Let's back up a bit here, despite the
fact that your severe mental illness
negates the ability to extrapolate...
Way back in the late 1990s a woman
used the "Molecular Clock" fantasy
to plot the origins of modern Mammal
lineages, and had pretty much all of
today's lineages fully formed long
before the K.T. Boundary.
Well, this was abject nonsense, as
just about everyone in science agreed.
The findings were pretty much universally
panned, and to this day are ignored.
Why? Because the DNA is looking at
RIGHT NOW while the fossils are telling
us about the past. And, those fossils show
us something completely different than
any assumptions based on the "Molecular
Clock" nonsense.
Strangely, "Science" <spit> <spit> deals
with this error by compounding it.
Oh, I did not mistake anything, "Science"
compounds the error. Seeing that their
precious "Molecular Clock" myth places
things at a comically old age, "Science"
decides that this molecular clock is actually
slower than at first claimed...
Meaning, what? All extant mammalian
lineages were now fully formed in the
Triassic?
I mean, how can this get any more ridicules?
Oh, I know, the same "Scientist" who believe
in and promote the molecular clock bullshit
can also admit that it's pure rubbish:
: For instance, the slowest proposed mutation
: rate puts the common ancestor of humans
: and orang-utans at 40 million years ago, he
: says: more than 20 million years before dates
: derived from abundant fossil evidence. This
: very slow clock has the common ancestor of
: monkeys and humans co-existing with the
: last dinosaurs. “It gets very complicated,”
: deadpans Reich.
http://www.nature.com/news/studies-slow-the-human-dna-clock-1.11431
They go on to suggest that the molecular clock
used to move faster... they go on to suggest that
the clock-like timing of genetic change isn't clock
like at all, that it changed over time.
Which brings us full circle, don't it? Their constant
rate isn't constant, by their own reckoning.
On Sep 27, 11:51 pm, JTEM <jte...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Let's back up a bit here,
http://tinyurl.com/2bclbfy JTEM: "As many of you may already be aware, I am an
accomplished medium who has often channeled
none other than Nostradamus himself."
Let's back up a bit here, despite the
fact that your severe mental illness
negates the ability to extrapolate...
Way back in the late 1990s a woman
used the "Molecular Clock" fantasy
to plot the origins of modern Mammal
lineages, and had pretty much all of
today's lineages fully formed long
before the K.T. Boundary.
Well, this was abject nonsense, as
just about everyone in science agreed.
The findings were pretty much universally
panned, and to this day are ignored.
Why? Because the DNA is looking at
RIGHT NOW while the fossils are telling
us about the past. And, those fossils show
us something completely different than
any assumptions based on the "Molecular
Clock" nonsense.
Strangely, "Science" <spit> <spit> deals
with this error by compounding it.
Oh, I did not mistake anything, "Science"
compounds the error. Seeing that their
precious "Molecular Clock" myth places
things at a comically old age, "Science"
decides that this molecular clock is actually
slower than at first claimed...
Meaning, what? All extant mammalian
lineages were now fully formed in the
Triassic?
I mean, how can this get any more ridicules?
Oh, I know, the same "Scientist" who believe
in and promote the molecular clock bullshit
can also admit that it's pure rubbish:
: For instance, the slowest proposed mutation
: rate puts the common ancestor of humans
: and orang-utans at 40 million years ago, he
: says: more than 20 million years before dates
: derived from abundant fossil evidence. This
: very slow clock has the common ancestor of
: monkeys and humans co-existing with the
: last dinosaurs. “It gets very complicated,”
: deadpans Reich.
http://www.nature.com/news/studies-slow-the-human-dna-clock-1.11431
They go on to suggest that the molecular clock
used to move faster... they go on to suggest that
the clock-like timing of genetic change isn't clock
like at all, that it changed over time.
Which brings us full circle, don't it? Their constant
rate isn't constant, by their own reckoning.
"JTEM" <j_deerfi...@hotmail.com>
Jack Teehan <deerfieldproducti...@gmail.com>
Seth Dwight <deerfieldproducti...@gmail.com>
Seth Dwight: NNTP-Posting-Host: 71.232.83.153
In His Glory: NNTP-Posting-Host: 71.232.83.153
On Sep 28, 11:04 pm, JTEM <jte...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Let's back up a bit here, despite the
> fact that
you are a sock puppet with the mind of a retard, what else is new?
http://tinyurl.com/2bclbfy JTEM: "As many of you may already be aware, I am an
accomplished medium who has often channeled
none other than Nostradamus himself."
