Humans aren't millions of years old

[Alpha Beta]

If you think humans are 2 million years old name any major event in human history before 10,000 BC. None, it's all made up. Don't mention made up things such as "there was a stone age that lasted 100k years" because there is no proof for such an ass long stone age.

[jillery]

On Mon, 15 Jan 2018 14:24:17 -0800 (PST), Alpha Beta
<dark...@gmail.com> wrote:

>If you think humans are 2 million years old name any major event in human history before 10,000 BC. None, it's all made up. Don't mention made up things such as "there was a stone age that lasted 100k years" because there is no proof for such an ass long stone age.

Domestication of fire.

Domestication of dogs.

Cooking.

Stone tools.

Spears.

Axes.

Painting.

Jewelry.

Ceremonial burial.

Mining.

Language.

Clothing.

Fishing.

Pottery.

Basket weaving.

Music.

Rope.

Boats.

And aqueducts (oh wait, that's from Romans).


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

Evelyn Beatrice Hall
Attributed to Voltaire

[lbjohn...@yahoo.com]

>If you think humans are 2 million years old name any major event in human history before 10,000 BC. None, it's all made up. Don't mention made up things such >as "there was a stone age that lasted 100k years" because there is no proof for such an ass long stone age.

Does this count? University of Alaska Fairbanks. "Evidence of previously unknown population of ancient Native Americans, research reveals." ScienceDaily. ScienceDaily, 3 January 2018. <www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/01/180103132639.htm>.

These two children lived and died ~ 11,000 years ago.
It must have been a significant event to the people there. They held the funerals. You’re conflating human with homo ancestor. No one thinks homo sapien sapien is 2,000,000 years old.

[JWS]

...and the roads.

[Martin Harran]

On Mon, 15 Jan 2018 14:24:17 -0800 (PST), Alpha Beta
<dark...@gmail.com> wrote:

>If you think humans are 2 million years old name any major event in human history before 10,000 BC. None, it's all made up. Don't mention made up things such as "there was a stone age that lasted 100k years" because there is no proof for such an ass long stone age.

How do you know, where you there to see it?

[jillery]

On Mon, 15 Jan 2018 21:06:49 -0800 (PST), JWS <jld...@skybeam.com>
wrote:

>On Monday, January 15, 2018 at 5:05:03 PM UTC-6, jillery wrote:
>> On Mon, 15 Jan 2018 14:24:17 -0800 (PST), Alpha Beta
>> <dark...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >If you think humans are 2 million years old name any major event in human history before 10,000 BC. None, it's all made up. Don't mention made up things such as "there was a stone age that lasted 100k years" because there is no proof for such an ass long stone age.
>>
>>
>> Domestication of fire.
>>
>> Domestication of dogs.
>>
>> Cooking.
>>
>> Stone tools.
>>
>> Spears.
>>
>> Axes.
>>
>> Painting.
>>
>> Jewelry.
>>
>> Ceremonial burial.
>>
>> Mining.
>>
>> Language.
>>
>> Clothing.
>>
>> Fishing.
>>
>> Pottery.
>>
>> Basket weaving.
>>
>> Music.
>>
>> Rope.
>>
>> Boats.
>>
>> And aqueducts (oh wait, that's from Romans).
>>
>

>...and the roads.


Proving prehistoric humans just don't compare to the Romans.

[RonO]

On 1/15/2018 4:24 PM, Alpha Beta wrote:
> If you think humans are 2 million years old name any major event in human history before 10,000 BC. None, it's all made up. Don't mention made up things such as "there was a stone age that lasted 100k years" because there is no proof for such an ass long stone age.
>

Most humans are less than a century old.

If you are talking about fossil species you are also wrong. Look up the
6 best evidences for creationism that the ID perps put up. One of them
is human evolution. Learn something.

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/xCC5NGB-QHI/xmONCrEbCgAJ

Check out #6. and the links given. Your argument was bogus when it was
thought up by cretinist creationists decades ago and it hasn't gotten
any better.

Ron Okimoto

[Bob Casanova]

On Mon, 15 Jan 2018 14:24:17 -0800 (PST), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Alpha Beta
<dark...@gmail.com>:

>If you think

Do you? I've seen no evidence of it.
--

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

[Kalkidas]

On 1/15/2018 3:24 PM, Alpha Beta wrote:
> If you think humans are 2 million years old name any major event in human history before 10,000 BC. None, it's all made up. Don't mention made up things such as "there was a stone age that lasted 100k years" because there is no proof for such an ass long stone age.
>

Where do you get your idea of "human history"?

[John Harshman]

Yes, I'd be interested to know what events in between 10,000 BC and the
invention of writing around 3,000 BC he would count as "historical".

[Burkhard]

None, by definition. Everything before writing counts as pre-history.
(Or in the US, the time before there were statues, as this brilliant
take on the removal of the statue of James Ewell Brown Stuart shows:
https://twitter.com/libshipwreck/status/898214705403236355?lang=en)

[Kalkidas]

LOL!

