aluren

>You're brushing off my point, why no selection on the allele? Why did they all die out? Easiest answer is it never made it.

Evolution works in more complicated ways than the toy model of sickle-cell disease/malaria you've been taught in high school. Just having an edge in a particular situation is no guarantee for your alleles being selected. But even then, there could very well have been very little mixing while still everyone shares the same set of ancestors. Even a little mixing is enough.

>The simulations are nice, and make a theoretical lower bound but a single remote tribe somewhere on earth would push it back tens of thousands of years.

The subject is well-refined and the results are old news so I'm going to go on a limp and assume that the researchers who did the simulations know how to do their jobs and accounted for that possibility you described.

>DNA Sequence an Andaman islander and every bushman and Amazonian, then we'll see.

Ignoring the fact that the various peoples in the Amazon have not been isolated at all, or that the Adamans have been settled approximately in the time range of the estimated IAP and have known a few exchanges since, that's not how genealogy works. See, if a single outsider gets into the Adamans or Australia and starts having children with locals, and assuming the line doesn't die out, there's a statistical certainty that eventually every current living person in that territory will be descended from that outsider. Just one is enough. It doesn't matter that their genetic contribution is diluted to the point of being barely detectable. I invite you to read the link about IAP in more detail and do some rudimentary math on why it has to be the case (or more accurately, why the opposite is so statistically improbable as to be pretty much impossible).

You're conflating market economies (that have been around since basically forever and that no one except the most hardcore anarcho-primitivists are attacking) and modern day capitalism (which has been around since the Industrial Revolution and is characterized by its lack of upper limit on wealth accumulation).

Last I heard Stallman isn't forcing anything on anyone, even in the loosest sense of the word. Criticism isn't authoritarian.

Fines should not exist. Anything that gets punished by a fine is basically codeword for 'you can break that law if you're rich'. The most spectacular example being Facebook's stock rising after being fined for a few billions because it was pocket money for them.

Alternatively, if you really want to punish minor things, fines could be dependent on your income.

>That’s assuming that the human population is well-mixed

Yes that's why I took the conservative estimate of 7000 years, otherwise with the panmixia hypothesis it only goes back 3000 years or so.

The Genghis Khan thing doesn't really say much - there's a statistical near-certainty that liteally everyone today is descended from every single human that 7000 years ago (whose line didn't die out obviously).

There should be a moratorium on invoking evolution unless you're an evolutionary biologist. It's quite telling that whenever I read the word 'Darwin' on this site I immediately go 'aw shit, I'm not going to like this' and it never fails.

I don't think there's a single person today that knows all the rules. If you want to annoy any judge just ask about an interaction between 3+ cards involving Opalescence and Humility. On top of that the rules get more complex with every set, though they do attempt to cut things down. Fortunately for competitive play you only need to worry about a few hundred strong enough cards or so.

That's awful to be honest.

I don't have anything against online dating in principle, though I do find it pretty weird, but there's got to be a better way than relying on obscure matchmaking algorithms, shitty apps optimizing for engagement and your being single (remember, if you're not single you're not using the app), run by shady companies harvesting all of your data. Americans will always surprise me in their ability to surrender every single aspect of their life to megacorporations, even the most intimate and personal ones.

I don't get why people (I mean technically minded people who are aware of privacy issues and so on) don't just use firefox. They are pretty much at feature parity (Firefox may even get the edge due to the fantastic extensions ecosystem), except one spies on you and the other doesn't. Why do people find the switch so hard?

In addition, Firefox + ublokc origin is pretty much the only option on mobile if you want to block ads, unless you want to fiddle with hosts files or pi-holes or something.

DNA is nothing like source code. Why do people keep repeating this analogy.

At any rate, cell differentiation/compartmentation within a tumor has been observed, so things do get blurry indeed. It's also worth noting that there isn't a single definition of 'species' and it's all just semantics that changes depending on your field. (The traditional 'inter-fertile over two generations' you learn in high school is helpful but doesn't stand up to many observations.) Ultimately a species is what biologists say is a species.