was Europe the birthplace of mankind, not Africa?

[Swan Black]

[very interesting]

The history of human evolution has been rewritten after scientists
discovered that Europe was the birthplace of mankind, not Africa.

Currently, most experts believe that our human lineage split from apes
around seven million years ago in central Africa, where hominids remained
for the next five million years before venturing further afield.

But two fossils of an ape-like creature which had human-like teeth have
been found in Bulgaria and Greece, dating to 7.2 million years ago.


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/2017/05/22/europe-birthplace-mankind-not-africa-scientists-find/

marc

[John Harshman]

Not so fast:

http://johnhawks.net/weblog/fossils/miocene/graecopithecus/graecopithecus-fuss-2017.html

"We need to look with a more critical eye at the fossil evidence for the
earliest hominins. They really share very few features with later
hominins like Australopithecus. I think we should consider that they
might instead be part of a diversity of apes that are continuous across
parts of Africa and Europe. Our real ancestry during this earliest phase
of our evolution may still be undiscovered."

[Peter Nyikos]

On Monday, May 22, 2017 at 5:49:53 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
> On 5/22/17 2:32 PM, Swan Black wrote:
> > [very interesting]
> >
> > The history of human evolution has been rewritten after scientists
> > discovered that Europe was the birthplace of mankind, not Africa.
> >
> > Currently, most experts believe that our human lineage split from apes
> > around seven million years ago in central Africa, where hominids remained
> > for the next five million years before venturing further afield.
> >
> > But two fossils of an ape-like creature which had human-like teeth have
> > been found in Bulgaria and Greece, dating to 7.2 million years ago.
> >
> >
> > http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/2017/05/22/europe-birthplace-mankind-not-africa-scientists-find/
> >
> > marc

> Not so fast:
>
> http://johnhawks.net/weblog/fossils/miocene/graecopithecus/graecopithecus-fuss-2017.html

Thanks for finding this so soon, John.

> "We need to look with a more critical eye at the fossil evidence for the
> earliest hominins. They really share very few features with later
> hominins like Australopithecus. I think we should consider that they
> might instead be part of a diversity of apes that are continuous across
> parts of Africa and Europe. Our real ancestry during this earliest phase
> of our evolution may still be undiscovered."

Astute fellow, that John Hawks. But you think you are more "scientific"
than he is because you say "we are apes" while he uses the paraphyletic
"we are descended from apes," don't you?

Or if "scientific" is the wrong word, "objective" hits the spot for you,
doesn't it?

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

[John Harshman]

Isn't it charming of you to try to start an irrelevant fight?

[Wolffan]

On 2017 May 22, John Harshman wrote
(in article<tuSdnTLSt9BQPb7E...@giganews.com>):

it is, after all, the disgusting demoted duke of dimness. Pulling that kind
of crap is what demonic illegal aliens from far-distant star systems do.

[Peter Nyikos]

There would be no fight if you had said "no" to both questions,
and you know that all too well.


I am merely continuing a dispute that took place this past week on
sci.bio.paleontology. I told you that you evidently cannot tell
the difference between science and ideology because you've been
steeped in ideologies like cladophilia so long, you are unaware
that they aren't part of science.

Your reply was a classic Pee Wee Hermanism.

So I am here to tell you: the insistence on formulations like
"men are apes" and "birds are dinosaurs" as opposed to
"...descended from..." is pure ideology, as is the banning of
paraphyletic taxa like (traditional) "Reptilia" from being
part of any official classification, even banning a parallel
official classification on the same footing as the cladistic one.

There is nothing scientific or objective about this insistence
and that banning. It is ideology pure and simple.

I can back this up with reasoning, whereas all you have is
a broken record routine involving synonyms of "objective" and
their antonyms hurled at the classification which you refuse
to tolerate.

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

University of So. Carolina
http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos/

[Peter Nyikos]

Your badass comment is duly noted, Harshmanfan.

Peter Nyikos

[John Harshman]

Why are you trying to start a fight in the first place? Why are you
trying to hijack a thread about European possible hominids? I refuse to
participate in the hijacking.

[Wolffan]

On 2017 May 23, John Harshman wrote
(in article<IImdnRAjD5_QRrnE...@giganews.com>):

because it is evil. and insane. and leaks corrosive slime wherever it goes.

> Why are you
> trying to hijack a thread about European possible hominids?

see above

> I refuse to
> participate in the hijacking.

too late

[Wolffan]

On 2017 May 23, Peter Nyikos wrote
(in article<7149347e-8b02-4295...@googlegroups.com>):

further proof, though none is needed, of the dismal demoted duke of
dimness’ way of leaking corrosive slime wherever he crawls. Deport its
illegal alien ass back to whatever dark, dank, stinky, planet it escaped
from.
>
>
> Peter Nyikos

[Peter Nyikos]

What part of

There would be no fight if you had said "no" to both questions

didn't you understand?

> Why are you
> trying to hijack a thread about European possible hominids?

Because the last time we talked about John Hawks, you refused
to let his expertise in anthropology and study of hominids
have any traction as far as deferring to his judgment
as to "humans are descended from apes."

> I refuse to
> participate in the hijacking.

Suit yourself. But if you are curious to know why I wrote something you
snipped, I invite you back over to sci.bio.paleontology, where
I am having a nice conversation with Oxyaena:

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.bio.paleontology/0C_n2MVJpBM/Fgftu6f1BgAJ
Date: Wed, 24 May 2017 18:31:35 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <4e93aa0a-2c9f-4949...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: Phylogenetic vs. evolutionary

The relevant part of what you snipped was:

I can back this up with reasoning, whereas all you have is
a broken record routine involving synonyms of "objective" and
their antonyms hurled at the classification which you refuse
to tolerate.

And the most relevant part is the first clause.

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

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

[Peter Nyikos]

Keep talking to Harshman, Wolffan. Maybe he'll deign to
publicly acknowledge your presence here.

However, as you probably know, his public persona only sees
the posts it wants to see.

OTOH it is a safe bet that John himself is quite happy
to have you in his corner.

Peter Nyikos

[Wolffan]

On 2017 May 24, Peter Nyikos wrote
(in article<2676a564-1110-4fa9...@googlegroups.com>):

your every post shows you to be the utterly worthless waste of oxygen that
you are.

now fuck off.

[Peter Nyikos]

Harshman accused me of trying to "hijack this thread" but the fact is,
no one else came forth in all this time to contribute to the actual topic
of the thread, and Harshman himself seems content to have contributed
the (admittedly excellent) source and quote from that leading
hominid paleontologist and anthropologist, John Hawks.

But now I resurrect the thread. :-)

More precisely: I add to some criticisms of Hawks and reinforce others.

On Monday, May 22, 2017 at 5:34:54 PM UTC-4, Swan Black wrote:
> [very interesting]
>
> The history of human evolution has been rewritten after scientists
> discovered that Europe was the birthplace of mankind, not Africa.

If one goes by the next sentence, the precise term for "mankind"
would be "Hominina." This is not to be confused with "Hominini,"
which includes chimps and bonobos, nor with "Hominidae", which
includes gorillas and orangutans.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hominini

However, something I write near the bottom of this post makes
me wonder whether Wikipedia really got it right.

> Currently, most experts believe that our human lineage split from apes
> around seven million years ago in central Africa, where hominids remained
> for the next five million years before venturing further afield.

Since we are hominids, this should read "where hominids other than
mankind remained..." But this is trivial compared to the shakiness
of the last clause, even when corrected. This clause is based on the
highly vulnerable fact that no fossils of other hominids have been
found outside of Africa -- so far. But then, no fossils of hominini
(*other* than mankind) have been found IN Africa for the next
SIX million years [1] and that may also be true if "hominini" is
replaced with "hominidae"!

[1] I am going with a date of 7 million years or more for *Sahelanthropus*.
This is an enormously important hominid for purposes of classification,
and Hawks is justly critical of the fact that no official description
has been published 15 years after discovery. See the link Harshman
provided:

http://johnhawks.net/weblog/fossils/miocene/graecopithecus/graecopithecus-fuss-2017.html

> But two fossils of an ape-like creature which had human-like teeth have
> been found in Bulgaria and Greece, dating to 7.2 million years ago.
>
>
> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/2017/05/22/europe-birthplace-mankind-not-africa-scientists-find/

The following, coming soon after the part quoted above, has several
objectionable features:

An international team of researchers say the findings entirely
change the beginning of human history and place the last common
ancestor of both chimpanzees and humans - the so-called Missing Link -
in the Mediterranean region.

(1) This assumes either that the find, named *Graecopithecus freybergi*
is either the last common ancestor (LCA) itself or that it comes so
soon after the LCA that it is best to assume that it, too, is to be
found in the Mediterranean region. This is really going out on a limb.

(2) "both" is redundant and confusing -- when I first read it, I
thought the article was elevating chimps to be part of "mankind."

(3) My misreading was helped along by the widely disseminated factoid
that we diverged from chimps 5 -6 million years ago. But if the
claim above is correct, this has to be set back to ca. 7.3 mya --
not more if (1) is to be believed.

Another statement a bit further down, has other problems and compounds
the three above:

"Graecopithecus is not an ape. He is a member of the tribe of
hominins and the direct ancestor of homo."
[attributed to Professor Nikolai Spassov, Bulgarian Academy of Sciences]

However, the tribe Hominini includes chimps and bonobos, according
to that wiki entry. So if Spassov really said that, then either that
entry is not correct or else Spassov has decided that chimps and
bonobos are not apes either!

I am more inclined to believe that Spassov is being misquoted. I have
seen far worse -- but only from ordinary reporters. That a Science
Editor of "The Telegraph" should be misquoting like this is a little
bit surprising. But then, we can't expect Sarah Knapton to be a jack
(jill?) of all trades, even all scientific trades.

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

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

[erik simpson]

It's much more informative to read the actual publication

http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0177127

than the telegraph's mashup.

[John Harshman]

On 5/25/17 4:31 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> On Monday, May 22, 2017 at 5:34:54 PM UTC-4, Swan Black wrote:
>> [very interesting]
>>
>> The history of human evolution has been rewritten after scientists
>> discovered that Europe was the birthplace of mankind, not Africa.
>
> If one goes by the next sentence, the precise term for "mankind"
> would be "Hominina." This is not to be confused with "Hominini,"
> which includes chimps and bonobos, nor with "Hominidae", which
> includes gorillas and orangutans.
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hominini

I'm not acquainted with the suffix "-ina". Does it attach to a
particular rank?

> However, something I write near the bottom of this post makes
> me wonder whether Wikipedia really got it right.
>
>> Currently, most experts believe that our human lineage split from apes
>> around seven million years ago in central Africa, where hominids remained
>> for the next five million years before venturing further afield.
>
> Since we are hominids, this should read "where hominids other than
> mankind remained..."

But, depending on the definition of "hominid", what would make this
claim false wouldn't be humans but orangutans and gibbons, if anything.
Do you know of any human fossils more than 2 million years old outside
Africa? (Aside from the Greek fossils, perhaps.)

