shiv wrote:peter wrote:
If we believe man to be an animal then turf war over hunting grounds would be common. Lions have a king, so do gorillas and the wolves.
Besides you don't easily carry pots around. You come back to them.
Of course. I mentioned hunter gatherers in my post - they are like wolves. But these animals do not hold territory rigidly. For agriculture territory needs to be held because of fertile soil, and water source. It was fixed, protected settlements that allowed human populations to go up into hundreds and thousands. Lions, gorillas and wolves never lead such numbers. Cattle have huge herds but no fixed territory. Ants have both fixed territory and huge numbers - just like humans. they also have a queen and soldiers.
Pots are no use unless you put something in them. Either you carry pots to where the resource is (like water) or you fill the pots with stuff carried in baskets. The filled pots need to be protected. "No trespassing" signs don't work. Animals (squirrels, birds, rats) searching for food do not care who filled the pots and will help themselves. So you need people sitting and protecting full pots unless just one or two are hidden away. Those people sitting near the pots are the settlement
Leaving pots and pans behind as they are rather futile. Please see this:
There are two methods frequently used to determine Y chromosome haplogroups in a given population, namely the allele-frequency-goodness-of-fit and the Bayesian approach. The latter results in the probability of a Y-STR haplotype being found within a haplogroup. Whit Athey’s Haplogroup Predictor is based on the application of Bayesian statistics in order to predict Y chromosome haplogroups from Y-STR data (Athey 2005; Athey 2006). This approach is less expensive and labor-intensive when compared to haplogroup determination based on Y-SNP analysis, which requires DNA typing and polymorphism detection using either capillary electrophoresis or DNA sequencing.
Is it possible for you or someone else you may know or not know to give a concrete example on how a haplogroup is determined in a given sample? It seems the two methods quoted, allele-frequency-goodness-of-fit and the Bayesian approach, are both probabilistic in nature. Which means a finite probability of being wrong.
Why is this not exact?