J.E.B. Stuart R.I.P. Long live his name, likeness, and exploits!

[John Harshman]

A Confederate hindu? I suppose there's nothing wrong with slavery,
because the slaves will be rewarded in the next life.

[Kalkidas]

Pretty simple-minded, even for you, John.

[John Harshman]

What did you mean by your comment about Stuart? Explain it to us
simple-minded sorts.

[Kalkidas]

He was a good and honorable man and the best cavalry leader of his time.
He died fighting for his country's independence. Any other opinion is
foolishness, and only fit for weak, effeminate men who hide their own
faults by blaming others.

[John Harshman]

No, he died fighting for the right of southern white folks to own
southern black folks. Learn some history. Stuart really screwed up in
the Gettysburg campaign. And Nathan Bedford Forest was a better cavalry
leader. Arguably, so was Phil Sheridan.

[jillery]

Off-topic troll.

[Rolf]

"Alpha Beta" <dark...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:4d712f5c-8b40-483d...@googlegroups.com...

That's not something we think, but a fact that we recognize as consistent
with the evidence. But you wouldn't know anything about that. How could you,
you haven't learned to read yet, empty barrels make the most noise.

[Kalkidas]

As I said, that's the opinion of weak, effeminate men who hide their own
faults by blaming others.

Learn some history.

LOL! Good one from the guy who thinks the War Between The States was
about slavery! You learn some history.

Stuart really screwed up in
> the Gettysburg campaign. And Nathan Bedford Forest was a better cavalry
> leader. Arguably, so was Phil Sheridan.

Sheridan did less with more, Forrest did more with more. Stuart did more
with less.

[Kalkidas]

Let's see if you can learn some history...and unlearn some propaganda.

https://www.abbevilleinstitute.org/clyde-wilson-library/why-the-war-was-not-about-slavery/

[Bill Rogers]

The leaders of the secession clearly thought the war was about slavery, and they were not afraid to say so.

https://www.civilwar.org/learn/primary-sources/declaration-causes-seceding-states

From Georgia's Declaration:

"The people of Georgia having dissolved their political connection with the Government of the United States of America, present to their confederates and the world the causes which have led to the separation. For the last ten years we have had numerous and serious causes of complaint against our non-slave-holding confederate States with reference to the subject of African slavery."

From Mississippi's Declaration:

"In the momentous step which our State has taken of dissolving its connection with the government of which we so long formed a part, it is but just that we should declare the prominent reasons which have induced our course.

Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization. That blow has been long aimed at the institution, and was at the point of reaching its consummation. There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union, whose principles had been subverted to work out our ruin. That we do not overstate the dangers to our institution, a reference to a few facts will sufficiently prove. "

From the Declaration of South Carolina:

"The people of the State of South Carolina, in Convention assembled, on the 26th day of April, A.D., 1852, declared that the frequent violations of the Constitution of the United States, by the Federal Government, and its encroachments upon the reserved rights of the States, fully justified this State in then withdrawing from the Federal Union; but in deference to the opinions and wishes of the other slaveholding States, she forbore at that time to exercise this right. Since that time, these encroachments have continued to increase, and further forbearance ceases to be a virtue.....

The General Government, as the common agent, passed laws to carry into effect these stipulations of the States. For many years these laws were executed. But an increasing hostility on the part of the non-slaveholding States to the institution of slavery, has led to a disregard of their obligations, and the laws of the General Government have ceased to effect the objects of the Constitution. The States of Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New York, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Wisconsin and Iowa, have enacted laws which either nullify the Acts of Congress or render useless any attempt to execute them. In many of these States the fugitive is discharged from service or labor claimed, and in none of them has the State Government complied with the stipulation made in the Constitution. The State of New Jersey, at an early day, passed a law in conformity with her constitutional obligation; but the current of anti-slavery feeling has led her more recently to enact laws which render inoperative the remedies provided by her own law and by the laws of Congress. In the State of New York even the right of transit for a slave has been denied by her tribunals; and the States of Ohio and Iowa have refused to surrender to justice fugitives charged with murder, and with inciting servile insurrection in the State of Virginia. Thus the constituted compact has been deliberately broken and disregarded by the non-slaveholding States, and the consequence follows that South Carolina is released from her obligation."

[Kalkidas]

Sorry, but civilwar.org is a unionist propaganda site. The proof is that
there was no such thing as the "civil war". It was a war for southern
independence. Calling it a "civil war" is to imply that it was a war for
the control of the government of the United States. It most certainly
was no such thing.

civilwar.org, and similar sites, are the result of 150 years of federal
propaganda shoved down our throats by a monopoly school system.

