EVEN IN CHINESE, IT'S A CONSPIRACY AGAINST TRUTH

loose_c...@hotmail.com

unread,

Apr 23, 2012, 8:11:01 AM4/23/12

to

<
LATEST TEST OF CHINESE CHARACTERS
< (Charlie Chan is certainly not one of them)
<
埃德康拉德，独立工作，显示他是在万人坑前
挖腐败的科即使在中国，这就是所谓的阴谋

JTEM

unread,

Apr 25, 2012, 1:08:43 AM4/25/12

to

Sick fuck, Lee Olsen <paleoc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
[---psycho rantings---]

So how come you're so polite to yourself? You
know, your own sock puppets?

Lee Olsen

unread,

Apr 25, 2012, 5:18:00 AM4/25/12

to

Soares et al.
The Expansion of mtDNA Haplogroup L3 within and out of
Africa
Mol. Biol. Evol. 29(3):915–927. 2012

Abstract

Although fossil remains show that anatomically modern humans
dispersed
out of Africa into the Near East ~100–130 ka, genetic evidence from
extant populations has suggested that non-Africans descend primarily
from a single successful later migration. Within the human mtDNA
tree,
haplogroup L3 encompasses not only many sub-Saharan Africans but also
all ancient non-African lineages, and its age therefore provides an
upper bound for the dispersal out of Africa. An analysis of 369
complete African L3 sequences places this maximum at ~70 ka,
virtually
ruling out a successful exit before 74 ka, the date of the Toba
volcanic super-eruption in Sumatra. The similarity of the age of L3
to
its two non-African daughter haplogroups, M and N, suggests that the
same process was likely responsible for both the L3 expansion in
Eastern Africa and the dispersal of a small group of modern humans
out
of Africa to settle the rest of the world. The timing of the
expansion
of L3 suggests a link to improved climatic conditions after ~70 ka in
Eastern and Central Africa, rather than to symbolically mediated
behavior, which evidently arose considerably earlier. The L3 mtDNA
pool within Africa suggests a migration from Eastern Africa to
Central
Africa ~60–35 ka, and major migrations in the immediate postglacial,
again linked to climate. The largest population size increase seen in
the L3 data is 3–4 ka in Central Africa, corresponding to Bantu
expansions, leading diverse L3 lineages to spread into Eastern and
Southern Africa in the last 3–2 ka.

JTEM

unread,

Apr 25, 2012, 5:26:56 AM4/25/12

to

Sick fuck, Lee Olsen <paleoc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
[---psycho rantings---]

Say, LeeTard, ever notice that all your cites
contradict each other? No? Because you're
fucked up? Understood.

Lee Olsen

unread,

Apr 25, 2012, 10:23:13 AM4/25/12

to

"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 Apr 25, 2:30 am, JTEM <jte...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Until there was an "Ice Corridor,"

Idiot, that's "ice-free corridor". It wouldn't be a corridor if it
were full of ice.

JTEM

unread,

Apr 25, 2012, 4:54:31 PM4/25/12

to

One common definition of insanity is repeating
the exact same behavior but expecting different
results. Watch as Lee/etc re-re-re-re-re-re-re-re-
re-re-re-re-re-re-re-re-re-re-re-re-post a cite
which has never swayed anyone... ever.

Sick fuck, Lee Olsen <paleoc...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> "The discovery of H. floresiensis discredits the multiregional
> theory
> in a substantial way, as this new species
> with several distinctive features that
> could not have evolved into
> modern H. sapiens."

this idiocy you keep posting would require that Neanderthals
evolved into modern humans, but nobody is claiming this.
And Java man, too. And Peking man.

There's an old and quite Lee...errrr..."Retarded" creationist
argument that goes: "If we evolved from Apes, why are
there still Apes?" Lee Etc's nonsense above is the exact same
argument rephrased: "If we evolved from archaic types, how
come there were still archaic types?"

Presently, many identify H. floresiensis with H. habilis, who was
also quite small. Nobody is arguing against the notion that
H. habilis is an ancestor. In fact, the status quo insists that the
tiny H. habilis had to be an ancestor of ours....

No multi regionalists insists that any & all archaic types
had to contribute to modern humans. There isn't one. In this
sense the argument you are making is another classic straw
man.

Finally, there is regional continuity. Where we find H.
floreseinsis today we find diminutive people. It could be an
example of convergent evolution -- that remains a
possibility -- but it sure does look like those archaic types
did interbreed with later so-called moderns and did
contribute to the modern gene pool. I mean, DUH!

