Roses are red, violets are blue...

[JTEM]

...you keep mentioning ligers & grolar
bears BECAUSE there is no such thing as
a Humanzee, and never has been.






-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/120855631637

[J.LyonLayden]

On Saturday, June 6, 2015 at 12:47:26 PM UTC-4, JTEM wrote:
> ...you keep mentioning ligers & grolar
> bears BECAUSE there is no such thing

Have they ever tried to make an Humangatan?
A manrilla?

What I am trying to get through your thick head is that it is NOT the chromosome number that makes humans and chimps unable to mate.
If humans and chimps really can't mate, it is not a problem of chromosome number alone.
It is something else.
Because we know for a fact that mammals with a chromosome difference of as much as 40 CAN AND DO mate.
If homo habilis had two extra chromosomes than we do, then there is absolutely no reason to believe that we couldn't mate with them because of that.
Chimps are not homo habilis. You don't know why chimps and humans can't mate, you don't have proof that it's the chromosome number that makes it impossible, and frankly until every human on the planet has fucked every chimp on the planet hundreds of times each you will not know if a chimp/human offspring is entirely impossible.




>
>
>
>
>
>
> -- --
>
> http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/120855631637

[JTEM]

J.LyonLayden wrote:

> Have they ever tried to make an Humangatan?
> A manrilla?

Yes. Um, wait. I meant "no."

> What I am trying to get through your thick head is that\
> it is NOT the chromosome number that makes humans and
> chimps unable to mate.

It probably is.

> If humans and chimps really can't mate, it is not a problem
> of chromosome number alone.

Maybe it was just the straw that broke the camel's back, but
it's the line.

> It is something else.
> Because we know for a fact that mammals with a chromosome
> difference of as much as 40 CAN AND DO mate.

And they no way alter the situation with our line than
our line changes their existence.

The point is, they've constructed a virus from off-the-shelf
genes. They took bits HERE and pieces THERE, assembled them
as they would appear in a specific virus, and the result was
that virus.

What I'm saying here is that not all life is equal. Just
because you can do one thing with THIS species does not
mean you can do it with THAT species.

All things being equal, they are not.

> If homo habilis had two extra chromosomes than we do, then there is absolutely no reason to believe that we couldn't mate with them because of that.

There is, actually. There's the fact that we have
not only NEVER seen such a thing, but people have
tried & failed to manage such a thing with the
human line.

We can only go by the evidence we have, and all the
evidence we have says you're wrong.





-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/120867432078

[J.LyonLayden]

On Saturday, June 6, 2015 at 2:21:36 PM UTC-4, JTEM wrote:
> J.LyonLayden wrote:
>
> > Have they ever tried to make an Humangatan?
> > A manrilla?
>
> Yes. Um, wait. I meant "no."
>
> > What I am trying to get through your thick head is that\
> > it is NOT the chromosome number that makes humans and
> > chimps unable to mate.
>
> It probably is.
>
> > If humans and chimps really can't mate, it is not a problem
> > of chromosome number alone.
>
> Maybe it was just the straw that broke the camel's back, but
> it's the line.

Sure I can buy that...as a THEORY that has not been proven yet.
Just like my theories that you hate so much.

>
> > It is something else.
> > Because we know for a fact that mammals with a chromosome
> > difference of as much as 40 CAN AND DO mate.
>
> And they no way alter the situation with our line than
> our line changes their existence.
>
> The point is, they've constructed a virus from off-the-shelf
> genes. They took bits HERE and pieces THERE, assembled them
> as they would appear in a specific virus, and the result was
> that virus.
>
> What I'm saying here is that not all life is equal. Just
> because you can do one thing with THIS species does not
> mean you can do it with THAT species.
>
> All things being equal, they are not.
>
> > If homo habilis had two extra chromosomes than we do, then there is absolutely no reason to believe that we couldn't mate with them because of that.
>
> There is, actually. There's the fact that we have
> not only NEVER seen such a thing, but people have
> tried & failed to manage such a thing with the
> human line.

