Glen took a pea shooter at my flying kites
He wrote
> As for #6, there are so many cultures with "giants" all across the
world,
> John, in cold and WARM climates! Get a book on Hindu mythology and
tell me
> there isn't a certain deity whose foot spans the cosmos!! There
goes that
> point.
Point taken
> As for #7, "big" noses can be found in many parts of the world too.
It
> depends on what your criteria is. If you are looking for impressive
nose
> bridges, like the one I handsomely sport :), you could easily find
one in
> Palestine or Turkey, not just Europe. Further, if the genetics of
Europe
> were largely influenced by the Middle East with the bringing of
agriculture,
> then we have a confusing picture concerning our big nose theory.
Have a blow
> on my proverbial hanky, John :P
Glen, mate. Have a look at the distribution map for Neanderthals.
Found in Palestine, Turkey and the Middle East mate :0
> Now #5 is interesting and I was unaware of blood factors, however,
this may
> not be indicative of any species-interbreeding. It can just as
easily be
> explained as a simple genetic mutation.
There is a problem with that explanation based on the selective
fatality of offspring. A simple genetic mutation (as Glen puts it)
would lead to a heterozygous human condition amongst the early
Basques. The fatality of 2nd and third children in heterozygous
populations would lead to the progressive dissappearance of the Rh-
gene, unless it had conferred a +ve survival value to the population
possessing it, to balance out the loss (sickle cell anaemia is a
classic example - heterozygotes have a resistance to malaria even
though homozygotes often die from anaemia). But the problem is Rh-
conferrs no selection advantage.
The only explanation is that there was once a population of humans
very isolated that were 100% Rh-. In this case the Rh- factor would
have acted as an incipient species boundary, allowing the birth of
only a first child in situations of hybridization, with second and
third children dieing in utero. I don't know what the math would
suggest, but to have 100% Rh- population (given that Basques today
are 80% and they have been in touch and interbreeding with other
humans since at least the coming of the Ibero-Maurasian culture in
Iberia 15,000 BCE, if not longer, could be as far back as 40,000
years. And at 40,000 Hss bands were not genetically isolated.
Aurignacian culture stretched from Palestine to Spain and to Lake
Baikal. At 40,000 years there was only one group in the European
area which had been genetically isolated for a long time (up to
600,000 years if the latest genetic evidence is to be believed).
That is the Neanderthal.
Of course, there is one way in which my kite can be proved. Simple.
With the Neanderthal stuf DNA, find the Rh- gene on the Neanderthal
Genome.
> The only correlation you can reasonably make is between the
position of
> Basque and the position of supposed Neanderthal hybridisation
(which as far
> as I was aware is still shaky business). The theory isn't very
solid or
> considerable at all because there are so many unknowns.
>
> I also find it troubling that you can use one man's view on Basque
> xenorelationship as an anchor for your kite flying. Come back to
earth. I
> know Larry Trask to be very conservative about Basque external
> relationships, however, among the many theories out there, I'm sure
that
> even he would agree that a Basque-Caucasian relationship is the
most
> noteworthy research at present (even if it is very piecemeal so
far).
Perhaps. I have alwas considered the Basques to be the descendents
of the Aurignacian culture, which considering its range (as I said -
Palestine to Spain and to Lake Baikal) could still allow a Basque
Caucasian relationship of the type you suggest Glen.
Regards
John