[zencycle]

On Wednesday, January 17, 2018 at 8:00:04 AM UTC-5, Kalkidas wrote:
>
> Sorry, but civilwar.org is a unionist propaganda site. The proof is that
> there was no such thing as the "civil war". It was a war for southern
> independence. Calling it a "civil war" is to imply that it was a war for
> the control of the government of the United States. It most certainly
> was no such thing.
>
> civilwar.org, and similar sites, are the result of 150 years of federal
> propaganda shoved down our throats by a monopoly school system.

Is it just me, or has this group seen a spike in the activity of absolute morons of late?

Kk, in addition to being a half-wit, you're half-right. From the Confederacy's perspective, it was in fact a war of secession. Other than that, you're completely wrong, horribly uniformed, astoundingly deluded, and in general, a useless twat.

[Bill Rogers]

So you deny that the seceding state governments made those declarations?

[Burkhard]

So you are saying any of these direct quotes form historical documents
are fake? And of course yo have evidence for this

> The proof is that
> there was no such thing as the "civil war". It was a war for southern
> independence. Calling it a "civil war" is to imply that it was a war for
> the control of the government of the United States.

You mean the government that was forced by the South to enforce the
Fugitive State Act and other federal laws also against states that had
abolished slavery? The southern states were very cherry-picky in its
approach to Federal authority.

> It most certainly
> was no such thing.
>
> civilwar.org, and similar sites, are the result of 150 years of federal
> propaganda shoved down our throats by a monopoly school system.

I'm so sorry you were deprived of your god-given right to own, rape,
kill another human being with impunity. It seems so unfair!
>

[Burkhard]

Don;t confuse him with facts, it's unmanly. I bet you shower at least
every two days too, you wuss.

[jillery]

Absent slavery, there was no reason for the war. The reason the South
seceded was over slavery. The only reason the South ever threatened
secession was over slavery. Time and again the North appeased the
South's peculiar institution, in vain. Those who claim otherwise
conveniently ignore historical facts.

Lincoln said it right; A house divided can't stand. The U.S. had to
go all slave or all free. The South gambled on division and lost.
Sucks to be a loser despot. Get over it.

[John Harshman]

Hey, look, folks: Kalkidas, Alt-right nut. Who knew?

[jillery]

My understanding is Kalkidas has historically relied on alternate
facts.

[Kalkidas]

You've been so busy thinking up insults and snide remarks that you never
bothered to actually pay attention to the target of your ire. News
flash: its presence in your mind doesn't indicate its presence in
reality. Nor does its absence from your mind indicate its absence from
reality.

[Kalkidas]

The War Between The States was not about slavery. Although, in a sense,
it was about the enslavement of the South by the North.

Did you read the article at the link I posted? (I doubt it).

The Unionist view is not the only view. Neither are the facts, nor the
morality, nor the Constitution, on the side of the Unionists. The War
Between The States was the beginning of the end of the American
experiment in liberty. It destroyed the principles of constitutional
government and the voluntary compact of States from the continent forever.

Virtue signalling about "the evils of slavery" is just posturing by
those whose vanity compels them to wish to be thought well of. The war
was about the right of a people to govern themselves, as was the War for
Independence (the so-called "revolutionary war").

[Mark Isaak]

On 1/17/18 4:30 AM, Kalkidas wrote:

Riiiight. The Civil War was about states' rights, specifically the
right of states to allow slavery.

Historians says the Civil War was about slavery. Learn some history.

--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) curioustaxonomy (dot) net
"Ignorance, allied with power, is the most ferocious enemy justice can
have." - James Baldwin

[Bill Rogers]

Yeah the war was about the "right of a people to govern themselves." Those people being white people who wanted to be free to own black people as property.

[Kalkidas]

You don't give a damn about slavery, any more than Lincoln did. It's
just vanity.

[Kalkidas]

There are many historians who disagree with that. I'm surprised you
don't know about them, since you presume to advise others to "learn some
history".

For your continuing education:

https://www.abbevilleinstitute.org/

https://mises.org/profile/thomas-j-dilorenzo

[Bob Casanova]

On Tue, 16 Jan 2018 18:28:17 -0800, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by John Harshman
<jhar...@pacbell.net>:

Yep. Arguably his failure to actually do his job *may* have
cost Lee the battle. Although Lee wasn't exactly at his best
there, either; he should have listened to his generals.

> And Nathan Bedford Forest was a better cavalry
>leader. Arguably, so was Phil Sheridan.

Agreed on both, especially the first.
--

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

[Bob Casanova]

On Wed, 17 Jan 2018 08:39:55 -0700, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Kalkidas <e...@joes.pub>:

Lots of words, amounting to: "I refuse to confirm or deny

that the seceding state governments made those

declarations."

[jillery]

And you don't give a damn about history. It's just trolling.

Or are you still claiming you're the only one who can pretend to read
minds?