They've tried a couple of dozen times with the chimp. It took a thousand tries on two entire genomes to get results with chicken and quail.
The methods that used by the communist to create the humanzee were not nearly as thorough as the modern methods they have used to produce ligers and tigons.

Furthermore, chimps may be a lot more separated from us than austros, georgicus, or whatever gave us Microcephalin D.

The closer genetically one species is to another, the greater probability that they can produce offspring.
Because the zebra is so closely related to other zebras, it still produces fertile offspring with separate species of zebra that have 6 more chromosomes.
On the other hand, a horse and donkey have a chromosome difference of only 2 but through the produce offspring, that offspring is rarely fertile.

It isn't that genetic evolution and reproduction works differently in humans than in other mammals. If it's possible for one mammal to mate with a closely related species with a different number of Chromosomes, then it's possible in any other mammal. Does not mean it happened, but it does mean that it's possible.



It's that the chimp has diverged away from the Homo line too far to mate effectively while nonetheless maintaining a similar chromosome count.

>
> We can only go by the evidence we have, and all the
> evidence we have says you're wrong.

No we don't.
We have no evidence whatsoever telling us how many chromosomes the "Mystery Hominid" had.
We don't know if the "Mystery Hominid" was the same population that gave us Microcephalin D, and we don't know how many chromosomes that population had either.
We don't know even know for certain that all Neanderthals and Denisovans had the same number of chromosomes as us.

So what is it you think I'm wrong about?


>
>
>
>
>
> -- --
>
> http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/120867432078

[JTEM]

J.LyonLayden wrote:

> Sure I can buy that...as a THEORY that has not been proven yet.
> Just like my theories that you hate so much.

There seems to be a sudden change. There's the "Advanced"
tools you find in Asia. There's the sudden appearance of
Homos in Asia. There's multiple DNA studies that place
some sort of event right around that time... one cite I
dug up pretty much claims our that the origins of our
species is about then...

The say "Most of the last 2 million years" so that could
be 1.9 million, it could be 1.7 million or a little earlier.

Nothing is exact, but it's all lining up around the
same time, and much of it in the same place...

> They've tried a couple of dozen times with the chimp.
> It took a thousand tries on two entire genomes to get
> results with chicken and quail.

Actually it took artificial insemination, but who's counting?

Birds are nothing close to similar to primates. In fact,
probably the single LEAST advanced, MOST primitive
mammal in existence -- the platypus -- has a lot in common
with birds WHICH IT COULD ONLY INHERITED FROM A
PRE-MAMMAL ANCESTOR!

So by primate standards, birds are major primitive...

Secondly, a chicken itself isn't natural. It's a game
fowl that was domesticated.

BY DEFINITION DOMESTICATION CHANGES THE ANIMAL!

Pigs are very different from the wild boar.

Chickens are very different from the jungle fowl.

And NONE OF THIS is the least bit relevant anyways,
because you never established any genetic differences.

Birds "Speciesize" much more readily than mammals,
and there's at least twice as many bird species.
Mostly this is due to human stupidity -- judging a
book by it's cover.

"That bird looks different, HENCE SPECIES!"

They also seem very good at spotting patterns, which
is probably why they're so successful. The slightest
change in color/plumage coinciding with the exploitation
of a new niche can set of a "Species" claim. BECAUSE
the birds themselves are so good at recognizing these
different patterns. They can pick out their niche from
an almost identical bird... reinforcing the pattern &
niche...

It's basically the same thing you see in interracial
breeding in early America, where appearing to belong
to one population reenforced that appearance (black
tended to mate with other blacks, while the lighter
they were the more likely they would mate with white
people, reenforcing the light skin).

In short, you're making UNSUPPORTED claims based on
the RIDICULOUS claim that all animals are equal, that
all interbreeding is equally as easy or equally as
hard.

Fact is, you talking about bears, large cats, zebras...

ANYTHING but primates.

Know why?

Because you're wrong.




-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/120855631637

[J.LyonLayden]

What unsupported claims do you imagine that I am making/

The claim that an Unknown Hominid split off from our lineage 3 million years ago, passed a DNA strand onto us 1.7 million years ago, and was assimilated by us 37 thousand years ago producing the Microcephalin-D genetic sweep and the old genes in Denisovans and Sri Lankans?