[Peter Nyikos]

On Thursday, May 25, 2017 at 8:04:54 PM UTC-4, erik simpson wrote:
> On Thursday, May 25, 2017 at 4:34:53 PM UTC-7, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> > Harshman accused me of trying to "hijack this thread" but the fact is,
> > no one else came forth in all this time to contribute to the actual topic
> > of the thread, and Harshman himself seems content to have contributed
> > the (admittedly excellent) source and quote from that leading
> > hominid paleontologist and anthropologist, John Hawks.
> >
> > But now I resurrect the thread. :-)
> >
> > More precisely: I add to some criticisms of Hawks and reinforce others.
> >
> > On Monday, May 22, 2017 at 5:34:54 PM UTC-4, Swan Black wrote:
> > > [very interesting]
> > >
> > > The history of human evolution has been rewritten after scientists
> > > discovered that Europe was the birthplace of mankind, not Africa.
> >
> > If one goes by the next sentence, the precise term for "mankind"
> > would be "Hominina." This is not to be confused with "Hominini,"
> > which includes chimps and bonobos, nor with "Hominidae", which
> > includes gorillas and orangutans.
> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hominini

<snip for focus>

> > "Graecopithecus is not an ape. He is a member of the tribe of
> > hominins and the direct ancestor of homo."
> > [attributed to Professor Nikolai Spassov, Bulgarian Academy of Sciences]

<snip to get to Erik's valuable contribution>

> It's much more informative to read the actual publication
>
> http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0177127
>
> than the telegraph's mashup.

Thanks, I hope to find the time to read it soon; it's good that it isn't
paywalled.

The article uses minor variations on the actual taxon names for easy
reference. Here is how:

In the present study, we define `hominoid' as `apes'; `hominid'
as `great apes and humans'; `hominine' as `African apes and humans';
and `hominin' as `humans and their non-ape ancestors'.

The above matches one to one with what I quoted from Wikipedia above,
except that I made no mention of Hominoidea, which includes gibbons
and siamangs along with all the Hominidae. However, the quote
attributed to Spassov calls hominin (= Hominina) a "tribe" but Wikipedia
puts hominine (= Hominini) at the rank of "tribe."

The abstract of the article also seems to disagree with Wikipedia:

Graecopithecus is often referred to as nomen dubium. The examination
of its previously unknown dental root and pulp canal morphology confirms
the taxonomic distinction from the significantly older northern Greek
hominine Ouranopithecus. Furthermore, it shows features that point to a
possible phylogenetic affinity with hominins. G. freybergi uniquely
shares p4 partial root fusion and a possible canine root reduction
with this TRIBE [caps mine] and therefore, provides intriguing evidence
of what could be the oldest known hominin.

Leaving aside the specialized question of which is the real tribe,
I note that John Hawks has criticized this use of the few characters
mentioned in the abstract to create inordinate optimism in the
placement of G. freybergi. This is in the link that Harshman provided:

http://johnhawks.net/weblog/fossils/miocene/graecopithecus/graecopithecus-fuss-2017.html

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

nyikos 'at' math.sc.edu

[Peter Nyikos]

On Thursday, May 25, 2017 at 10:29:54 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
> On 5/25/17 4:31 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> > On Monday, May 22, 2017 at 5:34:54 PM UTC-4, Swan Black wrote:
> >> [very interesting]
> >>
> >> The history of human evolution has been rewritten after scientists
> >> discovered that Europe was the birthplace of mankind, not Africa.
> >
> > If one goes by the next sentence, the precise term for "mankind"
> > would be "Hominina." This is not to be confused with "Hominini,"
> > which includes chimps and bonobos, nor with "Hominidae", which
> > includes gorillas and orangutans.
> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hominini
>
> I'm not acquainted with the suffix "-ina". Does it attach to a
> particular rank?

According to the following Wiki webpage, it is a "subtribe".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hominidae

The following excerpt should be helpful; had I seen it, I would
not have spent so much time comparing the webpage on Hominini
with the original article Erik found the link for.

The term hominid is easily confused with a number of
very similar words:

A hominoid, commonly called an ape, is a member of the superfamily
Hominoidea: extant members are the gibbons (lesser apes, family
Hylobatidae) and the hominids.
A hominid is a member of the family Hominidae, the great apes:
orangutans, gorillas, chimpanzees, and humans.
A hominine is a member of the subfamily Homininae: gorillas,
chimpanzees, and humans (excludes orangutans).
A hominin is a member of the tribe Hominini: Chimpanzees and humans.
A homininan is a member of the subtribe Hominina of the tribe Hominini:
that is, modern humans and their closest relatives after their
split from chimpanzees.
A human is a member of the genus Homo, of which Homo sapiens is
the only extant species, and within that Homo sapiens sapiens
is the only surviving subspecies.

Unfortunately, the designation "hominin" as defined above disagrees
with the one in the Plos One article, which attaches it to what the
above list attaches the term "homininan".

Even more unfortunately, this one disagreement crops up elsewhere:

A hominin is a member of the tribe Hominini, including humans
and some extinct species.[1] Usage varies as to whether
chimpanzees are included.[2] [3]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hominin


By the way, the word "mankind" used by The Telegraph appears nowhere
in the Plos One original, so that is one less thing to have to
keep straight.

> >> Currently, most experts believe that our human lineage split from apes
> >> around seven million years ago in central Africa, where hominids
remained
> >> for the next five million years before venturing further afield.
> >
> > Since we are hominids, this should read "where hominids other than
> > mankind remained..."
>
> But, depending on the definition of "hominid", what would make this
> claim false wouldn't be humans but orangutans and gibbons, if anything.

You're right, except for the gibbons: I was already thinking ahead to
the new discovery, which almost surely is a hominid even if it is not a
hominine, hominin, or homininan.

But as you can see, the gibbons are not hominids, but only hominoids.

> Do you know of any human fossils more than 2 million years old outside
> Africa? (Aside from the Greek fossils, perhaps.)

You mean fossils of homininans, don't you? Nobody claimed that
*Graecopithecus* was a human.

And the answer is negative.

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

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

[The Incredibly Lucky JTEM]

Peter Nyikos wrote:

> So I am here to tell you: the insistence on formulations like
> "men are apes" and "birds are dinosaurs" as opposed to
> "...descended from..." is pure ideology

I explained it all here:

http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/962773160

Actually, if you really think about it we've got
it backwards. It makes far more sense to begin
here, in the present, and project backwards in time.

For example...

You're a human, so your great great great
grandfathers were humans as well. And their
great great great great grandfathers were human...
as were their great great great great grandfathers...

On & on & on.

Why not claim that, as we are human, everyone &
everything in our line -- as far back as we can
possibly go (including the fossil record) -- is
also human?

The online fakers honestly don't know the difference
between "Fact" and "Convention." Is it any wonder
that the same "People" can't move past a headline &
into the details of a story?








-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/962773160

[Peter Nyikos]

On Friday, May 26, 2017 at 10:19:53 AM UTC-4, The Incredibly Lucky JTEM wrote:
> Peter Nyikos wrote:
>
> > So I am here to tell you: the insistence on formulations like
> > "men are apes" and "birds are dinosaurs" as opposed to
> > "...descended from..." is pure ideology
>
> I explained it all here:
>
> http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/962773160

It's cute, but Harshman is almost completely satire-proof.

He's quite happy with saying birds are fish, and humans
are fish. He even said he's looking forward to the day when
children watching "The Incredible Mr. Limpet" will be either
puzzled or amused when the main character (played by Don Knotts,
perhaps best know for his "Barney Fife" role) says, "More than
anything else, I wish I were a fish."

The amused ones will "know" that Barney is only wanting to
become a non-tetrapod fish. Some budding paleontologists
among them would even figure out that he really wanted
to be a non-Sarcopterygian fish, after seeing the kind of
fish he became.

Harshman's satire-proofing reminds me of an old Beetle Bailery
strip. Sgt. Snorkel tells Captain Scabbard that he is taking
his pet dog Otto to a ball game. Otto is still in the early stages
of his "evolution," walking on his hind legs but not yet wearing
a uniform.

Scabbard says sarcastically, "The next thing you know, you'll be getting
him a pennant and a hot dog and a soda."

The last panel has Otto sitting next to Sarge at the game,
sipping soda through a straw, with a pennant with the rod
held under his arm, a hotdog next to him, and even wearing a cool
pair of shades.

Meanwhile Sarge is musing, "What did he mean, `the next thing'?

> Actually, if you really think about it we've got
> it backwards. It makes far more sense to begin
> here, in the present, and project backwards in time.
>
> For example...
>
> You're a human, so your great great great
> grandfathers were humans as well. And their
> great great great great grandfathers were human...
> as were their great great great great grandfathers...
>
> On & on & on.
>
> Why not claim that, as we are human, everyone &
> everything in our line -- as far back as we can
> possibly go (including the fossil record) -- is
> also human?

Bite your tongue, JTEM! You're sounding like a creationist. :-)

> The online fakers honestly don't know the difference
> between "Fact" and "Convention." Is it any wonder
> that the same "People" can't move past a headline &
> into the details of a story?

> http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/962773160

In a more slightly more serious vein, did you see the quotes that
show these PlosOne reseachers are on our side? Especially this one:

"Graecopithecus is not an ape. He is a member of the tribe of
hominins and the direct ancestor of homo."
[attributed to Professor Nikolai Spassov, Bulgarian Academy of Sciences]

Now that I've seen that the PlosOne paper uses "hominins" in the same
way, and that many if most other paleoanthropologists use it in the
same way, I no longer doubt the authenticity of the quote. I wonder
whether Harshman will stick to his guns and say, "He's wrong,
Graecopithecus IS an ape and so are we."

Be that as it may, expect him to accuse both of us of "Re-hijacking
this thread." ;-)

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

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

[John Harshman]

On 5/26/17 6:59 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> On Friday, May 26, 2017 at 10:19:53 AM UTC-4, The Incredibly Lucky JTEM wrote:
>> Peter Nyikos wrote:
>>
>>> So I am here to tell you: the insistence on formulations like
>>> "men are apes" and "birds are dinosaurs" as opposed to
>>> "...descended from..." is pure ideology
>>
>> I explained it all here:
>>
>> http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/962773160
>
> It's cute, but Harshman is almost completely satire-proof.

Yep, those creationists sure can come up with the knee-slappers.

> He's quite happy with saying birds are fish, and humans
> are fish. He even said he's looking forward to the day when
> children watching "The Incredible Mr. Limpet" will be either
> puzzled or amused when the main character (played by Don Knotts,
> perhaps best know for his "Barney Fife" role) says, "More than
> anything else, I wish I were a fish."
>
> The amused ones will "know" that Barney is only wanting to
> become a non-tetrapod fish. Some budding paleontologists
> among them would even figure out that he really wanted
> to be a non-Sarcopterygian fish, after seeing the kind of
> fish he became.

He wanted to be an Actinopterygian. Is that so hard to say?

> Harshman's satire-proofing reminds me of an old Beetle Bailery
> strip. Sgt. Snorkel tells Captain Scabbard that he is taking
> his pet dog Otto to a ball game. Otto is still in the early stages
> of his "evolution," walking on his hind legs but not yet wearing
> a uniform.
>
> Scabbard says sarcastically, "The next thing you know, you'll be getting
> him a pennant and a hot dog and a soda."
>
> The last panel has Otto sitting next to Sarge at the game,
> sipping soda through a straw, with a pennant with the rod
> held under his arm, a hotdog next to him, and even wearing a cool
> pair of shades.
>
> Meanwhile Sarge is musing, "What did he mean, `the next thing'?

