Scientists Admit They Were Wrong About Native Americans

[passer...@gmail.com]

..."It's incredibly surprising," said David Reich, Harvard Medical School professor of genetics and senior author of the study. "There's a strong working model in archaeology and genetics, of which I have been a proponent, that most Native Americans today extend from a single pulse of expansion south of the ice sheets--and that's wrong. We missed something very important in the original data."

In 2012, Reich and colleagues enriched this history by showing that certain indigenous groups in northern Canada inherited DNA from at least two subsequent waves of migration.

The new study, published July 21 in Nature, indicates that there's more to the story.

Pontus Skoglund, first author of the paper and a postdoctoral researcher in the Reich lab, was studying genetic data gathered as part of the 2012 study when he noticed a strange similarity between one or two Native American groups in Brazil and indigenous groups in Australia, New Guinea and the Andaman Islands.

"That was an unexpected and somewhat confusing result," said Reich, who is also an associate member of the Broad Institute of Harvard and MIT and a Howard Hughes Medical Investigator. "We spent a really long time trying to make this result go away and it just got stronger."

https://nycnews.net/content/282519-new-research-links-amazonians-people-australasia

Is there anyone on earth more corrupt, greedy, and politically motivated than an evolution scientist? All those years claiming Neanderthal was a different species of all things because it suited their political agenda.

Claiming that all American Indians came from two waves, what morons. It's obviously been multiple waves for tens of thousands of years, probably from both Atlantic and Pacific.

And look on the same day, another moron evolution scientist running his mouth...

Research teams duel over Native American origins
..."The genetics have so far suggest that, in terms of ancient migrations, there was only a single one"...
http://tvnewsroom.org/newslines/science/research-teams-duel-over-native-american-origins-51711/

You can claim any damn silly thing you want in a peer (monkey brain) reviewed evolution "science" paper. You could say Neanderthal are more closely related to marmots than humans and they would publish it.

[passer...@gmail.com]

They only noticed the Australian contribution because of the extremely different genetics from most other existing humans. All that Denisovan and Homo Erectus genetics no one else has (other than traces in some other Asians.) Branches over a million years distant from Africans.

They have to publish and make grand claims of what they've discovered to make money, for personal greed. And since you can claim any silly thing you want in these Monkey Brain reviewed "scientific" journals, if possible, they claim whatever current political beliefs want them to claim.

Creationists have 10 times the honesty and integrity of evolution "scientists". They are actually pursuing truth, not greed.

[passer...@gmail.com]

Trinkaus, leader of the 1% that were right by sequencing the Neanderthal NUCLEAR DNA, talking about Tattersall, leader of the 99% that were proven corrupt racist pigs. Just in case you think I'm overstating the case.

A Correction to the Commentary of Tattersall and Schwartz Concerning the Interpretation of the Lagar Velho 1 Child
Erik Trinkaus
(Department of Anthropology, Washington University, St. Louis MO 63130, USA)
João Zilhão, (Instituto Português de Arqueologia, Av. da Índia 136, 1300 Lisboa, Portugal)
June 24, 1999

...Concluding Remarks

"It remains possible that our admixture hypothesis will be refuted or an alternative and equally valid explanation will be put forward. However, as the discussion above indicates, nothing in this abysmal piece of scholarship serves to refute our basic premise, that the Lagar Velho 1 child presents a mosaic of Neandertal and early modern human features.

The Commentary of Tattersall and Schwartz is an inappropriate, inaccurate, and unethical...mis-information, mis-use of cladistic and anatomical terminology, mis-quotes, mis- representations, poor logic, general incompetence regarding the Late Pleistocene hominid fossil record, anatomical ignorance, and a priori non-evolutionary (typological) approaches...pitiful.... inaccurate...they are simply ignorant...they are intellectually dishonest...fundamental incompetence...

Trinkaus wasn't just right about Neanderthal, he was right about that other 99% of evolution "scientists".

-----------

A Correction to the Commentary of Tattersall and Schwartz Concerning the Interpretation of the Lagar Velho 1 Child
Erik Trinkaus
(Department of Anthropology, Washington University, St. Louis MO 63130, USA)
João Zilhão, (Instituto Português de Arqueologia, Av. da Índia 136, 1300 Lisboa, Portugal)
June 24, 1999

...Concluding Remarks

"It remains possible that our admixture hypothesis will be refuted or an alternative and equally valid explanation will be put forward. However, as the discussion above indicates, nothing in this abysmal piece of scholarship serves to refute our basic premise, that the Lagar Velho 1 child presents a mosaic of Neandertal and early modern human features.

The Commentary of Tattersall and Schwartz is an inappropriate, inaccurate, and unethical critique of our article and the hypothesis of admixture between the Neandertals and early modern humans in Iberia. Their paper is replete with mis-information, mis-use of cladistic and anatomical terminology, mis-quotes, mis- representations, poor logic, general incompetence regarding the Late Pleistocene hominid fossil record, anatomical ignorance, and a priori non-evolutionary (typological) approaches. When considered in light
of the question of concern, the fossil evidence available, and the evolutionary and biological framework it needs to be placed into, their attempt at refutation of the admixture hypothesis is pitiful. This is combined with their inaccurate use of unpublished observations taken from an oral presentation at a scientific meeting,a serious breach of scientific etiquette.

There are three possible, and not mutually exclusive, interpretations of the nature of their Commentary. First, they are simply ignorant of the relevant aspects of the field, both through the original fossils and recent human skeletal remains and the readily available published literature (including the substance of the paper they were commenting upon). Second, they are so committed to their a priori point of view that they subconsciously distort the empirical record to fit their views. Three, they are intellectually dishonest. Any combination of these interpretations reflects a fundamental incompetence and an attitude which have no place in scientific discourse on human evolution."

[passer...@gmail.com]

And after the NUCLEAR DNA proved Tattersall's entire career was a dirty racist lie, what did he say? Did he apologize?

No, he said the math was too complicated, that he would never understand it, that he wasn't any good at math. That he was the kind of scientist that can't do math.

[RonO]

There are actually two studies with conflicting results. One study
found evidence of Australasian genetics in extant Amazonian populations
that they claim had no mixed genetics in their backgrounds. The other
study used Andian mummies and other fossils that were thousands of years
old to look for Australasian admixture and they didn't find any in the
ancient samples.

The Australasian genetics is likely in the extant populations tested,
but I don't know how long it has been integrated into those populations.
The Australasians made it to within 800 miles of the South American
cost with their colony on Easter Island. It looks like some of them
made it to South America at some point in history.

The fossil DNA indicates that the Australasian influence was not wide
spread thousands of years ago.

My guess is that they will have to keep working on the problem.

http://www.latimes.com/science/sciencenow/la-sci-sn-native-american-origins-dna-20150721-story.html

[passer...@gmail.com]

The Australian genetics is a minority of that population, it's well mixed. And the've been taking genetic samples from a lot more than Andean mummies. They aren't that old, and a rather smal sample what kind if idiot would think they are of any importance in genetic history?

Historically, 95% of what they claim is a fact, is proven false. Someone saying something somewhere is worthless. mtDNA and YDNA (at least of existing populations) are totally worthless.

Why did it take them so long to sequence Australian/Melanesian nuclear DNA? Why haven't they sequenced the DNA from the shortest humans on earth, the 700 villagers of Rampasassa, right next to the Hobbit Cave? And the Basque, why not the Basque?