I can provide you with scores of scientific papers and newspaper articles that make that same exact RIDICULOUS claim, because that is what we see evidence for when we look at the DNA.

Seems you're the only person on the planet that thinks a population of Homo ABSOLOUTELY MUST AND NO EXCEPTIONS lose the ability to breed after 1.3 million years of separation.

Or maybe you're claiming that there was limited sexual exchange over the 1.3 million years?

Because I really have no idea what claim you've gotten into your head that I am making.

A minute ago you went off on a tangent about religion, and then you started acting like humanzees were the topic of this debate.

Honestly, at the moment I am wondering whether
A. There's something in your psyche that makes you unable to stop posting until you have the last word
B. You don't understand analogies and take even my metaphors and examples literally, therefore you think I'm talking about humanzees when I'm talking about the genus HOMO.
C. You hate DNA studies so much that you really don't understand why Microcephalin-D has to be introgressed from an outside population, or can't comprehend why the 3 million unit old genes in Sri Lankans, Melanesians, and Pakistanis cannot have been present in the ancestors of the rest of us.
or
D. You are just refusing to accept the evidence that a different number of chromosomes or a certain span of time spent in isolation does not necessarily dictate infertility.... because you don't like that evidence and choose to stick your fingers in your years and scream "I CAN'T HEAR YOU!!" instead.

>
> Fact is, you talking about bears, large cats, zebras...
>
> ANYTHING but primates.
>
> Know why?

Yes. Because we have very few primates left to test, and the ones we do have left to test...it is ILLEGAL to test this on!

The ONLY experiments done on the "humanzee" were way back in 1929 and before. Now if you want to base your science on 1929 I don't know what to tell you, except that I can prove the existence of giants and mermaids if we're accepting pseudo-science from 1929.

I myself am doubtful of a chimp/human hybridization, but I'm not so self-riteous as you to claim that I know one way or another beyond the shadow of a doubt.
Modern science is not that brash either, and I will provide you with an Encyclopedia article at the end of this reply which shows that numerous scientific minds think that there's no reason why it shouldn't work.

But do you know why better experiments haven't been done with the chimp than Stalin's?
Because only such a criminal regime would dare even attempt it.

So we tried a little bit to breed a chimp/human hybrid. We didn't try nearly as hard as we tried with other animals.
We used to think that ligons were all sterile. We used to think that all mules were sterile, that all ligers were sterile...because we hadn't tried it enough!
It took thousands of hybridization attempts to get a fertile offspring.

You do not know whether humans could mate with austros.
Even if you had their chromosome number, you still do not know whether humans could mate with austros.
Even if chimps can't procreate with humans, you still do not know whether humans could mate with austros.

The more you continue saying that you know things that no one could possibly know which have absolutely no basis in any evidence, the more you show yourself to be a self-righteous douche-bag.

From the Humanzee Entry:
Feasibility
Humans have one pair fewer chromosomes than other apes, with ape chromosomes 2 and 4 fusing into a large chromosome (which contains remnants of the centromere and telomeres of the ancestral 2 and 4).[3] Having different numbers of chromosomes is not an absolute barrier to hybridization; similar mismatches are relatively common in existing species, a phenomenon known as chromosomal polymorphism.

All great apes have similar genetic structure. Chromosomes 6, 13, 19, 21, 22, and X are structurally the same in all great apes. Chromosomes 3, 11, 14, 15, 18, and 20 match between gorillas, chimpanzees, and humans. Chimps and humans match on 1, 2p, 2q, 5, 7-10, 12, 16, and Y as well. Some older references include Y as a match between gorillas, chimps, and humans, but chimpanzees (including bonobos) and humans have recently been found to share a large transposition from chromosome 1 to Y not found in other apes.[4]

