite Geoff Diehl who worked on Trump's 2020 campaign in the state has already said he will challenge him for the GOP nomination and could well win that nomination.
So Kennedy certainly has a chance and of course in Massachussetts no Democrat should ever be ruled out in the general election either, even against Baker
Indeed the latest poll of GOP voters in Massachussetts has Diehl beating Baker for the nomination if he runs again, with 50% to just 29% for Baker
54% of Republican voters have an unfavourable view of Baker. Trump has already endorsed Diehl, saying of Baker 'Baker is definitely not an American First or Make America Great Again kind of guy. Geoff Diehl, on the other hand, is a true patriot, a believer in low energy costs and our independent energy policy' https://twitter.com/skoczela/status/1450790427846717449?s=20
Will say that the one (and really only) thing that attracts me about your Kennedy crush, is that his record before & during his service in Congress shows that he is NOT a show pony (or just that) but a work horse. He's a serious guy with a serious interest beyond mere ego or sheer dynasticism.
Yes he is brighter than his great uncles JFK and Ted Kennedy and Bobby Kennedy, his grandfather, were and got good grades at Stanford in engineering and management science and Harvard Law.
He has been an assistant DA and worked in the peace corps in the Dominican Republic before being elected to Congress. He also does community organising like Obama did and is a member of a Biden commission to increase experience of the Federal Government.
There would be a certain symmetry if 56 years after Bobby Kennedy was shot campaigning to be President, his grandson was elected to the White House
Great news on the global tax deal getting unanimous consent at the G20.
I get a sense that the forecasts will be an order of magnitude lower than the tax we actually raise in the end. My gut feeling is that we severely underestimate the amount of money lost in tax to the tax havens and the higher rate will result in companies deciding to spend more to create value for shareholders instead of paying more tax.
All of those hundreds of billions sitting on corporate balance sheets needs to be unlocked for the good of mankind. Preventing that from happening would have been the better place to start but hopefully this will halt that.
I'd also like to see tax movement on cash balances at non financial corporations, maybe a 1% per year annual charge on cash balances over $5bn which can be given back if 5-10x as much as the tax is invested.
I'm curious to know how they establish these claims as false. Genetic testing?
What's to say it is false? If a man can self identify as a woman, why can't a person of white ancestry identify as African origin?
We can all identify as of African origin, if we look back far enough.
This is now disputed, actually
Really? First I’ve heard. What’s the new theory?
I am happy to be corrected but my understanding is that the "Out Of Africa" theory is now disputed, but that theory only refers to homo sapien sapiens coming out of Africa as the modern species. Newer evidence suggests there was inter breeding between different subspecies of humans post-Africa. But all those sub species in turn came out of Africa so the argument still stands.
Not so.
China. And Asia, more widely
"Most Chinese palaeontologists — and a few ardent supporters from the West — think that the transitional fossils are evidence that Peking Man was an ancestor of modern Asian people. In this model, known as multiregionalism or continuity with hybridization, hominins descended from H. erectus in Asia interbred with incoming groups from Africa and other parts of Eurasia, and their progeny gave rise to the ancestors of modern east Asians, says Wu."
Convergent evolution would explain how they evolved similarly in different continents, and the origin in the same or very similar primate species would explain the ability to interbreed, as proto-Europeans bred with Neanderthals
It is certainly a bit fishy that so much of the evolution is thought to have occurred in the hot dry places in the Rift Valley where fossils are most likely to be preserved.
Yes
And now that "mitochondrial Eve" has been largely abandoned, and humans are thought to have evolved in several different places across Africa, then why not outside Africa.
In fact, if I had to bet, I would say they likely did. We are finding too many inexplicable and contradictory fossils in Asia
I have a theory, which is probably bollocks, that the quickest way "out of Africa" to get to S. America is via a boat ride across the Atlantic.
Think there’s a problem with winds and currents
The doldrums perhaps?
Consider: at their closest, Brazil and West Africa are nearer one another than Gibraltar and the Levant.
By great circle?
According to Google: Natal (Brazil) to Monrovia (Liberia) is 2,969 km (1,845 miles). Gibraltar to Tel Aviv is 3,639 km (2,261 miles).
But you can do the latter journey on foot.
You can, but it would take you 6 and a half months vs one month by sea, according to https://orbis.stanford.edu/
The NE trade winds from Africa to the Caribbean/Northern S America are as reliable as fuck. I've done the crossing in 14 days in, OK, a fastish racing yacht, but it took Columbus 6 September - 11 October, or pretty much the same time as orbis gives for a Roman to sail from Cadiz to Jerusalem.
I'm curious to know how they establish these claims as false. Genetic testing?
What's to say it is false? If a man can self identify as a woman, why can't a person of white ancestry identify as African origin?
We can all identify as of African origin, if we look back far enough.
This is now disputed, actually
Really? First I’ve heard. What’s the new theory?
I am happy to be corrected but my understanding is that the "Out Of Africa" theory is now disputed, but that theory only refers to homo sapien sapiens coming out of Africa as the modern species. Newer evidence suggests there was inter breeding between different subspecies of humans post-Africa. But all those sub species in turn came out of Africa so the argument still stands.
Not so.
China. And Asia, more widely
"Most Chinese palaeontologists — and a few ardent supporters from the West — think that the transitional fossils are evidence that Peking Man was an ancestor of modern Asian people. In this model, known as multiregionalism or continuity with hybridization, hominins descended from H. erectus in Asia interbred with incoming groups from Africa and other parts of Eurasia, and their progeny gave rise to the ancestors of modern east Asians, says Wu."
Convergent evolution would explain how they evolved similarly in different continents, and the origin in the same or very similar primate species would explain the ability to interbreed, as proto-Europeans bred with Neanderthals
It is certainly a bit fishy that so much of the evolution is thought to have occurred in the hot dry places in the Rift Valley where fossils are most likely to be preserved.
Yes
And now that "mitochondrial Eve" has been largely abandoned, and humans are thought to have evolved in several different places across Africa, then why not outside Africa.
In fact, if I had to bet, I would say they likely did. We are finding too many inexplicable and contradictory fossils in Asia
I have a theory, which is probably bollocks, that the quickest way "out of Africa" to get to S. America is via a boat ride across the Atlantic.
Think there’s a problem with winds and currents
The doldrums perhaps?
Consider: at their closest, Brazil and West Africa are nearer one another than Gibraltar and the Levant.
By great circle?
According to Google: Natal (Brazil) to Monrovia (Liberia) is 2,969 km (1,845 miles). Gibraltar to Tel Aviv is 3,639 km (2,261 miles).
Sure. But what are we to make of that? Wasn't the context some monkeys doing a KonTiki aeons ago?
How about early humans doing a Kontiki within the last 200,000 years? If monkeys could do it 40 million years ago, why not humans much more recently?
Thor Heyerdahl's point, I think.
His theory was the Pacific Islands being populated FROM South America.
There may have been some contact, but the DNA suggests the vast majority of Polynesians originated in SE Asia.
Great news on the global tax deal getting unanimous consent at the G20.
I get a sense that the forecasts will be an order of magnitude lower than the tax we actually raise in the end. My gut feeling is that we severely underestimate the amount of money lost in tax to the tax havens and the higher rate will result in companies deciding to spend more to create value for shareholders instead of paying more tax.
All of those hundreds of billions sitting on corporate balance sheets needs to be unlocked for the good of mankind. Preventing that from happening would have been the better place to start but hopefully this will halt that.
I'd also like to see tax movement on cash balances at non financial corporations, maybe a 1% per year annual charge on cash balances over $5bn which can be given back if 5-10x as much as the tax is invested.
Indeed and in the context of the earlier piece quoted from The Times, if we do find ourselves with a hitherto-untapped reserve of money at our disposal, let's do something sensible, useful and constructive with it.
Please, no tax cuts or handing it to corrupt dictators.
On topic, at what point does Biden become value for re-election? 17% for the first-term incumbent must be almost unheard of?
He'll be an octogenarian at the next election. He's a lame duck already surely?
If things are going well for Biden then Kamala will be the nominee.
If Biden's approval gets back up again then yes, or Kamala if he decides not to run again, will be favourite. If not then someone younger like Buttigieg or even Joe Kennedy III would come into the frame for the Democratic nomination
Bit of a stretch for Joe Kennedy, for 2024 anyway, seeing as how he got his clock cleaned last year challenging Ed Markey for US Senate in Mass.
He may well run for governor next year in Massachussetts, if he beats the GOP incumbent Charlie Baker or whoever is GOP nominee having won the Dem nomination he will be a contendor for President or VP nominee
IF Joe K III runs, and IF he wins the Democratic primary, and IF he beats Charlie Baker, then MAYBE he MIGHT be a contender.
Personally am a fan of Young(ish) Joe, but like I said, it's a streeeeeeeeeach.
After Trump and Biden, Americans may be ready for some dynastic Presidencies again after the Kennedy and Bush families served their time on the sidelines.
Kennedy would certainly be a better candidate for the Dems than an over 80 Biden by then or the uncharismatic, hard bitten Harris. As indeed would Buttigieg
Kennedy's 2020 campaign verus Ed Markey was a train wreck.
Doubt premise of your 2nd sentence. Might as well look for another Roosevelt or Adams.
And 3rd sentence is just a red herring when it comes to Joe Kennedy III's availablity or lack thereof.
He was facing a Dem incumbent in Markey, for the governorship he is the Dems best hope of unseating a GOP incumbent as governor. If he does he will be a contendor in 2024 for President or VP
As of this summer, Charlie Bakers approval rating as Governor of Mass was over 70% - among Democrats.
Best shot for Joe Kennedy, would be if Trump wing of GOP somehow defeated Baker for renomination. Which is possible but doubtful.
But still more possible methinks than Kennedy beating Baker in 2022 general.
Baker has not yet announced he will run again, if he does the Trumpite Geoff Diehl who worked on Trump's 2020 campaign in the state has already said he will challenge him for the GOP nomination and could well win that nomination.
So Kennedy certainly has a chance and of course in Massachussetts no Democrat should ever be ruled out in the general election either, even against Baker
Indeed the latest poll of GOP voters in Massachussetts has Diehl beating Baker for the nomination if he runs again, with 50% to just 29% for Baker
54% of Republican voters have an unfavourable view of Baker. Trump has already endorsed Diehl, saying of Baker 'Baker is definitely not an American First or Make America Great Again kind of guy. Geoff Diehl, on the other hand, is a true patriot, a believer in low energy costs and our independent energy policy' https://twitter.com/skoczela/status/1450790427846717449?s=20
Will say that the one (and really only) thing that attracts me about your Kennedy crush, is that his record before & during his service in Congress shows that he is NOT a show pony (or just that) but a work horse. He's a serious guy with a serious interest beyond mere ego or sheer dynasticism.
Yes he is brighter than his great uncles JFK and Ted Kennedy and Bobby Kennedy, his grandfather, were and got good grades at Stanford in engineering and management science and Harvard Law.
He has been an assistant DA and worked in the peace corps in the Dominican Republic before being elected to Congress. He also does community organising like Obama did and is a member of a Biden commission to increase experience of the Federal Government.
There would be a certain symmetry if 56 years after Bobby Kennedy was shot campaigning to be President, his grandson was elected to the White House
The cynic in me thinks "Nicely engineered CV'
But then, I met a guy who made good money "helping" rich kids build "garage projects" as part of their college applications. So when they rock up at the university interview they can talk about the microlight they scratch built.
Oh look, it is one of those free speech at University cases that somehow escapes the notice of hyper ventilating right wingers who somehow otherwise know the intimate details of every random student union shadow sub comittes
On topic, at what point does Biden become value for re-election? 17% for the first-term incumbent must be almost unheard of?
He'll be an octogenarian at the next election. He's a lame duck already surely?
If things are going well for Biden then Kamala will be the nominee.
If Biden's approval gets back up again then yes, or Kamala if he decides not to run again, will be favourite. If not then someone younger like Buttigieg or even Joe Kennedy III would come into the frame for the Democratic nomination
Bit of a stretch for Joe Kennedy, for 2024 anyway, seeing as how he got his clock cleaned last year challenging Ed Markey for US Senate in Mass.
He may well run for governor next year in Massachussetts, if he beats the GOP incumbent Charlie Baker or whoever is GOP nominee having won the Dem nomination he will be a contendor for President or VP nominee
IF Joe K III runs, and IF he wins the Democratic primary, and IF he beats Charlie Baker, then MAYBE he MIGHT be a contender.
Personally am a fan of Young(ish) Joe, but like I said, it's a streeeeeeeeeach.
After Trump and Biden, Americans may be ready for some dynastic Presidencies again after the Kennedy and Bush families served their time on the sidelines.
Kennedy would certainly be a better candidate for the Dems than an over 80 Biden by then or the uncharismatic, hard bitten Harris. As indeed would Buttigieg
Kennedy's 2020 campaign verus Ed Markey was a train wreck.
Doubt premise of your 2nd sentence. Might as well look for another Roosevelt or Adams.
And 3rd sentence is just a red herring when it comes to Joe Kennedy III's availablity or lack thereof.
He was facing a Dem incumbent in Markey, for the governorship he is the Dems best hope of unseating a GOP incumbent as governor. If he does he will be a contendor in 2024 for President or VP
As of this summer, Charlie Bakers approval rating as Governor of Mass was over 70% - among Democrats.
Best shot for Joe Kennedy, would be if Trump wing of GOP somehow defeated Baker for renomination. Which is possible but doubtful.
But still more possible methinks than Kennedy beating Baker in 2022 general.
Baker has not yet announced he will run again, if he does the Trumpite Geoff Diehl who worked on Trump's 2020 campaign in the state has already said he will challenge him for the GOP nomination and could well win that nomination.
So Kennedy certainly has a chance and of course in Massachussetts no Democrat should ever be ruled out in the general election either, even against Baker
Indeed the latest poll of GOP voters in Massachussetts has Diehl beating Baker for the nomination if he runs again, with 50% to just 29% for Baker
54% of Republican voters have an unfavourable view of Baker. Trump has already endorsed Diehl, saying of Baker 'Baker is definitely not an American First or Make America Great Again kind of guy. Geoff Diehl, on the other hand, is a true patriot, a believer in low energy costs and our independent energy policy' https://twitter.com/skoczela/status/1450790427846717449?s=20
Will say that the one (and really only) thing that attracts me about your Kennedy crush, is that his record before & during his service in Congress shows that he is NOT a show pony (or just that) but a work horse. He's a serious guy with a serious interest beyond mere ego or sheer dynasticism.
Yes he is brighter than his great uncles JFK and Ted Kennedy and Bobby Kennedy, his grandfather, were and got good grades at Stanford in engineering and management science and Harvard Law.
He has been an assistant DA and worked in the peace corps in the Dominican Republic before being elected to Congress. He also does community organising like Obama did and is a member of a Biden commission to increase experience of the Federal Government.
There would be a certain symmetry if 56 years after Bobby Kennedy was shot campaigning to be President, his grandson was elected to the White House
Don't agree re: intelligence, Bobby in particular was a smart guy, though NOT as much as he thought. Teddy was no rocket scientist, but he ended up achieving a great deal as a very serious legislator in the last decades of his congressional career. Interesting he started out as a jackrabbit - elected a senator as he was turning the minimum age - but ended up the proverbial tortoise.