[Pro Plyd]

jillery wrote:

> On Mon, 15 Jan 2018 14:24:17 -0800 (PST), Alpha Beta
> <dark...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> If you think humans are 2 million years old name any major event in

Side note - no one says that humans are two million years old.

human history before 10,000 BC. None, it's all made up. Don't mention made
up things such as "there was a stone age that lasted 100k years" because
there is no proof for such an ass long stone age.
>
>

> Domestication of fire.
>
> Domestication of dogs.
>
> Cooking.
>
> Stone tools.
>
> Spears.
>
> Axes.
>
> Painting.
>
> Jewelry.
>
> Ceremonial burial.
>
> Mining.
>
> Language.
>
> Clothing.
>
> Fishing.
>
> Pottery.
>
> Basket weaving.
>
> Music.
>
> Rope.
>
> Boats.
>
> And aqueducts (oh wait, that's from Romans).

All dated by science.

[jillery]

On Sat, 10 Feb 2018 21:28:24 -0700, Pro Plyd <inv...@invalid.invalid>
wrote:

>jillery wrote:
>> On Mon, 15 Jan 2018 14:24:17 -0800 (PST), Alpha Beta
>> <dark...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> If you think humans are 2 million years old name any major event in
>
>Side note - no one says that humans are two million years old.

Of course, there are different meanings of "human". Some consider
Homo erectus part of the human family, while others consider Romans'
behavior inhuman. To make any sense out of AlphaBeta's mumblings, it
helps to consider the broadest possible meanings.

>>> human history before 10,000 BC. None, it's all made up. Don't mention made up things such as "there was a stone age that lasted 100k years" because there is no proof for such an ass long stone age.

And if one is going to be pedantic, one should be sure to keep the
attributions correct.

>> Domestication of fire.
>>
>> Domestication of dogs.
>>
>> Cooking.
>>
>> Stone tools.
>>
>> Spears.
>>
>> Axes.
>>
>> Painting.
>>
>> Jewelry.
>>
>> Ceremonial burial.
>>
>> Mining.
>>
>> Language.
>>
>> Clothing.
>>
>> Fishing.
>>
>> Pottery.
>>
>> Basket weaving.
>>
>> Music.
>>
>> Rope.
>>
>> Boats.
>>
>> And aqueducts (oh wait, that's from Romans).
>
>All dated by science.

One of these things is not like the others,
One of these things is not quite the same.

[JTEM is my hero]

jillery wrote:

> Alpha Beta <dark...@gmail.com> wrote:
>

> >If you think humans are 2 million years old name any major event in human history before 10,000 BC. None, it's all made up. Don't mention made up things such as "there was a stone age that lasted 100k years" because there is no proof for such an ass long stone age.

> Domestication of fire.
>
> Domestication of dogs.
>
> Cooking.
>
> Stone tools.

"Human" would be any member of Homo, conventionally
beginning with Homo habilis, more than 2 million
years ago, and including every so-called "Species"
between them & us.

You're welcome.






-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/153524924673

[Carl Sagan's Ghost]

On Monday, January 15, 2018 at 5:25:03 PM UTC-5, Alpha Beta wrote:
> If you think humans are 2 million years old name any major event in human history before 10,000 BC. None, it's all made up. Don't mention made up things such as "there was a stone age that lasted 100k years" because there is no proof for such an ass long stone age.

Okay, explain carbon dating, tree rings, ice cores, lack of dna in fossils, rock layers, Impact craters, and Distant starlight if the earth is only 10,000 years old.

[jillery]

On Sat, 10 Feb 2018 23:53:15 -0800 (PST), TIBAMJTEM <jte...@gmail.com>
wrote:

Even after your nose is rubbed in reality, you still don't get it. Is
anybody surprised.

--

[jillery]

On Sun, 11 Feb 2018 04:09:59 -0800 (PST), "Carl Sagan's Ghost"
<goldapp...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Monday, January 15, 2018 at 5:25:03 PM UTC-5, Alpha Beta wrote:
>> If you think humans are 2 million years old name any major event in human history before 10,000 BC. None, it's all made up. Don't mention made up things such as "there was a stone age that lasted 100k years" because there is no proof for such an ass long stone age.
>
>Okay, explain carbon dating, tree rings, ice cores, lack of dna in fossils, rock layers, Impact craters, and Distant starlight if the earth is only 10,000 years old.

That's easy for the faithful: All things are possible with God.

--

[Dr. Gary Hurd]

On Monday, January 15, 2018 at 2:25:03 PM UTC-8, Alpha Beta wrote:
> If you think humans are 2 million years old ... "

I am only 67 and that seems as old as the hills.

I and Mapped the hills.

But, the Solar system is about 4.55 billion years old, there was live on Earth about 3.9 billion years ago. The first hominids were about 8 million years ago (the separation between our ancestors and those of the other apes). The emergence of modern humans from Africa was about 300,000 years ago, but in waves that rose and fell for another 250,000 years.

Do you need the references?

[Pro Plyd]

jillery wrote:
>

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

The real quote ran

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

People didn't listen closely enough ;)

smirk

[JTEM is my hero]

Mentally disordered, jillery wrote:

> Even after your nose is rubbed in reality, you still don't get it. Is
> anybody surprised.

Again, "Human" would be any member of the genus
"Homo," conventionally beginning with Homo habis.

No amount of your idiotic posturing can change this.




-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/171260605643

[JTEM is my hero]

Disorderd, jillery wrote:

> That's easy for the faithful: All things are possible with God.

Not that you're capable of doing anything but reacting
emotionally, but...

That would be everybody, not just the faithful. As "God"
is conventionally defined, at least here, given the
Christian concept of God, all things ARE possible with
God.

If your definition of God excludes the capability of
doing "all things," you're talking about a DIFFERENT
God that the Christian one...





-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/171260605643

[jillery]

On Sat, 24 Feb 2018 22:33:35 -0800 (PST), JTEM <jte...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>
>Mentally disordered, jillery wrote:
>
>> Even after your nose is rubbed in reality, you still don't get it. Is
>> anybody surprised.
>
>Again, "Human" would be any member of the genus
>"Homo," conventionally beginning with Homo habis.
>
>No amount of your idiotic posturing can change this.

Wow, you nurse a grudge almost as long as rockhead and Harran. Do you
share notes with each other on how to sound stupid? Or were you born
that way?

[JTEM is my hero]

jillery wrote:

> Wow, you nurse a grudge almost as

You keep saying stupid things. There is nothing
negative in rejecting stupidity.



-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/168003270528

[jillery]

On Tue, 27 Mar 2018 22:11:28 -0700 (PDT), JTEM is my hero
<jte...@gmail.com> wrote:

> jillery wrote:
>
>> Wow, you nurse a grudge almost as
>
>You keep saying stupid things. There is nothing
>negative in rejecting stupidity.

Of course, you don't say how what I said is stupid. And it's almost
certain you never will.

But since you mention it, there's plenty negative about rejecting what
you delete.

[JTEM is my hero]

jillery wrote:

> JTEM is my hero

> >You keep saying stupid things. There is nothing
> >negative in rejecting stupidity.

> Of course, you

I don't make you say stupid things. You do. Own
your stupidity.




-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/tagged/pink/page/2

[jillery]

On Sun, 1 Apr 2018 21:57:13 -0700 (PDT), TIBAMJTEM

>I don't make you say stupid things.

Stupid "R" TIBAMJTEM

[ayn...@gmail.com]

On Monday, January 15, 2018 at 2:25:03 PM UTC-8, Alpha Beta wrote:

> If you think humans are 2 million years old name any major event in human history before 10,000 BC. None, it's all made up. Don't mention made up things such as "there was a stone age that lasted 100k years" because there is no proof for such an ass long stone age.

Funnily enough, the Ed Conrad troll (who seems to have entirely disappeared) believes that man is as old as coal.

Ayn R. Key

[JTEM is my hero]

Not really named "jillery," jillery wrote:

> Stupid "R" TIBAMJTEM

Few people can throw a temper tantrum over usenet
the way you do. It's your one and only true gift,
this childish emotional state in which you're
frozen within.






-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/178678761698

[jillery]

On Tue, 2 Oct 2018 19:51:58 -0700 (PDT), TIBAMJTEM <jte...@gmail.com>
wrote nothing coherent:


Your momma called. Time to change your nappies.

[Lucifer]

Nobody is saying humans are millions of years old.
The estimation is no more than 400,000 years.

[Bob Casanova]

On Thu, 04 Oct 2018 07:02:36 +1000, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Lucifer
<LuciferMo...@bigpond.com>:

>Nobody is saying humans are millions of years old.
>The estimation is no more than 400,000 years.

For Homo sapiens, that is a reasonable estimate, so if one
discounts as "not human" all other varieties of Homo,
extending back several million years, it is correct. Do you
so discount them? If you do, this might be of interest,
especially the first sentence:

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

[Oxyaena]

On 10/3/2018 5:02 PM, Lucifer wrote:
> Nobody is saying humans are millions of years old.

Except for Hindus and myself as Thrinaxodon, and humans (if you mean the
genus *Homo*) have been around for several million years, the earliest
fossils of the genus *Homo* stretch back to the latest Pliocene, 2.8 Ma.

> The estimation is no more than 400,000 years.

For *Homo sapiens*, but not *Homo*.

>

[Bob Casanova]

On Sat, 6 Oct 2018 08:02:06 -0400, the following appeared in
talk.origins, posted by Oxyaena <i....@error.invalid>:

I brought all that up on the 4th, and he turned out to be
YAD-BP (Yet Another Drive-By Poster).