Yep, that Mort Walker sure could come up with the knee-slappers.

>> Actually, if you really think about it we've got
>> it backwards. It makes far more sense to begin
>> here, in the present, and project backwards in time.
>>
>> For example...
>>
>> You're a human, so your great great great
>> grandfathers were humans as well. And their
>> great great great great grandfathers were human...
>> as were their great great great great grandfathers...
>>
>> On & on & on.
>>
>> Why not claim that, as we are human, everyone &
>> everything in our line -- as far back as we can
>> possibly go (including the fossil record) -- is
>> also human?
>
> Bite your tongue, JTEM! You're sounding like a creationist. :-)

Comes the dawn.

>> The online fakers honestly don't know the difference
>> between "Fact" and "Convention." Is it any wonder
>> that the same "People" can't move past a headline &
>> into the details of a story?
>
>> http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/962773160
>
> In a more slightly more serious vein, did you see the quotes that
> show these PlosOne reseachers are on our side? Especially this one:

What do you mean "our side"? JTEM is a creationist.

> "Graecopithecus is not an ape. He is a member of the tribe of
> hominins and the direct ancestor of homo."
> [attributed to Professor Nikolai Spassov, Bulgarian Academy of Sciences]

Elsewhere you have noticed that science journalism isn't the most
accurate source of quotes. Who knows if that's what Spassov actually said?

> Now that I've seen that the PlosOne paper uses "hominins" in the same
> way, and that many if most other paleoanthropologists use it in the
> same way, I no longer doubt the authenticity of the quote.

What do you mean by "the same way"?

> I wonder
> whether Harshman will stick to his guns and say, "He's wrong,
> Graecopithecus IS an ape and so are we."

Of course I will. Why shouldn't I? Note, by the way, that the
creationists are pushing for the paraphyletic meaning, rather than the
cladistic one you would prefer. That's because it's cladistic
definitions, not the paraphyletic ones, that actually point up
evolution, the reverse of your beliefs.

[The Incredibly Lucky JTEM]

John Harshman wrote:

> What do you mean "our side"? JTEM is a creationist.

Not only have I never been a creationist, but
the real Harpman argued AGAINST me years ago
when I insisted that Neanderthals interbred
with so-called "Modern" humans.

Hacman said they didn't, I said they did...

Also; the real Harkman argued that Microraptor
displayed arboreal traits, and after my
humiliating him for seeing feathers and
shouting "Arboreal!" he finally admitted
that the so-called "Arboreal traits" on
Microraptor were (now get this) it's
feathers!

The real Harfman, well, he definitely knew
for a fact that I wasn't a creationist, but
boy was he a frigging retard...




-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/160506282838

[Rolf]

"Peter Nyikos" <nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:913d9ab9-3f35-4050...@googlegroups.com...

Nonsense. Even an amateur like me observe that we should be classified as
apes. Not only do us apes share a common LCA, there are so much that puts us
squarely in the evolutionary history of our shared origins with the other
apes.

[Peter Nyikos]

And also as fish? See my reply to JTEM late last week.

> Not only do us apes share a common LCA, there are so much that puts us
> squarely in the evolutionary history of our shared origins with the other
> apes.

All true (except for the cute "us apes", like saying "us fish"), and all
irrelevant to the issue at hand.

All you are confirming is that you've bought into the ideology which
says "We are apes" is scientific, while "We are descended from apes"
is not scientific, despite its usage by paleoanthropogist John Hawks.
We also have the division between "apes" and humans (also between
"great apes" and "humans") by the four authors of the PlosOne article
that we are debating.

Harshman has yet to produce a single paleoanthropologist who insists
on the terminology which the two of you "know" to be the correct one.

In the past, he's made hay of the fact that I could only find one
paleoanthropologist (Hawks) who is on my side. I wonder whether
he'll say something like the following: "So far, you have only found
five examples. What makes you sure there are any more?" while
bluffing his way past the fact that he's found none on his side.

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

Univ. of South Carolina
http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos/

[John Harshman]

Would you say they're the same thing? I'd say "apes" is a lot easier to
accept for most people. We do, after all, look quite a bit like the
common idea of "ape", less like the common idea of "fish". Keep your
hands off me, you damned dirty non-homininan hominoid.

>> Not only do us apes share a common LCA, there are so much that puts us
>> squarely in the evolutionary history of our shared origins with the other
>> apes.
>
> All true (except for the cute "us apes", like saying "us fish"), and all
> irrelevant to the issue at hand.
>
> All you are confirming is that you've bought into the ideology which
> says "We are apes" is scientific, while "We are descended from apes"
> is not scientific, despite its usage by paleoanthropogist John Hawks.
> We also have the division between "apes" and humans (also between
> "great apes" and "humans") by the four authors of the PlosOne article
> that we are debating.
>
> Harshman has yet to produce a single paleoanthropologist who insists
> on the terminology which the two of you "know" to be the correct one.

I didn't think anyone had asked me to. Why would it be relevant? We've
already established that you reject the majority opinion in a field as a
reason to do anything, or you'd be willing to go with the systematists.
Instead you're in search of a sub-field in which you can claim the
majority view.

> In the past, he's made hay of the fact that I could only find one
> paleoanthropologist (Hawks) who is on my side. I wonder whether
> he'll say something like the following: "So far, you have only found
> five examples. What makes you sure there are any more?" while
> bluffing his way past the fact that he's found none on his side.

Have you in fact found five examples? Or just one?

[Peter Nyikos]

On Friday, May 26, 2017 at 10:29:57 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
> On 5/26/17 6:59 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> > On Friday, May 26, 2017 at 10:19:53 AM UTC-4, The Incredibly Lucky JTEM wrote:
> >> Peter Nyikos wrote:
> >>
> >>> So I am here to tell you: the insistence on formulations like
> >>> "men are apes" and "birds are dinosaurs" as opposed to
> >>> "...descended from..." is pure ideology
> >>
> >> I explained it all here:
> >>
> >> http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/962773160
> >
> > It's cute, but Harshman is almost completely satire-proof.

> Yep, those creationists sure can come up with the knee-slappers.

What creationists? JTEM denies being one, and you have yet to
produce evidence that he is one, or even to reply to his post
where he denied being one -- in direct reply to you, no less.

Now, if I were to do a satire on you, I'd go the whole hog,
e.g. "Harshman is an ocean of prebiotic soup consisting of
a variety of organic compounds, including amino acids and nucleotides."

Or: "Harshman, by his own standards, is a protocell using mostly
nucleotide-chain enzymes rather than protein enzymes, whereas
I am a human descended from such protocells and, much more
recently, from apes."

Now those are REAL knee-slappers. :-)

> > He's quite happy with saying birds are fish, and humans
> > are fish. He even said he's looking forward to the day when
> > children watching "The Incredible Mr. Limpet" will be either
> > puzzled or amused when the main character (played by Don Knotts,
> > perhaps best know for his "Barney Fife" role) says, "More than
> > anything else, I wish I were a fish."


> > The amused ones will "know" that Barney is only wanting to
> > become a non-tetrapod fish. Some budding paleontologists
> > among them would even figure out that he really wanted
> > to be a non-Sarcopterygian fish, after seeing the kind of
> > fish he became.
>
> He wanted to be an Actinopterygian. Is that so hard to say?

Are you sure he didn't become a stem Osteichthyan? What sorts of
apomorphies of Actinopterygii did the transformed Mr. Limpet have?


<snip digression about Beetle Bailey>

> >> Actually, if you really think about it we've got
> >> it backwards. It makes far more sense to begin
> >> here, in the present, and project backwards in time.
> >>
> >> For example...
> >>
> >> You're a human, so your great great great
> >> grandfathers were humans as well. And their
> >> great great great great grandfathers were human...
> >> as were their great great great great grandfathers...
> >>
> >> On & on & on.
> >>
> >> Why not claim that, as we are human, everyone &
> >> everything in our line -- as far back as we can
> >> possibly go (including the fossil record) -- is
> >> also human?
> >
> > Bite your tongue, JTEM! You're sounding like a creationist. :-)
>
> Comes the dawn.

Quite the seasoned propagandist, aren't you? Your wording is designed
to lull the skeptical faculties of your readers to sleep where the
straightforward "Actually he IS a creationist" would almost invite
a request for evidence.

Anyway, please take this as a request for evidence or at least for
a direct reply to JTEM's post where he issued his denial.

> >> The online fakers honestly don't know the difference
> >> between "Fact" and "Convention." Is it any wonder
> >> that the same "People" can't move past a headline &
> >> into the details of a story?
> >
> >> http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/962773160
> >
> > In a more slightly more serious vein, did you see the quotes that
> > show these PlosOne reseachers are on our side? Especially this one:
>
> What do you mean "our side"? JTEM is a creationist.

As if you didn't know that "our side" is on the issue of "humans are apes"
vs. "humans are descended from apes."

> > "Graecopithecus is not an ape. He is a member of the tribe of
> > hominins and the direct ancestor of homo."
> > [attributed to Professor Nikolai Spassov, Bulgarian Academy of Sciences]
>
> Elsewhere you have noticed that science journalism isn't the most
> accurate source of quotes. Who knows if that's what Spassov actually said?

It makes little difference, because the four-author paper he
co-authored in PlosOne has passages such as the following:

The inter-genus variability among extant great apes is low, but large
between great apes and humans.
http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0177127

> > Now that I've seen that the PlosOne paper uses "hominins" in the same
> > way, and that many if most other paleoanthropologists use it in the
> > same way, I no longer doubt the authenticity of the quote.
>
> What do you mean by "the same way"?

As meaning what is unambiguously defined as "stem Homo".

> > I wonder
> > whether Harshman will stick to his guns and say, "He's wrong,
> > Graecopithecus IS an ape and so are we."
>
> Of course I will. Why shouldn't I?

Fancy that: earlier you were accusing me of "hijacking this thread"
by bringing up this very issue, only wrt John Hawks instead of
Spassov. And now you are enthusiastically going along with this
re-hijacking while ignoring the latest post I did on the original
topic of the thread.

Was that earlier accusation anything more than polemical opportunism?

> Note, by the way, that the
> creationists are pushing for the paraphyletic meaning, rather than the
> cladistic one you would prefer.

What creationists? You haven't even made a case for JTEM being one,
nor have you even hinted at who any others might be.

And where do you get off using "you would prefer"? The cladistic meaning
has "apes are humans," which I do NOT prefer.

> That's because it's cladistic
> definitions, not the paraphyletic ones, that actually point up
> evolution, the reverse of your beliefs.

Have you gone bananas? "Humans are descended from apes" explicitly
points up evolution, as does the very meaning of "paraphyletic".

OTOH "Humans are apes" is like saying "Humans are mammals," and laymen
think of the latter as being a matter of shared characters. And so
they can take the former as being that kind of statement too.

As for your so-called "phylogenetic trees," you had to go to tortuous
lengths to attempt to disqualify mountains from being the subject of
phylogenetic trees despite there being no evolutionary history
behind such phylogenetic trees.

And nobody but you thinks your efforts at disqualification were
successful, AFAIK. I certainly do not.