Here's a much better article with a video of lead author discussing it...
http://www.news.com.au/technology/science/genetic-study-challenges-americas-settlement-theories-by-linking-amazonians-and-australasians/story-fnjwl2dr-1227452095278

There is another possibility, of course. They are a remnant of the first Siberian wave, before modern Asians, when all of Asia was closely related to the Australians/Denisovans/Homo Erectus.

[A.Carlson]

On Wed, 22 Jul 2015 02:54:19 -0700 (PDT), passer...@gmail.com
wrote:

>They only noticed the Australian contribution because of the extremely
>different genetics from most other existing humans.

What exactly are these "extremely different genetics" that YOU are
referring to? Does it perchance have anything to do with haplotypes?
If so you are overstating your case (hardly surprising coming from a
Creationist apologist).

>All that Denisovan and Homo Erectus genetics no one else has (other
>than traces in some other Asians.) Branches over a million years
>distant from Africans.

First, date-wise you appear to be off by a factor of 10. Second, as
far as trace material, who cares? Just because we, for example, might
have trace amounts of genetic material that matches and may have
originated from Neandertals that hardly makes us Neandertals. The
same goes for any other group that has remnants of DNA from long-lost
ancestors of modern humans.

>They have to publish and make grand claims of what they've discovered
>to make money, for personal greed. And since you can claim any silly
>thing you want in these Monkey Brain reviewed "scientific" journals,
>if possible, they claim whatever current political beliefs want them
>to claim.

Yes, lets conveniently leave out the whole issue of peer review,
replication, and so forth. Although it is certainly true that
mistakes have been made in the past this often leads to people being
caught and exposed and reputations and careers destroyed.

Scientists are more likely to require accurate information to do their
own job or to be able to go forward with their own research so lying
just to make money is not marketable nor the least bit evident as a
motivating force.

>Creationists have 10 times the honesty and integrity of evolution
>"scientists". They are actually pursuing truth, not greed.

Then why have they been caught, time and again, in lie after lie?
There is a very good reason why the vast majority of scientists reject
creationist propaganda and this includes a fair amount of scientists
who remain religious.

[jillery]

A point of order. The correct term is not Australian, but
Australasian, referring to those people who island hopped across the
Pacific, to New Zealand and Tahiti and Hawaii and Easter Island.


On Wed, 22 Jul 2015 05:03:17 -0700 (PDT), passer...@gmail.com
wrote:

--
This space is intentionally not blank.

[Joe Cummings]

The interesting thing is that these errors - or mistakes or lies - were
found out by good old evolutionist scientists.

Whike the existence of the dispute will be shouted from the housetops by
our creationist friends, the same creationists have neither the
knowledge nor the intelligence to discover the cause of the dispute.

Note the absence of abuse from my posting; "passerby," however makes
sure his hatred of science very plain.

Now who was it said "Love thine enemy?????"

Joe Cummings

[A.Carlson]

On Wed, 22 Jul 2015 03:25:12 -0700 (PDT), passer...@gmail.com
wrote:

>And after the NUCLEAR DNA proved Tattersall's entire career was a
>dirty racist lie, what did he say? Did he apologize?

So someone just disagreed with his interpretations. How does that
make him a racist? And are you even the least bit aware of
Tattersall's writings on the subject of race? To put it simply
Tattersall is an actual racist's nightmare.

>No, he said the math was too complicated, that he would never
>understand it, that he wasn't any good at math. That he was the kind
>of scientist that can't do math.

Yes, I'm sure that is exactly what he said. After all you have been
so reliable up to now in your ability to accurately portray the
evidence available on this subject. Although would it be too much to
ask for a cite?

[Ernest Major]

On 22/07/2015 15:54, A.Carlson wrote:
> On Wed, 22 Jul 2015 02:54:19 -0700 (PDT), passer...@gmail.com
> wrote:
>
>> They only noticed the Australian contribution because of the extremely
>> different genetics from most other existing humans.
>
> What exactly are these "extremely different genetics" that YOU are
> referring to? Does it perchance have anything to do with haplotypes?
> If so you are overstating your case (hardly surprising coming from a
> Creationist apologist).
>
>> All that Denisovan and Homo Erectus genetics no one else has (other
>> than traces in some other Asians.) Branches over a million years
>> distant from Africans.
>
> First, date-wise you appear to be off by a factor of 10. Second, as
> far as trace material, who cares? Just because we, for example, might
> have trace amounts of genetic material that matches and may have
> originated from Neandertals that hardly makes us Neandertals. The
> same goes for any other group that has remnants of DNA from long-lost
> ancestors of modern humans.

He's leaping to conclusions again. There are two hypotheses which would
explain the existence of Australasian haplotypes in Amerindian populations.

One is the hypothesis that Ron mentioned - that they were introduced by
Polynesian contact. (The ubiquity of sweet potato as a crop in
pre-contact Polynesia is adduced as evidence for such contact.) The
Polynesians picked up an admixture of Melanesian DNA during their
passage east, which one would expect to include Denisovan alleles.

The other hypothesis is the "American Aborigine" hypothesis which
appears to be the one passerby favours. This was previously adduced from
skeletal features in palaeoindians. In this hypothesis a "First Exodus"
population followed the Pacific Coast into the Americas. In this
hypothesis there is no reason to expect a Denisovan component; the
geographical distribution of Denisovan contributions in modern
population implies that hybridisation took place in Wallacea. One might
expect that the ancestors of the "American Aborigines", like the Negrito
populations of southern Asia, separated from the Australians and
Melanesians before the latter interbred with Denisovans.

>
>> They have to publish and make grand claims of what they've discovered
>> to make money, for personal greed. And since you can claim any silly
>> thing you want in these Monkey Brain reviewed "scientific" journals,
>> if possible, they claim whatever current political beliefs want them
>> to claim.
>
> Yes, lets conveniently leave out the whole issue of peer review,
> replication, and so forth. Although it is certainly true that
> mistakes have been made in the past this often leads to people being
> caught and exposed and reputations and careers destroyed.
>
> Scientists are more likely to require accurate information to do their
> own job or to be able to go forward with their own research so lying
> just to make money is not marketable nor the least bit evident as a
> motivating force.
>
>> Creationists have 10 times the honesty and integrity of evolution
>> "scientists". They are actually pursuing truth, not greed.
>
> Then why have they been caught, time and again, in lie after lie?
> There is a very good reason why the vast majority of scientists reject
> creationist propaganda and this includes a fair amount of scientists
> who remain religious.
>

--
alias Ernest Major

[Ernest Major]

On 22/07/2015 16:17, A.Carlson wrote:
> On Wed, 22 Jul 2015 03:25:12 -0700 (PDT), passer...@gmail.com
> wrote:
>
>> And after the NUCLEAR DNA proved Tattersall's entire career was a
>> dirty racist lie, what did he say? Did he apologize?
>
> So someone just disagreed with his interpretations. How does that
> make him a racist? And are you even the least bit aware of
> Tattersall's writings on the subject of race? To put it simply
> Tattersall is an actual racist's nightmare.

It's a back-handed way of reminding us of the racist associations of
polygenist and multiregionalist models of human evolution.

