Date: Jan 19, 2013 11:02 PM
Author: plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com
Subject: Re: Origin of Races and minimum size for a viable population; NOVA<br> "Decoding Neanderthal" #195 Rockthrowing theory book

On Jan 18, 5:24 pm, Archimedes Plutonium
<plutonium.archime...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Origin of Races of humanity and minimum size for a viable population
>
> Now here I am thinking of the early humans in North America of the
> Clovis Man, whether they came from Asia over Alaska, or whether they
> came across the Atlantic somehow in the last ice age.
>
> And I wonder about the mathematics of viable populations. For example,
> suppose what came over to the Americas was 2 males and 2 females.


My mistake, of mixing cultural viewpoints with natural science.

Of course it takes just one female and male to cross into the Americas
and if the female is reproductively viable can populate the entire
continents, even though a lot of inbreeding occurs in the offspring.

Here is a case where our cultural upbringing skews our thinking of
natural science.


> Pretty soon there is going to be interbreeding of similar genetics. So
> my question is, at what numbers of males and females do we need for
> the population to overcome the deleterious affects of the genetics
> being too close and giving unhealthy offspring. Do we need something
> like 100 males and 100 females
> before there is a positive growth in offspring with not so harmful
> health issues due to closeness of genetics?
>
> We should have some answers from species going extinct, in that the
> condors or other species is viable with 200 individuals. But there is
> a species of turtle in China which has less than 10 individuals and
> the offspring mating with other offspring seems to be unhealthy
> offspring.
>
> Now the reason I am asking this question is to figure out what the
> size of the gene pool was for the entry of Homo sapiens into North
> America for the first time that was a successful entry. Because if the
> first entry was 2 males and 2 females, I doubt they could have a
> viable population unless the trickle into the continent was say 4 new
> individuals every year, or say a group of 200 individuals all at once.
>
> So those kind of questions shed light on whether the Americas were
> populated via the Atlantic crossing or via the Pacific crossing
> through Alaska.
>
> Of course, the main thesis of Race origins, is the thesis that Vitamin
> D uptake is the driving mechanism. So that the three races of white,
> black, yellow are environment driven answers to proper Vitamin D
> uptake, balancing the amount of sunlight, the clothing worn, the skin
> color, and reduction in hair.
>
> Now another question that is nagging, is why did the China and Indian
> subcontinents become the explosion in human population. We can safely
> say that once Homo sapiens arrived in China and India some 10,000 or
> more years ago, that China and India held the largest populations of
> humans than anywhere else.
>
> Now a glib answer would be that there was plenty of food and not
> severe climate. But maybe the answer is more complex than that.
>
> --
> 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 Plutoniumhttp://www.iw.net/~a_plutonium
> whole entire Universe is just one big atom
> where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies