Further to that: When arguably the most famous Bantu of all time belonged to the KhoiSan-characteristic haplogroup, I’d say “pushed out of existence” isn’t accurate.
Not sure why you are so confused over what statement you said that I objected to. But your post has nothing to do with that.
It was this one, which was a direct response to this one.
John Mace had complained that you were indulging in a “just so story” imagining HGs would have mostly just avoided confrontation and taken different routes (after earlier positing that groups transitioned to agriculture “by force”) and your response was “Well Dûh! … It is all speculation …”
My response was to that position - that we can go with just so stories because “all that [the evidence we have] shows is that the farmers spread at the expense of the H-G.”
My response was: No. That is not “all that shows”.
There is evidence for all of: cooperative interactions, taking over and defending territory; avoidance; out-reproducing; farmer males being more attractive as mates to HG females than HG males were; and some other genetic admixtures. The evidence tells a variety of stories that are much more than “just so” including that male farmers of Europe were no match for the male nomadic herders known as the Yamnaya who came in from the steppes on horseback (referenced in the citation already given and here is more). Horses and copper made them hard to fight off and possibly hard for farmer women to resist.
Yeah the early farmers, the males in particular, were effectively pushed out of the reproductive pool too.
These are not “just so stories” and while they still include speculations the stories are much more novel length and complexity and are based on real evidence.
This is agriculturalist vs agriculturalist interaction, and has no bearing on H-G vs agriculturalist interaction.
No but might be a factor in the current relative lack of an older Y haplotype.
I readily admit that I am not an expert on this area of research. I have read a little, enough to know that the story is very complex. Heck HG haplotypes came and went before farmers were ever on the scene. The ones who were there were mostly “pushed out of existence” (which really only means a major population shift for some reason, could be killed in conflict, could be out-reproduced, unclear) by new HG immigrants at the end of the Late Glacial about 14,500 years ago.
Major population shifts occurred before farming was introduced, as farming was introduced, and after it was introduced.
If there is any evidence for anything more than baseline small skirmishes between HG bands and farmers (of similar scale that HG groups had between themselves as well) I’d love to see it. It would not shock. OTOH there is ample evidence that they did not infrequently live side-by-side trading with each other for very extended periods of time and with some HG women moving into some farming settlements and no evidence for HG men doing so, farmer women moving to HG groups, or HG men taking up farming in large numbers. Were HG women traded for dowries or to secure an alliance? Did they select the farmer males as a move up in the world with more likelihood of having more of their children survive childhood? Were they taken by force? We do not know.
Well, in so far that they too drove off the previous population but with an admixture of their dna. So they did intermingle to a certain extent.
I guess Dseid and I only disagree on the point that he thinks this is because the women found the new comers so much more attractive.
While I think that this process would have been more violent and that the women were, more often than not, the spoils of war.
I can only say that anecdotal evidence from my neck of the woods in the 1800s is that Khoekhoen women were seen as preferentially attractive over Bantu women by Bantu men, as opposed to war spoils - clearly, they were ass men (read the Wiki article on Steatopygia)
The book I linked has the research to back up the case of those health issues.
Immanuel Velikovsky wrote a book too. It has cites for some of the most amazing claims…
But you admitted earlier in this thread that you’re very bad at evaluating sources so your book cite isn’t worth much.
That author’s claims are not as far out there as much else that has been thrown out there in this thread.
Shoes and living on hard pavement have advantages and, he claims, increases the risk of plantar fasciitis and of athlete’s foot. There is in fact an association of greater myopia with societies that have a high value on reading (both likely selection pressure and from the large amounts of close vision work) and kids who spend more time playing outside are less likely to be myopic (selection or causation I don’t know). And our modern diets often increase the risk of obesity, atherosclerosis, and diabetes.
Nothing wrong with spending more time barefoot when possible, encouraging kids to play outside a bit more, and encouraging diets less weighted towards the more highly processed along with regular exercise.
For example: What does that even mean?
“the truth”, or, “THE TRUTH”? :dubious:
Careful! You might wake the sheeple!
B-A-A-A-A-A! Ten thousand years we slumbered…Now we Riiiiise!
What about equality? I mean hierarchy came about when we developed agriculture, weren’t hunter-gatherers more egalitarian than the human of today?
It seems to me that the hierarchy that resulted from the birth of agriculture is anything but natural.
What is ‘natural’ about using fire, stone tools or bone weapons?? None of that is ‘natural’…or all of it is, including the use of this computer, this cell phone and that toilet. And, yeah, agriculture, horticulture, and herding or migrating with the herds.
That article, btw, was the silliest you’ve come up with yet. You are seriously stretching now. 
I know that animal species do establish hierarchies, I think elephant seals are one of them. But what about those in the human race? How do we explain how some societies have a hierarchy and how others don’t?
Well, because species are different. A fish is not a human is not a deer. They all have different strategies for survival. You could look at our primate cousins for clues in how humans would react, but even then it’s not a one for one…after all, chimps and other great apes don’t use fire, and while they do craft some tools they don’t seem to craft tools as elaborate as we do…or even as the various species we descended from.
Humans have been tool users for longer than there have BEEN humans, and we didn’t get hierarchies from agriculture alone. Basically, what is ‘natural’ for humans is all around you…we adapt, we change, and we use tools to change and adapt, being changed and adapted by their use in a cycle. It’s one of the key reasons that humans are the dominate species on this planet.
Where is the proof that we didn’t get hierarchies from agriculture alone?
Pre-agricultural societies had hierarchies.
(This is inescapable, simply by dint of the aging of the populace. With age comes authority.)