>
>> No, he said the math was too complicated, that he would never
>> understand it, that he wasn't any good at math. That he was the kind
>> of scientist that can't do math.
>
> Yes, I'm sure that is exactly what he said. After all you have been
> so reliable up to now in your ability to accurately portray the
> evidence available on this subject. Although would it be too much to
> ask for a cite?
>

--
alias Ernest Major

[passer...@gmail.com]

I never read segmented posts.

[passer...@gmail.com]

Nah, the Melanesians/Australians are very different from the Polynesians.

[passer...@gmail.com]

It's originally in Proverbs. Paul repeated it because he was the enemy, and liked the idea of them turning the other cheek. The Didache picked it up, and explicitly said Jesus never said it, and later versions of Q got it from the Didache. Matthew and Luke, of course, got it from Q. You can see it evolve in each step.

None of the other Christian Gospels or their historical source, the Gospel of Thomas has anything remotely like it.

And I never claimed Creationists are always right, or that evolution scientists are always wrong, after all Trinkaus said 99% of them, (or at least their "leaders") were..."inappropriate, inaccurate, and unethical...mis-information, mis-use of cladistic and anatomical terminology, mis-quotes, mis- representations, poor logic, general incompetence regarding the Late Pleistocene hominid fossil record, anatomical ignorance, and a priori non-evolutionary (typological) approaches...pitiful.... inaccurate...they are simply ignorant...they are intellectually dishonest...fundamental incompetence..."
That was right.

[passer...@gmail.com]

Clueless, noting to do with Polynesians. Not even remotely related to Melanesians/Australians.

This is elementary stuff. Seems an evolution forum would know that like the back of their hand.

[passer...@gmail.com]

He's worse than a racist he's a speciesist. He doesn't just call other humans a different race he calls them a different species of all things.

And it's painted human evolution science into a corner, since we now know Europeans/Han share 100% of their GENES and Australians and Africans only share about 92%. If Neanderthals are a different species, with 100% the same GENES, what are Africans and Australians?

It's been one brotherhood of man, one species, interbreeding and diverging, constantly for millions of years.

[Joe Cummings]

On 22/07/2015 17:54, passer...@gmail.com wrote:
> It's originally in Proverbs. Paul repeated it because he was the enemy, and liked the idea of them turning the other cheek. The Didache picked it up, and explicitly said Jesus never said it, and later versions of Q got it from the Didache. Matthew and Luke, of course, got it from Q. You can see it evolve in each step.
>
> None of the other Christian Gospels or their historical source, the Gospel of Thomas has anything remotely like it.

Let's be clear about this: are you saying that because Jesus never said
"Love thine enemy," then it's OK to hate them?

>
> And I never claimed Creationists are always right, or that evolution scientists are always wrong, after all Trinkaus said 99% of them, (or at least their "leaders") were

...."inappropriate, inaccurate, and unethical...mis-information, mis-use

[passer...@gmail.com]

I guess you missed the part where I never read segmented posts. That or you have way too much time on your hands.

[passer...@gmail.com]

Ok, not segmented, it just stuck an bold in there, I never read them. Sorry.

It depends, sometime hating your enemy is a great plan. Sometimes I can see where being the bigger person and turning the other cheek and loving them will heap coals on their heads like Proverbs says.

Personally, I get my morality from the Golden Rule, all of which, all across the planet, come from Leviticus, bu t. That's what Hillel in the Talmud believed and that's what the historical Jesus in the Gospel of Thomas believed.

[Joe Cummings]

I'm sorry "passerby" isn't able to read segmented posts. I strongly urge
him to find help on this. It should be fairly easy to follow them with
a little tuition.

I note two things from his postings:

1 The Golden Rule seems to allow him to hate people. I suppose this is
the justification for his abusive remarks on evolutionary scientists. I
have to say, though, that outside of the creationist movement an
envenomed Christian is a very rare individual.

2 He has failed to address the glaring fact that it was evolutionary
scientists who made the criticism that he reported, and not anyone from
the creationist movement _ oh, OK he reported it, but said nothing about
the substance of the dispute, leading me to believe he doesn't know much
about the science.

Back to the schoolroom for "passerby."

Joe Cummings

[A.Carlson]

On Wed, 22 Jul 2015 09:04:03 -0700 (PDT), passer...@gmail.com
wrote:

>He's worse than a racist he's a speciesist. He doesn't just call other
>humans a different race he calls them a different species of all
>things.

Can you name even one single solitary example where Tattersall claims
such REGARDING EXISTING MODERN HUMANS? Of course if you are still
going on about Neandertals and how it is somehow racist to refer to
them as a different species or subspecies then you're just nucking
futs!!

Ian Tattersall, paleoanthropologis and curator emeritus of the
American museum of Natural History in NYC, is the author of many books
including "Race?: Debunking a Scientific Myth" in which he points out
that the differences that are seen between different groups of people
that are typically associated with race are only superficial and that
there are really no clear boundaries. He also believes that these
superficial features are of relatively modern origins and that all
human groups that exist in the world today were full-fledged modern
humans from the beginning of our journeys out of Africa.

>And it's painted human evolution science into a corner, since we now
>know Europeans/Han share 100% of their GENES and Australians and
>Africans only share about 92%. If Neanderthals are a different
>species, with 100% the same GENES, what are Africans and Australians?

Fully modern human according to Dr. Tattersall, whom you so grossly
misrepresent here.

Also your argument as presented continues to be based on the same
false assertions of yours, assertions that you continue to refuse to
provide adequate justification for and appear to be based on a gross
misunderstanding on your part of what haplotypes and haplogroups are.

>It's been one brotherhood of man, one species, interbreeding and
>diverging, constantly for millions of years.

Yes, there is no exact cutoff point where one species clearly becomes
another. On a macro scale life in on one great big long continuum.
Some might even argue that we are speciesists by delineating even
among any of our fellow hominids. But then where does it stop?

[Ernest Major]

On 22/07/2015 16:57, passer...@gmail.com wrote:
> Clueless, noting to do with Polynesians. Not even remotely related to Melanesians/Australians.
>
> This is elementary stuff. Seems an evolution forum would know that like the back of their hand.

1) What happened to your refusal to read segmented posts?
2) What happened to your claim that "It's been one brotherhood of man,

one species, interbreeding and diverging, constantly for millions of

years" (which you're now contradicting with your implicit claim that
contact between Polynesians and Melanesians took place without
interbreeding)?
3) Why do you reject a hypothesis that is consistent with your claims in
favour of one that isn't?

--
alias Ernest Major

[Ernest Major]

On 22/07/2015 17:00, Joe Cummings wrote:
> On 22/07/2015 17:54, passer...@gmail.com wrote:
>> It's originally in Proverbs. Paul repeated it because he was the
>> enemy, and liked the idea of them turning the other cheek. The Didache
>> picked it up, and explicitly said Jesus never said it, and later
>> versions of Q got it from the Didache. Matthew and Luke, of course,
>> got it from Q. You can see it evolve in each step.
>>
>> None of the other Christian Gospels or their historical source, the
>> Gospel of Thomas has anything remotely like it.
>
>
> Let's be clear about this: are you saying that because Jesus never said
> "Love thine enemy," then it's OK to hate them?

He has denied being a Christian.

--
alias Ernest Major

[Ernest Major]

He says he gets his morality from the Golden Rule. He hasn't
specifically claimed to follow it.