Large part of Ted Kennedy's problems stemmed from his emulating his father & brothers as best he could. Whereas Joe K III has taken the opposite path and shunned his clan's notorious dysfunctionality. Which still didn't keep him from buying his own bullshit last year. But then like I said, think he learned from that experience.
Another thing about the Kennedys - for good or ill, the best of them are NOT quitters.
Oh look, it is one of those free speech at University cases that somehow escapes the notice of hyper ventilating right wingers who somehow otherwise know the intimate details of every random student union shadow sub comittes
If one looks at maps of the Arctic and sub-Arctic from the North, then the Viking voyages seem much more likely.
And even that's not necessary. It's really beyond dispute that Nordic people settled North America, and were probably there for some decades.
Wasn’t there some recent news from Aines sur Meadow (in idea of the spelling) about this. I read a great book about the America’s before the Europeans arrived, ‘A journey long and strange’, although this includes the vikings. It’s fascinating how a western view is preeminent about North America pre Columbus. In reality there were huge, complex cultures in place.
Oh look, it is one of those free speech at University cases that somehow escapes the notice of hyper ventilating right wingers who somehow otherwise know the intimate details of every random student union shadow sub comittes
If one looks at maps of the Arctic and sub-Arctic from the North, then the Viking voyages seem much more likely.
And even that's not necessary. It's really beyond dispute that Nordic people settled North America, and were probably there for some decades.
Wasn’t there some recent news from Aines sur Meadow (in idea of the spelling) about this. I read a great book about the America’s before the Europeans arrived, ‘A journey long and strange’, although this includes the vikings. It’s fascinating how a western view is preeminent about North America pre Columbus. In reality there were huge, complex cultures in place.
Yes, I think some work was done on isotopes that proved European provenance of the wood used. Something to do with solar flares? And the buildings were in the Nordic style of the time. So European wood used for identical building styles the continent over, matching surviving contemporary writings. Case closed.
According to Google: Natal (Brazil) to Monrovia (Liberia) is 2,969 km (1,845 miles). Gibraltar to Tel Aviv is 3,639 km (2,261 miles).
But you can do the latter journey on foot.
Norway is closer to China than Portugal:
You’re cheating
You’ve taken the point of Norway that is furthest from Portugal and closer to China. If you measured from Oslo, for example, you’d get a different result
On topic, at what point does Biden become value for re-election? 17% for the first-term incumbent must be almost unheard of?
He'll be an octogenarian at the next election. He's a lame duck already surely?
If things are going well for Biden then Kamala will be the nominee.
If Biden's approval gets back up again then yes, or Kamala if he decides not to run again, will be favourite. If not then someone younger like Buttigieg or even Joe Kennedy III would come into the frame for the Democratic nomination
Bit of a stretch for Joe Kennedy, for 2024 anyway, seeing as how he got his clock cleaned last year challenging Ed Markey for US Senate in Mass.
He may well run for governor next year in Massachussetts, if he beats the GOP incumbent Charlie Baker or whoever is GOP nominee having won the Dem nomination he will be a contendor for President or VP nominee
IF Joe K III runs, and IF he wins the Democratic primary, and IF he beats Charlie Baker, then MAYBE he MIGHT be a contender.
Personally am a fan of Young(ish) Joe, but like I said, it's a streeeeeeeeeach.
After Trump and Biden, Americans may be ready for some dynastic Presidencies again after the Kennedy and Bush families served their time on the sidelines.
Kennedy would certainly be a better candidate for the Dems than an over 80 Biden by then or the uncharismatic, hard bitten Harris. As indeed would Buttigieg
Kennedy's 2020 campaign verus Ed Markey was a train wreck.
Doubt premise of your 2nd sentence. Might as well look for another Roosevelt or Adams.
And 3rd sentence is just a red herring when it comes to Joe Kennedy III's availablity or lack thereof.
He was facing a Dem incumbent in Markey, for the governorship he is the Dems best hope of unseating a GOP incumbent as governor. If he does he will be a contendor in 2024 for President or VP
As of this summer, Charlie Bakers approval rating as Governor of Mass was over 70% - among Democrats.
Best shot for Joe Kennedy, would be if Trump wing of GOP somehow defeated Baker for renomination. Which is possible but doubtful.
But still more possible methinks than Kennedy beating Baker in 2022 general.
Baker has not yet announced he will run again, if he does the Trumpite Geoff Diehl who worked on Trump's 2020 campaign in the state has already said he will challenge him for the GOP nomination and could well win that nomination.
So Kennedy certainly has a chance and of course in Massachussetts no Democrat should ever be ruled out in the general election either, even against Baker
Indeed the latest poll of GOP voters in Massachussetts has Diehl beating Baker for the nomination if he runs again, with 50% to just 29% for Baker
54% of Republican voters have an unfavourable view of Baker. Trump has already endorsed Diehl, saying of Baker 'Baker is definitely not an American First or Make America Great Again kind of guy. Geoff Diehl, on the other hand, is a true patriot, a believer in low energy costs and our independent energy policy' https://twitter.com/skoczela/status/1450790427846717449?s=20
Will say that the one (and really only) thing that attracts me about your Kennedy crush, is that his record before & during his service in Congress shows that he is NOT a show pony (or just that) but a work horse. He's a serious guy with a serious interest beyond mere ego or sheer dynasticism.
Yes he is brighter than his great uncles JFK and Ted Kennedy and Bobby Kennedy, his grandfather, were and got good grades at Stanford in engineering and management science and Harvard Law.
He has been an assistant DA and worked in the peace corps in the Dominican Republic before being elected to Congress. He also does community organising like Obama did and is a member of a Biden commission to increase experience of the Federal Government.
There would be a certain symmetry if 56 years after Bobby Kennedy was shot campaigning to be President, his grandson was elected to the White House
The cynic in me thinks "Nicely engineered CV'
But then, I met a guy who made good money "helping" rich kids build "garage projects" as part of their college applications. So when they rock up at the university interview they can talk about the microlight they scratch built.
Have got it on good 2nd-hand authority, that young(ish) Kennedy is a few cuts above that.
Plus worked (indirectly) with him on a small project several years ago, he came through like a trooper.
Prince Andrew has sought to turn the tables on the woman accusing him of teenage rape by claiming that she was involved in the “wilful recruitment and trafficking of young girls for sexual abuse”.
In a controversial attempt to prove his innocence, lawyers for the Duke of York have painted Virginia Giuffre as an alleged criminal who worked to procure underage “slutty girls” for Jeffrey Epstein, the paedophile billionaire.
They also indicate that by making false allegations against the prince and using up court time, Giuffre is allowing real predators to get away with their crimes.
Starmer is clearly a dud - though tonight's voting intention figures suggest Labour could poll 38% in an early GE given the 7% Green vote available to be squeezed.
If one looks at maps of the Arctic and sub-Arctic from the North, then the Viking voyages seem much more likely.
And even that's not necessary. It's really beyond dispute that Nordic people settled North America, and were probably there for some decades.
But did they reach Mexico? Some evidence that they were.
Not that I know of! What evidence?
When we visited Chichen Itza the guide suggested that there were some carvings that show Viking style symbols etc.
Vikings seem to have gone all over the place. Pity they didn't leave logbooks to prove it. I believe they got to northern France too, and their m.o. remains to this day.
Great news on the global tax deal getting unanimous consent at the G20.
I get a sense that the forecasts will be an order of magnitude lower than the tax we actually raise in the end. My gut feeling is that we severely underestimate the amount of money lost in tax to the tax havens and the higher rate will result in companies deciding to spend more to create value for shareholders instead of paying more tax.
All of those hundreds of billions sitting on corporate balance sheets needs to be unlocked for the good of mankind. Preventing that from happening would have been the better place to start but hopefully this will halt that.
I'd also like to see tax movement on cash balances at non financial corporations, maybe a 1% per year annual charge on cash balances over $5bn which can be given back if 5-10x as much as the tax is invested.