[Oxyaena]

On 10/6/2018 2:20 PM, Bob Casanova wrote:
> On Sat, 6 Oct 2018 08:02:06 -0400, the following appeared in
> talk.origins, posted by Oxyaena <i....@error.invalid>:
>
>> On 10/3/2018 5:02 PM, Lucifer wrote:
>>> Nobody is saying humans are millions of years old.
>>
>> Except for Hindus and myself as Thrinaxodon, and humans (if you mean the
>> genus *Homo*) have been around for several million years, the earliest
>> fossils of the genus *Homo* stretch back to the latest Pliocene, 2.8 Ma.
>>
>>
>>> The estimation is no more than 400,000 years.
>>
>> For *Homo sapiens*, but not *Homo*.
>
> I brought all that up on the 4th, and he turned out to be
> YAD-BP (Yet Another Drive-By Poster).
>

"Lucifer" only occasionally posts to talk.origins, so he probably hasn't
seen our replies yet. Being a comic afficionado myself, his name
"Lucifer" refers to "Lucifer Morningstar" of the *Sandman* graphic novel
series by acclaimed author Neil Gaiman, just look at his email, thought
it was interesting.

[Oxyaena]

On 10/6/2018 2:20 PM, Bob Casanova wrote:

> On Sat, 6 Oct 2018 08:02:06 -0400, the following appeared in
> talk.origins, posted by Oxyaena <i....@error.invalid>:
>
>> On 10/3/2018 5:02 PM, Lucifer wrote:
>>> Nobody is saying humans are millions of years old.
>>
>> Except for Hindus and myself as Thrinaxodon, and humans (if you mean the
>> genus *Homo*) have been around for several million years, the earliest
>> fossils of the genus *Homo* stretch back to the latest Pliocene, 2.8 Ma.
>>
>>
>>> The estimation is no more than 400,000 years.
>>
>> For *Homo sapiens*, but not *Homo*.
>
> I brought all that up on the 4th, and he turned out to be
> YAD-BP (Yet Another Drive-By Poster).
>

Some would argue that we should even include the australopithecines as
human as well, stretching the definition of "human" to include all of
Hominina, which while not something I reject isn't something I accept
either. Evidence that could support this includes evidence that
*Australopitecus garhi* used stone tools, with both stone tools and
butchered animal remains found near *A. garhi* remains, and perhaps even
(A. afarensis* used stone tools as well.

[Bob Casanova]

On Sat, 6 Oct 2018 17:25:12 -0400, the following appeared in

OK. I just assumed it was intended literally, and was only
ironic inadvertently ("Light-bringer"? Really?).

[Bob Casanova]

On Sun, 7 Oct 2018 04:35:12 -0400, the following appeared in

I certainly wouldn't object to that, but I'm not a
professional in the field.

At bottom, though, it's a matter of convention and
terminology, since many traits are/were apparently common to
all, back to the LCA of the Hominina. But there's no doubt,
at least currently, that all of Homo should be classed as
"human", based on the meaning of the term if on nothing
else.

[Oxyaena]

Obviously, *Homo naledi* intentionally buried their dead, the purpose of
which we don't know, and Neanderthals were even capable of language,
possessed spirituality and possibly even religion (at least some
Neanderthals worshiped cave bears, and they buried their dead as well)
and artistic expression, were expert tailors etc. The reason
Neanderthals and Denisovans went extinct (well, figuratively,
Neanderthals and Denisovans didn't just vanish insomuch as they were
absorbed by incoming modern human populations, so they're still around
today, a la "us", only their phenotype has vanished) wasn't because
*Homo sapiens* was superior, but because at the time the climate was
extremely unstable (like now), the Neanderthal and Denisovan populations
were *extremely* small, and now they had to compete for resources with a
larger population of another, incoming species of humans.

[Oxyaena]

On 10/7/2018 2:42 PM, Bob Casanova wrote:
> On Sat, 6 Oct 2018 17:25:12 -0400, the following appeared in
> talk.origins, posted by Oxyaena <i....@error.invalid>:
>
>> On 10/6/2018 2:20 PM, Bob Casanova wrote:
>>> On Sat, 6 Oct 2018 08:02:06 -0400, the following appeared in
>>> talk.origins, posted by Oxyaena <i....@error.invalid>:
>>>
>>>> On 10/3/2018 5:02 PM, Lucifer wrote:
>>>>> Nobody is saying humans are millions of years old.
>>>>
>>>> Except for Hindus and myself as Thrinaxodon, and humans (if you mean the
>>>> genus *Homo*) have been around for several million years, the earliest
>>>> fossils of the genus *Homo* stretch back to the latest Pliocene, 2.8 Ma.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> The estimation is no more than 400,000 years.
>>>>
>>>> For *Homo sapiens*, but not *Homo*.
>>>
>>> I brought all that up on the 4th, and he turned out to be
>>> YAD-BP (Yet Another Drive-By Poster).
>>>
>>
>> "Lucifer" only occasionally posts to talk.origins, so he probably hasn't
>> seen our replies yet. Being a comic afficionado myself, his name
>> "Lucifer" refers to "Lucifer Morningstar" of the *Sandman* graphic novel
>> series by acclaimed author Neil Gaiman, just look at his email, thought
>> it was interesting.
>
> OK. I just assumed it was intended literally, and was only
> ironic inadvertently ("Light-bringer"? Really?).
>

Of course, but I still recommend that you check out *The Sandman* by
Neil Gaiman, it deals heavily with themes of mythology, what it's
actually like being immortal, romance, morality, hell (as in, what would
it be like if Satan, or "Lucifer Morningstar", quit his job as the
Janitor of Hell), etc. It's an *extremely* great work of literature, and
was the first comic book series to be nominated for the prestigious
Eisner Award, of which it got 26 in different categories.