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

[John Harshman]

On 5/29/17 2:50 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> On Friday, May 26, 2017 at 10:29:57 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
>> On 5/26/17 6:59 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
>>> On Friday, May 26, 2017 at 10:19:53 AM UTC-4, The Incredibly Lucky JTEM wrote:
>>>> Peter Nyikos wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> So I am here to tell you: the insistence on formulations like
>>>>> "men are apes" and "birds are dinosaurs" as opposed to
>>>>> "...descended from..." is pure ideology
>>>>
>>>> I explained it all here:
>>>>
>>>> http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/962773160
>>>
>>> It's cute, but Harshman is almost completely satire-proof.
>
>> Yep, those creationists sure can come up with the knee-slappers.
>
> What creationists? JTEM denies being one, and you have yet to
> produce evidence that he is one, or even to reply to his post
> where he denied being one -- in direct reply to you, no less.

Sorry, I got my loons confused. It's unclear just what JTEM is other
than an abusive stalker.

> Now, if I were to do a satire on you, I'd go the whole hog,
> e.g. "Harshman is an ocean of prebiotic soup consisting of
> a variety of organic compounds, including amino acids and nucleotides."
>
> Or: "Harshman, by his own standards, is a protocell using mostly
> nucleotide-chain enzymes rather than protein enzymes, whereas
> I am a human descended from such protocells and, much more
> recently, from apes."
>
> Now those are REAL knee-slappers. :-)

I already knew you had no real sense of humor. Nothing to see here.

>>> He's quite happy with saying birds are fish, and humans
>>> are fish. He even said he's looking forward to the day when
>>> children watching "The Incredible Mr. Limpet" will be either
>>> puzzled or amused when the main character (played by Don Knotts,
>>> perhaps best know for his "Barney Fife" role) says, "More than
>>> anything else, I wish I were a fish."
>
>
>>> The amused ones will "know" that Barney is only wanting to
>>> become a non-tetrapod fish. Some budding paleontologists
>>> among them would even figure out that he really wanted
>>> to be a non-Sarcopterygian fish, after seeing the kind of
>>> fish he became.
>>
>> He wanted to be an Actinopterygian. Is that so hard to say?
>
> Are you sure he didn't become a stem Osteichthyan? What sorts of
> apomorphies of Actinopterygii did the transformed Mr. Limpet have?

Well, it would be nice to dissect him, but I think we can tell he had
rayed fins and, if I recall, a homocercal tail. He was clearly not just
an actinoperygian but a teleost at that.

>>>> Actually, if you really think about it we've got
>>>> it backwards. It makes far more sense to begin
>>>> here, in the present, and project backwards in time.
>>>>
>>>> For example...
>>>>
>>>> You're a human, so your great great great
>>>> grandfathers were humans as well. And their
>>>> great great great great grandfathers were human...
>>>> as were their great great great great grandfathers...
>>>>
>>>> On & on & on.
>>>>
>>>> Why not claim that, as we are human, everyone &
>>>> everything in our line -- as far back as we can
>>>> possibly go (including the fossil record) -- is
>>>> also human?
>>>
>>> Bite your tongue, JTEM! You're sounding like a creationist. :-)
>>
>> Comes the dawn.
>
> Quite the seasoned propagandist, aren't you? Your wording is designed
> to lull the skeptical faculties of your readers to sleep where the
> straightforward "Actually he IS a creationist" would almost invite
> a request for evidence.
>
> Anyway, please take this as a request for evidence or at least for
> a direct reply to JTEM's post where he issued his denial.

I have no interest in replying to JTEM, whose posts consist of little
more than invective. I agree that he is not a creationist. But what is he?

>>>> The online fakers honestly don't know the difference
>>>> between "Fact" and "Convention." Is it any wonder
>>>> that the same "People" can't move past a headline &
>>>> into the details of a story?
>>>
>>>> http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/962773160
>>>
>>> In a more slightly more serious vein, did you see the quotes that
>>> show these PlosOne reseachers are on our side? Especially this one:
>>
>> What do you mean "our side"? JTEM is a creationist.
>
> As if you didn't know that "our side" is on the issue of "humans are apes"
> vs. "humans are descended from apes."

Why are there sides? Are there not just various people with various
opinions?

>>> "Graecopithecus is not an ape. He is a member of the tribe of
>>> hominins and the direct ancestor of homo."
>>> [attributed to Professor Nikolai Spassov, Bulgarian Academy of Sciences]
>>
>> Elsewhere you have noticed that science journalism isn't the most
>> accurate source of quotes. Who knows if that's what Spassov actually said?
>
> It makes little difference, because the four-author paper he
> co-authored in PlosOne has passages such as the following:
>
> The inter-genus variability among extant great apes is low, but large
> between great apes and humans.
> http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0177127

What does that mean? Variability in what? It seems nonsensical on its
face, as he seems to be comparing within-genus differences to
between-genus differences and is surprised to find that the latter is
greater.

>>> Now that I've seen that the PlosOne paper uses "hominins" in the same
>>> way, and that many if most other paleoanthropologists use it in the
>>> same way, I no longer doubt the authenticity of the quote.
>>
>> What do you mean by "the same way"?
>
> As meaning what is unambiguously defined as "stem Homo".

OK.

>>> I wonder
>>> whether Harshman will stick to his guns and say, "He's wrong,
>>> Graecopithecus IS an ape and so are we."
>>
>> Of course I will. Why shouldn't I?
>
> Fancy that: earlier you were accusing me of "hijacking this thread"
> by bringing up this very issue, only wrt John Hawks instead of
> Spassov. And now you are enthusiastically going along with this
> re-hijacking while ignoring the latest post I did on the original
> topic of the thread.
>
> Was that earlier accusation anything more than polemical opportunism?

Speaking of polemical opportunism, what was that you just did?

>> Note, by the way, that the
>> creationists are pushing for the paraphyletic meaning, rather than the
>> cladistic one you would prefer.
>
> What creationists? You haven't even made a case for JTEM being one,
> nor have you even hinted at who any others might be.
>
> And where do you get off using "you would prefer"? The cladistic meaning
> has "apes are humans," which I do NOT prefer.

It's no longer clear to me what point I was making there. But
creationists would never say "humans are apes". They prefer to define
"ape" as excluding humans, just like you do. (I presume that "apes are
humans" was a typo on your part.)

>> That's because it's cladistic
>> definitions, not the paraphyletic ones, that actually point up
>> evolution, the reverse of your beliefs.
>
> Have you gone bananas? "Humans are descended from apes" explicitly
> points up evolution, as does the very meaning of "paraphyletic".

But paraphyletic groups don't point up evolution unless you explicitly
mention that they're paraphyletic, whereas for monophyletic groups it's
unavoidable.

> OTOH "Humans are apes" is like saying "Humans are mammals," and laymen
> think of the latter as being a matter of shared characters. And so
> they can take the former as being that kind of statement too.

And yet, oddly, they don't. Creationists are quite willing to say that
humans are mammals, but not that we're apes. Do you wonder why?

> As for your so-called "phylogenetic trees," you had to go to tortuous
> lengths to attempt to disqualify mountains from being the subject of
> phylogenetic trees despite there being no evolutionary history
> behind such phylogenetic trees.

You have never managed to produce a phylogenetic tree of mountains or a
data set from which such a tree can be constructed. I don't think you
could. Or if you could, someone else could produce a tree and data set
that completely contradicted it.

> And nobody but you thinks your efforts at disqualification were
> successful, AFAIK. I certainly do not.

You're the only one who's expressed an opinion. And you don't know
anything about the subject of constructing phylogenetic trees, while I do.

[Peter Nyikos]

On Monday, May 29, 2017 at 7:09:54 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
> On 5/29/17 2:50 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> > On Friday, May 26, 2017 at 10:29:57 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
> >> On 5/26/17 6:59 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> >>> On Friday, May 26, 2017 at 10:19:53 AM UTC-4, The Incredibly Lucky JTEM wrote:
> >>>> Peter Nyikos wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> So I am here to tell you: the insistence on formulations like
> >>>>> "men are apes" and "birds are dinosaurs" as opposed to
> >>>>> "...descended from..." is pure ideology
> >>>>
> >>>> I explained it all here:
> >>>>
> >>>> http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/962773160
> >>>
> >>> It's cute, but Harshman is almost completely satire-proof.
> >
> >> Yep, those creationists sure can come up with the knee-slappers.
> >
> > What creationists? JTEM denies being one, and you have yet to
> > produce evidence that he is one, or even to reply to his post
> > where he denied being one -- in direct reply to you, no less.
>
> Sorry, I got my loons confused. It's unclear just what JTEM is other
> than an abusive stalker.

I have seen too few of his posts to get an impression like that.
Is he any more of an abusive stalker than you were in the first
year or so after my return in December 2010?

> > Now, if I were to do a satire on you, I'd go the whole hog,
> > e.g. "Harshman is an ocean of prebiotic soup consisting of
> > a variety of organic compounds, including amino acids and nucleotides."
> >
> > Or: "Harshman, by his own standards, is a protocell using mostly
> > nucleotide-chain enzymes rather than protein enzymes, whereas
> > I am a human descended from such protocells and, much more
> > recently, from apes."
> >
> > Now those are REAL knee-slappers. :-)
>
> I already knew you had no real sense of humor. Nothing to see here.

You have just now added evidence to the thesis that you have NO sense of
humor when the joke is on you. This is what is relevant in this case, not
your perennial broken record routine, with nary an attempt at justification,
that I have no sense of humor.

"Sixty-four thousand repetitions...make one truth. Idiots!"
-- Bernard Marx in _Brave New World_.

> >>> He's quite happy with saying birds are fish, and humans
> >>> are fish. He even said he's looking forward to the day when
> >>> children watching "The Incredible Mr. Limpet" will be either
> >>> puzzled or amused when the main character (played by Don Knotts,
> >>> perhaps best know for his "Barney Fife" role) says, "More than
> >>> anything else, I wish I were a fish."
> >
> >
> >>> The amused ones will "know" that Barney is only wanting to
> >>> become a non-tetrapod fish. Some budding paleontologists
> >>> among them would even figure out that he really wanted
> >>> to be a non-Sarcopterygian fish, after seeing the kind of
> >>> fish he became.
> >>
> >> He wanted to be an Actinopterygian. Is that so hard to say?
> >
> > Are you sure he didn't become a stem Osteichthyan? What sorts of
> > apomorphies of Actinopterygii did the transformed Mr. Limpet have?
>
> Well, it would be nice to dissect him, but I think we can tell he had
> rayed fins and, if I recall, a homocercal tail. He was clearly not just
> an actinoperygian but a teleost at that.

Homocercal it is; I'd clean forgotten. So, you are right about
his classification.

<snip back and forth culminating in you agreeing JTEM is not a
creationist>

> >>> In a more slightly more serious vein, did you see the quotes that
> >>> show these PlosOne reseachers are on our side? Especially this one:
> >>
> >> What do you mean "our side"? JTEM is a creationist.
> >
> > As if you didn't know that "our side" is on the issue of "humans are apes"
> > vs. "humans are descended from apes."
>
> Why are there sides? Are there not just various people with various
> opinions?

Now, why didn't you say this instead of falsely accusing me of trying
to "hijack the discussion"?

I believe the answer is found below, where "polemical opportunism" is being
discussed.

> >>> "Graecopithecus is not an ape. He is a member of the tribe of
> >>> hominins and the direct ancestor of homo."
> >>> [attributed to Professor Nikolai Spassov, Bulgarian Academy of Sciences]
> >>
> >> Elsewhere you have noticed that science journalism isn't the most
> >> accurate source of quotes. Who knows if that's what Spassov actually said?
> >
> > It makes little difference, because the four-author paper he
> > co-authored in PlosOne has passages such as the following:
> >
> > The inter-genus variability among extant great apes is low, but large
> > between great apes and humans.
> > http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0177127

Unable to deal with the issue of "great apes" not including humans,
you go off on a tangent. If you ever criticize me again for indulging
in free association WITHOUT running away from the issue, I'll trot
this example out:

> What does that mean? Variability in what? It seems nonsensical on its
> face, as he seems to be comparing within-genus differences to
> between-genus differences and is surprised to find that the latter is
> greater.

You are really going off half-cocked here, as though orangutans,
chimps, and gorillas all belonged to the same genus.

If you ever again deny that you shoot from the hip, I'll trot
this example out.

> >>> Now that I've seen that the PlosOne paper uses "hominins" in the same
> >>> way, and that many if most other paleoanthropologists use it in the
> >>> same way, I no longer doubt the authenticity of the quote.
> >>
> >> What do you mean by "the same way"?
> >
> > As meaning what is unambiguously defined as "stem Homo".
>
> OK.

Oops, I meant "total Homo." Of course, the Grecian hominin is a
stem Homo according to these paleonanthropologists.

> >>> I wonder
> >>> whether Harshman will stick to his guns and say, "He's wrong,
> >>> Graecopithecus IS an ape and so are we."
> >>
> >> Of course I will. Why shouldn't I?

> > Fancy that: earlier you were accusing me of "hijacking this thread"
> > by bringing up this very issue, only wrt John Hawks instead of
> > Spassov. And now you are enthusiastically going along with this
> > re-hijacking while ignoring the latest post I did on the original
> > topic of the thread.
> >
> > Was that earlier accusation anything more than polemical opportunism?
>
> Speaking of polemical opportunism, what was that you just did?

I made a carefully thought out statement, whereas polemical opportunism
means saying something that seems superficially plausible and
likely to sway casual readers, yet easily abandoned at the
first perceived opportunity to score debating points in the
opposite direction.

You added another example, first saying "of course" you would say
Spassov is "wrong," ("Why shouldn't I?) and then trying to claim that
people are just expressing opinions (including yourself) as to what
proper usage is.

Remainder deleted, to be replied to later if it seems appropriate.

Peter Nyikos
Professor of Mathematics
The original USC -- standard disclaimer --

[The Incredibly Lucky JTEM]

John Harshman wrote:

> Sorry, I got my loons confused. It's unclear just

The real Hartman & I have a history. The real
Harkman argued (emotionally) that Neanderthals
never interbred with so-called "Modern" humans.

I said they did.

The real Harshmann knows I'm not a creationist.
He's a frigging moron, true, but he certainly
knows I'm not a creationist.




-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/161177666643

[Peter Nyikos]

On Friday, May 26, 2017 at 11:44:56 PM UTC-4, The Incredibly Lucky JTEM wrote:
> John Harshman wrote:
>
> > What do you mean "our side"? JTEM is a creationist.
>
> Not only have I never been a creationist, but
> the real Harpman argued AGAINST me years ago
> when I insisted that Neanderthals interbred
> with so-called "Modern" humans.
>
> Hacman said they didn't, I said they did...
>
> Also; the real Harkman argued that Microraptor
> displayed arboreal traits, and after my
> humiliating him for seeing feathers and
> shouting "Arboreal!" he finally admitted
> that the so-called "Arboreal traits" on
> Microraptor were (now get this) it's
> feathers!

Interesting. I wonder why he didn't insist that Microraptor
was a "from the ground up" flier whose wings waxed large
and its feathers grew sophisticated thanks to a habit of catching
insects with them.

> The real Harfman, well, he definitely knew
> for a fact that I wasn't a creationist, but
> boy was he a frigging retard...

Someone who called himself "prawnster" showed more insight:
he composed a verse which acknowledged that Harshman was
highly knowledgeable about all kinds of things, but that when
he is squeezed into a corner he is prone to "feigning the 'tard."

By the way, JTEM, I contributed two comments to a blog
of yours that had lain fallow for three years:

http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/76008522277

Hope you like my comments; and in any case, that we can
discuss them fruitfully.

Peter Nyikos

[John Harshman]

On 5/29/17 6:23 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> On Monday, May 29, 2017 at 7:09:54 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
>> On 5/29/17 2:50 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
>>> On Friday, May 26, 2017 at 10:29:57 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
>>>> On 5/26/17 6:59 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
>>>>> On Friday, May 26, 2017 at 10:19:53 AM UTC-4, The Incredibly Lucky JTEM wrote:
>>>>>> Peter Nyikos wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So I am here to tell you: the insistence on formulations like
>>>>>>> "men are apes" and "birds are dinosaurs" as opposed to
>>>>>>> "...descended from..." is pure ideology
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I explained it all here:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/962773160
>>>>>
>>>>> It's cute, but Harshman is almost completely satire-proof.
>>>
>>>> Yep, those creationists sure can come up with the knee-slappers.
>>>
>>> What creationists? JTEM denies being one, and you have yet to
>>> produce evidence that he is one, or even to reply to his post
>>> where he denied being one -- in direct reply to you, no less.
>>
>> Sorry, I got my loons confused. It's unclear just what JTEM is other
>> than an abusive stalker.
>
> I have seen too few of his posts to get an impression like that.
> Is he any more of an abusive stalker than you were in the first
> year or so after my return in December 2010?

You will bend over backwards for anyone you think might be an enemy of
your enemy, apparently. I wish you joy of your new buddy.

>>> Are you sure he didn't become a stem Osteichthyan? What sorts of
>>> apomorphies of Actinopterygii did the transformed Mr. Limpet have?
>>
>> Well, it would be nice to dissect him, but I think we can tell he had
>> rayed fins and, if I recall, a homocercal tail. He was clearly not just
>> an actinoperygian but a teleost at that.
>
> Homocercal it is; I'd clean forgotten. So, you are right about
> his classification.

>> Why are there sides? Are there not just various people with various
>> opinions?
>
> Now, why didn't you say this instead of falsely accusing me of trying
> to "hijack the discussion"?

Falsely? I think not.

>>>>> "Graecopithecus is not an ape. He is a member of the tribe of
>>>>> hominins and the direct ancestor of homo."
>>>>> [attributed to Professor Nikolai Spassov, Bulgarian Academy of Sciences]
>>>>
>>>> Elsewhere you have noticed that science journalism isn't the most
>>>> accurate source of quotes. Who knows if that's what Spassov actually said?
>>>
>>> It makes little difference, because the four-author paper he
>>> co-authored in PlosOne has passages such as the following:
>>>
>>> The inter-genus variability among extant great apes is low, but large
>>> between great apes and humans.
>>> http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0177127
>
> Unable to deal with the issue of "great apes" not including humans,
> you go off on a tangent. If you ever criticize me again for indulging
> in free association WITHOUT running away from the issue, I'll trot
> this example out:

Oh, I'm sure you will. You never let an injustice go. Obsessive, you are.

>> What does that mean? Variability in what? It seems nonsensical on its
>> face, as he seems to be comparing within-genus differences to
>> between-genus differences and is surprised to find that the latter is
>> greater.
>
> You are really going off half-cocked here, as though orangutans,
> chimps, and gorillas all belonged to the same genus.

Sorry, my mistake. I read "intra".

> If you ever again deny that you shoot from the hip, I'll trot
> this example out.

I'm sure you will, even 10 years from now. You treasure your little
triumphs.

>>>>> Now that I've seen that the PlosOne paper uses "hominins" in the same
>>>>> way, and that many if most other paleoanthropologists use it in the
>>>>> same way, I no longer doubt the authenticity of the quote.
>>>>
>>>> What do you mean by "the same way"?
>>>
>>> As meaning what is unambiguously defined as "stem Homo".
>>
>> OK.
>
> Oops, I meant "total Homo." Of course, the Grecian hominin is a
> stem Homo according to these paleonanthropologists.

So you shoot from the hip, then?

>>>>> I wonder
>>>>> whether Harshman will stick to his guns and say, "He's wrong,
>>>>> Graecopithecus IS an ape and so are we."
>>>>
>>>> Of course I will. Why shouldn't I?
>
>>> Fancy that: earlier you were accusing me of "hijacking this thread"
>>> by bringing up this very issue, only wrt John Hawks instead of
>>> Spassov. And now you are enthusiastically going along with this
>>> re-hijacking while ignoring the latest post I did on the original
>>> topic of the thread.
>>>
>>> Was that earlier accusation anything more than polemical opportunism?
>>
>> Speaking of polemical opportunism, what was that you just did?
>
> I made a carefully thought out statement, whereas polemical opportunism
> means saying something that seems superficially plausible and
> likely to sway casual readers, yet easily abandoned at the
> first perceived opportunity to score debating points in the
> opposite direction.
>
> You added another example, first saying "of course" you would say
> Spassov is "wrong," ("Why shouldn't I?) and then trying to claim that
> people are just expressing opinions (including yourself) as to what
> proper usage is.

You convince yourself of a lot of things. I am duly appalled.

[Peter Nyikos]

This is real paranoia, especially in light of the way you falsely
accused him of being a creationist. It is also pathologically
self-centered, since I was attacking you instead of "bending
over backwards" for him.

Martin Harran has had far better reports from me in the past than
JTEM is getting, and more claim to be your enemy than JTEM, judging from
what I've seen from JTEM so far. Yet I called him out recently
for a number of things, when he behaved dishonorably.

> I wish you joy of your new buddy.

You are showing just how alien the concept of disinterested
justice is to your way of thinking.

JTEM is not my buddy, not until I get a better look at him. Unlike you,
who play "see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil" about
scoundrels who attack me, I treat everyone with justice to
the best of my ability.

That's one reason I am friendless here and have been ever since
1997 when Joe Potter quit posting: I do not spare anyone who
shows clear signs of dishonesty, insincerity, and hypocrisy.
And to take advantage of this, scoundrels like the ones I
mentioned just now, and rubes who uncritically take their word for it,
will repeat the canard that I habitually attack people for disagreeing
with me. Who wants to antagonize people like that by befriending me?

Might you have been one of the "people like that" at some point? I forget.

>
> >>> Are you sure he didn't become a stem Osteichthyan? What sorts of
> >>> apomorphies of Actinopterygii did the transformed Mr. Limpet have?
> >>
> >> Well, it would be nice to dissect him, but I think we can tell he had
> >> rayed fins and, if I recall, a homocercal tail. He was clearly not just
> >> an actinoperygian but a teleost at that.
> >
> > Homocercal it is; I'd clean forgotten. So, you are right about
> > his classification.
>
> >> Why are there sides? Are there not just various people with various
> >> opinions?
> >
> > Now, why didn't you say this instead of falsely accusing me of trying
> > to "hijack the discussion"?
>
> Falsely? I think not.

"I don't think" sounds less archaic.

> >>>>> "Graecopithecus is not an ape. He is a member of the tribe of
> >>>>> hominins and the direct ancestor of homo."
> >>>>> [attributed to Professor Nikolai Spassov, Bulgarian Academy of Sciences]
> >>>>
> >>>> Elsewhere you have noticed that science journalism isn't the most
> >>>> accurate source of quotes. Who knows if that's what Spassov actually said?
> >>>
> >>> It makes little difference, because the four-author paper he
> >>> co-authored in PlosOne has passages such as the following:
> >>>
> >>> The inter-genus variability among extant great apes is low, but large
> >>> between great apes and humans.
> >>> http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0177127
> >
> > Unable to deal with the issue of "great apes" not including humans,
> > you go off on a tangent. If you ever criticize me again for indulging
> > in free association WITHOUT running away from the issue, I'll trot
> > this example out:
>
> Oh, I'm sure you will. You never let an injustice go. Obsessive, you are.

Oh, quit whining and take your medicine like a man.

And that includes facing squarely the "men are apes" issue that
you are continuing to evade with your histrionics.

> >> What does that mean? Variability in what? It seems nonsensical on its
> >> face, as he seems to be comparing within-genus differences to
> >> between-genus differences and is surprised to find that the latter is
> >> greater.
> >
> > You are really going off half-cocked here, as though orangutans,
> > chimps, and gorillas all belonged to the same genus.
>
> Sorry, my mistake. I read "intra".

OK, I won't hold it against you.

> > If you ever again deny that you shoot from the hip, I'll trot
> > this example out.
>
> I'm sure you will, even 10 years from now.

Oh, don't worry: I'll never tell people seriously derogatory things about
you based on unidentified things that had to have happened
over 10 years earlier, the way you did unto me in reply to el cid
within a week after I returned to talk.origins. That was one thing
I had in mind about you "stalking me" up there.

And about two years later, this unprovoked attack on me led
indirectly but inevitably to the first lie I caught you in.

> You treasure your little
> triumphs.

There you go whining again.

> >>>>> Now that I've seen that the PlosOne paper uses "hominins" in the same
> >>>>> way, and that many if most other paleoanthropologists use it in the
> >>>>> same way, I no longer doubt the authenticity of the quote.
> >>>>
> >>>> What do you mean by "the same way"?
> >>>
> >>> As meaning what is unambiguously defined as "stem Homo".
> >>
> >> OK.
> >
> > Oops, I meant "total Homo." Of course, the Grecian hominin is a
> > stem Homo according to these paleonanthropologists.
>
> So you shoot from the hip, then?

My mistake wasn't in the realm of high school biology. And I caught it,
not you. But as I said, I won't hold it against you.

> >>>>> I wonder
> >>>>> whether Harshman will stick to his guns and say, "He's wrong,
> >>>>> Graecopithecus IS an ape and so are we."
> >>>>
> >>>> Of course I will. Why shouldn't I?
> >
> >>> Fancy that: earlier you were accusing me of "hijacking this thread"
> >>> by bringing up this very issue, only wrt John Hawks instead of
> >>> Spassov. And now you are enthusiastically going along with this
> >>> re-hijacking while ignoring the latest post I did on the original
> >>> topic of the thread.
> >>>
> >>> Was that earlier accusation anything more than polemical opportunism?
> >>
> >> Speaking of polemical opportunism, what was that you just did?
> >
> > I made a carefully thought out statement, whereas polemical opportunism
> > means saying something that seems superficially plausible and
> > likely to sway casual readers, yet easily abandoned at the
> > first perceived opportunity to score debating points in the
> > opposite direction.
> >
> > You added another example, first saying "of course" you would say
> > Spassov is "wrong," ("Why shouldn't I?) and then trying to claim that
> > people are just expressing opinions (including yourself) as to what
> > proper usage is.
>
> You convince yourself of a lot of things.

Truthful ones, and you can't deal with this one in an honest manner.

> I am duly appalled.

You are duly sarcastic and self-righteous, you mean.

Peter Nyikos

[John Harshman]

Yeah, he doesn't like you much either. You seem to be studiously
avoiding JTEM's abusive rants, if it's really true that you haven't
encountered them yet.

>> I wish you joy of your new buddy.
>
> You are showing just how alien the concept of disinterested
> justice is to your way of thinking.

You are showing just how entrenched pompous self-righteousness is in

your way of thinking.

> JTEM is not my buddy, not until I get a better look at him. Unlike you,
> who play "see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil" about
> scoundrels who attack me, I treat everyone with justice to
> the best of my ability.
>
> That's one reason I am friendless here and have been ever since
> 1997 when Joe Potter quit posting: I do not spare anyone who
> shows clear signs of dishonesty, insincerity, and hypocrisy.

Everyone, in other words. Apparently.

> And to take advantage of this, scoundrels like the ones I
> mentioned just now, and rubes who uncritically take their word for it,
> will repeat the canard that I habitually attack people for disagreeing
> with me. Who wants to antagonize people like that by befriending me?
>
> Might you have been one of the "people like that" at some point? I forget.

I'm surprised that you forget anything at all.

>>>>> Are you sure he didn't become a stem Osteichthyan? What sorts of
>>>>> apomorphies of Actinopterygii did the transformed Mr. Limpet have?
>>>>
>>>> Well, it would be nice to dissect him, but I think we can tell he had
>>>> rayed fins and, if I recall, a homocercal tail. He was clearly not just
>>>> an actinoperygian but a teleost at that.
>>>
>>> Homocercal it is; I'd clean forgotten. So, you are right about
>>> his classification.
>>
>>>> Why are there sides? Are there not just various people with various
>>>> opinions?
>>>
>>> Now, why didn't you say this instead of falsely accusing me of trying
>>> to "hijack the discussion"?
>>
>> Falsely? I think not.
>
> "I don't think" sounds less archaic.

I was going for archaic.

>>>>>>> "Graecopithecus is not an ape. He is a member of the tribe of
>>>>>>> hominins and the direct ancestor of homo."
>>>>>>> [attributed to Professor Nikolai Spassov, Bulgarian Academy of Sciences]
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Elsewhere you have noticed that science journalism isn't the most
>>>>>> accurate source of quotes. Who knows if that's what Spassov actually said?
>>>>>
>>>>> It makes little difference, because the four-author paper he
>>>>> co-authored in PlosOne has passages such as the following:
>>>>>
>>>>> The inter-genus variability among extant great apes is low, but large
>>>>> between great apes and humans.
>>>>> http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0177127
>>>
>>> Unable to deal with the issue of "great apes" not including humans,
>>> you go off on a tangent. If you ever criticize me again for indulging
>>> in free association WITHOUT running away from the issue, I'll trot
>>> this example out:
>>
>> Oh, I'm sure you will. You never let an injustice go. Obsessive, you are.
>
> Oh, quit whining and take your medicine like a man.
>
> And that includes facing squarely the "men are apes" issue that
> you are continuing to evade with your histrionics.

Start a thread.

>>>> What does that mean? Variability in what? It seems nonsensical on its
>>>> face, as he seems to be comparing within-genus differences to
>>>> between-genus differences and is surprised to find that the latter is
>>>> greater.
>>>
>>> You are really going off half-cocked here, as though orangutans,
>>> chimps, and gorillas all belonged to the same genus.
>>
>> Sorry, my mistake. I read "intra".
>
> OK, I won't hold it against you.

Yes you will. Often.

>>> If you ever again deny that you shoot from the hip, I'll trot
>>> this example out.
>>
>> I'm sure you will, even 10 years from now.
>
> Oh, don't worry: I'll never tell people seriously derogatory things about
> you based on unidentified things that had to have happened
> over 10 years earlier, the way you did unto me in reply to el cid
> within a week after I returned to talk.origins. That was one thing
> I had in mind about you "stalking me" up there.
>
> And about two years later, this unprovoked attack on me led
> indirectly but inevitably to the first lie I caught you in.

Still don't know what the lie was.

>> You treasure your little
>> triumphs.
>
> There you go whining again.

Oh, I'm not complaining. I'm just amused.

>>>>>>> Now that I've seen that the PlosOne paper uses "hominins" in the same
>>>>>>> way, and that many if most other paleoanthropologists use it in the
>>>>>>> same way, I no longer doubt the authenticity of the quote.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What do you mean by "the same way"?
>>>>>
>>>>> As meaning what is unambiguously defined as "stem Homo".
>>>>
>>>> OK.
>>>
>>> Oops, I meant "total Homo." Of course, the Grecian hominin is a
>>> stem Homo according to these paleonanthropologists.
>>
>> So you shoot from the hip, then?
>
> My mistake wasn't in the realm of high school biology. And I caught it,
> not you. But as I said, I won't hold it against you.

Of course you will.

>>>>>>> I wonder
>>>>>>> whether Harshman will stick to his guns and say, "He's wrong,
>>>>>>> Graecopithecus IS an ape and so are we."
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Of course I will. Why shouldn't I?
>>>
>>>>> Fancy that: earlier you were accusing me of "hijacking this thread"
>>>>> by bringing up this very issue, only wrt John Hawks instead of
>>>>> Spassov. And now you are enthusiastically going along with this
>>>>> re-hijacking while ignoring the latest post I did on the original
>>>>> topic of the thread.
>>>>>
>>>>> Was that earlier accusation anything more than polemical opportunism?
>>>>
>>>> Speaking of polemical opportunism, what was that you just did?
>>>
>>> I made a carefully thought out statement, whereas polemical opportunism
>>> means saying something that seems superficially plausible and
>>> likely to sway casual readers, yet easily abandoned at the
>>> first perceived opportunity to score debating points in the
>>> opposite direction.
>>>
>>> You added another example, first saying "of course" you would say
>>> Spassov is "wrong," ("Why shouldn't I?) and then trying to claim that
>>> people are just expressing opinions (including yourself) as to what
>>> proper usage is.
>>
>> You convince yourself of a lot of things.
>
> Truthful ones, and you can't deal with this one in an honest manner.

Start a thread.

>> I am duly appalled.
>
> You are duly sarcastic and self-righteous, you mean.

Sarcastic, yes. But you're the champion of self-righteous.

[The Incredibly Lucky JTEM]

John Harshman wrote:

> You will bend over backwards for anyone you think might be an enemy of
> your enemy, apparently.

I have a history with Harpman. He knows

I'm not a creationist.

Understand? Harshmann knows I'm not a
creationist. So who the fuck are you?

Sure you're every bit the moron that
Harcman was, but nothing you're saying
here makes the least bit of sense, not
when I can go make 14 years and show
threads where I'm arguing human evolution
WITH HARTMAN.

Fuck off, troll.



-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/161258876183

[The Incredibly Lucky JTEM]

Peter Nyikos wrote:

> Interesting. I wonder why he didn't insist that Microraptor
> was a "from the ground up" flier whose wings waxed large
> and its feathers grew sophisticated thanks to a habit of catching
> insects with them.

Probably because it was flightless, Einstein.

> > The real Harfman, well, he definitely knew
> > for a fact that I wasn't a creationist, but
> > boy was he a frigging retard...

> Someone who called himself "prawnster"

Who cares? Why on earth would you think you
matter?

You're currently hostile because I pointed
out that I'm not a creationist. Seriously,
what idiot would value the opinion of an
emotional basket case like you?





-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/161258876183

[Peter Nyikos]

On Wednesday, May 31, 2017 at 1:39:53 AM UTC-4, The Incredibly Lucky JTEM wrote:
> Peter Nyikos wrote:

[restoration:]

> > On Friday, May 26, 2017 at 11:44:56 PM UTC-4, The Incredibly Lucky JTEM wrote:
> > > Also; the real Harkman argued that Microraptor
> > > displayed arboreal traits, and after my
> > > humiliating him for seeing feathers and
> > > shouting "Arboreal!" he finally admitted
> > > that the so-called "Arboreal traits" on
> > > Microraptor were (now get this) it's
> > > feathers!

[end of restoration]

> > Interesting. I wonder why he didn't insist that Microraptor
> > was a "from the ground up" flier whose wings waxed large
> > and its feathers grew sophisticated thanks to a habit of catching
> > insects with them.
>
> Probably because it was flightless, Einstein.

Perhaps, but then why would Harshman claim it was arboreal
just on the basis of feathers? The redoubtable John Ostrom
hypothesized that flight developed in the way I suggested,
and it's unthinkable that Harshman, who almost never thinks
"outside the box," didn't take Ostrom's theory into account
even if he disagrees with it.

> > > The real Harfman, well, he definitely knew
> > > for a fact that I wasn't a creationist, but
> > > boy was he a frigging retard...

You swing a mean sledgehammer, JTEM. I'll show you below
how "prawnster" wielded a scalpel on the same theme.

> > Someone who called himself "prawnster"
>
> Who cares? Why on earth would you think you
> matter?

Why are you asking the latter question? I'm not prawnster, but he had
Harshman pegged at least as well as you have. Here's a little ditty
that he put in Harshman's mouth:

I appre'nded the nuance of 'paque college text,
I penned countless theses 'pon abstruse subject.
But when hemmed by logic 'gainst which none can guard,
I cry out "Stop! Uncle!" by feigning the 'tard.

I am still trying to find out why prawnster was banned from talk.origins.

> You're currently hostile because I pointed
> out that I'm not a creationist.

I'm hostile to Harshman from time to time, but not to you.
What's more, I wouldn't think of being hostile to someone
just because he says he is not a creationist, unless there were proof
beyond a reasonable doubt that he IS a creationist.

No, it is Harshman who is hostile to you, and perhaps for that
very reason. He HATES being proven wrong,
but he is such a master of propaganda that he either hides
the fact or sets up smokescreens to conceal it.

> Seriously,
> what idiot would value the opinion of an
> emotional basket case like you?

SMILE when you say that, podner!

Have you seen the clash of emotion by others against reason by
myself in the Subject line I set up last week?

OT: Same-Sex Marriage in the Light of Reason
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/talk.origins/gDdfWzeL4t0/XPXpORA8BgAJ

It's quite a spectacle, watching how emotional everyone but
myself (and maybe Leopoldo Perdomo, a.k.a. eridanus, a.k.a eri)
gets and how completely clueless they are about where I am
coming from, especially Harshman and his net.sidekick,
erik simpson.

If you want to see a REAL emotional basket case, Hemidactylus
and Robert Camp give you plenty of evidence, and you can
pick out the one against whom you have the best case.

Peter Nyikos

[John Harshman]

On 6/5/17 7:30 AM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> On Wednesday, May 31, 2017 at 1:39:53 AM UTC-4, The Incredibly Lucky JTEM wrote:
>> Peter Nyikos wrote:
>
> [restoration:]
>
>>> On Friday, May 26, 2017 at 11:44:56 PM UTC-4, The Incredibly Lucky JTEM wrote:
>>>> Also; the real Harkman argued that Microraptor
>>>> displayed arboreal traits, and after my
>>>> humiliating him for seeing feathers and
>>>> shouting "Arboreal!" he finally admitted
>>>> that the so-called "Arboreal traits" on
>>>> Microraptor were (now get this) it's
>>>> feathers!
>
> [end of restoration]
>
>>> Interesting. I wonder why he didn't insist that Microraptor
>>> was a "from the ground up" flier whose wings waxed large
>>> and its feathers grew sophisticated thanks to a habit of catching
>>> insects with them.
>>
>> Probably because it was flightless, Einstein.
>
> Perhaps, but then why would Harshman claim it was arboreal
> just on the basis of feathers?

Short answer: He wouldn't.

Your inability to notice the multiple insults JTEM flings at you is odd.
I have a theory. Do you?

[Peter Nyikos]

Here, too, JTEM, you wield a mean sledgehammer. I hope you
don't mind if I show you how someone wielded a scalpel on
the same theme:


Challenged, you change the subject. That's not sensible.
I'd like to know who you are, what you have done with
John Harshman, and why you are posting in his name.

-- Charles Brenner in:
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/yM3vszXTTTc/Uh54CtvUBKkJ


Peter Nyikos

[Peter Nyikos]

So what DID you say that JTEM is inaccurately rendering
up there?

> Your inability to notice the multiple insults JTEM flings at you is odd.

So far, I've only found the one to which I've replied, and only
saw for the first time today.

And I handled it quite deftly, as you undoubtedly know, having
snipped it below.

You really do love to entertain people who never read my posts,
but only replies to them, don't you? Burkhard especially,
who has had me killfiled for over 5 years now.

And you love to behave like a troll, by yapping about insults
that you wouldn't dream of quoting to me.

But then, May 31 came AFTER you started yapping like this, so it's no
wonder you couldn't quote something that never existed up to that point.

NOTE to the scrolling-impaired: May 31 is when JTEM posted the
only insult directed at me that I have seen so far.

> I have a theory. Do you?

About why I ignore insults that hadn't happened? And why I haven't
seen the 100+ posts it would take for me to see what you think
I am blind to: that he is abusive towards "everyone"?

But that may be because "everyone" to you often means
"I, John Harshman, and a few people who are just as prone to dirty
debating tactics as I am."

Peter Nyikos

[John Harshman]

Not sure. I said a number of things. It may be that I said that the
fight feathers on the hindlimb would potentially cause problems for a
cursorial predator.

Of course Microraptor wasn't flightless. Why didn't you challenge him on
that?

>> Your inability to notice the multiple insults JTEM flings at you is odd.
>
> So far, I've only found the one to which I've replied, and only
> saw for the first time today.

How odd.

> And I handled it quite deftly, as you undoubtedly know, having
> snipped it below.

We perhaps disagree on what "deftly" means.

>> I have a theory. Do you?
>
> About why I ignore insults that hadn't happened?

Nope.

> And why I haven't
> seen the 100+ posts it would take for me to see what you think
> I am blind to: that he is abusive towards "everyone"?

Also nope. Selective blindness towards those you think of as potential
allies. That's my theory.

[Stevet]

My theory is that they both have the same crap therapist.

--
Stevet

[Peter Nyikos]

Well, that would make sense, even in the context of what JTEM wrote.

By the way, you are giving us one of Feduccia's many arguments for
the "trees down" theory of flight development. This one is very
recent, because it was only recently that flight feathers were
discovered on the legs of one specimen of Archaeopteryx.
the exact reason why Feduccia rejected the cursorial

> Of course Microraptor wasn't flightless. Why didn't you challenge him on
> that?

Because I didn't have time to look it up this morning. You have
the luxury of quitting threads like
Subject: Re: OT: Same-Sex Marriage in the Light of Reason
whenever you want to, but I don't.

Are you even reading that hot, hot thread any more?

> >> Your inability to notice the multiple insults JTEM flings at you is odd.
> >
> > So far, I've only found the one to which I've replied, and only
> > saw for the first time today.
>
> How odd.

How VERY, VERY typical of you not to give the slightest scintilla
of a hint as to where I can find any other examples.

You made ZERO contribution to me finding this one, too.

> > And I handled it quite deftly, as you undoubtedly know, having
> > snipped it below.
>
> We perhaps disagree on what "deftly" means.

You perhaps are powerless to explain your disagreement. You
don't even give a hint of ever wanting to do that here.

And you are also continuing to play snip-n-domineer,
by doing an unmarked snip of my calling you out on your
preceding snip-n-domineer action, and by
continuing to ride your Altihippus.

______________ repost of snipped text and a bit more __________________

And I handled it quite deftly, as you undoubtedly know, having
snipped it below.

You really do love to entertain people who never read my posts,
but only replies to them, don't you? Burkhard especially,
who has had me killfiled for over 5 years now.

And you love to behave like a troll, by yapping about insults
that you wouldn't dream of quoting to me.

But then, May 31 came AFTER you started yapping like this, so it's no
wonder you couldn't quote something that never existed up to that point.

NOTE to the scrolling-impaired: May 31 is when JTEM posted the
only insult directed at me that I have seen so far.

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

You continue to give Burkhard a completely false idea of
your prowess and ability to keep on dominating this debate.

> >> I have a theory. Do you?
> >
> > About why I ignore insults that hadn't happened?
>
> Nope.

Nor do you try to show that they did happen, you
irresponsible bluffer/control freak.

> > And why I haven't
> > seen the 100+ posts it would take for me to see what you think
> > I am blind to: that he is abusive towards "everyone"?

>> But that may be because "everyone" to you often means
>> "I, John Harshman, and a few people who are just as prone to dirty
>> debating tactics as I am."

> Also nope. Selective blindness towards those you think of as potential
> allies. That's my theory.

You are paranoid. But you have destroyed the concept of "paranoia"
in your mind through years of misuse, so I don't expect you to
see that.

NOTE TO THOSE READERS WHO CAN READ THIS -- I doubt that Harshman
will let you see it if you are Burkhard:

The three lines set off by >> instead of the usual > > are
a restoration of another unmarked snip by Harshman. His "Also
nope" refers ONLY to the three lines he left in above it.

Peter Nyikos

[John Harshman]

Is something missing from that last sentence? No, that's not why
Feduccia rejected the cursorial hypothesis, since as you point out the
hindlimb flight feathers were unknown until recently. You are confusing
the hindlimb wings with the forelimb wings, perhaps?

I favor the "trees down" hypothesis myself.

>> Of course Microraptor wasn't flightless. Why didn't you challenge him on
>> that?
>
> Because I didn't have time to look it up this morning.

Look what up? That Microraptor wasn't flightless? Why would you have to
look it up?

> You have
> the luxury of quitting threads like
> Subject: Re: OT: Same-Sex Marriage in the Light of Reason
> whenever you want to, but I don't.

Why not? And why is that relevant?

> Are you even reading that hot, hot thread any more?

Only enough to try to find out what you think you're talking about.
Nothing so far.

>>>> Your inability to notice the multiple insults JTEM flings at you is odd.
>>>
>>> So far, I've only found the one to which I've replied, and only
>>> saw for the first time today.
>>
>> How odd.
>
> How VERY, VERY typical of you not to give the slightest scintilla
> of a hint as to where I can find any other examples.
>
> You made ZERO contribution to me finding this one, too.

I don't see why you can't find replies to you by JTEM. Or just sample
his various replies to randomly selected other people. He seldom manages
to avoid some kind of personal attack.