You've a lot more faith in politicians ability to enact change than I do.
I think multibillion or trillion dollar companies will find creative ways around this faster than you can say incentives.
Great news on the global tax deal getting unanimous consent at the G20.
I get a sense that the forecasts will be an order of magnitude lower than the tax we actually raise in the end. My gut feeling is that we severely underestimate the amount of money lost in tax to the tax havens and the higher rate will result in companies deciding to spend more to create value for shareholders instead of paying more tax.
All of those hundreds of billions sitting on corporate balance sheets needs to be unlocked for the good of mankind. Preventing that from happening would have been the better place to start but hopefully this will halt that.
I'd also like to see tax movement on cash balances at non financial corporations, maybe a 1% per year annual charge on cash balances over $5bn which can be given back if 5-10x as much as the tax is invested.
You've a lot more faith in politicians ability to enact change than I do.
I think multibillion or trillion dollar companies will find creative ways around this faster than you can say incentives.
If one looks at maps of the Arctic and sub-Arctic from the North, then the Viking voyages seem much more likely.
And even that's not necessary. It's really beyond dispute that Nordic people settled North America, and were probably there for some decades.
But did they reach Mexico? Some evidence that they were.
Not that I know of! What evidence?
When we visited Chichen Itza the guide suggested that there were some carvings that show Viking style symbols etc.
Vikings seem to have gone all over the place. Pity they didn't leave logbooks to prove it. I believe they got to northern France too, and their m.o. remains to this day.
Of course, Normandy is named after the North Men - Viking raiders and Nordic settlers.
Starmer is clearly a dud - though tonight's voting intention figures suggest Labour could poll 38% in an early GE given the 7% Green vote available to be squeezed.
I think the increase in Green VI is disaffected Corbynites, who hate Sir Keir. I can’t see them rushing back to vote for a form of the Labour Party that they dislike as much as they do Tories. In the past it was easier to allocate them back that way. Maybe it still is, but I think there’s a bigger rift than before between the far left and Centrist Labour
If one looks at maps of the Arctic and sub-Arctic from the North, then the Viking voyages seem much more likely.
And even that's not necessary. It's really beyond dispute that Nordic people settled North America, and were probably there for some decades.
But did they reach Mexico? Some evidence that they were.
Not that I know of! What evidence?
When we visited Chichen Itza the guide suggested that there were some carvings that show Viking style symbols etc.
Vikings seem to have gone all over the place. Pity they didn't leave logbooks to prove it. I believe they got to northern France too, and their m.o. remains to this day.
If one looks at maps of the Arctic and sub-Arctic from the North, then the Viking voyages seem much more likely.
And even that's not necessary. It's really beyond dispute that Nordic people settled North America, and were probably there for some decades.
But did they reach Mexico? Some evidence that they were.
Not that I know of! What evidence?
When we visited Chichen Itza the guide suggested that there were some carvings that show Viking style symbols etc.
Vikings seem to have gone all over the place. Pity they didn't leave logbooks to prove it. I believe they got to northern France too, and their m.o. remains to this day.
Of course, Normandy is named after the North Men - Viking raiders and Nordic settlers.
There we have the explanation of today's kerfuffle about missing records.
According to Google: Natal (Brazil) to Monrovia (Liberia) is 2,969 km (1,845 miles). Gibraltar to Tel Aviv is 3,639 km (2,261 miles).
But you can do the latter journey on foot.
Norway is closer to China than Portugal:
You’re cheating
You’ve taken the point of Norway that is furthest from Portugal and closer to China. If you measured from Oslo, for example, you’d get a different result
If you measured Lisbon to Oslo, and Oslo to Beijing you'd also get a wildly different result
The most sensible way to measure it is using the closest point on each country to the closest point on the other country. So it'd be the south of Norway to the northern tip of Portugal, and the easternmost part of Norway to the north west of China.
I'm curious to know how they establish these claims as false. Genetic testing?
What's to say it is false? If a man can self identify as a woman, why can't a person of white ancestry identify as African origin?
We can all identify as of African origin, if we look back far enough.
This is now disputed, actually
Really? First I’ve heard. What’s the new theory?
I am happy to be corrected but my understanding is that the "Out Of Africa" theory is now disputed, but that theory only refers to homo sapien sapiens coming out of Africa as the modern species. Newer evidence suggests there was inter breeding between different subspecies of humans post-Africa. But all those sub species in turn came out of Africa so the argument still stands.
Not so.
China. And Asia, more widely
"Most Chinese palaeontologists — and a few ardent supporters from the West — think that the transitional fossils are evidence that Peking Man was an ancestor of modern Asian people. In this model, known as multiregionalism or continuity with hybridization, hominins descended from H. erectus in Asia interbred with incoming groups from Africa and other parts of Eurasia, and their progeny gave rise to the ancestors of modern east Asians, says Wu."
Convergent evolution would explain how they evolved similarly in different continents, and the origin in the same or very similar primate species would explain the ability to interbreed, as proto-Europeans bred with Neanderthals
It is certainly a bit fishy that so much of the evolution is thought to have occurred in the hot dry places in the Rift Valley where fossils are most likely to be preserved.
Yes
And now that "mitochondrial Eve" has been largely abandoned, and humans are thought to have evolved in several different places across Africa, then why not outside Africa.
In fact, if I had to bet, I would say they likely did. We are finding too many inexplicable and contradictory fossils in Asia
I have a theory, which is probably bollocks, that the quickest way "out of Africa" to get to S. America is via a boat ride across the Atlantic.
Think there’s a problem with winds and currents
The doldrums perhaps?
Consider: at their closest, Brazil and West Africa are nearer one another than Gibraltar and the Levant.
By great circle?
According to Google: Natal (Brazil) to Monrovia (Liberia) is 2,969 km (1,845 miles). Gibraltar to Tel Aviv is 3,639 km (2,261 miles).
Yes, Brazil is a whole lot further East than is generally thought.
I think it's only a three hour time difference between Rio and London during some times of the year.
I'm curious to know how they establish these claims as false. Genetic testing?
What's to say it is false? If a man can self identify as a woman, why can't a person of white ancestry identify as African origin?
We can all identify as of African origin, if we look back far enough.
This is now disputed, actually
Really? First I’ve heard. What’s the new theory?
I am happy to be corrected but my understanding is that the "Out Of Africa" theory is now disputed, but that theory only refers to homo sapien sapiens coming out of Africa as the modern species. Newer evidence suggests there was inter breeding between different subspecies of humans post-Africa. But all those sub species in turn came out of Africa so the argument still stands.
Not so.
China. And Asia, more widely
"Most Chinese palaeontologists — and a few ardent supporters from the West — think that the transitional fossils are evidence that Peking Man was an ancestor of modern Asian people. In this model, known as multiregionalism or continuity with hybridization, hominins descended from H. erectus in Asia interbred with incoming groups from Africa and other parts of Eurasia, and their progeny gave rise to the ancestors of modern east Asians, says Wu."
Convergent evolution would explain how they evolved similarly in different continents, and the origin in the same or very similar primate species would explain the ability to interbreed, as proto-Europeans bred with Neanderthals
It is certainly a bit fishy that so much of the evolution is thought to have occurred in the hot dry places in the Rift Valley where fossils are most likely to be preserved.
Yes
And now that "mitochondrial Eve" has been largely abandoned, and humans are thought to have evolved in several different places across Africa, then why not outside Africa.
In fact, if I had to bet, I would say they likely did. We are finding too many inexplicable and contradictory fossils in Asia
I have a theory, which is probably bollocks, that the quickest way "out of Africa" to get to S. America is via a boat ride across the Atlantic.
Think there’s a problem with winds and currents
The doldrums perhaps?