Instead of trying to will some sort of
evidence against me into existence
(you damn psycho), why not get
yourself properly medicated and
attempt to articulate an intelligent
response...
Way back in the late 1990s a woman
used the "Molecular Clock" fantasy
to plot the origins of modern Mammal
lineages, and had pretty much all of
today's lineages fully formed long
before the K.T. Boundary.
Well, this was abject nonsense, as
just about everyone in science agreed.
The findings were pretty much universally
panned, and to this day are ignored.
Why? Because the DNA is looking at
RIGHT NOW while the fossils are telling
us about the past. And, those fossils show
us something completely different than
any assumptions based on the "Molecular
Clock" nonsense.
Strangely, "Science" <spit> <spit> deals
with this error by compounding it.
Oh, I did not mistake anything, "Science"
compounds the error. Seeing that their
precious "Molecular Clock" myth places
things at a comically old age, "Science"
decides that this molecular clock is actually
slower than at first claimed...
Meaning, what? All extant mammalian
lineages were now fully formed in the
Triassic?
I mean, how can this get any more ridicules?
Oh, I know, the same "Scientist" who believe
in and promote the molecular clock bullshit
can also admit that it's pure rubbish:
: For instance, the slowest proposed mutation
: rate puts the common ancestor of humans
: and orang-utans at 40 million years ago, he
: says: more than 20 million years before dates
: derived from abundant fossil evidence. This
: very slow clock has the common ancestor of
: monkeys and humans co-existing with the
: last dinosaurs. “It gets very complicated,”
: deadpans Reich.
http://www.nature.com/news/studies-slow-the-human-dna-clock-1.11431
They go on to suggest that the molecular clock
used to move faster... they go on to suggest that
the clock-like timing of genetic change isn't clock
like at all, that it changed over time.
Which brings us full circle, don't it? Their constant
rate isn't constant, by their own reckoning.
"The study details various adaptations found in early humans—including
fossils
of Homo erectus and Homo habilis,—which are required only for
running.
These adaptations include long, springlike tendons, such as the
Achilles tendon,
which store energy and reduce the metabolic costs of running by half.
Fossil
records suggest the Achilles tendon was absent in Australopithecus."
Instead of trying to will some sort of
evidence against me into existence
(you damn psycho), why not get
yourself properly medicated and
attempt to articulate an intelligent
response...
Way back in the late 1990s a woman
used the "Molecular Clock" fantasy
to plot the origins of modern Mammal
lineages, and had pretty much all of
today's lineages fully formed long
before the K.T. Boundary.
Well, this was abject nonsense, as
just about everyone in science agreed.
The findings were pretty much universally
panned, and to this day are ignored.
Why? Because the DNA is looking at
RIGHT NOW while the fossils are telling
us about the past. And, those fossils show
us something completely different than
any assumptions based on the "Molecular
Clock" nonsense.
Strangely, "Science" <spit> <spit> deals
with this error by compounding it.
Oh, I did not mistake anything, "Science"
compounds the error. Seeing that their
precious "Molecular Clock" myth places
things at a comically old age, "Science"
decides that this molecular clock is actually
slower than at first claimed...
Meaning, what? All extant mammalian
lineages were now fully formed in the
Triassic?
I mean, how can this get any more ridicules?
Oh, I know, the same "Scientist" who believe
in and promote the molecular clock bullshit
can also admit that it's pure rubbish:
: For instance, the slowest proposed mutation
: rate puts the common ancestor of humans
: and orang-utans at 40 million years ago, he
: says: more than 20 million years before dates
: derived from abundant fossil evidence. This
: very slow clock has the common ancestor of
: monkeys and humans co-existing with the
: last dinosaurs. “It gets very complicated,”
: deadpans Reich.
http://www.nature.com/news/studies-slow-the-human-dna-clock-1.11431
They go on to suggest that the molecular clock
used to move faster... they go on to suggest that
the clock-like timing of genetic change isn't clock
like at all, that it changed over time.
Which brings us full circle, don't it? Their constant
rate isn't constant, by their own reckoning.
