New CBB

Source?

_________________
♀♥♀
Dotjen
Kotanese

Isn't it quite common of people of non-African decent, like myself and the majority of the word, to have Neanderthal DNA? I mean one could even go as far to suggest that early Homo Sapiens even intermixed with, apart from Neanderthals, other species in our Family. Also, interbreeding with a species that had been living outside of Africa for thousands of years before we migrated and thus adapted to the environment would have great advantages for the new migrants, I would think so anyway.

_________________
Native speaker! | Learning, slowly but surely! | Dabbling in!

_________________
"Wait for the starvation of glaciers, chicken hamburger Noel Weber Arthur."

= | = | =

And here's more about the interbreeding, this article also mentioning the denisovans:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/31/scien ... .html?_r=1
(Too lazy to find the original research paper)

_________________
| | | (Nahuatl) | (Sanskrit & Pali) (Yaghan) | (Antregabua)
CrazyEttin's Lair

The problemme is that that is based on a hypothesis, just as the few other interbreeding theories are. 1 - 4% isn't that high, and can be attributed to genetic drift. Another study have contended that up to 14% of modern European DNA is admixture, but that didn't make the news paper.

_________________
♀♥♀
Dotjen
Kotanese

@cyberxkhan U.S. history is boring because there is no such thing as 'American Culture', Zompist is just citing popular (manufactured) culture, overconservitivized hand-me-down occidental culture, and a miniature travel guide to the country. The only thing remarkably cultural was the Kennedy assassination date.

Cold war hisory taught 2007 on or oddly specific US history is pretty interesting.

The most boring history period has to be the US civil war, so unbareably forced and everyone thinks I am missing the point because I think it's repetitive and obvious (which it is). You can't learn ethical morals from history.

The worst time to be alive in has to be the 1930s. All that narcissism and disease would probably kill me.

_________________
| | | | | | | |

Áá Āā Ää Åå Ææ Ðđ Ēē Ĕĕ Éé Ëë Əə H́h́ Īī İi Iı Íí Ïï Łł Ññ Öö Øø Ōō Ŏŏ Óó Œœ Ŕŕ Śś Ŧŧ Üü Ūū Úú V̄v̄ Ÿÿ Źź Ξ Φ Ϙ Ϻ

...

_________________
♀♥♀
Dotjen
Kotanese

I editted the post to explain why.

_________________
| | | | | | | |

Áá Āā Ää Åå Ææ Ðđ Ēē Ĕĕ Éé Ëë Əə H́h́ Īī İi Iı Íí Ïï Łł Ññ Öö Øø Ōō Ŏŏ Óó Œœ Ŕŕ Śś Ŧŧ Üü Ūū Úú V̄v̄ Ÿÿ Źź Ξ Φ Ϙ Ϻ

Everything in science is based on hypotheses. Some just happen to be supported by facts more than others, and some are not supported by any facts. Genetic drift is also a possibility, but interbreeding is, i think, more propable option, considering that the populations that remained in Africa don't have these mutations.

_________________
| | | (Nahuatl) | (Sanskrit & Pali) (Yaghan) | (Antregabua)
CrazyEttin's Lair

Forming a hypothesis is only step 1.
If one can't find the facts to support a hypothesis, that hypothesis should be revised.

_________________
I speak English and a touch of Gàidhlig.
I am creating a conworld, which I refer to as the Carrion Series, that will contain three languages, Iriex, Dvoen and Maxna.

And, for now, facts seem to support the interbreeding hypothesis.

_________________
| | | (Nahuatl) | (Sanskrit & Pali) (Yaghan) | (Antregabua)
CrazyEttin's Lair

Why do you need a (step 1) hypothesis? If the point of experiments are to find answers, then why do you need a guess before the process even starts?

Hypothesises after an experiment are called 'theories'.

Oh! and isn't it impossible for hybrids to birth?