Consider: at their closest, Brazil and West Africa are nearer one another than Gibraltar and the Levant.
By great circle?
According to Google: Natal (Brazil) to Monrovia (Liberia) is 2,969 km (1,845 miles). Gibraltar to Tel Aviv is 3,639 km (2,261 miles).
Yes, Brazil is a whole lot further East than is generally thought.
I think it's only a three hour time difference between Rio and London during some times of the year.
I'm curious to know how they establish these claims as false. Genetic testing?
What's to say it is false? If a man can self identify as a woman, why can't a person of white ancestry identify as African origin?
We can all identify as of African origin, if we look back far enough.
This is now disputed, actually
Really? First I’ve heard. What’s the new theory?
I am happy to be corrected but my understanding is that the "Out Of Africa" theory is now disputed, but that theory only refers to homo sapien sapiens coming out of Africa as the modern species. Newer evidence suggests there was inter breeding between different subspecies of humans post-Africa. But all those sub species in turn came out of Africa so the argument still stands.
Not so.
China. And Asia, more widely
"Most Chinese palaeontologists — and a few ardent supporters from the West — think that the transitional fossils are evidence that Peking Man was an ancestor of modern Asian people. In this model, known as multiregionalism or continuity with hybridization, hominins descended from H. erectus in Asia interbred with incoming groups from Africa and other parts of Eurasia, and their progeny gave rise to the ancestors of modern east Asians, says Wu."
Convergent evolution would explain how they evolved similarly in different continents, and the origin in the same or very similar primate species would explain the ability to interbreed, as proto-Europeans bred with Neanderthals
It is certainly a bit fishy that so much of the evolution is thought to have occurred in the hot dry places in the Rift Valley where fossils are most likely to be preserved.
Yes
And now that "mitochondrial Eve" has been largely abandoned, and humans are thought to have evolved in several different places across Africa, then why not outside Africa.
In fact, if I had to bet, I would say they likely did. We are finding too many inexplicable and contradictory fossils in Asia
I have a theory, which is probably bollocks, that the quickest way "out of Africa" to get to S. America is via a boat ride across the Atlantic.
Think there’s a problem with winds and currents
The doldrums perhaps?
Consider: at their closest, Brazil and West Africa are nearer one another than Gibraltar and the Levant.
By great circle?
According to Google: Natal (Brazil) to Monrovia (Liberia) is 2,969 km (1,845 miles). Gibraltar to Tel Aviv is 3,639 km (2,261 miles).
Yes, Brazil is a whole lot further East than is generally thought.
I think it's only a three hour time difference between Rio and London during some times of the year.
Does that end at 0200hrs tomorrow morning?
Errr, won't the time gap shrink between the UK and Brazil tomorrow morning?
France is closer to Australia than it is to Poland.
Here's a question I'd like to know the answer to, but I'm not going to try to work out. Which country is farthest from France? I'm going to take a wild guess and say Tajikistan.
Oh look, it is one of those free speech at University cases that somehow escapes the notice of hyper ventilating right wingers who somehow otherwise know the intimate details of every random student union shadow sub comittes
I'm curious to know how they establish these claims as false. Genetic testing?
What's to say it is false? If a man can self identify as a woman, why can't a person of white ancestry identify as African origin?
We can all identify as of African origin, if we look back far enough.
This is now disputed, actually
Really? First I’ve heard. What’s the new theory?
I am happy to be corrected but my understanding is that the "Out Of Africa" theory is now disputed, but that theory only refers to homo sapien sapiens coming out of Africa as the modern species. Newer evidence suggests there was inter breeding between different subspecies of humans post-Africa. But all those sub species in turn came out of Africa so the argument still stands.
Not so.
China. And Asia, more widely
"Most Chinese palaeontologists — and a few ardent supporters from the West — think that the transitional fossils are evidence that Peking Man was an ancestor of modern Asian people. In this model, known as multiregionalism or continuity with hybridization, hominins descended from H. erectus in Asia interbred with incoming groups from Africa and other parts of Eurasia, and their progeny gave rise to the ancestors of modern east Asians, says Wu."
Convergent evolution would explain how they evolved similarly in different continents, and the origin in the same or very similar primate species would explain the ability to interbreed, as proto-Europeans bred with Neanderthals
It is certainly a bit fishy that so much of the evolution is thought to have occurred in the hot dry places in the Rift Valley where fossils are most likely to be preserved.
Yes
And now that "mitochondrial Eve" has been largely abandoned, and humans are thought to have evolved in several different places across Africa, then why not outside Africa.
In fact, if I had to bet, I would say they likely did. We are finding too many inexplicable and contradictory fossils in Asia
I have a theory, which is probably bollocks, that the quickest way "out of Africa" to get to S. America is via a boat ride across the Atlantic.
Think there’s a problem with winds and currents
The doldrums perhaps?
Consider: at their closest, Brazil and West Africa are nearer one another than Gibraltar and the Levant.
By great circle?
According to Google: Natal (Brazil) to Monrovia (Liberia) is 2,969 km (1,845 miles). Gibraltar to Tel Aviv is 3,639 km (2,261 miles).
Yes, Brazil is a whole lot further East than is generally thought.
I think it's only a three hour time difference between Rio and London during some times of the year.
I'm curious to know how they establish these claims as false. Genetic testing?
What's to say it is false? If a man can self identify as a woman, why can't a person of white ancestry identify as African origin?
We can all identify as of African origin, if we look back far enough.
This is now disputed, actually
Really? First I’ve heard. What’s the new theory?
I am happy to be corrected but my understanding is that the "Out Of Africa" theory is now disputed, but that theory only refers to homo sapien sapiens coming out of Africa as the modern species. Newer evidence suggests there was inter breeding between different subspecies of humans post-Africa. But all those sub species in turn came out of Africa so the argument still stands.
Not so.
China. And Asia, more widely
"Most Chinese palaeontologists — and a few ardent supporters from the West — think that the transitional fossils are evidence that Peking Man was an ancestor of modern Asian people. In this model, known as multiregionalism or continuity with hybridization, hominins descended from H. erectus in Asia interbred with incoming groups from Africa and other parts of Eurasia, and their progeny gave rise to the ancestors of modern east Asians, says Wu."
Convergent evolution would explain how they evolved similarly in different continents, and the origin in the same or very similar primate species would explain the ability to interbreed, as proto-Europeans bred with Neanderthals
It is certainly a bit fishy that so much of the evolution is thought to have occurred in the hot dry places in the Rift Valley where fossils are most likely to be preserved.
Yes
And now that "mitochondrial Eve" has been largely abandoned, and humans are thought to have evolved in several different places across Africa, then why not outside Africa.
In fact, if I had to bet, I would say they likely did. We are finding too many inexplicable and contradictory fossils in Asia
I have a theory, which is probably bollocks, that the quickest way "out of Africa" to get to S. America is via a boat ride across the Atlantic.
Think there’s a problem with winds and currents
The doldrums perhaps?
Consider: at their closest, Brazil and West Africa are nearer one another than Gibraltar and the Levant.
By great circle?
According to Google: Natal (Brazil) to Monrovia (Liberia) is 2,969 km (1,845 miles). Gibraltar to Tel Aviv is 3,639 km (2,261 miles).
Yes, Brazil is a whole lot further East than is generally thought.
I think it's only a three hour time difference between Rio and London during some times of the year.
Does that end at 0200hrs tomorrow morning?
Errr, won't the time gap shrink between the UK and Brazil tomorrow morning?
According to Google: Natal (Brazil) to Monrovia (Liberia) is 2,969 km (1,845 miles). Gibraltar to Tel Aviv is 3,639 km (2,261 miles).
But you can do the latter journey on foot.