Other great works I'd recommend include *Watchmen* by Alan Moore, which
heavily deconstructs the Silver Age concept of "superhero", and *Batman:
The Dark Knight Returns*, both of those are heavy pieces of social
commentary on life in the 80's, although perhaps *Watchmen* has aged better.

[Bob Casanova]

On Sun, 7 Oct 2018 15:35:05 -0400, the following appeared in

One which, I believe, was thought to be more "generalist"
than the Neanderthals, and possibly than the Denisovans, and
therefore better able to adjust to changing conditions.

[Oxyaena]

Possibly, Neanderthals always had an *extremely* small population, and
weren't given to trade with other Neanderthal groups either (although
there is evidence trade did indeed occur, it even occurred with modern
humans, sometimes Neanderthals and modern humans would've lived side by
side, obviously the power of the market transcends xenophobia and
dogmatism). They would've seemed *incredibly* dogmatic and xenophobic to
modern eyes, but that's not to say innovations never occurred. Obviously
some Neanderthals took a liking to modern humans, and that wasn't
necessarily out of rape either, how else do we have Neanderthal DNA in
our genomes (most of us anyways, people who never left Africa to begin
with *don't* possess Neanderthal or Denisovan DNA in their genomes,
unlike the rest of us).

[Ernest Major]

On 09/10/2018 07:15, Oxyaena wrote:
> (most of us anyways, people who never left Africa to begin with *don't*
> possess Neanderthal or Denisovan DNA in their genomes, unlike the rest
> of us).

They do possess Neandertal DNA - gene flow back into Africa from Eurasia
introduced it into African gene pools - even if the amount is an order
of magnitude smaller. It's been tracked to San and Yoruba genomes.

As far as I know Denisovan DNA hasn't been found in Africa yet.

--
alias Ernest Major

[Oxyaena]

On 10/9/2018 5:37 AM, Ernest Major wrote:
> On 09/10/2018 07:15, Oxyaena wrote:
>> (most of us anyways, people who never left Africa to begin with
>> *don't* possess Neanderthal or Denisovan DNA in their genomes, unlike
>> the rest of us).
>
> They do possess Neandertal DNA - gene flow back into Africa from Eurasia
> introduced it into African gene pools - even if the amount is an order
> of magnitude smaller. It's been tracked to San and Yoruba genomes.
>

Ah, that makes sense. I remember reading that sometime in the Neolithic
or possibly even Paleolithic, I don't remember which, there was a
population exchange between Europe and Africa by way of the Gibraltar
Strait, which makes sense given that the distance between the Pillars of
Hercules isn't that far at all. Just more evidence that racialism has no
basis in reality. Races *do* have a sociological basis, but NOT a
biological one. We are far more interconnected as a species than people
used to think.

> As far as I know Denisovan DNA hasn't been found in Africa yet.
>

Denisovan DNA is most prominent in Melanesia, making up 4-6% of the
genome of the Melanesian population, and only present in minute amounts
elsewhere, so given the fact that Melanesia is very far from Iberia and
the Maghreb, and the migrating population into Africa from Europe would
have only possessed an extremely small amount of Denisovan DNA,
selection probably worked against the Denisovan DNA present in the
migrating European populations.

[Bob Casanova]

On Tue, 9 Oct 2018 10:17:35 -0400, the following appeared in

talk.origins, posted by Oxyaena <i....@error.invalid>:

>On 10/9/2018 5:37 AM, Ernest Major wrote:
>> On 09/10/2018 07:15, Oxyaena wrote:
>>> (most of us anyways, people who never left Africa to begin with
>>> *don't* possess Neanderthal or Denisovan DNA in their genomes, unlike
>>> the rest of us).
>>
>> They do possess Neandertal DNA - gene flow back into Africa from Eurasia
>> introduced it into African gene pools - even if the amount is an order
>> of magnitude smaller. It's been tracked to San and Yoruba genomes.
>>
>
>Ah, that makes sense. I remember reading that sometime in the Neolithic
>or possibly even Paleolithic, I don't remember which, there was a
>population exchange between Europe and Africa by way of the Gibraltar
>Strait, which makes sense given that the distance between the Pillars of
>Hercules isn't that far at all. Just more evidence that racialism has no
>basis in reality. Races *do* have a sociological basis, but NOT a
>biological one. We are far more interconnected as a species than people
>used to think.

I agree, and I suspect that, if nothing drastic intervenes,
within a millennium or two most "race" markers will
essentially disappear, since while there has always been
interconnection, both the level and range is today *far*
greater than at any time in the past, and most people are
far more accepting of differences.