"JTEM" <j_deerfi...@hotmail.com>
Jack Teehan <deerfieldproducti...@gmail.com>
Seth Dwight <deerfieldproducti...@gmail.com>
Seth Dwight: NNTP-Posting-Host: 71.232.83.153
In His Glory: NNTP-Posting-Host: 71.232.83.153
On Sep 30, 11:20 pm, JTEM <jte...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Way back
Message-ID: <524d360c-87a3-47fc-adda-
a1c5abd0b...@z31g2000vbt.googlegroups.com>
I happened across this group and post from JTEM. I can confirm that
the thing calling itself JTEM has been the bane of usenet for over a
decade, a troll of the most persistant kind.
The Nancy Boy used to laud it amongst a group called soc.motss, which
was a busy enough forum for transvestites and similar people.
He passed many a 'happy' evening trolling the alt.prophecies.
nostradamus group...which doesn't actually believe in Nostradamus by
the way. Abusive and with wild claims, stating he could 'channel'
Nostradamus, and would do so for a 'donation'.
A total fraud in every group he visits; his sole intentiuon is to
ingratiate himself with the members, and then to start his arguing
and
escalate that into trolling, insulting and being the sort of nuisance
one would like to shoot.
I can be found still in alt prophecies...etc, and suggest anyone
interested to examine his past and his little loving male 'friends'
of
the now defunct soc. motss group
The 'man' is an ignorant pig, a cheat, a liar and an insult to
humanity.
Hello JTEM.....Dance for me, Monkey, dance. (remember that)
I'll say this much for you, mental case,
there seems little hope of you ever
being effectively treated for your
severe personality disorders.
I'm laughing at you, sick fuck...
instead of trying to will some sort of
evidence against me into existence
(you damn psycho), why not get
yourself properly medicated and
attempt to articulate an intelligent
response...
Way back in the late 1990s a woman
used the "Molecular Clock" fantasy
to plot the origins of modern Mammal
lineages, and had pretty much all of
today's lineages fully formed long
before the K.T. Boundary.
Well, this was abject nonsense, as
just about everyone in science agreed.
The findings were pretty much universally
panned, and to this day are ignored.
Why? Because the DNA is looking at
RIGHT NOW while the fossils are telling
us about the past. And, those fossils show
us something completely different than
any assumptions based on the "Molecular
Clock" nonsense.
Strangely, "Science" <spit> <spit> deals
with this error by compounding it.
Oh, I did not mistake anything, "Science"
compounds the error. Seeing that their
precious "Molecular Clock" myth places
things at a comically old age, "Science"
decides that this molecular clock is actually
slower than at first claimed...
Meaning, what? All extant mammalian
lineages were now fully formed in the
Triassic?
I mean, how can this get any more ridicules?
Oh, I know, the same "Scientist" who believe
in and promote the molecular clock bullshit
can also admit that it's pure rubbish:
: For instance, the slowest proposed mutation
: rate puts the common ancestor of humans
: and orang-utans at 40 million years ago, he
: says: more than 20 million years before dates
: derived from abundant fossil evidence. This
: very slow clock has the common ancestor of
: monkeys and humans co-existing with the
: last dinosaurs. “It gets very complicated,”
: deadpans Reich.
http://www.nature.com/news/studies-slow-the-human-dna-clock-1.11431
They go on to suggest that the molecular clock
used to move faster... they go on to suggest that
the clock-like timing of genetic change isn't clock
like at all, that it changed over time.
Which brings us full circle, don't it? Their constant
rate isn't constant, by their own reckoning.
http://tinyurl.com/7dnhs4u "The bottom line is that the molecular clock does
not correspond
exactly to the prediction of neutral
theory but it's close enough
to be used to estimate
times of divergence. It's still powerful
evidence
that most changes in gene/protein sequences are
neutral
changes that have been fixed by random
genetic drift. Natural
selection is a minor player
in molecular evolution."
"JTEM" <j_deerfi...@hotmail.com>
Jack Teehan <deerfieldproducti...@gmail.com>
Seth Dwight <deerfieldproducti...@gmail.com>
Seth Dwight: NNTP-Posting-Host: 71.232.83.153
In His Glory: NNTP-Posting-Host: 71.232.83.153
On Oct 1, 10:12 pm, JTEM <jte...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I'm laughing at you, sick fuck...
JTEM <jte...@gmail.com> wrote:
I'll say this much for you, mental case,
there seems little hope of you ever
being effectively treated for your
severe personality disorders.
I'm laughing at you, sick fuck...
instead of trying to will some sort of
evidence against me into existence
(you damn psycho), why not get
yourself properly medicated and
attempt to articulate an intelligent
response...
Way back in the late 1990s a woman
used the "Molecular Clock" fantasy
to plot the origins of modern Mammal
lineages, and had pretty much all of
today's lineages fully formed long
before the K.T. Boundary.
Well, this was abject nonsense, as
just about everyone in science agreed.
The findings were pretty much universally
panned, and to this day are ignored.
Why? Because the DNA is looking at
RIGHT NOW while the fossils are telling
us about the past. And, those fossils show
us something completely different than
any assumptions based on the "Molecular
Clock" nonsense.
Strangely, "Science" <spit> <spit> deals
with this error by compounding it.
Oh, I did not mistake anything, "Science"
compounds the error. Seeing that their
precious "Molecular Clock" myth places
things at a comically old age, "Science"
decides that this molecular clock is actually
slower than at first claimed...
Meaning, what? All extant mammalian
lineages were now fully formed in the
Triassic?
I mean, how can this get any more ridicules?
Oh, I know, the same "Scientist" who believe
in and promote the molecular clock bullshit
can also admit that it's pure rubbish:
: For instance, the slowest proposed mutation
: rate puts the common ancestor of humans
: and orang-utans at 40 million years ago, he
: says: more than 20 million years before dates
: derived from abundant fossil evidence. This
: very slow clock has the common ancestor of
: monkeys and humans co-existing with the
: last dinosaurs. “It gets very complicated,”
: deadpans Reich.
http://www.nature.com/news/studies-slow-the-human-dna-clock-1.11431
They go on to suggest that the molecular clock
used to move faster... they go on to suggest that
the clock-like timing of genetic change isn't clock
like at all, that it changed over time.
Which brings us full circle, don't it? Their constant
rate isn't constant, by their own reckoning.
On Oct 2, 10:59 pm, JTEM <jte...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I'll say this much
http://tinyurl.com/7dnhs4u "The bottom line is that the molecular clock does
not correspond
exactly to the prediction of neutral
theory but it's close enough
to be used to estimate
times of divergence. It's still powerful
evidence
that most changes in gene/protein sequences are
neutral
changes that have been fixed by random
genetic drift. Natural
selection is a minor player
in molecular evolution."
Lee Olsen <paleoc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> "The bottom line is that the molecular clock does
> not correspond
> exactly to the prediction of neutral
> theory but it's close enough
> to be used to estimate
> times of divergence.
This is the "Molecular Clock" that says that humans
diverged from Chimps about 6 million years ago, and
that humans diverged from Chimps less than 5 million
years ago and that humans diverged from chimps
longer ago than either one of those dates...
It's nonsense. It's unadulterated nonsense.
HINT: Compare the old mtDNA data to the
Y-Chromosome date (a difference of more than
1 million years) to the new "Older" dates.
Secondly, you don't even know what a molecular
clock is, how it's supposed to work. You've been
challenged countless times over the years to
explain it in your own words -- no quotes, no
cutting and pasting -- and you can't.
"JTEM" <j_deerfi...@hotmail.com>
Jack Teehan <deerfieldproducti...@gmail.com>
Seth Dwight <deerfieldproducti...@gmail.com>
Seth Dwight: NNTP-Posting-Host: 71.232.83.153
In His Glory: NNTP-Posting-Host: 71.232.83.153
On Oct 4, 1:19 am, JTEM <jte...@gmail.com> wrote:
> It's nonsense.
Says the chocolate-licking idiot who can't read.
Here are the facts:
http://tinyurl.com/7dnhs4u "The bottom line is that the molecular clock does
not correspond
exactly to the prediction of neutral
theory but it's close enough
to be used to estimate
times of divergence. It's still powerful
evidence
that most changes in gene/protein sequences are
neutral
changes that have been fixed by random
genetic drift. Natural
selection is a minor player
in molecular evolution."
I'll say this much for you, mental case,
there seems little hope of you ever
being effectively treated for your
severe personality disorders.
I'm laughing at you, sick fuck...
instead of trying to will some sort of
evidence against me into existence
(you damn psycho), why not get
yourself properly medicated and
attempt to articulate an intelligent
response...
Way back in the late 1990s a woman
used the "Molecular Clock" fantasy
to plot the origins of modern Mammal
lineages, and had pretty much all of
today's lineages fully formed long
before the K.T. Boundary.