Norway is closer to China than Portugal:
You’re cheating
You’ve taken the point of Norway that is furthest from Portugal and closer to China. If you measured from Oslo, for example, you’d get a different result
If you measured Lisbon to Oslo, and Oslo to Beijing you'd also get a wildly different result
The most sensible way to measure it is using the closest point on each country to the closest point on the other country. So it'd be the south of Norway to the northern tip of Portugal, and the easternmost part of Norway to the north west of China.
I'm curious to know how they establish these claims as false. Genetic testing?
What's to say it is false? If a man can self identify as a woman, why can't a person of white ancestry identify as African origin?
We can all identify as of African origin, if we look back far enough.
This is now disputed, actually
Really? First I’ve heard. What’s the new theory?
I am happy to be corrected but my understanding is that the "Out Of Africa" theory is now disputed, but that theory only refers to homo sapien sapiens coming out of Africa as the modern species. Newer evidence suggests there was inter breeding between different subspecies of humans post-Africa. But all those sub species in turn came out of Africa so the argument still stands.
Not so.
China. And Asia, more widely
"Most Chinese palaeontologists — and a few ardent supporters from the West — think that the transitional fossils are evidence that Peking Man was an ancestor of modern Asian people. In this model, known as multiregionalism or continuity with hybridization, hominins descended from H. erectus in Asia interbred with incoming groups from Africa and other parts of Eurasia, and their progeny gave rise to the ancestors of modern east Asians, says Wu."
Convergent evolution would explain how they evolved similarly in different continents, and the origin in the same or very similar primate species would explain the ability to interbreed, as proto-Europeans bred with Neanderthals
It is certainly a bit fishy that so much of the evolution is thought to have occurred in the hot dry places in the Rift Valley where fossils are most likely to be preserved.
Yes
And now that "mitochondrial Eve" has been largely abandoned, and humans are thought to have evolved in several different places across Africa, then why not outside Africa.
In fact, if I had to bet, I would say they likely did. We are finding too many inexplicable and contradictory fossils in Asia
I have a theory, which is probably bollocks, that the quickest way "out of Africa" to get to S. America is via a boat ride across the Atlantic.
Think there’s a problem with winds and currents
The doldrums perhaps?
Consider: at their closest, Brazil and West Africa are nearer one another than Gibraltar and the Levant.
By great circle?
According to Google: Natal (Brazil) to Monrovia (Liberia) is 2,969 km (1,845 miles). Gibraltar to Tel Aviv is 3,639 km (2,261 miles).
Yes, Brazil is a whole lot further East than is generally thought.
I think it's only a three hour time difference between Rio and London during some times of the year.
I'm curious to know how they establish these claims as false. Genetic testing?
What's to say it is false? If a man can self identify as a woman, why can't a person of white ancestry identify as African origin?
We can all identify as of African origin, if we look back far enough.
This is now disputed, actually
Really? First I’ve heard. What’s the new theory?
I am happy to be corrected but my understanding is that the "Out Of Africa" theory is now disputed, but that theory only refers to homo sapien sapiens coming out of Africa as the modern species. Newer evidence suggests there was inter breeding between different subspecies of humans post-Africa. But all those sub species in turn came out of Africa so the argument still stands.
Not so.
China. And Asia, more widely
"Most Chinese palaeontologists — and a few ardent supporters from the West — think that the transitional fossils are evidence that Peking Man was an ancestor of modern Asian people. In this model, known as multiregionalism or continuity with hybridization, hominins descended from H. erectus in Asia interbred with incoming groups from Africa and other parts of Eurasia, and their progeny gave rise to the ancestors of modern east Asians, says Wu."
Convergent evolution would explain how they evolved similarly in different continents, and the origin in the same or very similar primate species would explain the ability to interbreed, as proto-Europeans bred with Neanderthals
It is certainly a bit fishy that so much of the evolution is thought to have occurred in the hot dry places in the Rift Valley where fossils are most likely to be preserved.
Yes
And now that "mitochondrial Eve" has been largely abandoned, and humans are thought to have evolved in several different places across Africa, then why not outside Africa.
In fact, if I had to bet, I would say they likely did. We are finding too many inexplicable and contradictory fossils in Asia
I have a theory, which is probably bollocks, that the quickest way "out of Africa" to get to S. America is via a boat ride across the Atlantic.
Think there’s a problem with winds and currents
The doldrums perhaps?
Consider: at their closest, Brazil and West Africa are nearer one another than Gibraltar and the Levant.
By great circle?
According to Google: Natal (Brazil) to Monrovia (Liberia) is 2,969 km (1,845 miles). Gibraltar to Tel Aviv is 3,639 km (2,261 miles).
Yes, Brazil is a whole lot further East than is generally thought.
I think it's only a three hour time difference between Rio and London during some times of the year.
Oh look, it is one of those free speech at University cases that somehow escapes the notice of hyper ventilating right wingers who somehow otherwise know the intimate details of every random student union shadow sub comittes
I'm curious to know how they establish these claims as false. Genetic testing?
What's to say it is false? If a man can self identify as a woman, why can't a person of white ancestry identify as African origin?
We can all identify as of African origin, if we look back far enough.
This is now disputed, actually
Really? First I’ve heard. What’s the new theory?
I am happy to be corrected but my understanding is that the "Out Of Africa" theory is now disputed, but that theory only refers to homo sapien sapiens coming out of Africa as the modern species. Newer evidence suggests there was inter breeding between different subspecies of humans post-Africa. But all those sub species in turn came out of Africa so the argument still stands.
Not so.
China. And Asia, more widely
"Most Chinese palaeontologists — and a few ardent supporters from the West — think that the transitional fossils are evidence that Peking Man was an ancestor of modern Asian people. In this model, known as multiregionalism or continuity with hybridization, hominins descended from H. erectus in Asia interbred with incoming groups from Africa and other parts of Eurasia, and their progeny gave rise to the ancestors of modern east Asians, says Wu."
Convergent evolution would explain how they evolved similarly in different continents, and the origin in the same or very similar primate species would explain the ability to interbreed, as proto-Europeans bred with Neanderthals
It is certainly a bit fishy that so much of the evolution is thought to have occurred in the hot dry places in the Rift Valley where fossils are most likely to be preserved.
Yes
And now that "mitochondrial Eve" has been largely abandoned, and humans are thought to have evolved in several different places across Africa, then why not outside Africa.
In fact, if I had to bet, I would say they likely did. We are finding too many inexplicable and contradictory fossils in Asia
I have a theory, which is probably bollocks, that the quickest way "out of Africa" to get to S. America is via a boat ride across the Atlantic.
Think there’s a problem with winds and currents
The doldrums perhaps?
Consider: at their closest, Brazil and West Africa are nearer one another than Gibraltar and the Levant.
By great circle?
According to Google: Natal (Brazil) to Monrovia (Liberia) is 2,969 km (1,845 miles). Gibraltar to Tel Aviv is 3,639 km (2,261 miles).
Yes, Brazil is a whole lot further East than is generally thought.
I think it's only a three hour time difference between Rio and London during some times of the year.
"In the UK the clocks go forward 1 hour at 1am on the last Sunday in March, and back 1 hour at 2am on the last Sunday in October. " An hour gained, so make the most of it!
I'm curious to know how they establish these claims as false. Genetic testing?
What's to say it is false? If a man can self identify as a woman, why can't a person of white ancestry identify as African origin?
We can all identify as of African origin, if we look back far enough.
This is now disputed, actually
Really? First I’ve heard. What’s the new theory?
I am happy to be corrected but my understanding is that the "Out Of Africa" theory is now disputed, but that theory only refers to homo sapien sapiens coming out of Africa as the modern species. Newer evidence suggests there was inter breeding between different subspecies of humans post-Africa. But all those sub species in turn came out of Africa so the argument still stands.
Not so.
China. And Asia, more widely
"Most Chinese palaeontologists — and a few ardent supporters from the West — think that the transitional fossils are evidence that Peking Man was an ancestor of modern Asian people. In this model, known as multiregionalism or continuity with hybridization, hominins descended from H. erectus in Asia interbred with incoming groups from Africa and other parts of Eurasia, and their progeny gave rise to the ancestors of modern east Asians, says Wu."
Convergent evolution would explain how they evolved similarly in different continents, and the origin in the same or very similar primate species would explain the ability to interbreed, as proto-Europeans bred with Neanderthals
It is certainly a bit fishy that so much of the evolution is thought to have occurred in the hot dry places in the Rift Valley where fossils are most likely to be preserved.
Yes
And now that "mitochondrial Eve" has been largely abandoned, and humans are thought to have evolved in several different places across Africa, then why not outside Africa.
In fact, if I had to bet, I would say they likely did. We are finding too many inexplicable and contradictory fossils in Asia
I have a theory, which is probably bollocks, that the quickest way "out of Africa" to get to S. America is via a boat ride across the Atlantic.
Think there’s a problem with winds and currents
The doldrums perhaps?
Consider: at their closest, Brazil and West Africa are nearer one another than Gibraltar and the Levant.
By great circle?
According to Google: Natal (Brazil) to Monrovia (Liberia) is 2,969 km (1,845 miles). Gibraltar to Tel Aviv is 3,639 km (2,261 miles).
Yes, Brazil is a whole lot further East than is generally thought.
I think it's only a three hour time difference between Rio and London during some times of the year.
Just 23% think Brexit will have a detrimental impact on their personal financial circumstances, with 15% thinking they will improve.
Thank you Jeremy Corbyn.
15% trumping 23% uses the same formula that saw Labour win the 2017 GE.
Up to a point but bear in mind these people, all of them, might be wrong. You would not want to plan NHS funding by opinion polls counting how many people thought they might get dementia or cancer. That less than half the sample expressed an opinion either way suggests most thought it a stupid question.
I'm curious to know how they establish these claims as false. Genetic testing?
What's to say it is false? If a man can self identify as a woman, why can't a person of white ancestry identify as African origin?
We can all identify as of African origin, if we look back far enough.
This is now disputed, actually
Really? First I’ve heard. What’s the new theory?
I am happy to be corrected but my understanding is that the "Out Of Africa" theory is now disputed, but that theory only refers to homo sapien sapiens coming out of Africa as the modern species. Newer evidence suggests there was inter breeding between different subspecies of humans post-Africa. But all those sub species in turn came out of Africa so the argument still stands.
Not so.
China. And Asia, more widely
"Most Chinese palaeontologists — and a few ardent supporters from the West — think that the transitional fossils are evidence that Peking Man was an ancestor of modern Asian people. In this model, known as multiregionalism or continuity with hybridization, hominins descended from H. erectus in Asia interbred with incoming groups from Africa and other parts of Eurasia, and their progeny gave rise to the ancestors of modern east Asians, says Wu."
Convergent evolution would explain how they evolved similarly in different continents, and the origin in the same or very similar primate species would explain the ability to interbreed, as proto-Europeans bred with Neanderthals
It is certainly a bit fishy that so much of the evolution is thought to have occurred in the hot dry places in the Rift Valley where fossils are most likely to be preserved.
Yes
And now that "mitochondrial Eve" has been largely abandoned, and humans are thought to have evolved in several different places across Africa, then why not outside Africa.
In fact, if I had to bet, I would say they likely did. We are finding too many inexplicable and contradictory fossils in Asia
I have a theory, which is probably bollocks, that the quickest way "out of Africa" to get to S. America is via a boat ride across the Atlantic.
Think there’s a problem with winds and currents
The doldrums perhaps?
Consider: at their closest, Brazil and West Africa are nearer one another than Gibraltar and the Levant.
By great circle?
According to Google: Natal (Brazil) to Monrovia (Liberia) is 2,969 km (1,845 miles). Gibraltar to Tel Aviv is 3,639 km (2,261 miles).
Yes, Brazil is a whole lot further East than is generally thought.
I think it's only a three hour time difference between Rio and London during some times of the year.
I'm curious to know how they establish these claims as false. Genetic testing?
What's to say it is false? If a man can self identify as a woman, why can't a person of white ancestry identify as African origin?
We can all identify as of African origin, if we look back far enough.
This is now disputed, actually
Really? First I’ve heard. What’s the new theory?
I am happy to be corrected but my understanding is that the "Out Of Africa" theory is now disputed, but that theory only refers to homo sapien sapiens coming out of Africa as the modern species. Newer evidence suggests there was inter breeding between different subspecies of humans post-Africa. But all those sub species in turn came out of Africa so the argument still stands.
Not so.
China. And Asia, more widely
"Most Chinese palaeontologists — and a few ardent supporters from the West — think that the transitional fossils are evidence that Peking Man was an ancestor of modern Asian people. In this model, known as multiregionalism or continuity with hybridization, hominins descended from H. erectus in Asia interbred with incoming groups from Africa and other parts of Eurasia, and their progeny gave rise to the ancestors of modern east Asians, says Wu."
Convergent evolution would explain how they evolved similarly in different continents, and the origin in the same or very similar primate species would explain the ability to interbreed, as proto-Europeans bred with Neanderthals
It is certainly a bit fishy that so much of the evolution is thought to have occurred in the hot dry places in the Rift Valley where fossils are most likely to be preserved.
Yes
And now that "mitochondrial Eve" has been largely abandoned, and humans are thought to have evolved in several different places across Africa, then why not outside Africa.
In fact, if I had to bet, I would say they likely did. We are finding too many inexplicable and contradictory fossils in Asia
I have a theory, which is probably bollocks, that the quickest way "out of Africa" to get to S. America is via a boat ride across the Atlantic.
Think there’s a problem with winds and currents
The doldrums perhaps?
Consider: at their closest, Brazil and West Africa are nearer one another than Gibraltar and the Levant.
By great circle?
According to Google: Natal (Brazil) to Monrovia (Liberia) is 2,969 km (1,845 miles). Gibraltar to Tel Aviv is 3,639 km (2,261 miles).
Yes, Brazil is a whole lot further East than is generally thought.
I think it's only a three hour time difference between Rio and London during some times of the year.
The second after 01:59:59 will be 01:00:00. So at the second 01:00:00, that's when any time differences will change. By the time 02:00:00 arrives, they'll have been different for (just over) an hour.
Comments
Such places include Doggerland in the North Sea, the floor of the Persian Gulf, and the Sunda Shelf linking Sumatra, Java and Borneo into one landmass
The latter especially would have had a great climate during the Ice Age, being on the equator.
If you paid those who are part of the infrastructure (whether in the warehouses or the delivery vans) a higher wage, the cost would be passed to the consumer, some of whom might then refuse to buy the product because it's become too expensive.
It's not as though the Amazons of this world are struggling - though now they have to pay 15% corporation tax everywhere they'll start pleading poverty as well.
So Kennedy certainly has a chance and of course in Massachussetts no Democrat should ever be ruled out in the general election either, even against Baker
Natal (Brazil) to Monrovia (Liberia) is 2,969 km (1,845 miles).
Gibraltar to Tel Aviv is 3,639 km (2,261 miles).
"Asia’s mysterious role in the early origins of humanity
Bizarre fossils from China are revealing our species' Asian origins and rewriting the story of human evolution"
https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg23931850-200-asias-mysterious-role-in-the-early-origins-of-humanity/#ixzz7Ao7c52Rr
"Dragon Man: ancient skull from China could be new human species"
https://www.nhm.ac.uk/discover/news/2021/june/ancient-skull-from-china-could-be-new-species-dragon-man.html
"An Asian Origin for Human Ancestors?