_________________
| | | | | | | |

Áá Āā Ää Åå Ææ Ðđ Ēē Ĕĕ Éé Ëë Əə H́h́ Īī İi Iı Íí Ïï Łł Ññ Öö Øø Ōō Ŏŏ Óó Œœ Ŕŕ Śś Ŧŧ Üü Ūū Úú V̄v̄ Ÿÿ Źź Ξ Φ Ϙ Ϻ

Because you need something to test.

_________________
constructedlanguages.net

You seem to be thinking of a question.

_________________
| | | | | | | |

Áá Āā Ää Åå Ææ Ðđ Ēē Ĕĕ Éé Ëë Əə H́h́ Īī İi Iı Íí Ïï Łł Ññ Öö Øø Ōō Ŏŏ Óó Œœ Ŕŕ Śś Ŧŧ Üü Ūū Úú V̄v̄ Ÿÿ Źź Ξ Φ Ϙ Ϻ

Hypothesis ≠ guess. You could call it an educated guess, maybe, but not just a guess. And (to elaborate a bit on xingoxa's answer) you need a hypothesis because you need to know what you're looking for in order to devise the right kind of test.


It's quite a bit more complicated than that. Even if there are grounds for classifying the Neanderthals as a distinct species (instead of a subspecies), which is debatable.

_________________

No, I'm thinking of hypotheses. Unless you have a hypotheses, you have nothing to test. Theories don't formulate themselves out of the empirical data. (At least not what I am aware of.)

_________________
constructedlanguages.net

Not that I hate it, but I seem to find the general American revolution era up until after the World Wars era to be less interesting than the rest.

_________________


(in order of proficiency from greatest to least)
Native | Fluent | Learning · · · | Want to learn · ·

The World Wars. They're just boring. And most other wars too. I hate wars.

_________________
constructedlanguages.net

It's not like you need an educated guess either, if you already have a question or theory to test, then would you need to have an answer before you can prove it?

_________________
| | | | | | | |

Áá Āā Ää Åå Ææ Ðđ Ēē Ĕĕ Éé Ëë Əə H́h́ Īī İi Iı Íí Ïï Łł Ññ Öö Øø Ōō Ŏŏ Óó Œœ Ŕŕ Śś Ŧŧ Üü Ūū Úú V̄v̄ Ÿÿ Źź Ξ Φ Ϙ Ϻ

If you already have a question or theory to test, then you have a hypothesis. I'm not sure what you're thinking of when you say "hypothesis," but I'm pretty sure what you mean by "question" is what xingoxa means by "hypothesis," and what xingoxa means by "question" is something else.

I suspect that what xingoxa and Xonen mean by a question (which is not a hypothesis) would be something like:

"What factors can affect people's pain tolerance?"

Okay, we have a question! Let's test that by...what, exactly? Going and looking at people with different pain tolerances? Trying to notate every single factor that differs between them? How do we know which factors are related to pain tolerance and which are just incidental?

A better approach is to ask:

"Does swearing increase people's pain tolerance?"

I suspect that this is what you mean by "question," but it's really a hypothesis with a question mark at the end—you are making an educated guess that swearing might increase people's pain tolerance, and asking whether this educated guess is correct.

This hypothesis is quite testable. Get a bunch of people together and have them take some (harmless) pain tolerance test (like measuring how long they are able to immerse a hand in ice water) twice. On one trial, give them some collection of harmless words to shout when feeling pain. On the second trial, let them swear. (Be sure to vary the ordering of the trials.) Then calculate the average change in immersion time.

A hypothesis embedded in a question makes it testable. A question with no embedded hypothesis is not testable. (However, it can certainly be a launching point for collection of empirical data, like collecting all the information you could about people with different pain tolerances. Upon looking at this data you might notice that people with greater tolerances seemed to swear more than people with lesser tolerances. This would then become a hypothesis—an educated guess based on available data—which you would have to test through a controlled experiment. As xingoxa said, theories don't just drop out of general empirical data. Testable hypotheses do, which you then experiment with to form theories.)

_________________
任何事物的发展都是物极必反，否极泰来。