>
> 2 He has failed to address the glaring fact that it was evolutionary
> scientists who made the criticism that he reported, and not anyone from
> the creationist movement _ oh, OK he reported it, but said nothing about
> the substance of the dispute, leading me to believe he doesn't know much
> about the science.
>
> Back to the schoolroom for "passerby."
>
> Joe Cummings
>

--
alias Ernest Major

[A.Carlson]

On Wed, 22 Jul 2015 08:46:46 -0700 (PDT), passer...@gmail.com
wrote:

>I never read segmented posts.

Well, you never appear to read for context anyway. It's a good
practice for someone who repeatedly appears clueless and refuses to
address any of the numerous problems that your posts reflect.
Otherwise you might just have to address everything that you continue
to get wrong.

Also, isn't it interesting that no one else here seems to have this
particular problem of yours. Since your abnormal behavior allows you
to circumvent any and all germane arguments made against your vacuous
posts I can only assume that it is nothing more than a dodge.

Maybe if you grew up a little a somewhat intelligible discussion could
be had with you. I certainly won't hold my breath though

[A.Carlson]

On Wed, 22 Jul 2015 08:57:00 -0700 (PDT), passer...@gmail.com
wrote:

>Clueless, noting to do with Polynesians. Not even remotely related to
>Melanesians/Australians.

"Clueless"? Really? Coming from you? Pot, meet kettle.

Consider the following two facts. 1) There is a fair amount genetic
evidence showing a Melanesian origin for Polynesians, or at least some
sharing of genetic material. 2) It is the Polynesians, not the
Melanesians, who would most likely have spread these shared genetic
material across the Pacific Ocean. We already know (well, I don't
know about you) that the Polynesians made it at least all the way to
Easter Island in the SE part of the Pacific Ocean. It isn't that
farfetched that such a seafaring culture might have made it the rest
of the way to S. America centuries before Europeans "discovered" it.

>This is elementary stuff.

Then you must be pre-elementary!

[Mark Isaak]

In Polynesian myth, the afterlife world is far to the east, and there
are legends of people sailing there and back. It would not surprise me
at all if the legends are half true, and some Polynesians did sail there.

--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) curioustaxonomy (dot) net
"Keep the company of those who seek the truth; run from those who have
found it." - Vaclav Havel

[jillery]

Apparently even the authors of your cited article don't know the
difference between Australasian and Australian. But you're right,
Polynesians are different from both groups. And it's the Polynesians
who explored and occupied so many of the Pacific islands. They are
the most likely candidates to have reach South America by sea.


On Wed, 22 Jul 2015 08:47:41 -0700 (PDT), passer...@gmail.com
wrote:

[RSNorman]

On Thu, 23 Jul 2015 07:47:35 -0400, jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>Apparently even the authors of your cited article don't know the
>difference between Australasian and Australian. But you're right,
>Polynesians are different from both groups. And it's the Polynesians
>who explored and occupied so many of the Pacific islands. They are
>the most likely candidates to have reach South America by sea.
>

The authors of the actual research publication specify "present-day
Australasians (indigenous groups in Australia, Melanesia, and island
Southeast Asia)"

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/vnfv/ncurrent/full/nature14895.html

Figure 1 of that paper, which is not behind the paywall, clearly shows
that the oceanic reagions of Polynesians is not included.

[passer...@gmail.com]

Yes, Sparky, the Golden Rule allows you to hate people. Yes, I know, the Golden Rule is an alien thing to a forum atheist, no reason to expect you to have a remote foggy clue what it is.

And one more time for the reading comprehension disadvantaged, with their moron strawman argument...

"And I never claimed Creationists are always right, or that evolution scientists are always wrong, after all Trinkaus said 99% of them, (or at least their "leaders") were..."inappropriate, inaccurate, and unethical...mis-information, mis-use of cladistic and anatomical terminology, mis-quotes, mis- representations, poor logic, general incompetence regarding the Late Pleistocene hominid fossil record, anatomical ignorance, and a priori non-evolutionary (typological) approaches...pitiful.... inaccurate...they are simply ignorant...they are intellectually dishonest...fundamental incompetence..."
That was right."

[passer...@gmail.com]

I didn't say "EXISTING MODERN HUMANS". And what does it tell us when your only option is to spew moron strawman arguments? Try to build up the intellectual courage to deal with what I actually said.

And when you call someone with 100% the same genes as Europeans/Han a different, inferior SPECIES, yes, it does affect existing humans since Africans and Australians are 92%.

Too complicated?

[passer...@gmail.com]

I follow it. If a woman is being raped and murdered in the street, love your enemy/turn the other cheek of Paul tells you to try to reason with the rapist/murderer, offer yourself instead, etc. The Golden Rule tells you to plant your feet and turning your hips with a good backswing, catch the rapist side the head with a tire iron.

[passer...@gmail.com]

Another idiot Strawman argument. Because I say humans have been interbreeding for millions of years, this rocket scientists claims I said all existing humans are dead identical. Despite repeating the 92% for Africans and Australians every other sentence.

It's an evolution forum and you idiot forum atheists don't know anything about any of the papers on nuclear DNA that have changed everything, you don't know a Polynesian isn't a Melanesian, you don't what GENES Neanderthals, Denisovans, etc. and existing humans have in common, heck you don't even know what a GENE is and why it's real important for GENEtics and determining whether something is a different species.

[passer...@gmail.com]

Ah yes, the eternally fascinating Passerby. Sorry, I can't imagine anything more mind-numbingly boring than the subject of you. Not interested.

[passer...@gmail.com]

Fact: We can tell the difference between a Polynesian and Melanesian GENEtics. And everyone that has a remote clue about human GENEtics knows it like the back of their hand.

Whether Polynesians are good sailors, etc. is of no importance whatsoever. We know for a fact they ain't Polynesians. No scientist has claimed that because even they aren't that stupid.

[passer...@gmail.com]

You guys think the term Australasian includes Polynesians. Big words I guess.

Different GENEtics.

It's dead certain Polynesians hit South America. Look at a map of the Pacific, Easter Island and South America. They couldn't miss it. The Polynesian chicken is in South America etc. But this is tens of thousands of years ago, and not even remotely Polynesian.

[passer...@gmail.com]

No, the authors got it right. That Australians and Polynesians are rather distantly related is accepted as fact.

[passer...@gmail.com]

Embedded in the center of the Amazon jungles is strong evidence they weren't late arrivals.

That some Australians, 15,000 years ago, sailed up the Pacific, past all those mainstream Asians, and across Bering and down into South America, is rather unlikely.

The Han Chinese/Neanderthal-African invasion was about 40,000 years ago, last time I checked. That means it would have to be before 40,000 years ago, when the Denisovans-HomoErectusBranch, the ancestors of the Australians (to some extent), lived there.

Trust me, I GUARANTEE it, they will find more and more as they get better at it. No doubt from Europe too. It's always been obvious it's a grotesque lie that they've proved Native Americans only came from one or two waves over 10,000 years ago. They have no clue, they are just evolution scientists running their mouths.

[A.Carlson]

On Thu, 23 Jul 2015 22:53:38 -0700 (PDT), passer...@gmail.com
wrote:

>Fact: We can tell the difference between a Polynesian and Melanesian
>GENEtics. And everyone that has a remote clue about human GENEtics
>knows it like the back of their hand.

Yeah, like you really know what you're talking about.

For starters, here's a little light reading:

http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/content/23/11/2234.full
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v410/n6825/abs/410166b0.html

It seems as though interpretations regarding the Polynesians vary,
largely based on whether you base them on maternal DNA (mitochondrial)
or paternal DNA (Y-chromosome).

Since you seem to be a big fan of out-of-context gene comparisons
let's take a look at a particular one from the study:

"overall 94.1% of Polynesian Y chromosomes analyzed here can
be classified as of either Melanesian (65.8%) or Asian (28.3%)
origin."

>Whether Polynesians are good sailors, etc. is of no importance
>whatsoever. We know for a fact they ain't Polynesians. No scientist
>has claimed that because even they aren't that stupid.
>

Whatever happened to your brotherhood of man bullshit? If you're
referring to Melanesians here, no they aren't Polynesians
(pure-blooded Polynesians at least) but a number of scientists
certainly do claim that they are genetically related in the sense that
at least some of the genetic makeup appear to have common origins.
>
P.S. it is actually pretty stupid to say things like this or that
never happened especially when you really don't have much of a clue
about the subject matter. The problem with genetics in particular is
that it is nowhere near as simplistic as you represent it to be.

[passer...@gmail.com]

The Andaman Islanders, that third part of the group are fascinating.

European racist evolution scientists love to claim that a tall vertical forehead and square chin is more "advanced". More "modern".

It's just filthy evolution scientist racism. Take a look at Einstein or Godel or an Australian's forehead and chins. Vertical foreheads and square chins mean nothing.

But...by that standard, tall vertical foreheads, "eggheads", no one is even close to the Andaman Islanders. Some almost look like the sci-fi future humans with the huge brains.

[A.Carlson]

On Thu, 23 Jul 2015 22:32:55 -0700 (PDT), passer...@gmail.com
wrote:

>I didn't say "EXISTING MODERN HUMANS". And what does it tell us when
>your only option is to spew moron strawman arguments? Try to build up
>the intellectual courage to deal with what I actually said.

READ IT IN CONTEXT!!!!! Oh, I forgot....you don't do context.

There is nothing racist about categorizing a long-ago-extinct species
of hominids as not being 100% genetically similar to modern humans,
especially if the evidence supports such a conclusion (the ACTUAL
evidence, not your apples-and-oranges bullshit comparisons)

>And when you call someone with 100% the same genes as Europeans/Han a
>different, inferior SPECIES, yes, it does affect existing humans since
>Africans and Australians are 92%.

1. The only person talking inferior is you.
2. You are the one who is consistently spewing your bullshit about
Africans and Australians only sharing 92% of their genes with
Europeans while I have repeatedly pointed out to you that the
actual range of differences in genes is actually around 0.1% for
all modern human groups. So who's more likely to be the racist?
3. It doesn't help your pathetic case when you repeatedly fail to
cite the source of your utter bullshit despite numerous requests.
The one source that you did cite makes no mention of comparisons
between Africans and Australians.

>Too complicated?

Apparently for you, yes.

[passer...@gmail.com]

When you build up the intellectual courage to reply to me, fine, in the meantime, trust me, it's no loss.

[passer...@gmail.com]

Thanks for stressing what an idiot you are when even 100% of the idiot evolution scientists know it's trivially easy to tell the difference between the two GENEtically.

Hint (and I know you will never ever grasp it): mtDNA and YDNA are totally worthless for determining the ancestry of existing humans any significant time into the past. The Neanderthal Nuclear DNA papers, you are totally oblivious to, proved that to be a fact for all eternity. Heck, the original Mungo Man paper proved it, with the mtDNA hopping to chromosome 11 in the Nuclear DNA and being widespread, despite the mtDNA going extinct. Might as well be speaking Mandaean.

[passer...@gmail.com]

I can understand them being mystified by elementary algebra, and science in general, but this is an evolution forum, and they are totally and I mean TOTALLY ignorant of the most basic facts of human GENEtics. From Neanderthal to Melanesians/Polynesians. Whatever it is, they draw a blank.

And it's not just the glaring ignorance, it's the frenzied desperation to cling to their ignorance, no matter what. They will go to their grave thinking Australians are Polynesians.

[A.Carlson]

On Thu, 23 Jul 2015 23:29:38 -0700 (PDT), passer...@gmail.com
wrote:

>Embedded in the center of the Amazon jungles is strong evidence they
>weren't late arrivals.

Who exactly is "they"? You seem to have a simplistic, one dimensional
view of things. Not everyone (in fact very few people-scientists at
least) believes that the Americas were populated by one single
solitary migration. In fact the closer we look at things the more
complex things appear.

>That some Australians, 15,000 years ago, sailed up the Pacific, past
>all those mainstream Asians, and across Bering and down into South
>America, is rather unlikely.

And certainly not what anyone here appears to have been claiming. Now
Australians may have some identifiable shared genes or alleles with
those who did and the Polynesians/Melanesians (Look up slow boat
theory) seems to be a good candidate for a number of reasons. But no
one is saying therefore all South Americans would reflect this genetic
inflow. In fact this doesn't appear to be the least bit likely
because if the Polynesians arrived in the pre-Columbus Americas it
most likely would have been relatively recent.

>The Han Chinese/Neanderthal-African invasion was about 40,000 years
>ago, last time I checked. That means it would have to be before 40,000
>years ago, when the Denisovans-HomoErectusBranch, the ancestors of the
>Australians (to some extent), lived there.

Wow, you've really got things screwed up and turned around. That
description isn't even remotely similar to the more significant claims
being made.

>Trust me, I GUARANTEE it, they will find more and more as they get
>better at it. No doubt from Europe too. It's always been obvious it's
>a grotesque lie that they've proved Native Americans only came from
>one or two waves over 10,000 years ago. They have no clue, they are
>just evolution scientists running their mouths.

Uhm, human migration patterns have little to do with the ToE in and of
itself. Also, if you really do accept that multiple waves of
migration are responsible of the Americas being populated how does
that fit your assertion about Amazonians that only makes sense if you
assume that ALL of them share the same set of unique genes.

[Joe Cummings]

Ooh, "passerby" continues in his violent dreams. I'd suggest the golden
rule doesn't justify rage.

Let me give him a little story -I hope his attention span is adequate to
follow it :
A samurai wa hired to murder someone in dispute with another. The
samurai approached the victim,who became afraid and spat on him
The samurai then put up his sword and walked away.

When asked why he hadn't killed the victim, the samurai replied "because
he made me angry."

A copper is paid not to get angry, but to do what can be a difficult job
without getting emotionally involved.

I'd hate "passerby" to be a copper.

My original point, that the dispute was between evolutionists, with
creationists nowhere in sight has, naturally been ignored.

Joe Cummings

[passer...@gmail.com]

Ok, bug off.

[passer...@gmail.com]

The Onge are one of the oldest branches if not the oldest known of the entire group, and are almost extinct. Like Australia/Melanesia, even more so, some Andaman tribes are very different from others. Huge foreheads.

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

[A.Carlson]

On Thu, 23 Jul 2015 23:51:59 -0700 (PDT), passer...@gmail.com
wrote:

The following from you has got to be one of the more ignorant posts by
you and that is with you setting a pretty low bar:

"Hint (and I know you will never ever grasp it): mtDNA and YDNA
are totally worthless for determining the ancestry of existing
humans any significant time into the past."

