Subnostr

skeptical good

but this is based upon the genetics identified in various aged bones over the last 200k years, and that's what the current estimate is

the evidence of the event that did it is also questionable, if you are proper scientist you question everything, might be wrong, maybe that event was less bad than we thought but the people were just unlucky for no reason at all, just bad luck

idk if you read much Taleb and i hate this bastid nowadays but Fooled by Chance is a study in how we attribute causality where there is nothing but chaos

i'm not that big a fan of the stupid maxim that "what can be attributed to malice is more likely to be caused by stupidity" (because malice loves to induce stupidity) but finding pictures in the noise is another flaw in cognition that can cloud understanding as well, so, you have to actually study it to have a firm opinion

mine is very nebulous, but i like the way it fits with the rest of the data i have absorbed

Niel Liesmons 1y ago

Agreed and yes I read that book ✅.

My point is that I don't think DNA is much more than a determinant of what proteins can get made. It dues not contain information on morphology etc etc... AND it can morph into entirely different DNA in certain conditions. Inheritance is mostly resonance (morphic fields, ...).

So that's why I'm weary of calculations that use genes as some kind of proof for things like family trees, especially in time periods with violent changes in magnetic + other fields 😅

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

ᴛʜᴇ ᴅᴇᴀᴛʜ ᴏꜰ ᴍʟᴇᴋᴜ 1y ago

ah, well, the question of morphology is a good one... one change in the DNA you get 6 fingers or double the height

the morphology stuff is telegraphic and environmentally controlled i think, telegraphic as in, seemingly unrelated small changes in several areas can cause a radically different morphology

part of morphology even comes from how the growth accumulates, the "scaling" part of the process of growth