Lee Olsen

unread,

Apr 25, 2012, 8:02:33 PM4/25/12

to

"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 Apr 25, 1:54 pm, JTEM <jte...@gmail.com> wrote:
> One common definition

http://tinyurl.com/83vs4tp

"The discovery of H. floresiensis discredits the multiregional
theory
in a substantial way, as this new species
with several distinctive features that
could not have evolved into
modern H. sapiens."

HINT: who evolved in Africa?
Lucy

Hobbit

Heidelbergensis
AMH

Mungo Man

Denisovans

Ancestors of Neandertals

Who evolved in situ, directly out of local archaics?
That's right, no one.

BTW, if multiregionalists were right, Denisovians would never have
existed in the
first place.

Now that ought to give sock puppets nightmares.

JTEM

unread,

Apr 28, 2012, 4:52:16 AM4/28/12

to

Sick Fuck, Lee Olsen <paleoc...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> Glacier travel in modern times:http://tinyurl.com/7lavl4e

Not sure what you think that has to do with
paleontology....

> Glacier travel ca. 300 years ago:

This is documenting a FAILURE to travel across
a glacier. A much, much, much smaller glacier,
I might add.

So the fact that this guy died trying to cross a
far smaller glacier with the benefit of more than
10 thousand years of technological development
says..... what?

It says that you're fucked up.

> "Obsidian from GHB has been sourced to Mt. Edziza 300 km
> inland Mt. Adziza dated to 9000-10000 Fladmark 1985:13

Wait. So this Obsidian was on top of a glacier?

Dude, you're so fucked up you don't even know what
a glacier is...

> Glacier travel ca. 14,000 years ago:
> Speakman, Holmes, and Glascock
> Source Determination of Obsidian Artifacts from Swam Point (XBD-156,
> Alaska
> CRP Vol 24, pp. 143-5, 2007

There's no glacier travel at all. Obsidian is a volcanic
rock. It was either picked up and deposited by a
glacier elsewhere or lying underneath a glacier.

The only alternative is that the particular area was
not affected by glaciation.

This is rudimentary. You clearly lack the intellectual
capacity to discuss these matters.

> A study of the mutations indicated a lineage shift between 13,000 and
> 14,000 years ago
> - when people are thought to have walked across the ice from Russia
> to America.

So now you're arguing that there was no "Land Bridge."

Make up your (highly defective) mind.

See? See that? You've contradicted yourself for nothing. The
issue is the Ice Corridor in north America, not what you used to
say was a land bridge from Asia to Alaska.

Imbecile.

Lee Olsen

unread,

Apr 28, 2012, 9:51:26 AM4/28/12

to

On Apr 28, 1:52 am, JTEM <jte...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Wait. So this Obsidian was on top of a glacier?

Nope. It means that all mountains weren't completely coverered by
ice, only some bases.
I thought you knew that? And most the entire central part of Alaska
was never covered by ice.
It was an ICE-FREE ZONE just like the ice-free corridor.
Just as not all mountains are not covered today in Greenland.
http://tinyurl.com/7on8dwr

>
> Dude, you're so
smart

Thank very much.

> > Glacier travel ca. 14,000 years ago:
> > Speakman, Holmes, and Glascock
> > Source Determination of Obsidian Artifacts from Swam Point (XBD-156,
> > Alaska
> > CRP Vol 24, pp. 143-5, 2007
>
> There's no glacier travel at all. Obsidian is a volcanic
> rock. It was either picked up and deposited by a
> glacier elsewhere or lying underneath a glacier.

Yep, obsidian can get rolled with the river rocks and be transported
downstream, west in one case. All you have to do now is explain how
the
obsidian moved across the Yukon River and moved upstream for hundreds
of miles to Swan Point all my itself.

> The only alternative is that the particular area was
> not affected by glaciation.

The tops of all mountains weren't, didn't you know that?

JTEM

unread,

Apr 28, 2012, 7:28:23 PM4/28/12

to

Fuck up, Lee Olsen <paleoc...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> Nope. It means that all mountains weren't completely coverered by
> ice,

No, shit for brains. The rocks are older than the glaciers. So
it can mean numerous things, including that they were
deposited elsewhere by glaciers. The point is that they don't
tell us anything, and that you're a fucking imbecile.

Lee Olsen

unread,

Apr 28, 2012, 11:54:28 PM4/28/12

to

"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 Apr 28, 4:28 pm, JTEM <jte...@gmail.com> wrote:
>The rocks are older than the glaciers.

Idiot, that don't provide them transportation across rivers without
help from humans.
You are still retarded.