Date: Jan 10, 2013 2:33 AM
Author: plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com
Subject: NOVA new update on NEANDERTHAL but no mention of HACNS1 gene #185<br> Rockthrowing theory book

NOVA tonight showed another episode of Neanderthal research. A lot of
good new information, but overall it was a disappointing update
because of the total lack of discussion of the central and key gene
involved-- HACNS1.

What do you call it in mathematics, or logic or science when you
should talk about the key issue, but never talk about the key issue?
Is it irresponsible? Is it illogical? Is it being a incompetent
scientist?

In this episode, one of the lead researchers, Svante Paabo is seen as
more irresponsible rather than a logical scientist, for his constant
incessant focus on FOXP2 gene for language, when a better scientist
would have said, "drop that gene" and focus on HACNS1 gene as what
made humanity and extincted the Neanderthals.

Perhaps the NOVA crew and Paabo realize that rockthrowing extincted
the Neanderthals and are trying to soften that horrible and ugly
extinction by painting the Neanderthal as having interbred with the
Homo sapiens.

There probably was some interbreeding, but the main idea is that the
Neanderthals throwing abilities were so inferior to Homo sapiens that
Homo neanderthals were extincted by the constant throwing attacks upon
them. Some of the Neanderthal women were probably carried away and
interbred, but the men, who could not throw as well as the Homo
sapiens were all mercilessly stone thrown to death. Maybe we never
want to admit our horrible and grisly past even when the facts come in
as such. But that is not responsible science. Science must always tell
the truth and full truth.

Instead of focusing on the genes of language and speech or the genes
of immunology, the HLA immune system genes, it is irresponsible of
Svante Paabo to discuss Neanderthal and neglect the HACNS1 gene.

When your ideas turn out to be false in science, you should have at
least the grace to indicate where the major difference is between the
Neanderthal and the Homo sapiens-- and that difference is in throwing.
So forget about the FOXP2 gene and talk about the HACNS1 gene.

I recommend that Paabo never again have a spot in NOVA on Neanderthal
and instead interview Noonan as to the latest information on HACNS1
gene.

The last time I wrote on this textbook was March of 2011
and now it is January of 2013. Looks like I need to do a new edition
of this book Rockthrowing for it consolidates and unifies the entire
science of Anthropology.

Newsgroups: sci.anthropology.paleo, sci.anthropology, sci.math,
sci.physics
From: Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archime...@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 7 Mar 2011 13:24:33 -0800 (PST)
Local: Mon, Mar 7 2011 3:24 pm
Subject: Homo sapiens has 16-13 = 3 mutations on HACNS1 that
Neanderthal does not have #183 Rockthrowing theory book
(snipped)