Just out of curiosity, Mr. "I know everything there is to know about
genetics", have you by any chance ever come across the concept of a
"Mitochondrial Eve" or a "Y-Chromosomal Adam"? Do you have any idea
as to the source used for study? I'll give you a hint: IT'S RIGHT
THERE STARING YOU SQUARE IN THE FACE - JUST READ THE NAMES!!!!

You can always play silly games with the phrase "significant time in
the past" but of course you would have to go much farther in the past
than what is relevant for a lot of the subjects we are discussing
here, or at least trying to discuss with someone who goes to great
lengths to avoid addressing multiple problems that arises from
bullshit spewed by him.

[passer...@gmail.com]

Ok, that's one vote for Hitler taking over the world.

[A.Carlson]

On Fri, 24 Jul 2015 00:24:12 -0700 (PDT), passer...@gmail.com
wrote:

>Ok, bug off.

Is that, by any chance, a tacit admission on your part that you're
full of shit?

[Joe Cummings]

How wonderfully relevant!

To continue: why weren't creationists on the scene of the dispute before
any scientist?

Joe Cummings

[passer...@gmail.com]

Too complicated huh? Don't worry, I don't think you are just acting stupid, and wasting my time, I think you really are that stupid...

No, it's commenting on you being an intellectual chickenshit hiding behind your segmented post.

Always glad to help.

[RonO]

This paper found that the polynesians that made it to Easter Island may
have had some Melanesian genetics by Alu site analysis.

QUOTE: from the discussion
This model implies an intermediate passage in Coastal Melanesia, with a
certain degree of admixture between local populations and Polynesian
ancestors. The Alu markers are consistent with a gene flow of 15% (data
not shown) into the Polynesian gene pool from Coastal, but not
from Highland, Melanesia, adding independent support to the model.
END QUOTE:

They note a decline in the Melanesian influence in polynesians as you go
North in the Pacific.


This article talks about the evidence that Easter Islanders visited the
South American mainland before Columbus.

http://news.sciencemag.org/archaeology/2014/10/epic-pre-columbian-voyage-suggested-genes

Ron Okimoto

[Ernest Major]

The strength of the Melanesian/Australian signal in the Amazon
populations is stronger in than in Tonga. It's possible that this it has
been amplified by drift or selection (or reduced in Tonga), but I think
that the "American Aborigine" hypothesis - a remnant circumpacific
"First Exodus" population is more likely.

--
alias Ernest Major

[Stewart Robert Hinsley]

On 24/07/2015 06:40, passer...@gmail.com wrote:
> Another idiot Strawman argument. Because I say humans have been interbreeding for millions of years, this rocket scientists claims I said all existing humans are dead identical. Despite repeating the 92% for Africans and Australians every other sentence.

You don't have to tell us that you're about to offer an idiot strawman
argument. We already know that is your modus operandi.

And what happened to your inability to read or respond to "segmented posts"?

>> --
>> alias Ernest Major
>

[A.Carlson]

It isn't as much an "inability" but an "unwillingness" because for him
to respond to "segmented posts", which are often point-by-point
rebuttals, and still try and maintain the appearance that he actually
has a valid point he would first have to have a defendable position to
begin with.

[A.Carlson]

On Fri, 24 Jul 2015 02:30:52 -0700 (PDT), passer...@gmail.com
wrote:

>Too complicated huh? Don't worry, I don't think you are just acting stupid, and wasting my time, I think you really are that stupid...
>
>No, it's commenting on you being an intellectual chickenshit hiding behind your segmented post.

IOW, you can't handle a point-by-point rebuttal.

>Always glad to help.

Really? Then cite your sources. How about starting with the one that
you repeatedly claim shows African & Australian Aboriginal genes are
92% the same as Europeans while Neandertal genes are a 100% match.

[RonO]

Forgot to provide the link:
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1469-1809.2006.00293.x/full

[RSNorman]

That may well be the case but I was referring to something quite
different. There was discussion here about Australasians vs
Australians vs Melanesians vs Polynesians and even reference to what
the authors of the original article might have known or not known. So
I actually referred to the original research paper and cited exactly
what they meant by the term "Australasian" which includes Australians,
Melanesians, and other Southeast Asians.

Whether Easter Islanders did a reverse Kon Tiki and visited South
American seems unrelated to the finding that "some Amazonian Native
Americans descend partly from a Native American founding population
that carried ancestry more closely related to indigenous Australians,
New Guineans and Andaman Islanders than to any present-day Eurasians
or Native Americans. This signature is not present to the same extent,
or at all, in present-day Northern and Central Americans or in a
~12,600-year-old Clovis-associated genome"

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/vnfv/ncurrent/full/nature14895.html

[jillery]

On Sun, 26 Jul 2015 08:48:32 -0400, RSNorman <r_s_n...@comcast.net>
wrote:

Not that it matters now any more than when you brought it up, but
there was no discussion, much less disagreement, about what the
authors of the original article knew. My comments referred to the
*cited* article's conflation of australasian and australian.

>Whether Easter Islanders did a reverse Kon Tiki and visited South
>American seems unrelated to the finding that "some Amazonian Native
>Americans descend partly from a Native American founding population
>that carried ancestry more closely related to indigenous Australians,
>New Guineans and Andaman Islanders than to any present-day Eurasians
>or Native Americans. This signature is not present to the same extent,
>or at all, in present-day Northern and Central Americans or in a
>~12,600-year-old Clovis-associated genome"
>
>http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/vnfv/ncurrent/full/nature14895.html

[jillery]

Ira Flato interviews David Reich and Rasmus Nielsen on Science Friday:

<http://www.sciencefriday.com/segment/07/24/2015/a-twist-in-the-tale-of-native-american-origins.html>

[passer...@gmail.com]

A human evolution forum and they don't even know that Australians and Polynesians aren't even remotely related.

And with the web giving them the quick ability to find out, they still cling to their ignorance at all costs.

Forum atheists.

[The Masked Lapavenger]

Polynesians are related to Australians through their share of Melanesian ancestry. Did you think they boarded a China Airlines jet in Taiwan and landed in Tahiti? Of course they mixed with Melanesians along the way! It was one of the surest bets one could make, even before the advent of DNA testing.

[passer...@gmail.com]

Like I said, determined to cling to their ignorance, despite Google sorting it out for them in an instant.

[Bob Casanova]

On Tue, 28 Jul 2015 08:47:33 -0700 (PDT), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by The Masked Lapavenger
<pierr...@gmail.com>:

Ignore pisserby; he has a Caesar complex, and insists on
being shot down in the "forum" on a regular basis.
--

Bob C.

"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"

- Isaac Asimov

[The Masked Lapavenger]

What exactly is the part you disagree with in what I wrote? What Google search told you that Polynesians have zero Melanesian ancestry, or that Melanesians are not related to Australians?

[passer...@gmail.com]

Ah yes, the eternally fascinating Passerby. Do you think about me when you are falling asleep at night?

Sorry, I'm totally oblivious to your presence. Couldn't name a thing you believe in or not, just another jibbering monkey.

[passer...@gmail.com]

Deliberate lie. I DEFY you to point out where I said "zero Melanesian ancestry".

Try to build up the intellectual courage to reply to what I actually said, granted much more difficult.

[The Masked Lapavenger]

Well if you agree they have Melanesian ancestry then WTH did you call me ignorant when I told you so??
What is your proposed model for the peopling of the Pacific?

[passer...@gmail.com]

Everyone on the planet is related to everyone else. That doesn't mean we can't tell Africans from Han Chinese, or Melanesians from Polynesians.