Well, this was abject nonsense, as
just about everyone in science agreed.
The findings were pretty much universally
panned, and to this day are ignored.
Why? Because the DNA is looking at
RIGHT NOW while the fossils are telling
us about the past. And, those fossils show
us something completely different than
any assumptions based on the "Molecular
Clock" nonsense.
Strangely, "Science" <spit> <spit> deals
with this error by compounding it.
Oh, I did not mistake anything, "Science"
compounds the error. Seeing that their
precious "Molecular Clock" myth places
things at a comically old age, "Science"
decides that this molecular clock is actually
slower than at first claimed...
Meaning, what? All extant mammalian
lineages were now fully formed in the
Triassic?
I mean, how can this get any more ridicules?
Oh, I know, the same "Scientist" who believe
in and promote the molecular clock bullshit
can also admit that it's pure rubbish:
: For instance, the slowest proposed mutation
: rate puts the common ancestor of humans
: and orang-utans at 40 million years ago, he
: says: more than 20 million years before dates
: derived from abundant fossil evidence. This
: very slow clock has the common ancestor of
: monkeys and humans co-existing with the
: last dinosaurs. “It gets very complicated,”
: deadpans Reich.
http://www.nature.com/news/studies-slow-the-human-dna-clock-1.11431
They go on to suggest that the molecular clock
used to move faster... they go on to suggest that
the clock-like timing of genetic change isn't clock
like at all, that it changed over time.
Which brings us full circle, don't it? Their constant
rate isn't constant, by their own reckoning.
"JTEM" <j_deerfi...@hotmail.com>
Jack Teehan <deerfieldproducti...@gmail.com>
Seth Dwight <deerfieldproducti...@gmail.com>
Seth Dwight: NNTP-Posting-Host: 71.232.83.153
In His Glory: NNTP-Posting-Host: 71.232.83.153
On Oct 5, 10:21 pm, JTEM <jte...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I'll say this much
http://tinyurl.com/7dnhs4u "The bottom line is that the molecular clock does
not correspond
exactly to the prediction of neutral
theory but it's close enough
to be used to estimate
times of divergence. It's still powerful
evidence
that most changes in gene/protein sequences are
neutral
changes that have been fixed by random
genetic drift. Natural
selection is a minor player
in molecular evolution."
Sick fucj, Lee Olsen <paleoc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
[--demented spewings--]
You can't even read let alone properly
identify an IP Address (as you constantly
prove), so it's not like you have the faintest
clue what DNA means.
You've been repeatedly challenged to define
and describe this "Molecular Clock" in your
own words, and have failed miserable every
time. You constantly use terms which you
don't understand, and your shameful ignorance
if forever archived on Google Groups.
"JTEM" <j_deerfi...@hotmail.com>
Jack Teehan <deerfieldproducti...@gmail.com>
Seth Dwight <deerfieldproducti...@gmail.com>
Seth Dwight: NNTP-Posting-Host: 71.232.83.153
In His Glory: NNTP-Posting-Host: 71.232.83.153
On Oct 8, 7:42 am, JTEM <jte...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Sick fucj,
What is that, more of your silly fantasies?
http://tinyurl.com/2bclbfy "As many of you may already be aware, I am an
accomplished medium who has often channeled
none other than Nostradamus himself."
Sick fucj, Lee Olsen <paleoc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
[--demented spewings--]
You can't even read let alone properly
identify an IP Address (as you constantly
prove), so it's not like you have the faintest
clue what DNA means.
You've been repeatedly challenged to define
and describe this "Molecular Clock" in your
own words, and have failed miserable every
time. You constantly use terms which you
don't understand, and your shameful ignorance
if forever archived on Google Groups.
"JTEM" <j_deerfi...@hotmail.com>
Jack Teehan <deerfieldproducti...@gmail.com>
Seth Dwight <deerfieldproducti...@gmail.com>
Seth Dwight: NNTP-Posting-Host: 71.232.83.153
In His Glory: NNTP-Posting-Host: 71.232.83.153
On Oct 13, 12:23 am, JTEM <jte...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I am laughing at you.
http://tinyurl.com/39hlw25 "Ooooh, lookee here! Turns out JTEM has been accusing anyone and
everyone, for years now, of being sock puppets. What is it with JTEM
and sock puppets? Does JTEM harbour a sock-puppet fetish? Is he in an
illicit relationship with a muppet? Perhaps he was caught cheating on
Mrs Piggy, in bed with Lamb Chop. Clearly, his interest has nothing to
do with the Internet usage of the word, no matter how much he might
claim otherwise. He makes the accusations wildly, without any
rationale behind them, so clearly he does not actually believe the
Internet usage even applies.