Newsgroups: sci.math, sci.physics
From: Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archime...@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 9 Mar 2011 13:29:32 -0800 (PST)
Local: Wed, Mar 9 2011 3:29 pm
Subject: Physics and Math completes the science of Anthropology with
its HACNS1 ; book #184 Rockthrowing theory (sic)
Reply | Reply to author | Forward | Print | Individual message | Show
original | Remove | Report this message | Find messages by this author
Newsgroups: sci.anthropology.paleo, sci.anthropology, sci.math,
sci.physics
From: Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archime...@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 7 Mar 2011 13:24:33 -0800 (PST)
Local: Mon, Mar 7 2011 3:24 pm
Subject: Homo sapiens has 16-13 = 3 mutations on HACNS1 that
Neanderthal does not have #183 Rockthrowing theory book
Reply | Reply to author | Forward | Print | Individual message | Show
original | Remove | Report this message | Find messages by this
author
Now my math and physics counting abilities offers me the fact that 16
subtract 13 is 3, for ?3 mutations or alterations. Now maybe Messr
Noonan and Paabo have ?some ?different sort ?of mathematics when they
are doing anthropology? ?Last time I spoke on this subject was 2010,
 Aug 4, 1:27 am to this ?book of Rockthrowing ?as the central theory
for evolving the human ?species out of the ape ?ancestors. I spoke of
how the science of ?Anthropology was a science in closure or the last
phases of finding ?out ?its history, where the main parts are solved
and only details ?remain ?to tell the story. The main parts being, of
course that some 8 ?to 10 ?million years ago some ape had a
proclivity ?of picking up ?rocks and throwing them for his advantage.
Advantage in ?gaining more ?food and mates and thus more children who
had the same ?proclivity of ?throwing stones and rocks. ?As these
rockthrowers increased in numbers ?there genetic mutations ?favoring
even better ?abilities of throwing ?caused them to become bipedal and
more focused ?on even better ?throwing. ?In the end, these
rockthrowers extincted all other human ?type species ?such as the
Neanderthals who although were able to ?throw, just failed ?to have
enough throwing abilities ?of Cro Magnon ?that would become Homo
sapiens. Neanderthal genetics ?were inferior to ?the ?throwing
genetics of CroMagnon. ?It was a long time in coming for ?the
Neanderthal Genome was reported: ?--- quoting from
http://genome.cshlp.org/content/20/5/547.full ?Neanderthal genomics
and the evolution of modern humans ?James P. Noonan ?(B) Value of
Neanderthal genome sequence for dating functionally ?relevant human-
specific substitutions, using the HACNS1 enhancer as ?an ?example.
(Top) HACNS1 is located in an intron of AGAP1 and downstream ?of GBX2
on human chromosome 2. (Bottom) The 13 human-specific ?substitutions
implicated in the human-specific gain of function in ?this element.
--- end quoting of Noonan --- ?Now maybe I am not understanding the
report, but from what I gather ?from these reports ?of 16 mutations
of ?Homo sapiens compared to only 13 mutations on ?Neanderthal for
the ?HACNS1: ?        1.      Comment on "Human-Specific Gain of
Function ?in a ?Developmental ...by L Duret - 2009 - Cited by 13 -
Related ?articles ?        2.      Feb 6, 2009 ... Second, among the
16 ?substitutions in ?HACNS1 there ?are 14 AT ? GC substitutions , 2
GC ? ?CG substitutions, but not a ?single GC ? AT ... ?        3.    
 www.sciencemag.org/lookup/resid/323/5915/714c?view=full&uritype...
  ?      4.      Human-Specific Gain of Function in a Developmental
Enhancer ...by ?S Prabhakar - 2008 - Cited by 52 - Related articles
  ?      5.      Sep 5, 2008 ... Although the 16 human-specific
substitutions ?within the 546 ... ?        6.    
 www.sciencemag.org/ ?content/321/5894/1346.full??Show ?more results
from sciencemag.org ?  ?      7.      HACNS1Human-specific gain of
function in the HACNS1 ?enhancer ... ?it has experienced 16 human-
specific nucleotide changes ?in the ~6 ?million years since humans
and ... The cluster of 13 human- ?specific ?substitutions in 81 bp is
also indicated. ... ?        8.   ?   www.yale.edu/noonanlab/
Noonan_Lab/HACNS1.html - Cached ?- Similar ?        9.      [PDF] DOI:
10.1126/science.1165848 , 714c (2009); 323 ?Science et ?al ...File
Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat - Quick View ?        ?10.     by L Duret -
2009 - Cited by 13 - Related articles ?        ?11.     Feb 6,
2009 ... Second, among the 16 substitutions in ?HACNS1 ?there are 14
AT ? GC substitu- tions, 2 GC ? CG substitutions, but ?not ?a
sin- ... ?        12.     pbil.univ-lyon1.fr/members/duret/.../ ?PDF/
2009- ?DuretGaltier.Science.pdf ?        13.     Brief ?communication:
Population data support the ?adaptive ?nature ...by T ?Hünemeier -
Related articles ?        14.     Aug 17, 2010 ... ?Thirteen of these
16 mutations are ?found within ?an 81-bp ?functional .... 2010) shows
that 8 of the 13 human specific ?HACNS1 ?substitutions ... ?       
15.     onlinelibrary.wiley.com ? ... ? ?Journal Home ? Vol 143 ?Issue
3 ? ?Abstract ?--- end quoting Google ?hits talking about 16
mutations, whereas ?Neanderthal had only ?13 ?mutations --- ?The
conclusion I draw, which maybe wrong, and someone ?should correct ?me
if wrong, is that ?Homo sapiens had 16 total ?alterations in the
HACNS1 gene whereas ?Neanderthal had only ?13 ?alterations, meaning
that Neanderthal was a different species than ?Homo sapiens because of
those 3 alterations, but that the alterations ?missing in Neanderthal
implies CroMagnon was superior in Throwing ?whether throwing rocks or
stones or spears. And that ?superiority of ?throwing is the likely
cause of extinction of ?Neanderthal. ?It is ?likely that the last
places on Earth for Neanderthal were the ?caves ?in Spain of high
ground, so the higher ground could have ?sheltered ?them longer from
the superior throwing ?of the encroaching CroMagnon. ?To throw down
from higher ground tends ?to equalize a superior ?throwing opponent.
Now I think that Mr. Paabo and Mr. Noonan should ?have made more
fanfare over the differences of the Neanderthal ?(Neandertal) HACNS1
variation and spoken out more on that ?difference. Perhaps they were
silent about HACNS1 because they seemed ?to have favored ?the FOXP2
gene which deals with speech and language. ?So why the silence over
the fact that Neanderthal had 3 mutations ?different from CroMagnon
with the HACNS1 gene? Why the silence in the ?Anthropology community?
One would think ?they should by happy and ?dancing and celebrating
that their science ?is ?nearly closed and the ?first major science to
be closed. I guess some ?people just do not ?like to close their
science.

--
Google's archives are top-heavy in hate-spew from search-engine-
bombing. Only Drexel's Math Forum has done a excellent, simple and
fair archiving of AP posts for the past 15 years as seen here:

http://mathforum.org/kb/profile.jspa?userID=499986

Archimedes Plutonium
http://www.iw.net/~a_plutonium
whole entire Universe is just one big atom
where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies