The Big Splits In Hominidae

[Peter Nyikos]

Over in sci.anthropology.paleo, I got into the midst of an in-depth
discussion early today over the evolution of Hominidae, centered on where
the splits between humans, chimps, and gorillas took place.
This was a spinoff to the topic on which the thread began, which was how
bipedality evolved in the ancestors of Homo sapiens.


Here is the on-topic part of my s.a.p. post. The off-topic part is being
busily talked about on another s.b.p. thread, after a fashion.


On Friday, September 28, 2018 at 12:36:25 AM UTC-4, JTEM is lucky in love AND money wrote:
> Mario Petrinovic wrote:
>
> > Oh, I get it. Everybody is sure that I am wrong, only, nobody *yet*
> > figured out where I am wrong, so, nobody is sure where I am wrong. But,
> > there is one thing everybody is sure of, and that is, that I am
> > definitely not right.
> > Lol, Jesus Christ.

Mario is wrong about some things, and the reason I have a hard time
figuring out where he is right is that I haven't seen him do sustained
reasoning on one issue. He rambles a great deal.

>
> That's not true.
>
> I believe that, many times, I pointed out that Chimps
> are secondarily knuckle walkers, that the LCA was
> undoubtedly an upright walker.
>
> ...so you have the tail wagging the dog!
>
> It's likely this is true for gorillas as well, though
> perhaps to a lesser extent.

I haven't seen you reasoning for these things, but that may be
because I've seen so little of you.


> Look. People are *Still* religiously throwing around
> the human/chimp split at 6 million years, even though
> more than a decade ago a comparison of y chromosomes
> erased more than a million years off that figure.

The amount of genetic material in a y chromosome is small.
Do you know the ratio of it to the genetic material in mitochondria?


> And they also noted that a comparison of X chromosomes
> put the split even more recently. They concluded at the
> time that this meant that humans & chimps were
> recombining/hybridizing for millions of years, rather
> than a clean split. But...

Who is "they"? how widely have these conclusions been
accepted? My guess is "about as widely as the conclusion that
birds are NOT descended from dinosaurs."


> But the chimp y chromosome is under EXTREME selective
> pressure. Chimps bang like humans shake hands, only
> far more often. There's massive sperm competition. So,
> nature has really poured the fire on y chromosome
> selective pressure...
>
> There. That explains the differences in "Ages."

It would, if you had some data that quantifies "extreme
selective pressure" and compares evolutionary rates with a
wide variety of other mammals, both with and without those
pressures.

> The y chromosome looks older because it's undergone
> more changes than other areas of the genome...
>
> Anyway, the best "Molecular Clock" dating places the
> human/chimp split no further back than 4.3 million
> years... and as recent as 3.7 million.

Could you provide us with a link to an authoritative article on this?


> And as all the
> "Dating" is pretty much based on that split,
> you have to knock it all down by millions of years.
>
> ...if the old dating of humans/chimp is off by
> 2 million years or more, that places the human/gorilla
> split well within the range of Ardipithecus.
>
> But it's not necessary.
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sahelanthropus
>
> See, even Sahelanthropus, who is already within the
> lower end estimates of human/gorilla divergence,
> has a foramen magnum *Way* more centralized than
> that of a chimp. Thus, ancestor of Chimps was and
> the ancestor of gorillas was most likely far
> better adapted to upright walking than their living
> descendants.

What makes you think either gorilla or chimp is descended
from Sahelanthropus?

>
> Perhaps this is the part I left out:
>
> Your "Theory" is regarding how to turn the great
> apes from knuckle walkers to upright walkers, but
> the best evidence says you have things backwards,
> that they happened the other way around.

Why the great apes? Somewhere along the line there was
a quadrupedal ancestor, and one does not have to subscribe
to the conjecture that it was a knuckle walker to make
sense of Mario's hypotheses.

=============== end of on-topic portion =============

Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
University of South Carolina
http://people.math.sc.edu

[John Harshman]

Mitochondria are tiny, around 15,000 bases, compared to 58 million bases
in the Y chromosome. Why do you ask?

>> And they also noted that a comparison of X chromosomes
>> put the split even more recently. They concluded at the
>> time that this meant that humans & chimps were
>> recombining/hybridizing for millions of years, rather
>> than a clean split. But...
>
> Who is "they"? how widely have these conclusions been
> accepted? My guess is "about as widely as the conclusion that
> birds are NOT descended from dinosaurs."

If I recall, there was one paper that made that claim, and a couple of
others that offered other explanations of the data.

>> But the chimp y chromosome is under EXTREME selective
>> pressure. Chimps bang like humans shake hands, only
>> far more often. There's massive sperm competition. So,
>> nature has really poured the fire on y chromosome
>> selective pressure...
>>
>> There. That explains the differences in "Ages."
>
> It would, if you had some data that quantifies "extreme
> selective pressure" and compares evolutionary rates with a
> wide variety of other mammals, both with and without those
> pressures.

Sperm competition doesn't actually competition among sperm, exactly. It
involves competition in the number of sperm. This does not result in
selection at y loci, particularly.

Now, what might explain the difference in ages is the effective
population sizes of Y, mt, X, and autosomes, probably in that order from
least to greatest. Smaller population size, faster coalescence. Y and mt
might be the most accurate estimate of divergence point for that reason.

>> The y chromosome looks older because it's undergone
>> more changes than other areas of the genome...
>>
>> Anyway, the best "Molecular Clock" dating places the
>> human/chimp split no further back than 4.3 million
>> years... and as recent as 3.7 million.
>
> Could you provide us with a link to an authoritative article on this?

That would require somebody to make the silly assumption that rates of
evolution are the same between X and Y chromosomes. But we expect Y to
be faster, because of the many more replications in the male than female
germ line.

>> And as all the
>> "Dating" is pretty much based on that split,
>> you have to knock it all down by millions of years.
>>
>> ...if the old dating of humans/chimp is off by
>> 2 million years or more, that places the human/gorilla
>> split well within the range of Ardipithecus.
>>
>> But it's not necessary.
>>
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sahelanthropus
>>
>> See, even Sahelanthropus, who is already within the
>> lower end estimates of human/gorilla divergence,
>> has a foramen magnum *Way* more centralized than
>> that of a chimp. Thus, ancestor of Chimps was and
>> the ancestor of gorillas was most likely far
>> better adapted to upright walking than their living
>> descendants.
>
> What makes you think either gorilla or chimp is descended
> from Sahelanthropus?

Got me.

>> Perhaps this is the part I left out:
>>
>> Your "Theory" is regarding how to turn the great
>> apes from knuckle walkers to upright walkers, but
>> the best evidence says you have things backwards,
>> that they happened the other way around.
>
> Why the great apes? Somewhere along the line there was
> a quadrupedal ancestor, and one does not have to subscribe
> to the conjecture that it was a knuckle walker to make
> sense of Mario's hypotheses.

Got me.

[Oxyaena]

On 10/3/2018 12:41 AM, John Harshman wrote:
[snip]

>>> And as all the
>>> "Dating" is pretty much based on that split,
>>> you have to knock it all down by millions of years.
>>>
>>>     ...if the old dating of humans/chimp is off by
>>> 2 million years or more, that places the human/gorilla
>>> split well within the range of Ardipithecus.
>>>
>>> But it's not necessary.
>>>
>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sahelanthropus
>>>
>>> See, even Sahelanthropus, who is already within the
>>> lower end estimates of human/gorilla divergence,
>>> has a  foramen magnum *Way* more centralized than
>>> that of a chimp. Thus, ancestor of Chimps was and
>>> the ancestor of gorillas was most likely far
>>> better adapted to upright walking than their living
>>> descendants.
>>
>> What makes you think either gorilla or chimp is descended
>> from Sahelanthropus?
>
> Got me.

*Sahelanthropus* has been tentatively placed within the split of the
lineage leading to *Pan* and *Homo*, specifically on the hominin side,
so I would guess that Mario is talking out of his ass again.

>
>>> Perhaps this is the part I left out:
>>>
>>> Your "Theory" is regarding how to turn the great
>>> apes from knuckle walkers to upright walkers, but
>>> the best evidence says you have things backwards,
>>> that they happened the other way around.
>>
>> Why the great apes? Somewhere along the line there was
>> a quadrupedal ancestor, and one does not have to subscribe
>> to the conjecture that it was a knuckle walker to make
>> sense of Mario's hypotheses.
>
> Got me.

I remember reading somewhere that knucklewalking evolved sometime after
the split of *Homo* from *Pan* or even *Gorilla*, given that orangutans
don't knucklewalk. The evolutionary advantage of knucklewalking beats
me, however, perhaps it is more efficient or convenient than the
"palm-walking" orangs practice.

Most likely however, the true origin of knuckle-walking is lost to time.

[Mario Petrinovic]

All this is old story. Today people think that all those ape gaits are
of newer, convergent evolution. In other words, all those apes, gibbons,
orangutans, gorillas, chimps, got their gait only after the split.
As I understand, right now they are excavating some 13 my old gibbons
near Barcelona.
In my view, the gaits of great apes is because of the reason of fast
climbing tree trunks. For brachiation you need to have long fingers
(which serve as hooks), gorilla doesn't have those.

[Mario Petrinovic]

Which would say that, if this is the newer adaptation, convergent
(which, obviously, it is), then the need to climb tree trunks arose only
after the split, before the split there wasn't a need for that.
Now, if you take that all "terrestrial" theories of ape evolution
(African apes are mostly terrestrial) involve trees, then all those
should be wrong. Only after the split trees became important.

[Oxyaena]

On 10/2/2018 3:33 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> Over in sci.anthropology.paleo, I got into the midst of an in-depth
> discussion early today over the evolution of Hominidae, centered on where
> the splits between humans, chimps, and gorillas took place.
> This was a spinoff to the topic on which the thread began, which was how
> bipedality evolved in the ancestors of Homo sapiens.
>
>
> Here is the on-topic part of my s.a.p. post. The off-topic part is being
> busily talked about on another s.b.p. thread, after a fashion.
>
>
> On Friday, September 28, 2018 at 12:36:25 AM UTC-4, JTEM is lucky in love AND money wrote:
>> Mario Petrinovic wrote:
>>
>>> Oh, I get it. Everybody is sure that I am wrong, only, nobody *yet*
>>> figured out where I am wrong, so, nobody is sure where I am wrong. But,
>>> there is one thing everybody is sure of, and that is, that I am
>>> definitely not right.
>>> Lol, Jesus Christ.
>
> Mario is wrong about some things, and the reason I have a hard time
> figuring out where he is right is that I haven't seen him do sustained
> reasoning on one issue. He rambles a great deal.
>

And yet you think I`m the rank amateur at paleontology.

>>
>> That's not true.
>>
>> I believe that, many times, I pointed out that Chimps
>> are secondarily knuckle walkers, that the LCA was
>> undoubtedly an upright walker.
>>
>> ...so you have the tail wagging the dog!
>>
>> It's likely this is true for gorillas as well, though
>> perhaps to a lesser extent.
>
> I haven't seen you reasoning for these things, but that may be
> because I've seen so little of you.
>
>
>> Look. People are *Still* religiously throwing around
>> the human/chimp split at 6 million years, even though
>> more than a decade ago a comparison of y chromosomes
>> erased more than a million years off that figure.
>
> The amount of genetic material in a y chromosome is small.
> Do you know the ratio of it to the genetic material in mitochondria?
>
>
>> And they also noted that a comparison of X chromosomes
>> put the split even more recently. They concluded at the
>> time that this meant that humans & chimps were
>> recombining/hybridizing for millions of years, rather
>> than a clean split. But...
>
> Who is "they"? how widely have these conclusions been
> accepted? My guess is "about as widely as the conclusion that
> birds are NOT descended from dinosaurs."

This proposal is supported by the evidence, and I'll link to it here:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16710306

According to the paper, after the Hominin-*Pan* split, the ancestors of
both chimps and humans hybridized a great deal, and this isn't exactly
surprising given that this would've likely occurred within the same
region of Africa that the LCA of Hominina and *Pan* lived.

>
>
>> But the chimp y chromosome is under EXTREME selective
>> pressure. Chimps bang like humans shake hands, only
>> far more often. There's massive sperm competition. So,
>> nature has really poured the fire on y chromosome
>> selective pressure...
>>
>> There. That explains the differences in "Ages."
>
> It would, if you had some data that quantifies "extreme
> selective pressure" and compares evolutionary rates with a
> wide variety of other mammals, both with and without those
> pressures.
>
>> The y chromosome looks older because it's undergone
>> more changes than other areas of the genome...
>>
>> Anyway, the best "Molecular Clock" dating places the
>> human/chimp split no further back than 4.3 million
>> years... and as recent as 3.7 million.
>
> Could you provide us with a link to an authoritative article on this?
>

Nothing supports that, the best evidence determines a divergence date in
the mid-to-late Miocene at some 10-13 Ma
(https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9847414).

>
>> And as all the
>> "Dating" is pretty much based on that split,
>> you have to knock it all down by millions of years.

[snip things already addressed in response to Harshman]

[Oxyaena]

Apes are primates, primates tend to be arboreal, even humans retain some
arboreal adaptations, albeit vestigial (the big toe for example, which
to this day moves independently of the other toes, even though it has
lost its opposable nature). Fossil apes corroborate with the trend of
primate arboreality, *Proconsul* had phalanges adapted for grasping
after all, and what it grasped was tree branches.

I still don't see how you don't recognize this.

[Mario Petrinovic]

Again your simplistic presentation of very old ideas, which were
changed long time ago. You've read the basics of paleoanthropology a
long time ago. I presume that you are more interested in paleontology,
so you have just enough time to read the basics of paleoanthropology,
and since you've read it, you suddenly think that you know everything,
and presume that I am just an amateur who is talking from his ass,
because I don't respect the scientific forms. No Oxyaena, your
understanding of problems of paleoanthropology is just basic, and is
well outdated.
I believe that on this paper you can read that phalangal curvatures
are not produced by matching the morphology of branches, but by forces
of suspension:
https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/94cf/ac354d52b8bb573a611bc744448601fe22a2.pdf
Forces of *any* type of suspension. In other words, if you don't have
stiff foot and adducted big toe to help you climbing cliffs by the way
of toe-off (Proconsul doesn't have this), climbing cliffs mostly relies
on arm suspension.
To clarify. During suspension finger tendons pull phalanges downward.
To counter those forces phalanges develop curvature in the opposite
direction. Climbing cliffs and suspension on branches both fit into
this. But, short fingers don't fit into suspension from branches, which
means, there was some other type of suspension going on. I know only of
cliff climbing type of suspension. BTW, dexterous hand, which can grip
stones well, also fit into the same type of suspension.

[Daud Deden]

Without Filler's Morotopith, forget it.

[Mario Petrinovic]

On 8.10.2018. 3:40, Daud Deden wrote:
> Without Filler's Morotopith, forget it.
>

If you are talking to me, how Morotopith doesn't fit into cliffs?

[Peter Nyikos]

On Saturday, October 6, 2018 at 9:02:05 AM UTC-4, Oxyaena wrote:
> On 10/2/2018 3:33 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> > Over in sci.anthropology.paleo, I got into the midst of an in-depth
> > discussion early today over the evolution of Hominidae, centered on where
> > the splits between humans, chimps, and gorillas took place.
> > This was a spinoff to the topic on which the thread began, which was how
> > bipedality evolved in the ancestors of Homo sapiens.
> >
> >
> > Here is the on-topic part of my s.a.p. post. The off-topic part is being
> > busily talked about on another s.b.p. thread, after a fashion.
> >
> >
> > On Friday, September 28, 2018 at 12:36:25 AM UTC-4, JTEM is lucky in love AND money wrote:
> >> Mario Petrinovic wrote:
> >>
> >>> Oh, I get it. Everybody is sure that I am wrong, only, nobody *yet*
> >>> figured out where I am wrong, so, nobody is sure where I am wrong. But,
> >>> there is one thing everybody is sure of, and that is, that I am
> >>> definitely not right.
> >>> Lol, Jesus Christ.
> >
> > Mario is wrong about some things, and the reason I have a hard time
> > figuring out where he is right is that I haven't seen him do sustained
> > reasoning on one issue. He rambles a great deal.
> >
>
> And yet you think I`m the rank amateur at paleontology.

Blatantly self-serving use of "the" instead of the honest "a"
noted.

Any time Mario claims to be a paleontologist, I will come down
just as hard on him as I have on you, for leaving off the word
"amateur" in front of "paleontologist".

All evidence available to me indicates that you are a lot less competent
amateur than Mickey Mortimer, who is quite upfront about being
an amateur paleontologist, and having only a Bachelor's degree.

You claim to have an MS in biology, but unless you can name
some coursed you took in paleontology, it means nothing.

For instance: it would seem, from your hasty exit from a thread you
began on pterosaur flight, that you disliked your undergraduate
course in vertebrate anatomy.


And a blunder you made near the end of this post is even
more convincing.


<big snip of things to be replied to separately>


[Mario had written:]

> >> Anyway, the best "Molecular Clock" dating places the
> >> human/chimp split no further back than 4.3 million
> >> years... and as recent as 3.7 million.
> >
> > Could you provide us with a link to an authoritative article on this?
> >
> Nothing supports that, the best evidence determines a divergence date in
> the mid-to-late Miocene at some 10-13 Ma
> (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9847414).

You think a 1998 paper gives "the best evidence"?!?

It's been overwhelmingly accepted for at least two decades that the best
*molecular* evidence indicates roughly half that.

And the paper you've linked used *mitochondrial* DNA instead of
large chunks of genomic DNA that were used for the generally
accepted studies of Pan-Hominina split. Mitochondrial
DNA evidence is notoriously unreliable, and replaced by
genomic analyses as soon as feasible.

> >> And as all the
> >> "Dating" is pretty much based on that split,
> >> you have to knock it all down by millions of years.
>
> [snip things already addressed in response to Harshman]

... without any response by him in almost a week. I think your
blunder about "10-13 Ma" has made Harshman decide not to participate
on this thread any longer -- he's too fond of you to embarrass you
in the wake of such incompetence by you.

Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
University of South Carolina

http://www.math.sc.edu/~nyikos/

[Peter Nyikos]

On Saturday, October 6, 2018 at 9:02:05 AM UTC-4, Oxyaena wrote:

> On 10/2/2018 3:33 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> > Over in sci.anthropology.paleo, I got into the midst of an in-depth
> > discussion early today over the evolution of Hominidae, centered on where
> > the splits between humans, chimps, and gorillas took place.
> > This was a spinoff to the topic on which the thread began, which was how
> > bipedality evolved in the ancestors of Homo sapiens.
> >
> >
> > Here is the on-topic part of my s.a.p. post. The off-topic part is being
> > busily talked about on another s.b.p. thread, after a fashion.

After seeing another reply I did to this same post about half an hour ago,
Oxyaena may wish 'e had stuck to the off-topic remarks on that other thread.

And this post shows just how AVOIDABLE that blunder would have been,
if Oxyaena had bothered to carefully READ an abstract that she herself
linked. See below.

> > On Friday, September 28, 2018 at 12:36:25 AM UTC-4, JTEM is lucky in love AND money wrote:
> >> Mario Petrinovic wrote:
> >>
> >>> Oh, I get it. Everybody is sure that I am wrong, only, nobody *yet*
> >>> figured out where I am wrong, so, nobody is sure where I am wrong. But,
> >>> there is one thing everybody is sure of, and that is, that I am
> >>> definitely not right.
> >>> Lol, Jesus Christ.

<snip of things addressed in first reply>

> >> That's not true.
> >>
> >> I believe that, many times, I pointed out that Chimps
> >> are secondarily knuckle walkers, that the LCA was
> >> undoubtedly an upright walker.
> >>
> >> ...so you have the tail wagging the dog!
> >>
> >> It's likely this is true for gorillas as well, though
> >> perhaps to a lesser extent.
> >
> > I haven't seen you reasoning for these things, but that may be
> > because I've seen so little of you.
> >
> >
> >> Look. People are *Still* religiously throwing around
> >> the human/chimp split at 6 million years, even though
> >> more than a decade ago a comparison of y chromosomes
> >> erased more than a million years off that figure.
> >
> > The amount of genetic material in a y chromosome is small.
> > Do you know the ratio of it to the genetic material in mitochondria?
> >
> >
> >> And they also noted that a comparison of X chromosomes
> >> put the split even more recently. They concluded at the
> >> time that this meant that humans & chimps were
> >> recombining/hybridizing for millions of years, rather
> >> than a clean split. But...

> > Who is "they"? how widely have these conclusions been
> > accepted? My guess is "about as widely as the conclusion that
> > birds are NOT descended from dinosaurs."

Hilariously, Oxyaena seems to be using the same source
Mario does here for supporting his claim. The abstract says
something that Oxyaena completely forgot about -- if she ever
read it -- when she supported a much earlier split with a
much older (by 18 years, no less!) paper:

Human-chimpanzee genetic divergence varies from less than 84%
to more than 147% of the average, a range of more than 4 million years.
Our analysis also shows that human-chimpanzee speciation occurred
less than 6.3 million years ago and probably more recently,
conflicting with some interpretations of ancient fossils.
Most strikingly, chromosome X shows an extremely young
genetic divergence time, close to the genome minimum
along nearly its entire length.

Oxyaena, whose 1998 source claimed 10-13 mya for the split,
is giving the link below to the paper from which the above
abstract was taken:

>
> This proposal is supported by the evidence, and I'll link to it here:
>
> https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16710306

Dated 2006, and with a "cladogram" rendering Oxyaena's next claim
AT BEST ambiguous:

> According to the paper, after the Hominin-*Pan* split,

Correction: the Hominina - Pan split. Pan is still part of the "tribe"
Hominini, and systematists now put even gorillas in Homininae.

Yes, it's confusing. The inclusion of gorillas in Homininae
is a relatively recent adjustment, first suggested in 1990
according to:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homininae

> the ancestors of
> both chimps and humans hybridized a great deal,

The 2006 paper seems to indicate "the common ancestors of humans
and chimps" is a more appropriate expression.

Here at my university, the full article is not paywalled,
and it is at the following webpage:

https://www.nature.com/articles/nature04789

I will be giving details from it here later this week.

> and this isn't exactly
> surprising given that this would've likely occurred within the same
> region of Africa that the LCA of Hominina and *Pan* lived.

What IS surprising is that Oxyaena blundered so completely
as to let a 1998 paper supersede a 2006 paper.

>
>
> >
> >
> >> But the chimp y chromosome is under EXTREME selective
> >> pressure. Chimps bang like humans shake hands, only
> >> far more often. There's massive sperm competition. So,
> >> nature has really poured the fire on y chromosome
> >> selective pressure...
> >>
> >> There. That explains the differences in "Ages."
> >
> > It would, if you had some data that quantifies "extreme
> > selective pressure" and compares evolutionary rates with a
> > wide variety of other mammals, both with and without those
> > pressures.

The preceding paragraph seems to have been "above Oxyaena's pay grade",
not having been commented on.

> >> The y chromosome looks older because it's undergone
> >> more changes than other areas of the genome...
> >>
> >> Anyway, the best "Molecular Clock" dating places the
> >> human/chimp split no further back than 4.3 million
> >> years... and as recent as 3.7 million.
> >
> > Could you provide us with a link to an authoritative article on this?

Here it is again: Oxyaena using a 1998 paper relying only on
mitochorndria to supersede a 2006 paper that used a hefty part
of the human and chimp genomes:

> Nothing supports that, the best evidence determines a divergence date in
> the mid-to-late Miocene at some 10-13 Ma
> (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9847414).

How good is Oxyaena at ANY branch of science, I have to wonder.

For instance, over in talk.origins she claimed that our universe was too wild
a place for life to emerge more than 5 billion years ago -- when
the universe is over 2.5 times as long!

The first time this was corrected IN DETAIL by myself, Oxyaena
simply left the correction in without commenting on it.

When I reposted the detailed evidence, Oxyaena "rebutted" me
with the bland claim that "the early universe" was a very
wild place.

For the first billion years or so, it WAS a very wild place,
but there is plenty of evidence that it was not much more wild
10 billion years ago than it is now.


Peter Nyikos
Professor, Department of Math. -- standard disclaimer --
University of South Carolina
http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos/

[Oxyaena]

On 10/8/2018 12:51 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
[snip narcissistic ego-stroking]

>>
>> This proposal is supported by the evidence, and I'll link to it here:
>>
>> https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16710306
>
> Dated 2006, and with a "cladogram" rendering Oxyaena's next claim
> AT BEST ambiguous:
>
>> According to the paper, after the Hominin-*Pan* split,
>
> Correction: the Hominina - Pan split. Pan is still part of the "tribe"
> Hominini, and systematists now put even gorillas in Homininae.
>
> Yes, it's confusing.

What's confusing is why you're acting like a patronizing ass when a
cursory look at *any* of my posts should reveal I know this stuff. I
even explained to Mario the difference between Hominini and Homininae,
for Christ's sake! Are you *that* blind?

> The inclusion of gorillas in Homininae
> is a relatively recent adjustment, first suggested in 1990
> according to:
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homininae
>

Stop patronizing me, I *know* gorillas belong in Homininae, I've pointed
this out to Mario before, but they *don't* belong in Hominini.

>
>> the ancestors of
>> both chimps and humans hybridized a great deal,
>
> The 2006 paper seems to indicate "the common ancestors of humans
> and chimps" is a more appropriate expression.
>
> Here at my university, the full article is not paywalled,
> and it is at the following webpage:
>
> https://www.nature.com/articles/nature04789
>
> I will be giving details from it here later this week.
> >
>> and this isn't exactly
>> surprising given that this would've likely occurred within the same
>> region of Africa that the LCA of Hominina and *Pan* lived.
>
> What IS surprising is that Oxyaena blundered so completely
> as to let a 1998 paper supersede a 2006 paper.
>

There's actually evidence against that 2006 paper, but I don't feel like
citing it right now. One wonders why Peter isn't up to date on these
developments, and has to be brought up to speed by the person he's
ridiculing right now. Were you even aware of *either* paper, Peter,
until now?

>>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> But the chimp y chromosome is under EXTREME selective
>>>> pressure. Chimps bang like humans shake hands, only
>>>> far more often. There's massive sperm competition. So,
>>>> nature has really poured the fire on y chromosome
>>>> selective pressure...
>>>>
>>>> There. That explains the differences in "Ages."
>>>
>>> It would, if you had some data that quantifies "extreme
>>> selective pressure" and compares evolutionary rates with a
>>> wide variety of other mammals, both with and without those
>>> pressures.
>
> The preceding paragraph seems to have been "above Oxyaena's pay grade",
> not having been commented on.
>

There's no reason to act like a douche in this thread, Peter. Do you
really wonder why people tend not to think highly of you?

>
>>>> The y chromosome looks older because it's undergone
>>>> more changes than other areas of the genome...
>>>>
>>>> Anyway, the best "Molecular Clock" dating places the
>>>> human/chimp split no further back than 4.3 million
>>>> years... and as recent as 3.7 million.
>>>
>>> Could you provide us with a link to an authoritative article on this?
>
>
> Here it is again: Oxyaena using a 1998 paper relying only on
> mitochorndria to supersede a 2006 paper that used a hefty part
> of the human and chimp genomes:
>
>> Nothing supports that, the best evidence determines a divergence date in
>> the mid-to-late Miocene at some 10-13 Ma
>> (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9847414).
>
>
> How good is Oxyaena at ANY branch of science, I have to wonder.
>

What's the *actual* purpose of this attempt at poisoning the well, one
has to wonder.

[snip irrelevant bullshit]

[Peter Nyikos]

Eager to help her buddy Harshman, Oxyaena chimed in with her
two cents' worth:

> >>>> *Sahelanthropus* has been tentatively placed within the split of the
> >>>> lineage leading to *Pan* and *Homo*, specifically on the hominin
> >>>> side,

"within the split of" and "hominin" is Oxyaena being ambiguous as usual.
Sahelanthropus is classed in the tribe Hominini along with Orrorin
and the subtribes Panina and Hominina in the following entry:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homininae

And it is unclear where the splitting is supposed to have taken
place. There may actually be an unresolved tetrachotomy involved.

> >>>> so I would guess that Mario is talking out of his ass again.

And so I would guess Oxyaena is in the position of a glass house
dweller throwing stones.


Did you see how I hit Oxyaena on her incompetence earlier today, Mario?
It was so striking, I let JTEM know about it here:

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.anthropology.paleo/81NebMK4DZE/aVxWGvLABQAJ
Date: Mon, 8 Oct 2018 10:59:05 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <3c387712-d04f-4000...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: Kadanuumuu (australopithecus) 3.6 ma

That thread might interest you for other reasons: it puts
bipedal walking back at least to ca. 3.6 ma, as the Subject line
indicates.

So where would knucklewalking be an advantage to gorillas?
Aren't they good at brachiation?

> >>          Which would say that, if this is the newer adaptation,
> >> convergent (which, obviously, it is), then the need to climb tree
> >> trunks arose only after the split, before the split there wasn't a
> >> need for that.

From brachiation we come to climbing tree trunks. How is
knucklewalking related to it?

> >>          Now, if you take that all "terrestrial" theories of ape
> >> evolution (African apes are mostly terrestrial) involve trees, then
> >> all those should be wrong. Only after the split trees became important.

WAIT! don't you think the brachiation of orangs and gibbons
is the primitive trait, while the "retreat" from trees is
the modern development?

> > Apes are primates, primates tend to be arboreal, even humans retain some
> > arboreal adaptations, albeit vestigial (the big toe for example, which
> > to this day moves independently of the other toes, even though it has
> > lost its opposable nature).

That's like saying the ring and middle finger move independently
of the index finger and middle finger. I trained myself to
do the "Peace. Live long and prosper" salute long before "Star Trek"
came along, but I had to work at it. And I think most people able
to use it, including Leonard Nimoy (Mr. Spock), have to work at it.

> > Fossil apes corroborate with the trend of
> > primate arboreality, *Proconsul* had phalanges adapted for grasping
> > after all, and what it grasped was tree branches.
> >
> > I still don't see how you don't recognize this.
>
> Again your simplistic presentation of very old ideas, which were
> changed long time ago. You've read the basics of paleoanthropology a
> long time ago. I presume that you are more interested in paleontology,

Only marginally, IMO. I think Oxyaena trained herself in paleontology
back when still using the username "Thrinaxodon," when she realized
that she could have valuable "neutralists" here in sci.bio.paleontology
in her perennial campaign of irrational vilification against me.

> so you have just enough time to read the basics of paleoanthropology,
> and since you've read it, you suddenly think that you know everything,

The same applies to paleontology and especially systematics.
But I'll only show you evidence that emerged prior to this
thread if you are interested.

> and presume that I am just an amateur who is talking from his ass,
> because I don't respect the scientific forms. No Oxyaena, your
> understanding of problems of paleoanthropology is just basic, and is
> well outdated.

I'm not quite sure how this is shown by what Oxyaena wrote above.

> I believe that on this paper you can read that phalangal curvatures
> are not produced by matching the morphology of branches, but by forces
> of suspension:
> https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/94cf/ac354d52b8bb573a611bc744448601fe22a2.pdf
> Forces of *any* type of suspension. In other words, if you don't have
> stiff foot and adducted big toe to help you climbing cliffs by the way
> of toe-off (Proconsul doesn't have this), climbing cliffs mostly relies
> on arm suspension.
> To clarify. During suspension finger tendons pull phalanges downward.
> To counter those forces phalanges develop curvature in the opposite
> direction. Climbing cliffs and suspension on branches both fit into
> this. But, short fingers don't fit into suspension from branches,

Humans can get pretty good at this, don't you think? Again, it takes
training, and I have never done much of it, and so I'm not good
at climbing trees. But training is something great apes are good
at imparting on their offspring.

> which
> means, there was some other type of suspension going on. I know only of
> cliff climbing type of suspension. BTW, dexterous hand, which can grip
> stones well, also fit into the same type of suspension.

Also dexterous foot, which hominid apes have but we humans
have pretty much lost, Oxyaena's two cents' worth above
(give or take a couple of cents) notwithstanding.

Next thing you know, Oxyaena will claim we can wiggle our ears
just because she can. :-)

I can do it, and I discovered the ability quite by accident when
I was 11 or 12 years old.

Peter Nyikos
Professor, Department of Math. -- standard disclaimer --

U. of South Carolina at Columbia
http://www.math.sc.edu/~nyikos/

[Oxyaena]

On 10/8/2018 2:48 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:

> Only marginally, IMO. I think Oxyaena trained herself in paleontology
> back when still using the username "Thrinaxodon," when she realized
> that she could have valuable "neutralists" here in sci.bio.paleontology
> in her perennial campaign of irrational vilification against me.

You fucking egomaniac, I trained myself in paleontology long before I
showed up to Usenet. Not everything's about you.

>
>> so you have just enough time to read the basics of paleoanthropology,
>> and since you've read it, you suddenly think that you know everything,
>
> The same applies to paleontology and especially systematics.
> But I'll only show you evidence that emerged prior to this
> thread if you are interested.
>

You can't show any evidence, dickweed, none that's already been refuted.

>
>> and presume that I am just an amateur who is talking from his ass,
>> because I don't respect the scientific forms. No Oxyaena, your
>> understanding of problems of paleoanthropology is just basic, and is
>> well outdated.
>
> I'm not quite sure how this is shown by what Oxyaena wrote above.
>

For once something you're correct about, my knowledge of
paleoanthropology is far more advanced than being merely "basic", unlike
Mario's, and it was up to ME to explain to him the difference between
"Homininae" and "Hominini".

>
>> I believe that on this paper you can read that phalangal curvatures
>> are not produced by matching the morphology of branches, but by forces
>> of suspension:
>> https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/94cf/ac354d52b8bb573a611bc744448601fe22a2.pdf
>> Forces of *any* type of suspension. In other words, if you don't have
>> stiff foot and adducted big toe to help you climbing cliffs by the way
>> of toe-off (Proconsul doesn't have this), climbing cliffs mostly relies
>> on arm suspension.
>> To clarify. During suspension finger tendons pull phalanges downward.
>> To counter those forces phalanges develop curvature in the opposite
>> direction. Climbing cliffs and suspension on branches both fit into
>> this. But, short fingers don't fit into suspension from branches,
>
> Humans can get pretty good at this, don't you think? Again, it takes
> training, and I have never done much of it, and so I'm not good
> at climbing trees. But training is something great apes are good
> at imparting on their offspring.
>
>> which
>> means, there was some other type of suspension going on. I know only of
>> cliff climbing type of suspension. BTW, dexterous hand, which can grip
>> stones well, also fit into the same type of suspension.
>
> Also dexterous foot, which hominid apes have but we humans
> have pretty much lost, Oxyaena's two cents' worth above
> (give or take a couple of cents) notwithstanding.

What was the point of this insult, again?

>
> Next thing you know, Oxyaena will claim we can wiggle our ears
> just because she can. :-)

You don't know my gender, and you can't read minds.

[Mario Petrinovic]

On 8.10.2018. 20:48, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> Did you see how I hit Oxyaena on her incompetence earlier today, Mario?
> It was so striking, I let JTEM know about it here:
>
> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.anthropology.paleo/81NebMK4DZE/aVxWGvLABQAJ
> Date: Mon, 8 Oct 2018 10:59:05 -0700 (PDT)
> Message-ID: <3c387712-d04f-4000...@googlegroups.com>
> Subject: Re: Kadanuumuu (australopithecus) 3.6 ma

Thanks. I don't mind Oxyaena being incompetent. I post here to general
public, not only to Oxyaena. I reply to her, regarding competence, only
if thread goes in that direction.
In general, "people who know" can judge the value of what is said
here, "people who don't know", they rely on the perception of
competence. I am glad if the latter ones don't waste my time, so they
can think whatever they want about my (in)-competence. I don't mind
*discussing* with "people who don't know", only, I do mind waste my time
on people who rely on perception, and not discuss ideas.

> That thread might interest you for other reasons: it puts
> bipedal walking back at least to ca. 3.6 ma, as the Subject line
> indicates.

Thanks.
Actually, this is, by far, too late for me. I closely tie the
emergence of open environments (which is happening by the way of fire),
to the emergence of bipedality.
The logic is that humans (not climate) had spread fire around.
This firstly happened during the Vallesian crisis, some 9.5 mya, so 6
my before this Australopithecus.
So far everything (the newest evidence, Crete footprints and the
oldest "possible" bipeds) goes in this direction.
I did read before somewhere that they do have the new evidence about
broad thorax of Australopithecus (probably regarding this find).
Excellent info, of course, :) .

[Oxyaena]

On 10/8/2018 2:48 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:

Harshman has nothing to do with this, and I chimed in long after
Harshman, my first response on this thread *was* indeed to Harshman,
because I was debating over whether or not I should still engage you in
discussion on this newsgroup. You're making me regret my decision already.

>
>>>>>> *Sahelanthropus* has been tentatively placed within the split of the
>>>>>> lineage leading to *Pan* and *Homo*, specifically on the hominin
>>>>>> side,
>
> "within the split of" and "hominin" is Oxyaena being ambiguous as usual.

How am I being "ambiguous as usual"? Could it be that "Peter is
projecting as usual"? I think that might just be the case.

> Sahelanthropus is classed in the tribe Hominini along with Orrorin
> and the subtribes Panina and Hominina in the following entry:
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homininae
>
> And it is unclear where the splitting is supposed to have taken
> place. There may actually be an unresolved tetrachotomy involved.
>
>>>>>> so I would guess that Mario is talking out of his ass again.
>
> And so I would guess Oxyaena is in the position of a glass house
> dweller throwing stones.
>

My irony meter is literally on fire right now.

>
> Did you see how I hit Oxyaena on her incompetence earlier today, Mario?

What incompetence? I just pointed out to you that you were in no
position to argue about incompetence, as you were completely unaware of
*both* papers till I pointed them out to you.

> It was so striking, I let JTEM know about it here:

Why does that not surprise me? It doesn't really hurt to possess a bit
of common decency and not "tattle" on me to others, especially on
newsgroups I have nothing to do with, and with JTEM of all people.
Schoolchildren learn this. How are you not as mature as a schoolchild,
given that you're 72 you should know by now that tattling on others is
*extremely* schoolmarmish and immature.

[snip]

>>> Apes are primates, primates tend to be arboreal, even humans retain some
>>> arboreal adaptations, albeit vestigial (the big toe for example, which
>>> to this day moves independently of the other toes, even though it has
>>> lost its opposable nature).
>
> That's like saying the ring and middle finger move independently
> of the index finger and middle finger. I trained myself to
> do the "Peace. Live long and prosper" salute long before "Star Trek"
> came along, but I had to work at it. And I think most people able
> to use it, including Leonard Nimoy (Mr. Spock), have to work at it.
>

Good for you, have a cookie.


>

[snip things I already addressed]

[Mario Petrinovic]

On 8.10.2018. 21:30, Oxyaena wrote:
> For once something you're correct about, my knowledge of
> paleoanthropology is far more advanced than being merely "basic", unlike
> Mario's, and it was up to ME to explain to him the difference between
> "Homininae" and "Hominini".

Thanks for a good try, but those terms are invented by some humans,
0.000 01 mya. Those humans have only very limited knowledge and
evidence, upon which they construct their bureaucratic tables, because
they are paid to do this. I am more interested in what happened many
million years ago, than what happened 0.000 01 mya (although I don't
mind if somebody points me to this).
In trying to understand this, I do use logic and data, including those
bureaucratic tables. Those bureaucrats do excellent job, indeed, and
help me a lot. Only, what I am doing has not much to do with
bureaucracy. I am not trained in this, I am not paid to do this (thanks
god), so this hasn't much to do with me (although, I am very thankful
for what they are doing).

[Mario Petrinovic]

What I wanted to say is that I cannot limit my scope just to the
evidence that is available. They do this bureaucratic tables because
they are paid to do this. The next day, when they find new evidence,
they will change them. This is how things are going in science. Science
doesn't look outside bureaucracy. But, if I want to understand the
truth, I have to compile everything in my head. The trees, the flowers,
the aqua, the fire, all the animals. There isn't such a big bureaucratic
table which would have all this. So, bureaucracy, as always, cannot
comprehend those things, and there is a big chance that bureaucracy will
be not aligned with the truth. So, why insisting on it? This is just a
bureaucracy. This is how far it can go, but I am not impressed with it.

[Peter Nyikos]

On Monday, October 8, 2018 at 2:39:33 PM UTC-4, Oxyaena wrote:
> On 10/8/2018 12:51 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:

> [snip narcissistic ego-stroking]

What you actually snipped is damning evidence of gross
incompetence by yourself, and now you are shamelessly
lying about it.

But don't worry: both Harshman and Simpson can be counted
on to play "see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil"
about this latest despicable action of yours, as they have always done
on your behalf.

>
> >>
> >> This proposal is supported by the evidence, and I'll link to it here:
> >>
> >> https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16710306

This is an abstract where the following appeared, and which you
snipped as recounted above:

Human-chimpanzee genetic divergence varies from less than 84%
to more than 147% of the average, a range of more than 4 million years.
Our analysis also shows that human-chimpanzee speciation occurred
less than 6.3 million years ago and probably more recently,
conflicting with some interpretations of ancient fossils.
Most strikingly, chromosome X shows an extremely young
genetic divergence time, close to the genome minimum
along nearly its entire length.

> > Dated 2006, and with a "cladogram" rendering Oxyaena's next claim
> > AT BEST ambiguous:
> >
> >> According to the paper, after the Hominin-*Pan* split,
> >
> > Correction: the Hominina - Pan split. Pan is still part of the "tribe"
> > Hominini, and systematists now put even gorillas in Homininae.
> >
> > Yes, it's confusing.
>
> What's confusing is why you're acting like a patronizing ass

I am acting as a responsible amateur detective, showing what
a fraud you have been in pretending to competence in paleontology
and anthropology and systematics that you lack.


> when a cursory look at *any* of my posts should reveal I [am able
> to look things up in Wikipedia when I want to.].

Fixed it for you. "I know this stuff" was what you wrote,
according to a convention used by Internet trolls,
whereas only a tiny minority of posts show your knowledge of the
current terminology about Hominini, even when you argue with Mario.


And you go on blundering about that very terminology below:

> I even explained to Mario the difference between Hominini and Homininae,
> for Christ's sake! Are you *that* blind?

I knew that long before I knew the difference between
Hominini and Hominina, which is the real issue here.

I'm not blind, but you apparently are to where I used
the word "Hominina" above, for the sub-tribe that ACTUALLY
split from chimps.

>
> > The inclusion of gorillas in Homininae
> > is a relatively recent adjustment, first suggested in 1990
> > according to:
> >
> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homininae
> >
>
>
> Stop patronizing me,

I was talking to the general readership, not to you, informing them
about these fine points. Did the fact that I talked about you
in the third person go completely over your head?

> I *know* gorillas belong in Homininae, I've pointed
> this out to Mario before,

You are in the unenviable position described in a Shakespeare
play, "The lady doth protest too much, methinks."

> but they *don't* belong in Hominini.

And chimps belong there, but not in Hominina. Got it now?


Concluded in next reply to this abysmal post of yours.
And if you think this first reply was hard-hitting,
you "ain't seen nothing yet".

But I'll only do it tomorrow. I've done more than
enough "feeding of the troll" today.

Peter Nyikos
Professor, Department of Math. -- standard disclaimer --

U. of South Carolina in Columbia
http://www.math.sc.edu/~nyikos/

[jte...@gmail.com]

Jebus Frigging Crisp, has no one any reading
comprehension?

Oxyaena wrote:

> *Sahelanthropus* has been tentatively placed within the split of the
> lineage leading to *Pan* and *Homo*, specifically on the hominin side,
> so I would guess that Mario is talking out of his ass again.

It's about the age. Sahelanthropus is older than
the vast majority of people place the human/chimp
split and even within the lower range that many
place the human/gorilla split, yet it's foramen
magnum is further forward than any existing primate
except for humans, implying it was an upright walker.

So that's the point you so stealthfully avoided:

Before the human/chimp split, before even some of
the younger estimates for the human/gorilla split,
we already have evidence for upright walking.





-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/178862925212

[Oxyaena]

[snip]
>
> Fixed it for you.

I doubt it, you just used Wiki as a cite in your previous response to
me. Hypocrisy, much? And besides, I've known that gorillas lie outside of

> "I know this stuff" was what you wrote,
> according to a convention used by Internet trolls,
> whereas only a tiny minority of posts show your knowledge of the
> current terminology about Hominini, even when you argue with Mario.
>

And yet you dishonestly snipped the fact that *I* was the one who made
you aware of those two papers, dipshit, so you don't have a leg to stand
on in regards to my supposed "incompetence".

>
> And you go on blundering about that very terminology below:
>

Is your definition of the term "blundering" different from everyone
else's? I think so.

>> I even explained to Mario the difference between Hominini and Homininae,
>> for Christ's sake! Are you *that* blind?
>
> I knew that long before I knew the difference between
> Hominini and Hominina, which is the real issue here.
>
> I'm not blind,

Yes you are, or you would've brought that up, but I suspect you knew I
explained those differences to Mario, and you're actually lying here for
a different reason... I'll leave it as an exercise to the reader to find
out what that glaringly obvious reason was.

but you apparently are to where I used
> the word "Hominina" above, for the sub-tribe that ACTUALLY
> split from chimps.
>

*Hominina* is the tribe comprising both *Pan* and *Homo*, dipshit,
*Hominini* is the subtribe comprising everything more closely relate to
you and me than to Kanzi the bonobo. Yet you continue to show your gross
incompetence over the basic terminology here.

>
>>
>>> The inclusion of gorillas in Homininae
>>> is a relatively recent adjustment, first suggested in 1990
>>> according to:
>>>
>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homininae
>>>
>>
>>
>> Stop patronizing me,
>
> I was talking to the general readership, not to you, informing them
> about these fine points. Did the fact that I talked about you
> in the third person go completely over your head?
>

Did the fact that you wrote that in a patronizing tone go over your head?

>
>> I *know* gorillas belong in Homininae, I've pointed
>> this out to Mario before,
>
> You are in the unenviable position described in a Shakespeare
> play, "The lady doth protest too much, methinks."
>

Oh boo hoo. I pointed out that you were lying about me, and so you have
to cover up your dishonesty with a flippant remark. How typical.

>
>> but they *don't* belong in Hominini.
>
> And chimps belong there, but not in Hominina. Got it now?

Chimp's don't belong in Hominini, they belong in Hominina. Hominina is a
higher taxonomic rank than Hominini, dipshit.

>
>
> Concluded in next reply to this abysmal post of yours.
> And if you think this first reply was hard-hitting,
> you "ain't seen nothing yet".

Gross overestimation of one's own abilities noted.

[jte...@gmail.com]

John Harshman wrote:

> Sperm competition doesn't actually competition among sperm, exactly.

Extraneous.

> It involves competition in the number of sperm. This does
> not result in selection at y loci, particularly.

You're spewing nonsense. And there's a Real World
model pointing towards what you say doesn't exist:

Gorillas.

There's no sperm competition with gorillas. You have
one male and a bunch of females. When the one male
is chased off or killed he is replaced with a different
male.

...gorillas have small testicles, smaller than
even humans, and their y chromosome looks more
similar to that of humans than does the chimps. Chimps
have the greatest amount of reproductive competition
between the three. They have the largest testicles and
the most divergent y chromosome.






-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/178862925212

[jte...@gmail.com]

Peter Nyikos wrote:

> Oxyaena wrote:
> > Nothing supports that, the best evidence determines a divergence date in
> > the mid-to-late Miocene at some 10-13 Ma
> > (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9847414).

> You think a 1998 paper gives "the best evidence"?!?

It's not so much the age of the paper -- there's plenty
of work published long before that which still stands
on it's merit -- but mtDNA? I mean, NOTHING said about
mtDNA in 1998 can be upheld!

In 1998 they were "arguing" that the mtDNA "proves"
that Neanderthals & so-called "Moderns" never
interbred...

Back in 1998 they were still stuck on the idea that
mtDNA wasn't under selective pressure, that it was
somehow neutral, that it only ever mutated according
to some imaginary "Molecular Clock."





-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/178862925212

[jte...@gmail.com]

Oxyaena wrote:

> What's confusing is why you're acting like a patronizing ass when a
> cursory look at *any* of my posts should reveal I know this stuff.

Now I *Know* you didn't type that with a
straight face!

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12733395

This is probably the closest to reality.





-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/178862925212

[Peter Nyikos]

On Monday, October 8, 2018 at 4:49:35 PM UTC-4, Jtem wrote:
> Oxyaena wrote:
>
> > What's confusing is why you're acting like a patronizing ass when a
> > cursory look at *any* of my posts should reveal I know this stuff.
>
> Now I *Know* you didn't type that with a
> straight face!

I dunno about that. Oxyaena was indulging in a dirty debating tactic that is
common among internet trolls like herself. She was probably on automatic
pilot, or something close to it, when she typed it.

> https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12733395
>
> This is probably the closest to reality.

This isn't nearly as iconoclastic as I would have thought:
no support for your hypothesis that *Pan* is descended
from *Homo*, for instance.

It's dated 2003 and it is in line with the by-then
uncontroversial ca. 6 mya for the human-chimp split.
Its most unorthodox hypothesis is that our own species
*Homo sapiens*, was already around almost 2 mya,
partly because it included *Homo erectus*.


Anyway, you've used a PubMed article, and that should impress Oxyaena:
she's been using PubMed as the "Bible of science" for one thing after another,
including a 1988 post which she is pleased as punch for having found.

The fact that it gave such long-obsolete figures (10 -13mya) for the
Hominina - Pan split on the basis of mitochondrial (!!!) DNA
didn't stop Oxyaena from calling it "the best estimate."

Yet Oxyaena calls herself "a paleontologist" and claims I am not
one, whereas I wouldn't have been caught dead making such
a thoroughly incompetent claim two decades ago, let alone today.

[Two decades ago I was active in sci.bio.paleontology
when we had professional paleontologists like Thomas Holtz posting
here regularly. Tom would have sniffed out Oxyaena as (AT BEST) a rank
amateur months, if not years, ago.]

Peter Nyikos
Professor, Department of Math. -- standard disclaimer --

U. of South Carolina
http://www.math.sc.edu/~nyikos/

[Oxyaena]

On 10/9/2018 2:49 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
[snip schoolmarmish tattling]

> [Two decades ago I was active in sci.bio.paleontology
> when we had professional paleontologists like Thomas Holtz posting
> here regularly. Tom would have sniffed out Oxyaena as (AT BEST) a rank
> amateur months, if not years, ago.]

Like yourself? You don't have *any* academic qualifications in *any*
field of biology or geology, boyo. And besides, you weren't even aware
of either paper until I brought them up, so hypocrisy much?

[Oxyaena]

On 10/9/2018 2:49 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:

> The fact that it gave such long-obsolete figures (10 -13mya)

There are other studies that support that range, and there are also
studies that support a range as late as 4 Ma. Getting exact estimates of
the date of divergence by using the molecular clock is tricky, since
mutation rates aren't constant as previously assumed.

And you weren't aware of any of these studies until I pointed them out
to you.

for the
> Hominina - Pan split on the basis of mitochondrial (!!!) DNA
> didn't stop Oxyaena from calling it "the best estimate."
>

\

Maybe this will satisfy your urge to insult me for no (rational) reason:

http://www.scienceresearch.duq.edu/bio/biofac/mseaman/PUBS/MJS_KHB_ELS_2008.pdf

The paper classifies the range of the date of divergence for between 6-8
Ma, I should've clarified more on this but was feeling lazy that day.
Can you stop getting your panties twisted in a bunch, now? You like to
make mountains out of imaginary molehills.

[John Harshman]

On 10/9/18 11:49 AM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> On Monday, October 8, 2018 at 4:49:35 PM UTC-4, Jtem wrote:
>> Oxyaena wrote:
>>
>>> What's confusing is why you're acting like a patronizing ass when a
>>> cursory look at *any* of my posts should reveal I know this stuff.
>>
>> Now I *Know* you didn't type that with a
>> straight face!
>
> I dunno about that. Oxyaena was indulging in a dirty debating tactic that is
> common among internet trolls like herself. She was probably on automatic
> pilot, or something close to it, when she typed it.

You realize that JTEM is a huge internet troll, don't you?

[Jtem]

Peter Nyikos wrote:

> Jtem wrote:
> > https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12733395
> >
> > This is probably the closest to reality.

> This isn't nearly as iconoclastic as I would have thought:
> no support for your hypothesis that *Pan* is descended
> from *Homo*, for instance.

Did you read it? Because it's saying that pan *Is*
Homo! It's saying that we should ditch pan altogether.

> It's dated 2003

Yeah, you've got to get off that kick. It casts you
as ignorant. If there's a problem with the science
then say so. If there isn't a problem with the
science but it conflicts with your agenda, complain
about the date.

> and it is in line with the by-then
> uncontroversial ca. 6 mya for the human-chimp split.

No it isn't. You clearly never read the cite!

> Its most unorthodox hypothesis is that our own species
> *Homo sapiens*, was already around almost 2 mya,
> partly because it included *Homo erectus*.

You're EXTREMELY confused.

There's no real dividing line between "Species."
It argues that, genetically, we're all so similar
that we might as well call us one species FOR MOST
OF the last 2m years. But...

But that is an opinion based on their findings. It
was the findings themselves which were relevant to
this discussion... which is odd, because you ignored
the finding for the date and then an opinion!






-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/178862925212

[Peter Nyikos]

Harshman and Simpson have everything to do with your
not being completely ostracized long ago [1] here in sci.bio.paleontology;
they alone do not care that you are a fraud when it comes
to bragging about your 10-year-old level accomplishments as
though they were typical of a professional biologist.

[1] Except, of course, for your OPs which sometimes are
thought-provoking, in analogy with a grain of sand that
causes an oyster to produce a pearl. But you are pretty
much of a bust in subsequent posts.

> and I chimed in long after
> Harshman, my first response on this thread *was* indeed to Harshman,
> because I was debating over whether or not I should still engage you in
> discussion on this newsgroup. You're making me regret my decision already.

IOW, you regret having momentarily left off your campaign of vilification.
Should I be surprised?

>
> >
> >>>>>> *Sahelanthropus* has been tentatively placed within the split of the
> >>>>>> lineage leading to *Pan* and *Homo*, specifically on the hominin
> >>>>>> side,
> >
> > "within the split of" and "hominin" is Oxyaena being ambiguous as usual.
>
> How am I being "ambiguous as usual"?

When it comes to Hominini/Hominina, you are ambiguous. You are also
a master of equivication, the usual form your ambiguities take
in talk.origins, where you are more voluminously found than here.

And you never reveal below what you meant by "within the split of".

> Could it be that "Peter is
> projecting as usual"?

You are parasitizing a scam that Harshman and Simpson have
pushed for years, especially Simpson, who is practically
a one-trick pony when it comes to denigrating me.

>
> > Sahelanthropus is classed in the tribe Hominini along with Orrorin
> > and the subtribes Panina and Hominina in the following entry:
> >
> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homininae
> >
> > And it is unclear where the splitting is supposed to have taken
> > place. There may actually be an unresolved tetrachotomy involved.

As usual, you have nothing to say when someone far better at systematics
than yourself resolves an ambiguity you indulged in -- to
the extent that it is possible to resolve it.

> >>>>>> so I would guess that Mario is talking out of his ass again.
> >
> > And so I would guess Oxyaena is in the position of a glass house
> > dweller throwing stones.
> >
>
>
> My irony meter is literally on fire right now.

Polly want a cracker?

> >
> > Did you see how I hit Oxyaena on her incompetence earlier today, Mario?
>
> What incompetence?

The incompetence of relying on a 1988 paper for "the best"
estimate for the human-chimp split. You were oblivious to
the fact that 10-13 Ma is no longer taken seriously, oblivious
to the fact that its use of mitochondrial DNA has long been
superseded, oblivious to the fact that it contradicted something
that IS generally accepted (split ca. 6 Ma) and which you
failed to notice in a 2006 paper that you cited.

And you are only digging yourself in deeper with the following
sophomoric crowing, reminiscent of the Black Knight in
"Monty Python and the Holy Grail":

> I just pointed out to you that you were in no
> position to argue about incompetence, as you were completely unaware of
> *both* papers till I pointed them out to you.

A smart-alecky high school kid, or at most a college Sophomore, could
be forgiven for being so clueless about how professionals spend their days
in ANY scientific specialty. Only they can be forgiven for thinking that
a professional paleontologist would HAVE to be aware of a 1988 paper
that is obviously long obsolete, or even a 2006 paper which is really
rather specialized outside of its now-accepted figure of ca. 6 Ma
for the human-chimp split.

A fraud like you can no longer be excused, even by Harshman or Simpson,
for bragging like a 6 year old girl, saying in effect, "I knew something
you didn't know! I knew something you didn't know!

And so, I am sure this post of mine, along with YOUR post to which I
am replying, will be two posts that "they never saw because they
didn't want to see them." Because they have a vested interest in
you not being completely discredited.
and another that

>
> > It was so striking, I let JTEM know about it here:
>
> Why does that not surprise me? It doesn't really hurt to possess a bit
> of common decency and not "tattle" on me to others, especially on
> newsgroups I have nothing to do with,

You have lots to do with Mario and Deden, who are regulars in s.a.p.,
and you have bragged about having told them fine points about
Homininae. So you are relevant to sci.anthropology.paleo
whether you like it or not.

> and with JTEM of all people.

He deserves to know who the allies of John Harshman are.
And I'm trying to get him to stay on-topic in his clashes with John.

> Schoolchildren learn this.

You really need to get over the typical prejudice of 6 year
olds against "tattling" and the typical Mafia prejudice
against "ratting". For more on the latter, see "On The Waterfront."


<snip praise of these prejudices>

> >>> Apes are primates, primates tend to be arboreal, even humans retain some
> >>> arboreal adaptations, albeit vestigial (the big toe for example, which
> >>> to this day moves independently of the other toes, even though it has
> >>> lost its opposable nature).
> >
> > That's like saying the ring and middle finger move independently
> > of the index finger and middle finger. I trained myself to
> > do the "Peace. Live long and prosper" salute long before "Star Trek"
> > came along, but I had to work at it. And I think most people able
> > to use it, including Leonard Nimoy (Mr. Spock), have to work at it.
> >
>
> Good for you, have a cookie.

As usual, you miss the point. It takes about as much training
to curl the big toe independently of the others as to do
the "Spock salute": I can curl the other toes while holding
the big toe immobile, but not vice versa.

Peter Nyikos
Professor, Department of Math. -- standard disclaimer --
U. of South Carolina

http://www.math.sc.edu/~nyikos/

[Jtem]

Oxyaena wrote:

> Peter Nyikos wrote:
>
> > The fact that it gave such long-obsolete figures (10 -13mya)

> There are other studies that support that range

There are numerous sources supporting the existence
of unicorns.

Your cite was garbage. Your position is garbage. It's
based on the ignorant belief that mtDNA is exempt from
selective pressures. Here. I quote your own cite:

"The same datings were obtained in an analysis of
clocklike evolving genes."

So YOUR results, what you are ignorantly supporting
here, match what you get if you pretend that mtDNA
somehow neutral and exempt from selective pressures.

I can dismiss YOUR cite because it only looks at
mtDNA, comes from a period of time when mtDNA
studies were terrible and it's underlying assumptions
are wrong. Period. They are wrong.

Garbage In/Garbage Out.







-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/178894592968

[Jtem]

John Harshman wrote:

> You realize that JTEM is a huge internet troll, don't you?

Wow, you're defending idiocy with ad hominem. I
can't say I am surprised but I'll continue to
pretend that I am, if it'll make you feel any
better.




-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/178894592968

[Peter Nyikos]

On Tuesday, October 9, 2018 at 3:30:06 PM UTC-4, Jtem wrote:
> Peter Nyikos wrote:
>
> > Jtem wrote:
> > > https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12733395
> > >
> > > This is probably the closest to reality.
>
> > This isn't nearly as iconoclastic as I would have thought:
> > no support for your hypothesis that *Pan* is descended
> > from *Homo*, for instance.
>
> Did you read it? Because it's saying that pan *Is*
> Homo!

My bad. I admit to having skimmed it and missed this little tidbit.

Most of the time it is involved in minutiae involving genetic distance,
and uses that as a basis for its claim. But genetic distance is still in its
infancy. And there is no biologically accepted "genus definition"
as there are various "species definitions".

So, yes, the article is highly iconoclastic, and for reasons
I've given, I do not believe it is highly regarded by anthropologists
in general.

> > It's dated 2003
>
> Yeah, you've got to get off that kick. It casts you
> as ignorant.

Wrong. The point is, there has been plenty of time for
the opinions of anthropologists to "jell" concerning it.

Are you up to showing the form that "jelling" has taken?

> > and it is in line with the by-then
> > uncontroversial ca. 6 mya for the human-chimp split.
>
> No it isn't. You clearly never read the cite!

I've looked at the Conclusions, where I read the following:

2. After a minimum of 6 million years of evolution by two lineages
(humans and chimpanzees), and thus a minimum of 12 million years
of separate evolution, their living descendents are now only
about 1% different genetically. This strongly suggests that humans and
chimpanzees are congeneric (Goodman et al 1989, 1990,
2001, Castresana 2001, Watson et al 2001). [p. 218]

Is the complete article paywalled for you? Have you
only read the abstract?

> > Its most unorthodox hypothesis is that our own species
> > *Homo sapiens*, was already around almost 2 mya,
> > partly because it included *Homo erectus*.
>
> You're EXTREMELY confused.
>
> There's no real dividing line between "Species."
> It argues that, genetically, we're all so similar
> that we might as well call us one species FOR MOST
> OF the last 2m years. But...

You say "most of," I say "almost," you say tomahto,
I say tomato.

> But that is an opinion based on their findings.

As are all their other conclusions. Their "findings"
all have to do with genetic distance and other
genetic facts. But the "might as well" is untestable,
because there are no living "Homo sapiens erectus"
people.

> It
> was the findings themselves which were relevant to
> this discussion... which is odd, because you ignored
> the finding for the date and then an opinion!

What do you see as "the finding for the date"? Which date?

Peter Nyikos
Professor, Department of Math. -- standard disclaimer --

Univ. of So. Carolina at Columbia
http://www.math.sc.edu/~nyikos/

[Jtem]

Oxyaena wrote:

> Like yourself? You don't have *any* academic qualifications in *any*
> field of biology or geology, boyo.

You're a rotating sock puppet who just posted
a long-ago refuted "Cite" claiming a divergence
date for humans & chimps WAY older than anything
agreed upon outside of an alzheimer's clinic.

Glass houses. Stones. You.





-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/178894592968

[Jtem]

Oxyaena wrote:

> Maybe this will satisfy your urge to insult me for no (rational) reason:
>
> http://www.scienceresearch.duq.edu/bio/biofac/mseaman/PUBS/MJS_KHB_ELS_2008.pdf

Tell us; when the oldest supposedly "Chimp" fossil
is younger than erectus -- only half a million
years old -- and even then is just a tooth, what are
the fossils used to calibrate the human/chimp split?

There's also the ignorant assumption that mtDNA is
neutral and not subject to selection.





-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/178894592968

[Jtem]

Peter Nyikos wrote:

> Wrong. The point is, there has been plenty of time for
> the opinions of anthropologists to "jell" concerning it.

Again, this casts you as ignorant.

You ignore the finding, concentrate on an opinion
drawn on the finding and, of course, focus like a
laser beam on the date. What you need to do is
accept or discover fault with the findings.






-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/178894592968

[Jtem]

Peter Nyikos wrote:

> I've looked at the Conclusions, where I read the following:
>
> 2. After a minimum of 6 million years of evolution by two lineages
> (humans and chimpanzees), and thus a minimum of 12 million years
> of separate evolution, their living descendents are now only
> about 1% different genetically. This strongly suggests that humans and
> chimpanzees are congeneric (Goodman et al 1989, 1990,
> 2001, Castresana 2001, Watson et al 2001). [p. 218]

The above quote does NOT appear anywhere in my cite.

Here is the abstract:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12733395

Here is the complete article:

http://evunix.uevora.pt/~fcs/bioh10.pdf

I have no idea where you lifted your supposed quote
from, but it was not from this cite.






-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/178894592968

[Peter Nyikos]

On Monday, October 8, 2018 at 2:39:33 PM UTC-4, Oxyaena wrote:
> On 10/8/2018 12:51 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:

> [snip narcissistic ego-stroking]

This hate-driven lie about damning evidence against you
will come back to haunt you below.


Now I pick up where I left off in my first reply.


> > On Saturday, October 6, 2018 at 9:02:05 AM UTC-4, Oxyaena wrote:

> >> the ancestors of
> >> both chimps and humans hybridized a great deal,
> >
> > The 2006 paper seems to indicate "the common ancestors of humans
> > and chimps" is a more appropriate expression.
> >
> > Here at my university, the full article is not paywalled,
> > and it is at the following webpage:
> >
> > https://www.nature.com/articles/nature04789
> >
> > I will be giving details from it here later this week.


> >> and this isn't exactly
> >> surprising given that this would've likely occurred within the same
> >> region of Africa that the LCA of Hominina and *Pan* lived.

You make amends for this earlier lack of surprise by yourself below.


> > What IS surprising is that Oxyaena blundered so completely
> > as to let a 1998 paper supersede a 2006 paper.
> >
> >
>
> There's actually evidence against that 2006 paper, but


...but it all has to do with the hypothesis of hybridization,
which YOU supported, and NOT about the ca. 6 Ma. estimate
of the final human-chimp split -- RIGHT?


> I don't feel like
> citing it right now.

If my guess is correct, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to
know WHY you don't feel like citing it -- EVER.

After all, you claimed an estimate of 10-13 Ma was "the best"
for the human-chimp split. See your incompetent words near the end.



Next, you make belated amends for not having let people know
that the paper was from 2006 [which might have set a number
of people wondering why were not at all curious
to find out what the "consensus" about this then-novel
2006 paper is now]:

> One wonders why Peter isn't up to date on these
> developments,

THIS is an example of narcissistic ego-stroking -- by YOU:

> and has to be brought up to speed by the person he's
> ridiculing right now.

It remains to be seen what you are referring to as "brought
up to speed."


> Were you even aware of *either* paper, Peter,
> until now?

Why are you so proud of having dug up a 1998 paper whose conclusions
about the human-chimp split (10-13 mya) have long ago been rendered obsolete?
and whose METHODS are now even more obsolete.

Why should I even RECALL such a paper, or even a 2006 paper whose
conclusion about the date of ca. 6 million years has become as
unshakable (except perhaps downwards) as "birds are dinosaurs"?



> >>> On Friday, September 28, 2018 at 12:36:25 AM UTC-4, JTEM is lucky in love AND money wrote:

> >>>> But the chimp y chromosome is under EXTREME selective
> >>>> pressure. Chimps bang like humans shake hands, only
> >>>> far more often. There's massive sperm competition. So,
> >>>> nature has really poured the fire on y chromosome
> >>>> selective pressure...
> >>>>
> >>>> There. That explains the differences in "Ages."
> >>>
> >>> It would, if you had some data that quantifies "extreme
> >>> selective pressure" and compares evolutionary rates with a
> >>> wide variety of other mammals, both with and without those
> >>> pressures.
> >
> > The preceding paragraph seems to have been "above Oxyaena's pay grade",
> > not having been commented on.
> >
>
> There's no reason to act like a douche in this thread, Peter.

And I'm not acting as one, but you are.


> Do you
> really wonder why people tend not to think highly of you?

"people" = a handful of dedicated perpetrators of injustice like yourself,
who wouldn't dare tell what they really think of my actions --
it would cramp their style.

> >>>> The y chromosome looks older because it's undergone
> >>>> more changes than other areas of the genome...
> >>>>
> >>>> Anyway, the best "Molecular Clock" dating places the
> >>>> human/chimp split no further back than 4.3 million
> >>>> years... and as recent as 3.7 million.
> >>>
> >>> Could you provide us with a link to an authoritative article on this?
> >
> >
> > Here it is again: Oxyaena using a 1998 paper relying only on
> > mitochorndria to supersede a 2006 paper that used a hefty part
> > of the human and chimp genomes:

> >
> >> Nothing supports that, the best evidence determines a divergence date in
> >> the mid-to-late Miocene at some 10-13 Ma
> >> (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9847414).
> >

> > How good is Oxyaena at ANY branch of science, I have to wonder.
> >
>
> What's the *actual* purpose of this attempt at poisoning the well,

It isn't poisoning the well, it is an eminently reasonable question which
you are unable to address. You certainly are helpless in defending yourself
of against the charge of abysmal ignorance in calling the 10-13 dating
"the best estimate".

Don't try to wiggle out of it by saying "based on morphological evidence":
The 1998 paper isn't using that kind of evidence. Besides, you couldn't
possibly support the claim that the morphological evidence supersedes
the molecular evidence that almost every anthropologist swears by these days.

Peter Nyikos
Professor, Department of Math. -- standard disclaimer --

Univ. of So. Carolina in Columbia
http://www.math.sc.edu/~nyikos/

[Peter Nyikos]

On Tuesday, October 9, 2018 at 4:38:33 PM UTC-4, Jtem wrote:
> Peter Nyikos wrote:
>
> > I've looked at the Conclusions, where I read the following:
> >
> > 2. After a minimum of 6 million years of evolution by two lineages
> > (humans and chimpanzees), and thus a minimum of 12 million years
> > of separate evolution, their living descendents are now only
> > about 1% different genetically. This strongly suggests that humans and
> > chimpanzees are congeneric (Goodman et al 1989, 1990,
> > 2001, Castresana 2001, Watson et al 2001). [p. 218]
>
> The above quote does NOT appear anywhere in my cite.

Yes it does, in the second cite you give below.

> Here is the abstract:
>
> https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12733395
>
> Here is the complete article:
>
> http://evunix.uevora.pt/~fcs/bioh10.pdf

And, like I wrote, you will find the quote on p. 218 as shown
in the article itself. The pdf page where it appears is 18, the whole pdf is 24
pages long as displayed by "Sumatra" which my department prefers
to Adobe Acrobat for pdfs.

> I have no idea where you lifted your supposed quote
> from, but it was not from this cite.

Guess again, JTEM.

Nice to see that you've left the "lucky in love AND money"
off your username. It makes your mistakes look less embarrassing.

Now Oxyaena is by far the most obviously narcissistic person
posting to this thread -- it wasn't quite so obvious before.


Peter Nyikos

[Peter Nyikos]

As huge a troll as Oxyaena? Do you have any real evidence for that,
besides his weird claim that you aren't John Harshman?

I really wonder whether he has accused you of that even one-tenth as many times
as Oxyaena has libeled me by falsely accusing me of libel. And that's
only one of MANY ways Oxyaena has libeled me.

If JTEM is even one-tenth as dishonest or one-tenth as hypocritical as
Oxyaena, he'll be hearing plenty from me about it. Unlike you and
Oxyaena and Simpson, I play no favorites as far as treatment of
blackguards goes.


Peter Nyikos

[Jtem]

Peter Nyikos wrote:

> > http://evunix.uevora.pt/~fcs/bioh10.pdf
>
> And, like I wrote, you will find the quote on p. 218 as shown
> in the article itself. The pdf page where it appears is 18, the
> whole pdf is 24 pages long as displayed by "Sumatra" which my
> department prefers to Adobe Acrobat for pdfs.

They're quoting someone else. The paper isn't about
years since the LCA, it's about genetic distances.

In other words, placing the LCA more recently only
accentuates their point.






-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/178894592968

[John Harshman]

On 10/9/18 2:34 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> On Tuesday, October 9, 2018 at 3:20:31 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
>> On 10/9/18 11:49 AM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
>>> On Monday, October 8, 2018 at 4:49:35 PM UTC-4, Jtem wrote:
>>>> Oxyaena wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> What's confusing is why you're acting like a patronizing ass when a
>>>>> cursory look at *any* of my posts should reveal I know this stuff.
>>>>
>>>> Now I *Know* you didn't type that with a
>>>> straight face!
>>>
>>> I dunno about that. Oxyaena was indulging in a dirty debating tactic that is
>>> common among internet trolls like herself. She was probably on automatic
>>> pilot, or something close to it, when she typed it.
>>
>> You realize that JTEM is a huge internet troll, don't you?
>
> As huge a troll as Oxyaena?

Huger. Not as huge as Thrinaxodon, of course.

> Do you have any real evidence for that,
> besides his weird claim that you aren't John Harshman?

Read anything he posts. Nothing but insults. Hasn't he called you an
idiot enough times yet?

> If JTEM is even one-tenth as dishonest or one-tenth as hypocritical as
> Oxyaena, he'll be hearing plenty from me about it.

Why don't you just ignore him? That's a better way to treat trolls.

[Mario Petrinovic]

Maybe some trolls need to be exposed, because they are doing a lot of
damage.
A point of opinion.

[Peter Nyikos]

On Wednesday, October 10, 2018 at 9:41:31 AM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
> On 10/9/18 2:34 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> > On Tuesday, October 9, 2018 at 3:20:31 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
> >> On 10/9/18 11:49 AM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> >>> On Monday, October 8, 2018 at 4:49:35 PM UTC-4, Jtem wrote:
> >>>> Oxyaena wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> What's confusing is why you're acting like a patronizing ass when a
> >>>>> cursory look at *any* of my posts should reveal I know this stuff.
> >>>>
> >>>> Now I *Know* you didn't type that with a
> >>>> straight face!
> >>>
> >>> I dunno about that. Oxyaena was indulging in a dirty debating tactic that is
> >>> common among internet trolls like herself. She was probably on automatic
> >>> pilot, or something close to it, when she typed it.
> >>
> >> You realize that JTEM is a huge internet troll, don't you?
> >
> > As huge a troll as Oxyaena?
>
> Huger. Not as huge as Thrinaxodon, of course.

Right now, the only differences I detect between the Oxyana persona
and the Thrinaxodon persona is that the former (1) has gotten more savvy
about whom to suck up to, and (2) does not post spam
destructive of sci.bio.paleontology -- perhaps because someone
complained effectively, so that now the kind of madcap spam we saw formerly
from the Thrinaxodon persona is being blocked from s.b.p.
along with all those [expletive deleted]
solutions manuals having nothing to do with paleontology.

> > Do you have any real evidence for that,
> > besides his weird claim that you aren't John Harshman?
>
> Read anything he posts. Nothing but insults.

YOU are behaving like a troll now. JTEM posts lots of good stuff
on anthropology, but you have eyes only for the insults that often
accompany the good stuff, like chaff accompanies wheat.

You ignore the "wheat" -- just as you have done to me from time to time.

> Hasn't he called you an
> idiot enough times yet?

I can only recall once that he didn't have some seemingly good reason
for doing so. And that once was long ago, in talk.origins.

On this thread, he had one good reason and what he thought
was a good reason -- and if he had been correct about that, it would
have also been a good reason.

> > If JTEM is even one-tenth as dishonest or one-tenth as hypocritical as
> > Oxyaena, he'll be hearing plenty from me about it.
>
> Why don't you just ignore him? That's a better way to treat trolls.

Then I would have to ignore Oxyaena and Simpson, both of whom have
trolled far more often in 2018 in reply to me than they have posted
anything of on-topic value in reply to me.

The only two exceptions in Simpson's case were the data matrix
for Halliday et. al. and the way he came to your aid by providing the
information about Brusatte et al that you were too lazy to look up.

He was also too lazy to look it up himself, until he realized his Number One
Benefactor had gotten himself into a bind after refusing to look
at a challenge that I had given him (Simpson).


I really miss Richard Norman. He was like a rudder that kept
the three of you (Oxyaena, Simpson, yourself) from drifting too
far into counterproductive behavior.

Peter Nyikos
Professor, Department of Math. -- standard disclaimer --

Univ. of So. Carolina
http://www.math.sc.edu/~nyikos/

[John Harshman]

It is? Who's blocking it, and how?

>>> Do you have any real evidence for that,
>>> besides his weird claim that you aren't John Harshman?
>>
>> Read anything he posts. Nothing but insults.
>
> YOU are behaving like a troll now. JTEM posts lots of good stuff
> on anthropology, but you have eyes only for the insults that often
> accompany the good stuff, like chaff accompanies wheat.
>
> You ignore the "wheat" -- just as you have done to me from time to time.

How do you know it's good stuff? He seldom if ever backs up his claims
with actual citations.

>> Hasn't he called you an
>> idiot enough times yet?
>
> I can only recall once that he didn't have some seemingly good reason
> for doing so. And that once was long ago, in talk.origins.
>
> On this thread, he had one good reason and what he thought
> was a good reason -- and if he had been correct about that, it would
> have also been a good reason.

Well, if you're happy being called an idiot, as long as he has a reason,
then you are welcome to him.

>>> If JTEM is even one-tenth as dishonest or one-tenth as hypocritical as
>>> Oxyaena, he'll be hearing plenty from me about it.
>>
>> Why don't you just ignore him? That's a better way to treat trolls.
>
> Then I would have to ignore Oxyaena and Simpson, both of whom have
> trolled far more often in 2018 in reply to me than they have posted
> anything of on-topic value in reply to me.

If they're trolls, why not ignore them?

[Peter Nyikos]

On Tuesday, October 9, 2018 at 11:25:55 PM UTC-4, JTEM wrote:
> Peter Nyikos wrote:
>
> > > http://evunix.uevora.pt/~fcs/bioh10.pdf
> >
> > And, like I wrote, you will find the quote on p. 218 as shown
> > in the article itself. The pdf page where it appears is 18, the
> > whole pdf is 24 pages long as displayed by "Sumatra" which my
> > department prefers to Adobe Acrobat for pdfs.
>
> They're quoting someone else.

Sorry, there is no sign that the first sentence in the following
is anything but their own words:

2. After a minimum of 6 million years of evolution by two lineages
(humans and chimpanzees), and thus a minimum of 12 million years
of separate evolution, their living descendents are now only
about 1% different genetically. This strongly suggests that humans and
chimpanzees are congeneric (Goodman et al 1989, 1990,
2001, Castresana 2001, Watson et al 2001).

As for the second sentence, the natural inference is that they
are using the numerous references to back it up.

If the text were a quote from one of the references, they would
have cited it separately and only cited the rest later.

What they are doing in the rest of 2. is supporting the conclusion
that we are congerneric with chimps. But not conspecific: the
next conclusion 3. says that "the common chimp and bonobos ...
should be assigned to one species".

But not humans and chimps. The 6 My minimum in Conclusion 2. is evidently
referring to the time they no longer could be treated as a single species,
even by their standards.

> The paper isn't about
> years since the LCA, it's about genetic distances.

That's the MAIN purpose of the paper, obviously,
but the Conclusions are not restricted to that theme,
as you can see.

> In other words, placing the LCA more recently only
> accentuates their point.

It would, except that they evidently didn't want to
rock the boat to THAT extent.

Peter Nyikos
Professor, Department of Math. -- standard disclaimer --

Univ. of So. Carolina in Columbia
http://www.math.sc.edu/~nyikos/

[Oxyaena]

On 10/9/2018 5:07 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> On Monday, October 8, 2018 at 2:39:33 PM UTC-4, Oxyaena wrote:
>> On 10/8/2018 12:51 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
>
>> [snip narcissistic ego-stroking]
>
> This hate-driven lie about damning evidence against you
> will come back to haunt you below.

You've obviously long since jumped off the deep end.

>
>
> Now I pick up where I left off in my first reply.
>
>
>>> On Saturday, October 6, 2018 at 9:02:05 AM UTC-4, Oxyaena wrote:
>
>>>> the ancestors of
>>>> both chimps and humans hybridized a great deal,
>>>
>>> The 2006 paper seems to indicate "the common ancestors of humans
>>> and chimps" is a more appropriate expression.
>>>
>>> Here at my university, the full article is not paywalled,
>>> and it is at the following webpage:
>>>
>>> https://www.nature.com/articles/nature04789
>>>
>>> I will be giving details from it here later this week.
>
>
>>>> and this isn't exactly
>>>> surprising given that this would've likely occurred within the same
>>>> region of Africa that the LCA of Hominina and *Pan* lived.
>
> You make amends for this earlier lack of surprise by yourself below.
>
>
>>> What IS surprising is that Oxyaena blundered so completely
>>> as to let a 1998 paper supersede a 2006 paper.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> There's actually evidence against that 2006 paper, but
>
>
> ...but it all has to do with the hypothesis of hybridization,
> which YOU supported, and NOT about the ca. 6 Ma. estimate
> of the final human-chimp split -- RIGHT?
>
>
>> I don't feel like
>> citing it right now.
>
> If my guess is correct, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to
> know WHY you don't feel like citing it -- EVER.

Look it up yourself, dipshit. I don't have to do the work for you.

>
> After all, you claimed an estimate of 10-13 Ma was "the best"
> for the human-chimp split. See your incompetent words near the end.
>
>

Do you even know what "incompetent" means? Because your usage of the
term obviously isn't an objective measure of the term "incompetent".

>
> Next, you make belated amends for not having let people know
> that the paper was from 2006 [which might have set a number
> of people wondering why were not at all curious
> to find out what the "consensus" about this then-novel
> 2006 paper is now]:
>
>> One wonders why Peter isn't up to date on these
>> developments,
>
> THIS is an example of narcissistic ego-stroking -- by YOU:
>

It was an honest statement of facts in response to actual narcissistic
ego-stroking by yourself.

>> and has to be brought up to speed by the person he's
>> ridiculing right now.
>
> It remains to be seen what you are referring to as "brought
> up to speed."

So were you, or were you not, aware of those papers until I brought them up?

>
>
>> Were you even aware of *either* paper, Peter,
>> until now?
>
> Why are you so proud of having dug up a 1998 paper whose conclusions
> about the human-chimp split (10-13 mya) have long ago been rendered obsolete?
> and whose METHODS are now even more obsolete.

I`m not, I merely pointed out you weren't aware of *either* study. You
make mistakes all the time, and I let them slide, but when I make a
mistake, you'll never let it go and then make all sorts of wild-ass
assumptions because of that single mistake. Hey dipshit, I`m human, we
all make mistakes, even yourself.

Remember when you asserted that there were no taeniodonts known to have
existed in the Cretaceous? Two can play at this game, Peter, but unlike
yourself I`m far more forgiving.

>
> Why should I even RECALL such a paper, or even a 2006 paper whose
> conclusion about the date of ca. 6 million years has become as
> unshakable (except perhaps downwards) as "birds are dinosaurs"?
>

Because I`m demonstrating that your claims of incompetence ring hollow.

>
>
>>>>> On Friday, September 28, 2018 at 12:36:25 AM UTC-4, JTEM is lucky in love AND money wrote:
>
>>>>>> But the chimp y chromosome is under EXTREME selective
>>>>>> pressure. Chimps bang like humans shake hands, only
>>>>>> far more often. There's massive sperm competition. So,
>>>>>> nature has really poured the fire on y chromosome
>>>>>> selective pressure...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> There. That explains the differences in "Ages."
>>>>>
>>>>> It would, if you had some data that quantifies "extreme
>>>>> selective pressure" and compares evolutionary rates with a
>>>>> wide variety of other mammals, both with and without those
>>>>> pressures.
>>>
>>> The preceding paragraph seems to have been "above Oxyaena's pay grade",
>>> not having been commented on.
>>>
>>
>> There's no reason to act like a douche in this thread, Peter.
>
> And I'm not acting as one, but you are.

Bullshit, your first response to me was characterized by an overly
insulting and belittling tone, up to and including accusing me of
incompetence.

>
>
>> Do you
>> really wonder why people tend not to think highly of you?
>
> "people" = a handful of dedicated perpetrators of injustice like yourself,
> who wouldn't dare tell what they really think of my actions --
> it would cramp their style.
>

Your definition of "justice" is so self-serving as to be rendered
meaningless. This is another (of many) points that I've brought up that
you ignore and snip because it's an inconvenience towards yourself.

>>>>>> The y chromosome looks older because it's undergone
>>>>>> more changes than other areas of the genome...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Anyway, the best "Molecular Clock" dating places the
>>>>>> human/chimp split no further back than 4.3 million
>>>>>> years... and as recent as 3.7 million.
>>>>>
>>>>> Could you provide us with a link to an authoritative article on this?
>>>
>>>
>>> Here it is again: Oxyaena using a 1998 paper relying only on
>>> mitochorndria to supersede a 2006 paper that used a hefty part
>>> of the human and chimp genomes:
>>>
>>>> Nothing supports that, the best evidence determines a divergence date in
>>>> the mid-to-late Miocene at some 10-13 Ma
>>>> (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9847414).
>>>
>>> How good is Oxyaena at ANY branch of science, I have to wonder.
>>>
>>
>> What's the *actual* purpose of this attempt at poisoning the well,
>
> It isn't poisoning the well, it is an eminently reasonable question which
> you are unable to address.

Bullshit, it's poisoning the well. You're trying to undermine my
credibility by accusing me of incompetence and not focusing on the
argument at hand, that fits the textbook definition of "poisoning the well."

You certainly are helpless in defending yourself
> of against the charge of abysmal ignorance in calling the 10-13 dating
> "the best estimate".

You certainly keep ignoring the fact that I've since clarified, writing
that I was being lazy that day, but you're unable to let even a simple
mistake slide because you're an *extremely* vindictive person. The
concept of forgiveness has no meaning to you.

>
> Don't try to wiggle out of it by saying "based on morphological evidence":
> The 1998 paper isn't using that kind of evidence. Besides, you couldn't
> possibly support the claim that the morphological evidence supersedes
> the molecular evidence that almost every anthropologist swears by these days.
>

I was being lazy. How many fucking times do I have to tell you that.
Take your libelous accusations of ignorance and incompetence and shove
them up your ass, for I am neither, and a quick glance at *any* of my
posts on these subjects should tell you that.

[Peter Nyikos]

An excellent opinion. Oxyaena has done far more damage in talk.origins
than here, because she has powerful allies there who attack me almost
as dishonestly there as she does here. And those allies don't make
the stupid mistakes Oxyaena makes there.

They are incredibly stupid in the following talk.origins post,
where Oxyaena keeps sticking to the ignorant claim that Hominini
is a subgroup of Hominina, when the truth is the reverse:

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/r5d2SywN8Uo/nK-VGHXzAQAJ
Subject: Re: The conundrum of hominin phylogeny
Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2018 10:59:23 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <7c3386f2-01e6-4094...@googlegroups.com>

Not only that, but she cherry-picked something and pretended it
showed I was wrong, from the following webpage:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hominini

In reality, anyone at all competent at logic could see that
the cherry-picked excerpt did nothing of the sort:

"as of 2018 there
is no consensus as to whether chimps belong in Hominini or not."

Oxyaena then went on to falsely accuse me of cherry-picking,
and I then showed how she missed at least THREE items from
the same webpage that explicitly showed Hominina being
a sub-tribe of Hominini.

You can read this in the post I've linked, but I should caution
you that it is very long -- 415 lines long -- and almost half of it
consists of Oxyaena heaping unsupportable insults on me in the
mistaken impression that she was right and I was wrong.

Either that, or Oxyaena is a complete troll who PRETENDS to
believe ON-TOPIC things that she knows to be false. Her behavior in the
linked post is so extreme I even broach this possiblity,
and I expect Oxyaena to do everything she can to vilify me
for daring to suggest such a thing.

Peter Nyikos
Professor, Department of Math. -- standard disclaimer --

University of So. Carolina at Columbia
http://www.math.sc.edu/~nyikos/

[Peter Nyikos]

On Wednesday, October 10, 2018 at 1:23:35 PM UTC-4, Oxyaena wrote:
> On 10/9/2018 5:07 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> > On Monday, October 8, 2018 at 2:39:33 PM UTC-4, Oxyaena wrote:
> >> On 10/8/2018 12:51 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> >
> >> [snip narcissistic ego-stroking]
> >
> > This hate-driven lie about damning evidence against you
> > will come back to haunt you below.
>
> You've obviously long since jumped off the deep end.

You are a dedicated perpetrator of injustice, and this
bare-faced lie only goes to prove that.

This is SO typical of trolls. You use the word "it", conveniently
ignoring the fact that you never even dared to say whether I am
right or not, and so you never gave any hints as to where "it"
can be found.

> I don't have to do the work for you.

I wish I had a dollar for every time I've told a troll over
the last two decades that I don't go looking for possibly
nonexistent needles in huge haystacks.

And I say it in reply to stereotyped trollisms like the one
you've uttered, which duplicate it almost word for word.

> >
> > After all, you claimed an estimate of 10-13 Ma was "the best"
> > for the human-chimp split. See your incompetent words near the end.
> >
> >
>
> Do you even know what "incompetent" means? Because your usage of the
> term obviously isn't an objective measure of the term "incompetent".

My usage is excellent, and your trollish gobbledygook does
nothing to undermine that.

>
> >
> > Next, you make belated amends for not having let people know
> > that the paper was from 2006 [which might have set a number
> > of people wondering why were not at all curious
> > to find out what the "consensus" about this then-novel
> > 2006 paper is now]:
> >
> >> One wonders why Peter isn't up to date on these
> >> developments,
> >
> > THIS is an example of narcissistic ego-stroking -- by YOU:
> >
>
> It was an honest statement of facts

alleged facts not in evidence.

> in response to actual narcissistic
> ego-stroking by yourself.

Liar.

>
> >> and has to be brought up to speed by the person he's
> >> ridiculing right now.
> >
> > It remains to be seen what you are referring to as "brought
> > up to speed."
>
> So were you, or were you not, aware of those papers until I brought them up?

Your 100% trollish use of "brought up to speed" is shown by this
chest-thumping description of two papers that you found in
PubMed without any clue as to their actual significance.

> >> Were you even aware of *either* paper, Peter,
> >> until now?
> >
> > Why are you so proud of having dug up a 1998 paper whose conclusions
> > about the human-chimp split (10-13 mya) have long ago been rendered obsolete?
> > and whose METHODS are now even more obsolete.
>
>
> I`m not,

You certainly were doing a convincing job with chest-thumping in
post after post about how you spotted two papers that I missed.

> I merely pointed out you weren't aware of *either* study.

So what? I'm not aware of half the CURRENT papers in my own
specialty, general topology, because I am too busy writing
my own.

You have NO idea what counts as ignorance of a field of
study. Or at least your sock puppet, "Oxyaena," has no
idea, because it is a dummy-analogue in the hands of the
unknown you, the ventriloquist analogue who puts whatever
words into "Oxyaena" posts that you choose.

> You
> make mistakes all the time, and I let them slide,

Bullshit. Look at how eagerly you pounced on what you
thought were mistakes by me in talk.origins:


https://groups.google.com/forum/#!original/talk.origins/r5d2SywN8Uo/nK-VGHXzAQAJ

Subject: Re: The conundrum of hominin phylogeny

Lines: 415

Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2018 10:59:23 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <7c3386f2-01e6-4094...@googlegroups.com>

A hefty fraction of those 415 lines consisted of you showering
me with invective while falsely accusing me of cherry-picking
while indulging in it yourself. About an hour told Mario more details
about how despicably you behaved in pretending that Hominini
is a subgroup in Hominina when the truth is just the reverse.

I did it right here on this thread, and I expect you to behave
like the Mafia-analogues in "On the Waterfront" by vilifying me
for "ratting" on you. But do pay attention to how that word
is treated by the priest and by the hero, played by Marlon Brando.

> but when I make a
> mistake, you'll never let it go

It was YOU who never let go of that mistake in that 415 line post.
You kept compounding it.

> and then make all sorts of wild-ass
> assumptions

If they are wild-ass, how is it that you are powerless to rebut them?

> because of that single mistake.

...of which you were aggressively proud even while it was repeatedly pointed
out to you that it was a mistake.

> Hey dipshit, I`m human, we
> all make mistakes, even yourself.

I suspect that you make a great many "mistakes" deliberately,
just because you love to make "Oxyaena" play the part of a troll.

> Remember when you asserted that there were no taeniodonts known to have
> existed in the Cretaceous?

That's because a professional mammalian paleontologist, Christine Janis,
thought that, and I was deferring to her knowledge.

And you used Wikipedia as YOUR authority.

> Two can play at this game, Peter, but unlike
> yourself I`m far more forgiving.

May God, if there is a God, forgive you for telling this
self-serving libel.


Remainder deleted, to be replied to either tomorrow or Friday.
There is only so much feeding of self-righteous trolls that I can stomach
in one day.


Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--

[JTEM]

John Harshman wrote:

> Read anything he posts.

Other than posting WRONG things, like claiming
that sperm competition can't result in selective
pressures on the y chromosome, all you've posted
here is ad hominem.

Honestly, are you trying to fool people or did you
want to look like a dickhead troll?





-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/178915147873

[JTEM]

John Harshman wrote:


> How do you know it's good stuff?

What kind of jackass thinks your questions are on
topic, let alone "intelligent."

You post idiocy, such as your claim right here in
this thread that sperm competition doesn't result
in selective pressure on the y chromosome. You're
trying to distract from your stupid claims now.





-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/178915147873

[JTEM]

Peter Nyikos wrote:

> But not humans and chimps. The 6 My minimum in Conclusion 2. is evidently
> referring to the time they no longer could be treated as a single species,
> even by their standards.

It's not about the LCA or dating the LCA. That is
not the topic. It's not the point of their research.
It's about genetic distances.




-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/178915147873

[John Harshman]

On 10/10/18 1:58 PM, JTEM wrote:
> John Harshman wrote:
>
>> Read anything he posts.
>
> Other than posting WRONG things, like claiming
> that sperm competition can't result in selective
> pressures on the y chromosome, all you've posted
> here is ad hominem.

Do you have any evidence for selection on the Y chromosome resulting
from sperm competition?

[John Harshman]

On 10/10/18 2:01 PM, JTEM wrote:
> John Harshman wrote:
>
>
>> How do you know it's good stuff?
>
> What kind of jackass thinks your questions are on
> topic, let alone "intelligent."
>
> You post idiocy, such as your claim right here in
> this thread that sperm competition doesn't result
> in selective pressure on the y chromosome. You're
> trying to distract from your stupid claims now.

In order to folow up on my stupid claims, could you please cite some
evidence that sperm competition results in selective pressure on the y
chromosome?

[Oxyaena]

On 10/9/2018 3:31 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
[snip paranoid ramblings]

> [1] Except, of course, for your OPs which sometimes are
> thought-provoking, in analogy with a grain of sand that
> causes an oyster to produce a pearl. But you are pretty
> much of a bust in subsequent posts.
>

This is coming from the guy who once called me the "best poster to sbp".

>> and I chimed in long after
>> Harshman, my first response on this thread *was* indeed to Harshman,
>> because I was debating over whether or not I should still engage you in
>> discussion on this newsgroup. You're making me regret my decision already.
>
> IOW, you regret having momentarily left off your campaign of vilification.
> Should I be surprised?
>

Should I be surprised that you fail to comprehend basic English? I was
writing that I was beginning to regret ever responding to you in the
first place.

>
>>
>>>
>>>>>>>> *Sahelanthropus* has been tentatively placed within the split of the
>>>>>>>> lineage leading to *Pan* and *Homo*, specifically on the hominin
>>>>>>>> side,
>>>
>>> "within the split of" and "hominin" is Oxyaena being ambiguous as usual.
>>
>> How am I being "ambiguous as usual"?
>
> When it comes to Hominini/Hominina, you are ambiguous. You are also
> a master of equivication, the usual form your ambiguities take
> in talk.origins, where you are more voluminously found than here.
>
> And you never reveal below what you meant by "within the split of".

Then you apparently can't comprehend written English, for I also stated
that *Kenyanthropus* has been placed on the human side of the
*Homo*-*Pan* split. I recommend you restart the fifth grade since you're
having so much trouble comprehending basic English.

>
>>
>>> Sahelanthropus is classed in the tribe Hominini along with Orrorin
>>> and the subtribes Panina and Hominina in the following entry:
>>>
>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homininae
>>>
>>> And it is unclear where the splitting is supposed to have taken
>>> place. There may actually be an unresolved tetrachotomy involved.
>
> As usual, you have nothing to say when someone far better at systematics
> than yourself resolves an ambiguity you indulged in -- to
> the extent that it is possible to resolve it.

Did you somehow forget the exchange we had over at the talk.origins
thread "The conundrum of hominin phylogeny"? So I take it you have the
memory of a gold fish then, if you did indeed forget it.

> A fraud like you can no longer be excused, even by Harshman or Simpson,
> for bragging like a 6 year old girl, saying in effect, "I knew something
> you didn't know! I knew something you didn't know!
>

You're describing yourself, not me.

[snip mindless pontificating]

>> Schoolchildren learn this.
>
> You really need to get over the typical prejudice of 6 year
> olds against "tattling" and the typical Mafia prejudice
> against "ratting". For more on the latter, see "On The Waterfront."

So schoolchildren are more mature than you? At least you admit this.

>
>
> <snip praise of these prejudices>
>
>
>>>>> Apes are primates, primates tend to be arboreal, even humans retain some
>>>>> arboreal adaptations, albeit vestigial (the big toe for example, which
>>>>> to this day moves independently of the other toes, even though it has
>>>>> lost its opposable nature).
>>>
>>> That's like saying the ring and middle finger move independently
>>> of the index finger and middle finger. I trained myself to
>>> do the "Peace. Live long and prosper" salute long before "Star Trek"
>>> came along, but I had to work at it. And I think most people able
>>> to use it, including Leonard Nimoy (Mr. Spock), have to work at it.
>>>
>>
>> Good for you, have a cookie.
>
> As usual, you miss the point. It takes about as much training
> to curl the big toe independently of the others as to do
> the "Spock salute": I can curl the other toes while holding
> the big toe immobile, but not vice versa.
>

So you know how to perform basic toe movements. Congratulations.

[JTEM]

John Harshman wrote:

> In order to folow up on my stupid claims

I love the typo for the extra irony!

What you said was wrong. It was stupid. And
as is typical, you are blowing a shit ton of
ad hominem in the hopes of distracting from
your idiocy.






-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/178915147873

[JTEM]

John Harshman wrote:

> Do you have any evidence for selection on the Y chromosome resulting
> from sperm competition?

Other than the example I already gave you?

Oh. That's right, you wouldn't be a troll if
you didn't say stupid shit in defense of all
your stupid shit...






-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/178915147873

[John Harshman]

On 10/11/18 10:43 AM, JTEM wrote:
> John Harshman wrote:
>
>> Do you have any evidence for selection on the Y chromosome resulting
>> from sperm competition?
>
> Other than the example I already gave you?

I missed that example. Could you post it again?

[JTEM]

John Harshman wrote:

> JTEM wrote:
> > Other than the example I already gave you?

> I missed that example.

Look. Real "scientists" and educators do research.
It's not something they think about, it's not
a burden it's what they do. And you couldn't even
bother to follow along a thread you have already
posted to six times, using this Harpman sock puppet
alone! AND you confess to the fact that you hadn't
even bothered to just go back and look yourself, once
I pointed out that I gave you an example...

You can't fool anyone. You don't know how to play
the part. You haven't the faintest clue what
academics and people within the sciences are like.
You're too far removed from anything approaching
the real thing to even imitate someone!


...and the true irony here? Usenet is dead. There's
nobody left to fool. One day you're going to choke on
your own spittle and usenet will be no more. I won't
even have the product of your devastating personality
disorder to argue with.





-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/178965833418

[JTEM]

Peter Nyikos wrote:

[...]

I should also say, just for clarification, that I
opened the cite online, copied a part of a sentence
from your quote, went into the Search function and
pasted the partial sentence into the search box.

Nothing.

Then I scrolled down to the actual page where the
quote appears.

Nothing.

Then I copied a bit from the preceeding paragraph
and pasted that into the search box.

Nothing.

Next I scrolled back up to the first page and I
copied & pasted the first three words from the
first paragraph into the search box.

FOUND THEM!

Then I scrolled back down to where your quote was
found and searched for those same three words on
Page-1.

FOUND THEM!

Then I tried copying & pasting some words from the
part you quoted into the search box.

Nothing.

So then I searched on "6 million."

FOUND IT! NUMEROUS TIMES! But only up to page 15,
when I copied it from a sentence on page 18...

So there's the end to the mystery.



Again, not that it matters. The paper isn't about
establishing temporal distances but genetic
distances. The more recent you make the human/chimp
split, the better your argument for inclusion of
chimps within Homo.








-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/178965833418

[John Harshman]

On 10/11/18 8:11 PM, JTEM wrote:

> Harpman sock puppet

?

[JTEM]

John Harshman wrote:

> JTEM wrote:
>
> > Harpman sock puppet
>
> ?

Still waiting for you to respond to my first example,
you blithering idiot. Stop trying to distract, do
your best to feign an education and "Research" what
is sitting inside of this thread.







-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/178965833418

[John Harshman]

On 10/12/18 10:59 AM, JTEM wrote:
> John Harshman wrote:
>
>> JTEM wrote:
>>
>>> Harpman sock puppet
>>
>> ?
>
> Still waiting for you to respond to my first example,
> you blithering idiot. Stop trying to distract, do
> your best to feign an education and "Research" what
> is sitting inside of this thread.

?

[JTEM]

John Harshman wrote:

> JTEM wrote:
> > John Harshman wrote:
> >
> >> JTEM wrote:
> >>
> >>> Harpman sock puppet
> >>
> >> ?
> >
> > Still waiting for you to respond to my first example,
> > you blithering idiot. Stop trying to distract, do
> > your best to feign an education and "Research" what
> > is sitting inside of this thread.
>
> ?

Honestly, it's not any kind of a burden. A real
academic type or scientist would have impulsively
gone back & looked, pretending they would have
missed anything the first time.

You're delusional in your belief that you can fool
anyone. You simply are incompetent at playing the
part.





-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/178965833418

[Oxyaena]

?


>
>
> -- --
>
> http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/178965833418
>

[Peter Nyikos]

And you, Oxyaena, returning after four days of absence, made
your presence felt with:

> ?

Wow, you certainly know how to make an inconspicuous return
to this thread after the shellacking I gave you on talk.origins,
in two different threads:


https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/1pujosEBhZQ/xPkdrCeOAgAJ
Subject: Re: Kavanaugh could undo everything
Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2018 10:10:09 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <a042ecb2-e74a-4f60...@googlegroups.com>


https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/r5d2SywN8Uo/nK-VGHXzAQAJ
Subject: Re: The conundrum of hominin phylogeny

Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2018 10:59:23 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <7c3386f2-01e6-4094...@googlegroups.com>

In them, I recount how you fled and turned tail
when zencycle skewered you on your aggressive stupidity/trolling
on the Hominini-Hominina issue, and when JTEM skewered you on
what you called the "best estimate" 10-13 Ma. of the human chimp split.

You had relentlessly exemplified just how incompetent you are at paleontology
in both cases, but you would have gone on trolling indefinitely
about them had it not been for their interventions.

You have left a bunch of unfinished business since you fled this
thread on October 8, including some with JTEM, and with me in
an October 10 reply to you. In that reply, I said I would reply
to the rest of your abysmal post either yesterday or Friday, but
seeing as how you are far behind on your replies on this thread,
I'm postponing that until next week.

Meanwhile, I hope you get back to your loquacious self HERE,
instead of continuing your loquacious trolling on talk.origins.

I'm sure you can muster more than the one question mark,
which might have set a sci.bio.paleontology record for brevity
if Harshman had not already set it.

Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--

University of So. Carolina in Columbia
http://www.math.sc.edu/~nyikos/

[Oxyaena]

Now I *know* you're lying. Zencycle explicitly stated that remark was
directed towards you, you blind idiot.

> on the Hominini-Hominina issue, and when JTEM skewered you on
> what you called the "best estimate" 10-13 Ma. of the human chimp split.

Yeah, I made a mistake, so fucking what, and that mistake was due to
laziness, not ignorance.

>
> You had relentlessly exemplified just how incompetent you are at paleontology
> in both cases,

If only that were true.

> You have left a bunch of unfinished business since you fled this
> thread on October 8,

I don't cater to trolls, dimwit.

including some with JTEM, and with me in
> an October 10 reply to you.

Because I had gotten tired of feeding the troll (namely, you), dimwit.

In that reply, I said I would reply
> to the rest of your abysmal post either yesterday or Friday,

<snark>Oh boy, I just can't wait.<end snark>

but
> seeing as how you are far behind on your replies on this thread,
> I'm postponing that until next week.
>
> Meanwhile, I hope you get back to your loquacious self HERE,
> instead of continuing your loquacious trolling on talk.origins.
>

You haven't responded to *any* of my recent on-topic posts yet, cretin,
so you're the LAST person on Earth who should be advising others about
their posting habits.

> I'm sure you can muster more than the one question mark,
> which might have set a sci.bio.paleontology record for brevity
> if Harshman had not already set it.
>

One question mark is all JTEM deserves, asshole.

[Peter Nyikos]

Oops, I missed this post when I wrote about Oxyaena having
made an unobtrusive return today.

Anyway, what I wrote at the end of my reply is still valid,
because I can't find anything below besides trolling misdirection,
except possibly Oxyaena's first line. I do not
recognize the words 'e is attributing to me there,
and will deal with them once they are documented.

But the rest is pure trolling, including an incomprehensible
allegation that I had forgotten something that took place
on the thread, ""The conundrum of hominin phylogeny".
For a real lowdown on what went on there, see the reply
I made here to Oxyaena a few minutes ago.

Peter Nyikos

[Peter Nyikos]

I never saw a statement like the one you allege. It's obvious from
the context that, unless zencycle ALSO got the distinction wrong,
that 'e is skewering you:


______________________ begin included post_____________________
On Wednesday, October 10, 2018 at 11:50:04 AM UTC-4, Oxyaena wrote:
> On 10/9/2018 6:44 PM, Peter Nyikos lied about the following:
> >
> > Now THESE are undisputed Hominina.
>
> You mean *Hominini*, you dithering ignoramus.

DRINK!!!!!
========================================================
-- post archived at
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/r5d2SywN8Uo/dhW8y0T3AQAJ

Subject: Re: The conundrum of hominin phylogeny

Lines: 9
Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2018 12:07:39 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <54bd3b6e-0e18-478d...@googlegroups.com>

Further undermining your allegation, you never had the guts
to reply to zencycle's post, which exemplified the adage, "Brevity
is the soul of wit." But you did post a 486 line reply to ME in
which you tried in vain to set up a thick smokescreen
designed to fool people into thinking you had never made the
mistake at which zencycle caught you:

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!original/talk.origins/r5d2SywN8Uo/o42j5KH1AQAJ
Lines: 489

Subject: Re: The conundrum of hominin phylogeny

Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2018 14:37:01 -0400
Message-ID: <pplgrd$g0j$1...@news.albasani.net>


Is there any reason why you should not be written off as
a pathological liar, a troll far worse than JTEM, and a scientific fraud?

Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
University of So. Carolina

http://www.math.sc.edu/~nyikos/

[Oxyaena]

On 10/12/2018 6:27 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> Oops, I missed this post when I wrote about Oxyaena having
> made an unobtrusive return today.
>
> Anyway, what I wrote at the end of my reply is still valid,
> because I can't find anything below besides trolling misdirection,
> except possibly Oxyaena's first line. I do not
> recognize the words 'e is attributing to me there,
> and will deal with them once they are documented.
>

Obviously you don't, because you have selective amnesia, documentation here:

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!original/talk.origins/Pj-wASonjKc/eL9ZX2H6AwAJ

"[I'm leaving out one person who was a great

handicap for years, but who seems to have reformed and is now

perhaps our best contributor.]"



[snip]

[Oxyaena]

So you automatically screen anything out that contradicts your
preconceived notions? Dull surprise.

[John Harshman]

On 10/8/18 1:27 PM, jte...@gmail.com wrote:
> John Harshman wrote:
>
>> Sperm competition doesn't actually competition among sperm, exactly.
>
> Extraneous.
>
>> It involves competition in the number of sperm. This does
>> not result in selection at y loci, particularly.
>
> You're spewing nonsense. And there's a Real World
> model pointing towards what you say doesn't exist:
>
> Gorillas.
>
> There's no sperm competition with gorillas. You have
> one male and a bunch of females. When the one male
> is chased off or killed he is replaced with a different
> male.
>
> ...gorillas have small testicles, smaller than
> even humans, and their y chromosome looks more
> similar to that of humans than does the chimps. Chimps
> have the greatest amount of reproductive competition
> between the three. They have the largest testicles and
> the most divergent y chromosome.

Can you present the evidence for this y-chromosome divergence? Can you
present evidence that it resulted from selection due to sperm competition?

[Mario Petrinovic]

Hm, what if she/he cannot? Evidence isn't important. It is your
intelligence that is important.
Every idiot knows if he has the undeniable evidence. The trick is to
figure out without the undeniable evidence. When you have the undeniable
evidence than your purpose to figuring it out isn't important anymore.

[Mario Petrinovic]

Well, I have to expand on this, because I am so bombarded on this
amateur forums with this "Do you have the evidence?" thing. Somebody
(probably catholic believers) convinced people that if they don't have a
full-proof evidence, then they must stop thinking. No, the World (the
Universe) isn't like that. There is a logic that applies to our world,
very similar (if not, the same) logic applied to the world in the past,
and will apply to the world in the future. Before, we had sun, we had
moon, we had plants, we had animals, we had plant-eaters, we had
predators, and so on. So, take a look around you, the world in the past
was a modified world that is today. The understanding of this
"modification" is crucial, not the actual evidence.
This whole rant may have nothing to do with y-chromosome, I just
wanted to react on "the evidence" thing. We have to discuss logic, not
limit our scope just to pure evidence (like catholic priests want us to do).

[JTEM]

John Harshman wrote:

> Can you present the evidence for this y-chromosome divergence?

Tell me, how is your position going to change if
I presented a cite? Clearly your opinions expressed
here are based on ignorance, or so you claim. You
insist that you don't know about any of this and
require a cite. But...


Why would you ever ask?

A real academic or scientist would have looked it
up themselves. The act of "Researching" would have
come as second nature.

Look. You're a cunt. You're a mentally disordered
cunt pretending to be someone & something you are
not.

You can't fake it. You are so far removed from real
academics & scientists that you can't imitate one.
And, it's not fooling anyone.





-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/179034330638

[Mario Petrinovic]

This is another thing that I noticed.
When somebody asks for a credibility of the one with whom he discuss,
this is only because he lacks his own credibility.

[John Harshman]

On 10/13/18 11:24 PM, JTEM wrote:
> John Harshman wrote:
>
>> Can you present the evidence for this y-chromosome divergence?
>
> Tell me, how is your position going to change if
> I presented a cite?

That depends on whether your citation actually shows what you claim it
does. What would you cite?

[Peter Nyikos]

What's more, I gave cogent reasons for disbelieving any
such claim by zencycle, and you snipped it so you
could project a perennial "weakness" of John Harshman onto me:

>
> So you automatically screen anything out that contradicts your
> preconceived notions? Dull surprise.

Your failure to document any such post by zencyle, and your highly
suspicious snip, is a *prima facie* case for this being just the latest
of over a thousand lies you have hurled at me over the years.


It is also blatantly Harshman-serving, since Harshman is probably
the foremost practitioner in BOTH sci.bio.paleontology and talk.origins
of "seeing only those posts that he wants to see." He's even applied it
to a whole thread to s.b.p. recently, one whose Subject: line ended in
"ATTN: John Harshman".

What's more, the excuse that the OP for this thread was "off-topic"
would ring hollow, since it was a reply to a post by Harshman that
was not only completely off-topic, but also showed flagrant
favoritism for you over me.


Peter Nyikos

[John Harshman]

On 10/15/18 10:45 AM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> It is also blatantly Harshman-serving, since Harshman is probably
> the foremost practitioner in BOTH sci.bio.paleontology and talk.origins
> of "seeing only those posts that he wants to see." He's even applied it
> to a whole thread to s.b.p. recently, one whose Subject: line ended in
> "ATTN: John Harshman".

Just for my information: have you entirely abandoned the so-called
"gentleman's agreement"?

[Peter Nyikos]

On Friday, October 12, 2018 at 1:59:42 PM UTC-4, JTEM wrote:
> John Harshman wrote:

> > JTEM wrote:

>>> Harshman wrote:

>>>> JTEM wrote:

>>>>> Harshman had written the following question:

>>>>>> Do you have any evidence for selection on the Y chromosome resulting
>>>>>> from sperm competition?

>>>> > Other than the example I already gave you?

>>> > I missed that example.

[restoration of words by JTEM that Harshman snipped:]

>>> Look. Real "scientists" and educators do research.
>>> It's not something they think about, it's not
>>> a burden it's what they do. And you couldn't even
>>> bother to follow along a thread you have already
>>>posted to six times, using this

[end of restoration]
> > > Harpman sock puppet

With his unmarked snip, Harshman is deliberately letting himself be diverted
from on-topic discussion, in preference to off-topic trivia:

> > ?

Harshman is used to these kinds of "sock puppet" insults by
you. Even I am used to them, and I have had much less contact
with you than he has had.

> Still waiting for you to respond to my first example,
> you blithering idiot. Stop trying to distract, do
> your best to feign an education and "Research" what
> is sitting inside of this thread.

In a post on another thread,
I had only recalled how he kept "feeding" you even though
he had called you a troll, but in fact the reverse is more true:
you are feeding trolling by Harshman here.

His behavior towards you is the exact opposite of his
behavior towards me. When I make a VALID comment about him
that he considers to be negative, he usually does an unmarked
snip of it and proceeds to only address the on-topic stuff.

One exception was where he did something even worse. He refused
to respond at all to the on-topic stuff unless I removed everything
off-topic. When I did just that, he acted like a control freak by
*still* refusing to respond to the purely on-topic post, telling me
to take his refusal as an object lesson.


Anyway, I am assuming the post that you are referring to above
is the one where the following took place:

________________________repost ___________________________

John Harshman wrote:

> Sperm competition doesn't actually competition among sperm, exactly.

Extraneous.

> It involves competition in the number of sperm. This does
> not result in selection at y loci, particularly.

You're spewing nonsense. And there's a Real World
model pointing towards what you say doesn't exist:

Gorillas.

There's no sperm competition with gorillas. You have
one male and a bunch of females. When the one male
is chased off or killed he is replaced with a different
male.

...gorillas have small testicles, smaller than
even humans, and their y chromosome looks more
similar to that of humans than does the chimps. Chimps
have the greatest amount of reproductive competition
between the three. They have the largest testicles and
the most divergent y chromosome.

========================= end of repost ====================

You seem to be saying that there is selection on the Y chromosome
from sperm competition among chimps, in answer to Harshman's Usenet
Treadmill Salesman question,

[repeated from above]

>>>>>> Do you have any evidence for selection on the Y chromosome resulting
>>>>>> from sperm competition?

Your claim about chimps is solidly based on the general understanding of
natural selection pushing evolution along, but in hindsight: greater
disparity resulting from natural selection (and mutation, of course)
than if there is no natural selection, as in gorillas.

Where gorillas are concerned, you've got a case corroborated by actual
observation. Is there similar corroboration where chimps are concerned?

Harshman obviously isn't interested in this kind of discussion,
and in reply to this post which he supposedly "missed," he
only asked where one could find the information about greater
disparity among chimps. His subsequent behavior indicates he
wasn't really interested in reading any answer you might
have provided -- strange behavior for someone who called you
a notorious troll.

But now that we've established this, I really would like
to see an article where sperm competition among chimps is
addressed, and would appreciate you giving a reference.


Peter Nyikos
Professor of Mathematics
U. of South Carolina -- standard disclaimer --

[Oxyaena]

Try reading the fucking thread I`m referencing, dipshit.


[snip idiocy]

[Peter Nyikos]

On Friday, October 12, 2018 at 3:20:36 PM UTC-4, JTEM wrote:
> John Harshman wrote:
>
> > JTEM wrote:
> > > John Harshman wrote:
> > >
> > >> JTEM wrote:
> > >>
> > >>> Harpman sock puppet
> > >>
> > >> ?
> > >
> > > Still waiting for you to respond to my first example,
> > > you blithering idiot. Stop trying to distract, do
> > > your best to feign an education and "Research" what
> > > is sitting inside of this thread.
> >
> > ?

I forgot that Harshman had trolled you twice with single symbol
replies, both times using only question marks. There can be
little doubt about it any more: he is playing the troll in
this exchange, and you are continuing to "feed the troll":

> Honestly, it's not any kind of a burden. A real
> academic type or scientist would have impulsively
> gone back & looked, pretending they would have
> missed anything the first time.
>
> You're delusional in your belief that you can fool
> anyone. You simply are incompetent at playing the
> part.

He certainly isn't fooling me. And Oxaena isn't fooling me by the way
she licked the troll-playing Harshman: hate-ravaged despicable troll
that Oxyaena is, she claimed that a question mark is all a[n alleged]
troll like you deserves.

Two can play that game: a single period ("full stop" as they says
in the British commonwealth) is all a hate-ravaged troll like Oxyaena
deserves. And I've been working hard in talk.origins to give Oxyaena
her just deserts.

Here in sci.bio.paleontology it is a slightly different story. I'm happy
with Oxyaena making on-topic contributions, as long as they aren't on
the middle school level or lower. Unfortunately, we've been getting
all too many of that kind of effort lately. You called her on one
grade-school level atrocity with your crack about it only being
taken seriously in an alzheimer's ward. And all she can do about
that is to bluster about how a[n alleged] troll like you doesn't
deserve replies from her.

And she accuses Mario and Deden of being cases of Dunning-Kruger
syndrome!!!


> http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/178965833418

That's quite an eye-opener about Melanesians not being Negroid, but there
used to be an elephant in the adjacent room, so to speak: the Tasmanian
aborigines certainly seemed to be Negroid. They were the victims of the most
complete genocide of all time, but I hope we still can get complete DNA
samples from some of them.

If you'll excuse a play on words: I hope the genocide did not result
in genome-cide.

Peter Nyikos
Professor of Mathematics

U. of So. Carolina -- standard disclaimer --

[Oxyaena]

On 10/15/2018 9:56 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
[snip idiocy]

> Here in sci.bio.paleontology it is a slightly different story. I'm happy
> with Oxyaena making on-topic contributions, as long as they aren't on

> the middle school level or lower. [snip blatant JTEM-serving boot-licking on Nyikos' part]

> And she accuses Mario and Deden of being cases of Dunning-Kruger
> syndrome!!!
>

Cite any of these supposed instances of my contributions being
"middle-school level or lower." I dare you to back these bold-faced lies
of yours up, coward.

>
>> http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/178965833418
>
> That's quite an eye-opener about Melanesians not being Negroid, but there
> used to be an elephant in the adjacent room, so to speak: the Tasmanian
> aborigines certainly seemed to be Negroid. They were the victims of the most
> complete genocide of all time, but I hope we still can get complete DNA
> samples from some of them.

You're not aware of this? And there isn't *any* biological basis for
race. Indeed, if one were to use genetics as the basis for race West and
East Africans would be completely separate races. In general, human
population variation is too subtle to placed into arbitrary geographic
groupings based solely off of superficial characteristics, clines are
better at representing human population variation, not the obsolete idea
of racialism.

[Oxyaena]

From what I`m able to gather, that would be a "yes". Notice how Nyikos
hasn't answered this question of yours. I wonder why.

[John Harshman]

What actual observation are you talking about here, and what case are
you talking about? He hasn't supported the claim that the chimp Y
chromosome is "the most diverged" or that if it is, natural selection
has had any influence on that divergence.

Further, how does sperm competition conceivably exert selection on Y
chromosome structure? Can you imagine a mechanism for that?

> Harshman obviously isn't interested in this kind of discussion,
> and in reply to this post which he supposedly "missed," he
> only asked where one could find the information about greater
> disparity among chimps.

Do you know where?

> But now that we've established this, I really would like
> to see an article where sperm competition among chimps is
> addressed, and would appreciate you giving a reference.

Exactly.

[JTEM]

John Harshman wrote:

> That depends on

Again, no real academic or scientist would
have even asked. They would have simply
Googled it, pretending that they weren't
already quite familiar with the evidence.

You ask for cites hoping to trip up people,
because you've been tripped up yourself. But
only because there were no cites to support
your idiocy. I just looked. Nope, no problems
finding information at all. So it's not like
you tried and failed.

You didn't try, but you did fail...

again, you are so far removed from what you're
pretending to be that you can't imitate a
real academic/scientist. You don't have any clue
as to how to play the role.




-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/179116558518

[JTEM]

Mario Petrinovic wrote:

> This is another thing that I noticed.
> When somebody asks for a credibility of the one with whom he discuss,
> this is only because he lacks his own credibility.

I ask for cites all the time, because i've
investigated a claim and could not find
anything supporting what is being said. But
I also do my proverbial "30 second Google
search" when someone asks me for a cite, just
to verify that they are a load of shit, and
if they did have any intellectual curiosity
they would have found a cite without any
difficulty.

This is the problem here: Trolls are regularly
made fools of by people asking for cites, which
of course they are unable to supply. But they
can't supply them because they don't exist, and
people ask for them because they know that they
don't exist. But trolls are just idiots that
they can't tell the difference!







-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/179116558518

[JTEM]

John Harshman wrote:

> What actual observation are you talking about here, and what case are
> you talking about? He hasn't supported the claim that the chimp Y

What search engine did you use?

What was your search criteria?

The fact is, if you were what you pretend to be you'd
know this stuff. You wouldn't have to look, you'd be
familiar with it. And if by some miracle you weren't,
you'd know exactly how to find such information and
you'd find it, because that's what people with
intellectual curiosity do. Trolls, on the other hand,
parrot the things other people said to them, thinking
they must somehow have the same results...

So what search engine did you use? What was your
search criteria?




-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/179116558518

[Dexter]

______________________________________________

So... you can't cite anything, just hurl schoolyard
insults? Says more about you than anything you say about
John.

--
"The most unsettling aspect of my atheism for Christians is
when they realize that their Bible has no power to make me
wince. They are used to using it like a cattle prod to get
people to cower into compliance." - Author unknown

[JTEM]

Dexter wrote:

> So... you can't cite anything, just

What was your search criteria?

Which search engines did you use?

Admit it; you're a low life trying to pretend
he's edumacaded.





-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/179192791883

[Dexter]

JTEM wrote:

> Dexter wrote:
>
> > So... you can't cite anything, just
>
> What was your search criteria?
>
> Which search engines did you use?
>
> Admit it; you're a low life trying to pretend
> he's edumacaded.

______________________________________________

Nah, then I'd be competing with you, the expert.

[Oxyaena]

On 10/18/2018 10:55 AM, Dexter wrote:
> JTEM wrote:
>
>> John Harshman wrote:
>>
>>> That depends on
>>
>> Again, no real academic or scientist would
>> have even asked. They would have simply
>> Googled it, pretending that they weren't
>> already quite familiar with the evidence.
>>
>> You ask for cites hoping to trip up people,
>> because you've been tripped up yourself. But
>> only because there were no cites to support
>> your idiocy. I just looked. Nope, no problems
>> finding information at all. So it's not like
>> you tried and failed.
>>
>> You didn't try, but you did fail...
>>
>> again, you are so far removed from what you're
>> pretending to be that you can't imitate a
>> real academic/scientist. You don't have any clue
>> as to how to play the role.
>>
> ______________________________________________
>
> So... you can't cite anything, just hurl schoolyard
> insults? Says more about you than anything you say about
> John.
>

You've pretty much got douche bag nailed down. Then again, trolls aren't
hard to psychoanalyze.

--
Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is
those who know little, and not those who know much, who so positively
assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science." -
Charles Darwin

[Daud Deden]

"THE LEAST AFRICAN of any people on earth."


Obviously so, they are the direct descendants of the first surviving AMHs OOAfrican emigres. Modern Europeans' ancestors were still in Africa-Levant.

[JTEM]

Dexter wrote:

> Nah, then I'd be

You didn't answer. What search engine did you
use and what was your search criteria?






-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/179251299528

[JTEM]

Oxyaena wrote:

> You've pretty much

This isn't a debate. If you are who and what you
pretend to be you know for a fact I am right. If
you were merely curious on the topic, though
uneducated, you would have Googled it immediately
because that's what people who want to know about
a topic do.

This is real life. Nobody is "Fooled" by rotating
sock puppets agreeing with themselves. Facts are
facts. The information is there or it isn't. No
debate.





-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/179251450698

[JTEM]

Daud Deden wrote:

> "THE LEAST AFRICAN of any people on earth."
>
>
> Obviously so, they are the

They have less African DNA than do lily white
Europeans. They are the least African.

Again, there is no debating here. Facts can't
change just because you're disabled and the
negative attention you "Win" on usenet is the
closets thing to love for you.




-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/179251450698

[Daud Deden]

On Saturday, October 20, 2018 at 4:14:03 PM UTC-4, JTEM wrote:
> Daud Deden wrote:
>
> > "THE LEAST AFRICAN of any people on earth."
> >
> >
> > Obviously so, they are the

Note the snip, afraid the truth will hurt?

> They have less African DNA than do lily white
> Europeans. They are the least African.

Duh. They left Africa and arrived in Sunda before the rest even started. That's why they got Denisovan & Neanderthal, the later groups got a mere shadow of that; leftovers.
Speaking of that, rest snipped.

[JTEM]

Daud Deden wrote:

> Duh. They left Africa and

Nothing has changed.

At least 10% of their DNA originates outside
of Africa, which is a greater percentage than
even lily white Europeans.





-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/179262079378

[Daud Deden]

The first OOA AMHs were Congo Pygmies that followed the tropical rainforest belt to SEAsia, Papuans are their direct descendants, eg. Yali, Mbabaram.