Why is that so complicated?

[A.Carlson]

On Sat, 1 Aug 2015 19:45:28 -0700 (PDT), passer...@gmail.com
wrote:

>Everyone on the planet is related to everyone else. That doesn't mean we can't tell Africans from Han Chinese, or Melanesians from Polynesians.
>
>Why is that so complicated?

As per usual you oversimplify things to support a wrong conclusion.

I knew a guy who was American Indian but his skin was so dark that
everyone around him took him for an African American. He got so tired
of explaining things that he just decided to go along with it. The
actor who went by the name of Chief Iron eyes Cody, the one who
provided the iconic image of an Indian with a tear in his eye in the
70's commercial about pollution, was actually of Italian descent.

It isn't always as straightforward as you are suggesting especially
now that there is such an unprecedented amount of migration going on
compared to the past.

This is why haplotypes have played an essential role in the study of
migration patterns. They paint a far more reliable picture than
relying on something as superficial as a person's collection of
physical traits, many of which are shared by multiple cultures.

It is because these traits are also so superficial when it comes to
comparing various races of modern-day humans, something that modern
genetics clearly shows, that I yet again challenge you to come up with
evidence to back your (possibly racist inspired) claim that Africans
and Aboriginal Australians only share 92% of their genes with
Europeans. This is especially striking because the numbers usually
given for shared genes between modern humans and Chimpanzees is
significantly higher than 92%.

[passer...@gmail.com]

No, it's your deliberate lie that I said, "Aboriginal Australians only share 92% of their GENES with Europeans". It's sub-Saharan Africans and Australians. Europeans have a lot of Neanderthal genes which increases the match with Australians. Africans and Europeans, it's about 97%. Neanderthal and Europeans it's 100%.

[passer...@gmail.com]

CHIMPS ARE 25% THE SAME IN ****GENES*** WITH HUMANS. THIS IS ELEMENTARY.

THIS IS AN EVOLUTION FORUM, GET A CLUE.

[A.Carlson]

On Wed, 2 Sep 2015 19:49:39 -0700 (PDT), passer...@gmail.com
wrote:

>No, it's your deliberate lie that I said, "Aboriginal Australians only
>share 92% of their GENES with Europeans". It's sub-Saharan Africans
>and Australians. Europeans have a lot of Neanderthal genes which
>increases the match with Australians. Africans and Europeans, it's
>about 97%. Neanderthal and Europeans it's 100%.

Do you really think that repeating the same old lies, over and over
and over, without ever citing a legitimate source that actually
reflects your various claims, can somehow make them more believable?

I don't recall you ever answering exactly how all of these comparisons
were being made or whether or not even if the same types of DNA were
being compared to one another in the same way. There are both a
variety of sources and a variety of techniques that can be utilized
when comparing DNA, each with its own benefits, that can each lead to
differing results.

[A.Carlson]

On Wed, 2 Sep 2015 19:51:45 -0700 (PDT), passer...@gmail.com
wrote:

>CHIMPS ARE 25% THE SAME IN ****GENES*** WITH HUMANS. THIS IS ELEMENTARY.

Yes, an extremely elementary mistake on your part.

Let's see what some others say related to this one particularly
pathetic claim of yours:

"The comparison of the genome sequences of bonobo,
chimpanzee, and human show that humans differ by
approximately 1.3% from both bonobo and chimpanzee.
Chimpanzees and bonobos are more closely related,
differing by only 0.4%."

- Excerpt from a press release from
the Max Planck Institute


"The [Chimpanzee Sequencing and Analysis] Consortium
found that the chimp and human genomes are very
similar and encode very similar proteins. The DNA
sequence that can be directly compared between the two
genomes is almost 99 percent identical. When DNA
insertions and deletions are taken into account, humans
and chimps still share 96 percent of their sequence.

- Excerpt from a press release from
the National Institutes of Health


"The traditional comparison cited in textbooks is that the
difference is 1.2 percent, based on variations in single
base-pairs in gene sequences. “But our data on these
duplications shows a 2.7 percent difference, base per base,
between chimps and humans,” said Eichler. “So when we
talk about how similar chimps and humans are, we really
need to be careful that we are referring to variation in
the whole genome as opposed to just those single-base-pair
changes.

- Excerpt from an article from
Howard Hughes Medical Institute
on gene comparison

I could of course go on and on but, just for giggles:

"a very conservative estimate of human-chimp DNA similarity
genome-wide is 86 to 89 percent. Results from this comprehensive
study unequivocally indicate that the human and chimpanzee
genomes are at least 10 to 12 percent less identical than is
commonly claimed.

- Excerpt from article found on the
Institute for Creation Research by a
Dr. Jeffrey P. Tompkins.

HELL, EVEN THE DAMN CREATIONISTS DON'T COME CLOSE TO YOUR OWN 25% THE
SAME CLAIM!!!!!

>THIS IS AN EVOLUTION FORUM, GET A CLUE.

And for a 'forum' you certainly don't appear to be contributing
anything with actual legitimate value. Perhaps you could finally
inform us all here exactly where you get your "25% the same in genes
with humans" oft' repeated falsehood.

[passer...@gmail.com]

I've posted the ELEMENTARY knowledge that chimps are 25% the same on GENES and that you morons don't know the difference between a GENE and a base pair and have no stinking clue what the hell a GENE is or it's importance to GENEtics.

Here it is again, either you are a deliberate liar or can't remember anything for longer than a day. This is the lead scientist that sequenced the Neanderthal nuclear DNA, that most important paper in the history of human genetics, you are totally stinking ignorant of...

"..."The overwhelming majority of chimp proteins -- about 75% -- are different from ours in at least one amino-acid 'letter," according to Hannon. These amino-acid changes are in most instances slight, but the resulting functional differences -- the way they affect what proteins do in cells -- can be great, and presumably help to explain many of our differences from chimpanzees...

...And if additional Neandertal samples were factored into the comparison, he says, "it's possible that that the number of differences could approach zero."

In short, Hannon says, "the news, so far, is not about how we differ from Neandertals, but how we are so nearly identical."

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/05/100506141559.htm

[passer...@gmail.com]

YOU MORONS DON'T KNOW THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN BASE PAIRS AND ***GENES***.

And on an evolution forum. And even with their total and I mean TOTAL ignorance of evolution and GENEtics, they have me patiently explaining the difference, and the fervent desire, the compelling need to stay stinking ignorant, to wander through life stinking ignorant...

[John Harshman]

On 9/2/15, 10:20 PM, A.Carlson wrote:
> On Wed, 2 Sep 2015 19:51:45 -0700 (PDT), passer...@gmail.com
> wrote:
>
>> CHIMPS ARE 25% THE SAME IN ****GENES*** WITH HUMANS. THIS IS ELEMENTARY.
>
> Yes, an extremely elementary mistake on your part.

Yes, but not the mistake you think. He's taking as his measure the fact
that 75% of proteins differ by at least one amino acid between humans
and chimps. His mistake is in thinking that proteins and genes (or
GENES) are the same thing.

He isn't talking about DNA sequence at all.

[A.Carlson]

On Thu, 3 Sep 2015 04:53:00 -0700 (PDT), passer...@gmail.com
wrote:

>YOU MORONS DON'T KNOW THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN BASE PAIRS AND ***GENES***.