Also, as you may recall, I pointed out an insult from him to you before,
which you had for some reason failed to recognize. Don't you even
remember that? He said you were an exception to something, which you
took as a good thing, but it was an insult. Ring a bell?

>>> And I handled it quite deftly, as you undoubtedly know, having
>>> snipped it below.
>>
>> We perhaps disagree on what "deftly" means.
>
> You perhaps are powerless to explain your disagreement. You
> don't even give a hint of ever wanting to do that here.

Agree. I have no interest.

[Peter Nyikos]

Harshman : Shere Khan the tiger : : SteveT : any of the wolves Mowgli
called *sag* (dogs)

That's an allusion to _The Jungle Book_. It will be interesting
to see whether Harshman takes any more notice of you than he
has of that other *sag*, Wolffan.

Peter Nyikos

[Peter Nyikos]

It shouldn't be there in the first place. I started to compose something,
then composed the four lines above it, then scrolled down quickly
without noticing my earlier draft.

> No, that's not why
> Feduccia rejected the cursorial hypothesis,

I know, that's why I abandoned the first draft.

> since as you point out the
> hindlimb flight feathers were unknown until recently. You are confusing
> the hindlimb wings with the forelimb wings, perhaps?

Not at all. Please disregard that first draft.

> I favor the "trees down" hypothesis myself.
>
> >> Of course Microraptor wasn't flightless. Why didn't you challenge him on
> >> that?
> >
> > Because I didn't have time to look it up this morning.
>
> Look what up? That Microraptor wasn't flightless? Why would you have to
> look it up?

There were lots of new discoveries in China written about by
Feduccia in _Riddle of the Feathered Dragons_ and it's hard
to keep track of the attributes of all of them. I'm in my
office, and the book is at home, and I don't trust Wikipedia.

> > You have
> > the luxury of quitting threads like
> > Subject: Re: OT: Same-Sex Marriage in the Light of Reason
> > whenever you want to, but I don't.
>
> Why not? And why is that relevant?
>
> > Are you even reading that hot, hot thread any more?
>
> Only enough to try to find out what you think you're talking about.
> Nothing so far.

Then you missed the pivotal exchange between Bill Rogers and me
where we parted on good terms, with me explaining my position
to him in careful detail, and him leaving in my explanation
for why I hold that position.

He is a far more honorable man than you in that respect.

I believe you will want to give that exchange with him a wide berth.
It would cramp your style too much to understand where I am really
coming from.

> >>>> Your inability to notice the multiple insults JTEM flings at you is odd.
> >>>
> >>> So far, I've only found the one to which I've replied, and only
> >>> saw for the first time today.
> >>
> >> How odd.
> >
> > How VERY, VERY typical of you not to give the slightest scintilla
> > of a hint as to where I can find any other examples.

You folded here by keeping the crickets chirping.

> > You made ZERO contribution to me finding this one, too.

You folded here too, and covered up for that with a new bluff.

> I don't see why you can't find replies to you by JTEM.

I've seen several of them, including one where you wanted
me to think he was abusive of me when the opposite seemed
to be the case.

> Or just sample
> his various replies to randomly selected other people. He seldom manages
> to avoid some kind of personal attack.

It's hard to randomly select other people and know whether
JTEM is being fair to them or not. I HAVE seen how abusive
he is to YOU, and I hope he can benefit from the two examples I
gave him of two people wielding a scalpel in criticizing you
about things where he wielded a sledgehammer in abusing you.

Speaking metaphorically, of course. You did an unmarked
snip of one example, and I think it has already gone down your
memory hole. And I expect the other to be one of MANY posts that
slip under the radar screen of you "seeing only those posts you want
to see."

You are trying to get revenge on me for all those observations
of your selective blindness, but you keep folding as I call
one bluff of yours after another. See two of them above. And
your remark about my new thread may also have been a bluff;
if so, I've called it and await your reaction.

> Also, as you may recall, I pointed out an insult from him to you before,
> which you had for some reason failed to recognize. Don't you even
> remember that?

You are talking about you identifying something as an insult
to me and me explaining why it didn't look like one to me.
I haven't seen you try to wiggle out of that one yet, and
you certainly aren't describing any wiggling out here.

> He said you were an exception to something, which you
> took as a good thing, but it was an insult.

You sure know how to bluff.

> Ring a bell?

Yes, that was in the exchange where you did an unmarked snip of

Is this another trick you picked up from KGB interrogators?

> >>> And I handled it quite deftly, as you undoubtedly know, having
> >>> snipped it below.
> >>
> >> We perhaps disagree on what "deftly" means.
> >
> > You perhaps are powerless to explain your disagreement. You
> > don't even give a hint of ever wanting to do that here.
>
> Agree. I have no interest.

Yes, and I expect you to suddenly lose interest in your relentless
unsupported claims of abuse.

One thing is sure: you fulfilled my prediction that you
would not allow Burkhard to see something I wrote below.
You really did a huge unmarked snip this time around, right
at the end here.

Peter Nyikos
Professor, Department of Math. -- standard disclaimer --
U. of S. Carolina at Columbia
http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos/

[John Harshman]

Yes, I must have missed that. Where is it?

>> I don't see why you can't find replies to you by JTEM.
>
> I've seen several of them, including one where you wanted
> me to think he was abusive of me when the opposite seemed
> to be the case.

"Seemed" is the operative word. Why is it past tense? Does it no longer
seem that way to you after I explained it?

>> Or just sample
>> his various replies to randomly selected other people. He seldom manages
>> to avoid some kind of personal attack.
>
> It's hard to randomly select other people and know whether
> JTEM is being fair to them or not. I HAVE seen how abusive
> he is to YOU, and I hope he can benefit from the two examples I
> gave him of two people wielding a scalpel in criticizing you
> about things where he wielded a sledgehammer in abusing you.

Thanks for bringing up years-old attacks on me. I guess it's just what
you do.

>> Also, as you may recall, I pointed out an insult from him to you before,
>> which you had for some reason failed to recognize. Don't you even
>> remember that?
>
> You are talking about you identifying something as an insult
> to me and me explaining why it didn't look like one to me.
> I haven't seen you try to wiggle out of that one yet, and
> you certainly aren't describing any wiggling out here.

You must not have seen the reply in which I explained why you had
misunderstood the insult. Why not look for it?

>> He said you were an exception to something, which you
>> took as a good thing, but it was an insult.
>
> You sure know how to bluff.

Reread his post carefully in light of my reply to you, which you
apparently haven't seen.

>> Ring a bell?
>
> Yes, that was in the exchange where you did an unmarked snip of
>
> Is this another trick you picked up from KGB interrogators?

Yes, I try to snip out your gratuitous insults when convenient.

By the way, Burkhard doesn't care about the crap you post. That's
presumably why he has you killfiled.

[Burkhard]

Yup. But how on earth did I end up nonetheless in this discussion?

[John Harshman]

As you may know, Peter has to sprinkle gratuitous attacks on third
parties through any post he makes. It's in his contract.

[jillery]

On Tue, 6 Jun 2017 10:12:00 +0100, Burkhard <b.sc...@ed.ac.uk>
wrote:

That's what rockhead does. He doesn't need a reason to irrelevantly
inject other posters into discussions.

--
I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.

Evelyn Beatrice Hall
Attributed to Voltaire

[The Incredibly Lucky JTEM]

He did. The real one did anyhow...

Look. Short of a stroke, there's no way you're
harpmen. You don't remember anything, your
demeanure is completely different... about the
only thing similar to the real harkman is your
knuckle-dragging stupidity!

Herkman, being a jackass, zeroed in on the claims
and the headlines specifically. He was never so
much interested in facts. So when some member of
the Lucky Sperm Club wrote a paper (story?) claiming
arboreal traits, Harnmen clung to it like a drowning
man to a life preserver. Only problem was, there
were no arboreal traits. I READ THE PAPER! Like I
always do, I ignore the conclusions, especially the
headlines, and zero in on the facts. I let the facts
lead me to a conclusion... unlike harfmein. So...

So that's how some idiot faker arrived at feathers
being arboreal traits. THE PAPER SAID SO!



-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/163039327343

[Peter Nyikos]

On Tuesday, July 18, 2017 at 3:10:04 PM UTC-4, The Incredibly Lucky JTEM wrote:
> John Harshman wrote:
>
> > On 6/5/17 7:30 AM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
>
> > > Perhaps, but then why would Harshman claim it was arboreal
> > > just on the basis of feathers?
> >
> > Short answer: He wouldn't.
>
> He did. The real one did anyhow...
>
> Look. Short of a stroke, there's no way you're
> harpmen. You don't remember anything, your
> demeanure is completely different... about the
> only thing similar to the real harkman is your
> knuckle-dragging stupidity!

Welcome back, JTEM! I just now returned to talk.origins after a month's
absence. But I'll only be around this week before I go on another month's
break. Family matters, the eclipse for which Columbia is on the center
of totality, and mathematics will take priority during that time.

In what you write above, you are assuming that Harshman is being his
real self instead of projecting a *persona* in the threads where
you are involved.

I do not. Neither did Charles Brenner, in a thread where he was
involved:

Challenged, you change the subject. That's not sensible.
I'd like to know who you are, what you have done with
John Harshman, and why you are posting in his name.

Charles Brenner in:
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/yM3vszXTTTc/Uh54CtvUBKkJ

I think he wrote the above with tongue halfway in cheek -- but only
halfway.

> Herkman, being a jackass, zeroed in on the claims
> and the headlines specifically. He was never so
> much interested in facts.

He's been that way for a good part of the time we've interacted
December 2010 - present. But fortunately, he comes through with
some really solid information once in a while. If it hadn't been
for that, sci.bio.paleontology might never have been revived.
I caught it on the brink of extinction in December 2010, and it's
taken a long time for it just to be the way it is now.

> So when some member of
> the Lucky Sperm Club wrote a paper (story?) claiming
> arboreal traits, Harnmen clung to it like a drowning
> man to a life preserver. Only problem was, there
> were no arboreal traits. I READ THE PAPER! Like I
> always do, I ignore the conclusions, especially the
> headlines, and zero in on the facts. I let the facts
> lead me to a conclusion... unlike harfmein. So...
>
> So that's how some idiot faker arrived at feathers
> being arboreal traits. THE PAPER SAID SO!

Harshman didn't contradict that. What he did say is worded in
his usual self-serving way:

It may be that I said that the fight feathers on the
hindlimb would potentially cause problems for a
cursorial predator.

Note the weasel-worded "It may be that".

Did the paper actually mention feathers on the hindlimbs? Here
is the context of Harshman's comment, starting with something you
wrote to me:

___________________ excerpt from June 5 post to this thread____________

> >>>> Probably because [Microraptor] was flightless, Einstein.

> >>>
> >>> Perhaps, but then why would Harshman claim it was arboreal
> >>> just on the basis of feathers?
> >>
> >> Short answer: He wouldn't.
> >

> > So what DID you say that JTEM is inaccurately rendering
> > up there?
>
> Not sure. I said a number of things. It may be that I said that the
> fight feathers on the hindlimb would potentially cause problems for a
> cursorial predator.

Well, that would make sense, even in the context of what JTEM wrote.

================= end of excerpt =======================