>> As far as I know Denisovan DNA hasn't been found in Africa yet.
>>
>
>Denisovan DNA is most prominent in Melanesia, making up 4-6% of the
>genome of the Melanesian population, and only present in minute amounts
>elsewhere, so given the fact that Melanesia is very far from Iberia and
>the Maghreb, and the migrating population into Africa from Europe would
>have only possessed an extremely small amount of Denisovan DNA,
>selection probably worked against the Denisovan DNA present in the
>migrating European populations.

[Oxyaena]

On 10/9/2018 1:30 PM, Bob Casanova wrote:
[snip]

> I agree, and I suspect that, if nothing drastic intervenes,
> within a millennium or two most "race" markers will
> essentially disappear, since while there has always been
> interconnection, both the level and range is today *far*
> greater than at any time in the past, and most people are
> far more accepting of differences.
>

What you suggest is rather low on the probability scale, for it is
probable that we've long since sealed our own fate with climate change,
or at least our civilization's fate.

[Bob Casanova]

On Thu, 11 Oct 2018 17:48:21 -0400, the following appeared

in talk.origins, posted by Oxyaena <i....@error.invalid>:

That's why I included the qualifier. If something drastic
*does* intervene the point becomes moot (although DocDoc
might claim that, even if extinct, we could "adapt").

[JTEM is my hero]

Not named "Jillery," jillery wrote:

> Your

You display all the maturity of a bed wetting kindergarten
brat.





-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/186331974716

[jillery]

On Tue, 16 Jul 2019 20:54:17 -0700 (PDT), TIBAMJTEM <jte...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Your

Your momma.

[John Bode]

On Monday, January 15, 2018 at 4:25:03 PM UTC-6, Alpha Beta wrote:
> If you think humans are 2 million years old name any major event in human history before
> 10,000 BC. None, it's all made up. Don't mention made up things such as "there was a
> stone age that lasted 100k years" because there is no proof for such an ass long stone
> age.

Except for the tools, middens, cave paintings, carvings, burial sites, etc.

[Bob Casanova]

On Wed, 17 Jul 2019 07:02:12 -0700 (PDT), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by John Bode
<jfbod...@gmail.com>:

Yeah, but aside from that there's nothing at all. Not even
any YouTube videos!

[PhantomView]

On Wed, 17 Jul 2019 12:50:57 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>
wrote:

>On Wed, 17 Jul 2019 07:02:12 -0700 (PDT), the following
>appeared in talk.origins, posted by John Bode
><jfbod...@gmail.com>:
>
>>On Monday, January 15, 2018 at 4:25:03 PM UTC-6, Alpha Beta wrote:
>>> If you think humans are 2 million years old name any major event in human history before
>>> 10,000 BC. None, it's all made up. Don't mention made up things such as "there was a
>>> stone age that lasted 100k years" because there is no proof for such an ass long stone
>>> age.
>>
>>Except for the tools, middens, cave paintings, carvings, burial sites, etc.
>
>Yeah, but aside from that there's nothing at all. Not even
>any YouTube videos!

What ? No YouTube vids ??? Then it never happened !!!
Only if we have neanderthals and cro-mags posting selfies
and pictures of their lunch can we even remotely consider
that they may be real !

[Bob Casanova]

On Wed, 17 Jul 2019 21:44:50 -0400, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by PhantomView
<p...@PhantomView114.net>:

By Jove, I think he's *got* it!

[David Greig]

On 2019-07-17, jillery <69jp...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 16 Jul 2019 20:54:17 -0700 (PDT), TIBAMJTEM <jte...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Your
>
> Your momma.

You're

--D.

[jillery]

DOG has spoken.

[David Greig]

On 2019-07-25, jillery <69jp...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 25 Jul 2019 10:25:28 -0000 (UTC), David Greig
><dgr...@ediacara.org> wrote:
>
>>On 2019-07-17, jillery <69jp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Tue, 16 Jul 2019 20:54:17 -0700 (PDT), TIBAMJTEM <jte...@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Your
>>>
>>> Your momma.
>>
>>You're
>>
>>--D.
>
> DOG has spoken.
>

D*G please.

--D.

[jillery]

On Tue, 30 Jul 2019 10:09:30 -0000 (UTC), David Greig

<dgr...@ediacara.org> wrote:

>On 2019-07-25, jillery <69jp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Thu, 25 Jul 2019 10:25:28 -0000 (UTC), David Greig
>><dgr...@ediacara.org> wrote:
>>
>>>On 2019-07-17, jillery <69jp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 16 Jul 2019 20:54:17 -0700 (PDT), TIBAMJTEM <jte...@gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Your
>>>>
>>>> Your momma.
>>>
>>>You're
>>>
>>>--D.
>>
>> DOG has spoken.
>>
>D*G please.
>
>--D.

Typi.