So, given that he can only be thinking of physical sock puppets, we
can see JTEM is a very, very sick person indeed."
Sick fuck, Lee Olsen <paleoc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
[--demented spewings--]
You can't even read let alone properly
identify an IP Address (as you constantly
prove), so it's not like you have the faintest
clue what DNA means.
You've been repeatedly challenged to define
and describe this "Molecular Clock" in your
own words, and have failed miserable every
time. You constantly use terms which you
don't understand, and your shameful ignorance
if forever archived on Google Groups.
On Oct 13, 6:18 pm, JTEM <jte...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Sick fuck
"JTEM" <j_deerfi...@hotmail.com>
Jack Teehan <deerfieldproducti...@gmail.com>
Seth Dwight <deerfieldproducti...@gmail.com>
Seth Dwight: NNTP-Posting-Host: 71.232.83.153
In His Glory: NNTP-Posting-Host: 71.232.83.153
> > "So nobody sees this die-off looking at the
> > actual sites...."
Yes, you said that.
> Yes I did, as the story flat out states that all the
> data came from DNA, not a survey of the number
> of sites, their apparent population or number of
> artifacts.
But you flat out claimed "actual sites" with no data
on actual sites. Stop playing with your self.
Mostly extinct people make fewer sites, proven by the archaeology,
which collaborates the DNA resultes.
Let's back up a bit here, despite the
fact that your severe mental illness
negates the ability to extrapolate...
Way back in the late 1990s a woman
used the "Molecular Clock" fantasy
to plot the origins of modern Mammal
lineages, and had pretty much all of
today's lineages fully formed long
before the K.T. Boundary.
Well, this was abject nonsense, as
just about everyone in science agreed.
The findings were pretty much universally
panned, and to this day are ignored.
Why? Because the DNA is looking at
RIGHT NOW while the fossils are telling
us about the past. And, those fossils show
us something completely different than
any assumptions based on the "Molecular
Clock" nonsense.
Strangely, "Science" <spit> <spit> deals
with this error by compounding it.
Oh, I did not mistake anything, "Science"
compounds the error. Seeing that their
precious "Molecular Clock" myth places
things at a comically old age, "Science"
decides that this molecular clock is actually
slower than at first claimed...
Meaning, what? All extant mammalian
lineages were now fully formed in the
Triassic?
I mean, how can this get any more ridicules?
Oh, I know, the same "Scientist" who believe
in and promote the molecular clock bullshit
can also admit that it's pure rubbish:
: For instance, the slowest proposed mutation
: rate puts the common ancestor of humans
: and orang-utans at 40 million years ago, he
: says: more than 20 million years before dates
: derived from abundant fossil evidence. This
: very slow clock has the common ancestor of
: monkeys and humans co-existing with the
: last dinosaurs. “It gets very complicated,”
: deadpans Reich.
http://www.nature.com/news/studies-slow-the-human-dna-clock-1.11431
They go on to suggest that the molecular clock
used to move faster... they go on to suggest that
the clock-like timing of genetic change isn't clock
like at all, that it changed over time.
Which brings us full circle, don't it? Their constant
rate isn't constant, by their own reckoning.
On Oct 17, 10:45 pm, JTEM <jte...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Let's back up a bit here
Yes, let's. The latest pro-Neanderthal interbreeding paper uses clock-
based estimates in its conclusion.
So one moment your are calling the clock "bullshit", the next your are
confirming its validity by accepting Neanderthals are us, which was
derived, in part, by the use of a clock to estimate the LCA between
the two.
So, you can't have it both ways, either the clock is valid and
Neandertals did interbreed with moderns, or the clock is not valid and
Neandertals haven't interbreed with us since a LCA.
Lee Olsen <paleoc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Yes, let's. The latest pro-Neanderthal interbreeding paper uses clock-
> based estimates in its conclusion.
No it doesn't. That doesn't even make sense. You're confusing an
attempting at placing a date on interbreeding with the fact that
humans outside of Africa share some DNA with Neanderthals while
the African population does not.
You're a moron who knows NOTHING about paleoanthrolpology,
nothing at all.