If there is even a smidgeon of truth to what you are claiming then
what is stopping you from citing your sources?

[A.Carlson]

On Thu, 03 Sep 2015 16:30:44 -0700, John Harshman
<jhar...@pacbell.net> wrote:

>On 9/2/15, 10:20 PM, A.Carlson wrote:
>> On Wed, 2 Sep 2015 19:51:45 -0700 (PDT), passer...@gmail.com
>> wrote:
>>
>>> CHIMPS ARE 25% THE SAME IN ****GENES*** WITH HUMANS. THIS IS ELEMENTARY.
>>
>> Yes, an extremely elementary mistake on your part.
>
>Yes, but not the mistake you think. He's taking as his measure the fact
>that 75% of proteins differ by at least one amino acid between humans
>and chimps. His mistake is in thinking that proteins and genes (or
>GENES) are the same thing.
>
>He isn't talking about DNA sequence at all.

This of course explains the drastic difference between what he claims
and what the standard claim of the scientific community is related to
comparing genomes.

It also strikes me as being a method for gross exaggeration as it
counts just a difference or two in a given protein as a complete miss
overall for a protein that has more matched amino acids than unmatched
ones.

What particularly bothers me about this sort of approach is that
changes in DNA over time due to random mutations, particularly
inconsequential ones, have come to be expected both within species and
between closely related species and can even serve as a type of clock
relevant to determining when certain events occurred and can even
reinforce interrelationships indicated by other methods of discovery
and yet the data is sometimes manipulated in such a way that just
glosses over such data that is actually quite revealing.

This is true regarding the interrelationships between modern man,
Neandertals, and chimpanzees where differences in DNA between modern
man and Neandertals, for example tend to indicate a closer kinship
between Neandertals and chimpanzees than modern humans (of all races)
and chimpanzees, making the claim that Neandertals are essentially the
same as Europeans that much more absurd.

[A.Carlson]

On Thu, 3 Sep 2015 04:48:17 -0700 (PDT), passer...@gmail.com
wrote:

>"..."The overwhelming majority of chimp proteins -- about 75% -- are
>different from ours in at least one amino-acid 'letter," according to
>Hannon. These amino-acid changes are in most instances slight, but the
>resulting functional differences -- the way they affect what proteins
>do in cells -- can be great, and presumably help to explain many of
>our differences from chimpanzees...

Yes but ONE LETTER OUT OF HOW MANY!?!?!?!?!?!?!

Finally the shoe drops and it actually shows your own ineptitude.

If 25% of something is 100% the same as something else and the
remaining 75% is 97% the same as something else that does not add up
to the first thing being a mere 25% similar to the second thing. Also,
no one I am aware of is arguing against the idea that even minor
changes in DNA may be of significance.

>...And if additional Neandertal samples were factored into the
>comparison, he says, "it's possible that that the number of
>differences could approach zero."

Is there any valid point in here that actually backs your overall
claim? Yes, it has been well established for quite some time that
Neandertals are far more closely related to humans than are
chimpanzees but even your own source only states that it "could
approach zero" which strikes me as being a bit wishy-washy regarding
your own particular claim that Neandertals are more closely related to
modern Europeans than even a number of other modern human
groups/races.

>In short, Hannon says, "the news, so far, is not about how we differ
>from Neandertals, but how we are so nearly identical."

So where do you get the 100% similar then? Not only that but the
study this comment was relying on also indicate that where modern
humans weren't identical to Neandertal, Neandertal tended to be more
similar to Chimpanzees. What I find particularly absurd about your
insistence on the 25% figure is that the following quote that I just
recently posted about comparing modern human and Chimpanzee DNA came
from the same institute that this Professor Hannon serves as an
investigator for:

"The traditional comparison cited in textbooks is that the
difference is 1.2 percent, based on variations in single
base-pairs in gene sequences. “But our data on these
duplications shows a 2.7 percent difference, base per base,
between chimps and humans,” said Eichler. “So when we
talk about how similar chimps and humans are, we really
need to be careful that we are referring to variation in
the whole genome as opposed to just those single-base-pair
changes.

- Excerpt from an article from
Howard Hughes Medical Institute
on gene comparison

>http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/05/100506141559.htm
>

[Burkhard]

A.Carlson wrote:
> On Thu, 03 Sep 2015 16:30:44 -0700, John Harshman
> <jhar...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
>> On 9/2/15, 10:20 PM, A.Carlson wrote:
>>> On Wed, 2 Sep 2015 19:51:45 -0700 (PDT), passer...@gmail.com
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> CHIMPS ARE 25% THE SAME IN ****GENES*** WITH HUMANS. THIS IS ELEMENTARY.
>>>
>>> Yes, an extremely elementary mistake on your part.
>>
>> Yes, but not the mistake you think. He's taking as his measure the fact
>> that 75% of proteins differ by at least one amino acid between humans
>> and chimps. His mistake is in thinking that proteins and genes (or
>> GENES) are the same thing.
>>
>> He isn't talking about DNA sequence at all.
>
> This of course explains the drastic difference between what he claims
> and what the standard claim of the scientific community is related to
> comparing genomes.
>
> It also strikes me as being a method for gross exaggeration as it
> counts just a difference or two in a given protein as a complete miss
> overall for a protein that has more matched amino acids than unmatched
> ones.

It's a bit like making a handwritten copy of War and Peace, almost
totally accurate, but misspelling the name of Smolensk consistently, and
then claiming that only 5% of chapters between the original and the copy
are the same.



<snip>

[The Masked Lapavenger]

What I and pretty much every other contributor to this thread have been trying to tell you is that the ancestors of Polynesians interbred with Melanesians along the way. No one has claimed that they intermixed so much that we can no longer tell them apart.

And once again:

[passer...@gmail.com]

Proteins and GENES are virtually the same thing, moron, certainly in that context, as I produced for you 1000 times from the original Neanderthal Nuclear DNA GENE paper lead author.

Liar. Deliberate liar.

I've produced it for you so many times, you filthy liar, I've got it memorized. "The GENES and the proteins they encode for".

But then, you are to this day, totally stinking ignorant of what was in that most important human origins paper in history. By choice. Granted as a determined liar, who cares.

[passer...@gmail.com]

I have cited them 1000 times, moron. Which elementary facts are you admitting to being totally stinking ignorant of? Some documentation that GENES aren't the same thing as base pairs?

[John Harshman]

Passerby has three main techniques:

1. Abuse.
2. Repetition of prior assertions.
3. Repetition of prior assertions in an abusive manner.

You really can't expect anything more from him.

[passer...@gmail.com]

I know I've produced them 1000 times.

You know I've produced them 1000 times.

And we both know we both know I've produced them 1000 times. (After each time saying I've already produced them 1000 times.)

You figure someone too stupid to figure it out will wander by and be impressed, as we both know I'm laughing at you?

[jillery]

On Tue, 15 Sep 2015 19:19:47 -0700 (PDT), passer...@gmail.com
wrote:

>I know I've produced them 1000 times.
>
>You know I've produced them 1000 times.
>
>And we both know we both know I've produced them 1000 times. (After each time saying I've already produced them 1000 times.)
>
>You figure someone too stupid to figure it out will wander by and be impressed, as we both know I'm laughing at you?

You're using an odd counter, one that's stuck on 1000. Perhaps you
have an old Nixie tube display.
--
This space is intentionally not blank.