Myanmar fossil suggests our earliest predecessors may not have come from Africa"
"Researchers agree that our immediate ancestors, the upright walking apes, arose in Africa. But the discovery of a new primate that lived about 37 million years ago in the ancient swamplands of Myanmar bolsters the idea that the deep primate family tree that gave rise to humans is rooted in Asia. If true, the discovery suggests that the ancestors of all monkeys, apes, and humans—known as the anthropoids—arose in Asia and made the arduous journey to the island continent of Africa almost 40 million years ago."
https://www.science.org/content/article/asian-origin-human-ancestors
Fixed that for you.
Every organised society had tried to drive down the cost of production, since they figured out cost of production.
Hence the Roman enthusiasm for low wage*, immigrant labour**.
*{snigger}
**For some reason this reminds me of “We did not land on Plymouth Rock. Plymouth Rock landed on us.” - not sure why
Try Graham Hancock for an updated, more sophisticated and intelligent version. He is very good at describing the problems presented by the existence of aztec masonry, Gobekli Tepe, the stones at Baalbek, the peculiarities of the Ark of the Covenant etc even if you don't go along with his solutions.
https://grahamhancock.com/drsunilatlantis/
54% of Republican voters have an unfavourable view of Baker. Trump has already endorsed Diehl, saying of Baker 'Baker is definitely not an American First or Make America Great Again kind of guy. Geoff Diehl, on the other hand, is a true patriot, a believer in low energy costs and our independent energy policy'
https://twitter.com/skoczela/status/1450790427846717449?s=20
https://www.nbcboston.com/news/local/heres-what-gov-baker-thinks-about-his-potential-opponent-being-endorsed-by-trump/2509808/
As of February 2021, according to Mass Secretary of State, of total registration of 4.7m, by party:
> registered Democrats 32%
> registered Republicans 10%
> other 1%
> unenrolled 57%
In a primary battle between Charlie Baker and Geoff Diehl, plenty of Dem-leaning unenrolled voters would gravitate to the Republican to aid Baker.
The same kind of voters that Kennedy would be counting to prevail versus progressive in the Democratic primary.
https://www.opinium.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/Opinium-Political-Report-25th-October-2021.pdf
I know some people looking at coastal erosion and landslipping - not easy at all.
Hence, multiple origins
Mitochondrial Eve and Out of Africa always seemed glib and eurocentric to me. The theory was a pretty good explanation for the origins of Europeans - we probably DID come from Africa - and was confirmed by selection bias - we excavated in Africa, as colonial overlords. South Africa, Kenya, Tanzania: is where we found so many crucial fossils. Funny, that.
And of course the idea of an Eve chimed with western Christian origin myths
Asia is much bigger than Africa and better connected to the rest of the world - down to Australasia, merged with Europe, and a short sea hop to the Americas. It actually makes a more likely source for humans, in many ways
Will say that the one (and really only) thing that attracts me about your Kennedy crush, is that his record before & during his service in Congress shows that he is NOT a show pony (or just that) but a work horse. He's a serious guy with a serious interest beyond mere ego or sheer dynasticism.
Kennedy therefore could win in theory with just over a third of Democratic primary voters only, the progressive vote will be split, not united as it was behind Markey (and even then Joe Kennedy got 44.5% of the primary vote v Markey which would be enough to win if the progressive vote is split)
Your piece on Sundaland is v interesting btw.
Norway is closer to China than Portugal:
The biggest problem for Joe Kennedy last year was NOT Markey, it was fact that he never did define and communicate any particular reason WHY he should be in the US Senate, instead of Markey OR in his own right.
Methinks that he's the kind of guy who can learn from his mistakes (like Uncle Ted did from his, including intra-party election defeats). And IF he does, then MAYBE there's a chance for your bet.
He has been an assistant DA and worked in the peace corps in the Dominican Republic before being elected to Congress. He also does community organising like Obama did and is a member of a Biden commission to increase experience of the Federal Government.
There would be a certain symmetry if 56 years after Bobby Kennedy was shot campaigning to be President, his grandson was elected to the White House
Norway is closer to China than Portugal:
No, it isn't
I get a sense that the forecasts will be an order of magnitude lower than the tax we actually raise in the end. My gut feeling is that we severely underestimate the amount of money lost in tax to the tax havens and the higher rate will result in companies deciding to spend more to create value for shareholders instead of paying more tax.
All of those hundreds of billions sitting on corporate balance sheets needs to be unlocked for the good of mankind. Preventing that from happening would have been the better place to start but hopefully this will halt that.
I'd also like to see tax movement on cash balances at non financial corporations, maybe a 1% per year annual charge on cash balances over $5bn which can be given back if 5-10x as much as the tax is invested.
https://twitter.com/dunntweetin/status/1454368097410985986?s=21
Norway is closer to China than Portugal:
Key point back in the day, was that you can do the whole trans-Med sea journey within sight of land.
The NE trade winds from Africa to the Caribbean/Northern S America are as reliable as fuck. I've done the crossing in 14 days in, OK, a fastish racing yacht, but it took Columbus 6 September - 11 October, or pretty much the same time as orbis gives for a Roman to sail from Cadiz to Jerusalem.
https://twitter.com/PoliticsForAlI/status/1454536720557424651?s=20
Norway is closer to China than Portugal:
At best, that claim should say "There is a place in Norway which is..."
At best, that claim should say "There is a place in Norway which is..."
If one looks at maps of the Arctic and sub-Arctic from the North, then the Viking voyages seem much more likely.
Flooding is no fun. Have seen up close, the power of the laws of physics is astounding & terrifying.
Please, no tax cuts or handing it to corrupt dictators.
BBC News - G20: World leaders agree to historic corporate tax deal
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-59101218
But then, I met a guy who made good money "helping" rich kids build "garage projects" as part of their college applications. So when they rock up at the university interview they can talk about the microlight they scratch built.
https://twitter.com/KevinMKruse/status/1454530118454480901?t=LmAHveioYAxSwRX1BR1WqQ&s=19
University of Florida preventing it's faculty from being expert witnesses because it would upset their political masters.
Large part of Ted Kennedy's problems stemmed from his emulating his father & brothers as best he could. Whereas Joe K III has taken the opposite path and shunned his clan's notorious dysfunctionality. Which still didn't keep him from buying his own bullshit last year. But then like I said, think he learned from that experience.
Another thing about the Kennedys - for good or ill, the best of them are NOT quitters.
Too much true Irish in 'em for that.
Norway is closer to China than Portugal:
You’re cheating
You’ve taken the point of Norway that is furthest from Portugal and closer to China. If you measured from Oslo, for example, you’d get a different result
Plus worked (indirectly) with him on a small project several years ago, he came through like a trooper.
I think multibillion or trillion dollar companies will find creative ways around this faster than you can say incentives.
You’re cheating
You’ve taken the point of Norway that is furthest from Portugal and closer to China. If you measured from Oslo, for example, you’d get a different result
If you measured Lisbon to Oslo, and Oslo to Beijing you'd also get a wildly different result
The most sensible way to measure it is using the closest point on each country to the closest point on the other country. So it'd be the south of Norway to the northern tip of Portugal, and the easternmost part of Norway to the north west of China.
I'm going to take a wild guess and say Tajikistan.
If you bet on US elections you know who this guy is.
15% trumping 23% uses the same formula that saw Labour win the 2017 GE.
You’ve taken the point of Norway that is furthest from Portugal and closer to China. If you measured from Oslo, for example, you’d get a different result
If you measured Lisbon to Oslo, and Oslo to Beijing you'd also get a wildly different result
The most sensible way to measure it is using the closest point on each country to the closest point on the other country. So it'd be the south of Norway to the northern tip of Portugal, and the easternmost part of Norway to the north west of China.
Agreed. And I suspect Portugal would win
An hour gained, so make the most of it!
https://www.historic-uk.com/HistoryUK/HistoryofBritain/Give-us-our-eleven-days/