This degree of chromosomal similarity is roughly equivalent to that found in equines. Interfertility of horses and donkeys is common, although sterility of the offspring (mules) is nearly universal (with only around 60 exceptions recorded in equine history[5]). Similar complexities and prevalent sterility pertain to horse-zebra hybrids, or zorses, whose chromosomal disparity is very wide, with horses typically having 32 chromosome pairs and zebras between 16 and 23 depending on species. In a direct parallel to the chimp-human case, the Przewalski's Horse (Equus przewalskii) with 33 chromosome pairs, and the domestic horse (E. caballus) with 32 pairs, have been found to be interfertile, and produce semi-fertile offspring: male hybrids can breed with female domestic horses.[6]

In 1977, researcher J. Michael Bedford[7] discovered that human sperm could penetrate the protective outer membranes of a gibbon egg. Bedford's paper also stated that human spermatozoa would not even attach to the zona surface of non-hominoid primates (baboon, rhesus monkey, and squirrel monkey), concluding that although the specificity of human spermatozoa is not confined to man alone, it is probably restricted to the Hominoidea.

In 2006, research suggested that after the last common ancestor of humans and chimpanzees diverged into two distinct lineages, inter-lineage sex was still sufficiently common that it produced fertile hybrids for around 1.2 million years after the initial split.[8]

Still, despite speculation, no human-chimpanzee cross has ever been confirmed.

The Ivanov experiments[edit]

Ilya Ivanovich Ivanov was the first person to attempt to create a human-ape hybrid.[9] As early as 1910 he gave a presentation to the World Congress of Zoologists in Graz, Austria, in which he described the possibility of creating such a hybrid by artificial insemination.[citation needed]

In the 1920s, Ivanov carried out a series of experiments to create a human/nonhuman ape hybrid. Working with human sperm and female chimpanzees, he failed to create a pregnancy.[10] In 1929 he organized a set of experiments involving nonhuman ape sperm and human volunteers, but was delayed by the death of his last orangutan.[10] The next year he fell under political criticism from the Soviet government and was sentenced to exile in the Kazakh SSR; he worked there at the Kazakh Veterinary-Zootechnical Institute and died of a stroke two years later.

Oliver[edit]

There have been no scientifically verified specimens of a human/ape hybrid. A performing chimp named Oliver was popularized during the 1970s as a possible chuman/humanzee.[11] A geneticist from the University of Chicago examined Oliver's chromosomes in 1996 and revealed that Oliver had forty-eight, not forty-seven, chromosomes, thus disproving the earlier claim that he did not have a normal chromosome count for a chimpanzee.[12] Oliver's cranial morphology, ear shape, freckles and baldness fall within the range of variability exhibited by the Common Chimpanzee.[13] Scientists performed further studies with Oliver, the results of which were published in the American Journal of Physical Anthropology.[14]

Genetic evidence[edit]

Current research into human evolution tends to confirm that in some cases, interspecies sexual activity may have been a key part of human evolution. Analysis of the species' genes in 2006 provides evidence that after human ancestors had started to diverge from chimps, interspecies mating between "proto-human" and "proto-chimps" nonetheless occurred regularly enough to change certain genes in the new gene pool:
A new comparison of the human and chimp genomes suggests that after the two lineages separated, they may have begun interbreeding... A principal finding is that the X chromosomes of humans and chimps appear to have diverged about 1.2 million years more recently than the other chromosomes.
The research suggests,
There were in fact two splits between the human and chimp lineages, with the first being followed by interbreeding between the two populations and then a second split. The suggestion of a hybridization has startled paleoanthropologists, who nonetheless are 'treating the new genetic data seriously'.[15]
For a chromosomal homology map between these species see [16].

Now to comment on one sentence from the above:
"Still, despite speculation, no human-chimpanzee cross has ever been confirmed."
Of course not. It was only attempted once by the incompetence of 1929.
If it has been tried since then, no one would tell anyone else about the results because if they did they'd GO TO JAIL for a very long time!

Now, there have been plenty of reports and films and photgraphs of things that were claimed to be Humanzees, but they have not been CONFIRMED.
One is the aforementioned Oliver (which I believe was just a really smart chimp).
Here's another:
http://www.macroevolution.net/ape-human-hybrids.html

Now I personally don't believe in either of these claims...for the exact same reason that I don't trust studies by communist wackos from 1929.

[JTEM]

J.LyonLayden wrote:

> The claim that an Unknown Hominid split off from our lineage 3 million years ago, passed a DNA strand onto us 1.7 million years ago, and was assimilated by us 37 thousand years ago producing the Microcephalin-D genetic sweep and the old genes in Denisovans and Sri Lankans?

None of that is fact.

> I can provide you with scores of scientific papers and newspaper articles that make that same exact RIDICULOUS claim, because that is what we see evidence for when we look at the DNA.

But they don't. That's the point. They don't.

DNA doesn't work the way your claims are based on, AS
LM3 PROVES.

> Seems you're the only person on the planet that thinks a population of Homo ABSOLOUTELY MUST AND NO EXCEPTIONS lose the ability to breed after 1.3 million years of separation.

The fact is that we did lose the ability. The only
question is when. I assume it's somewhere in the
range of 2 million to 1.7 million years ago because
a major advancement took place then, and such an
event might explain it.

But it's just a fact that somewhere along the ling
we lost two chromosomes, and that alone appears to
be 100% effective as a barrier to interbreeding.





-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/120915531433

[J.LyonLayden]

On Sunday, June 7, 2015 at 11:41:03 AM UTC-4, JTEM wrote:
> J.LyonLayden wrote:
>
> > The claim that an Unknown Hominid split off from our lineage 3 million years ago, passed a DNA strand onto us 1.7 million years ago, and was assimilated by us 37 thousand years ago producing the Microcephalin-D genetic sweep and the old genes in Denisovans and Sri Lankans?
>
> None of that is fact.

None of any of this is fact, stupid. that's why we are discussing it.

>
> > I can provide you with scores of scientific papers and newspaper articles that make that same exact RIDICULOUS claim, because that is what we see evidence for when we look at the DNA.
>
> But they don't. That's the point. They don't.

Well everyone in the scientific community thinks that is what they are seeing except the all-knowing omnipotent JTEM then.

>
> DNA doesn't work the way your claims are based on, AS
> LM3 PROVES.

No it doesn't. For every recovered genome of separate hominid populations we have, we also have an insert.
Therefore it's likely that any time we try to assimilate a highly divergent population, we get an insert.

>
> > Seems you're the only person on the planet that thinks a population of Homo ABSOLOUTELY MUST AND NO EXCEPTIONS lose the ability to breed after 1.3 million years of separation.
>

OH you were around 1.7 million years ago and tried to mate a georgicus with a meganthropus? I'm sorry didn't know time travel had been invented. So you invent time machines too?

> question is when. I assume it's somewhere in the
> range of 2 million to 1.7 million years ago because
> a major advancement took place then, and such an
> event might explain it.
>
> But it's just a fact that somewhere along the ling
> we lost two chromosomes, and that alone appears to
> be 100% effective as a barrier to interbreeding.

So you've resurrected all of our extinct hominid ancestors and conducted experiments to prove that we can't procreate with any of them, have you?
I'd like to see the paper you arote to prove it and the rest of the scientific community would too.


>
>
>
>
>
> -- --
>
> http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/120915531433

[JTEM]

J.LyonLayden wrote:

> None of any of this is fact, stupid.

Wrong, as usual. Quite a lot of this is fact.

A great deal of evidence does converge around 2
million years ago (a little sooner).

> Well everyone in the scientific community thinks

If there were a place & time when everyone in the
scientific community really did think something,
you'd know that it has to be wrong...

The unambiguous fact is that science's record here
sucks. You know it sucks. You know that
paleoanthropology isn't even a real science! And
yet you turn around and call it a science, pretend
it's infallible BECAUSE that's what your preferred
answer requires right now...

Well, if what science thinks really matters to you
then your Sundaland is shit. It's the racist fantasy
of some fringe lunatics.

"Out of Africa," you dimwit! Mankind dropped from
the sky, fully formed, exactly as he appears now,
then immediately spread across the entire globe in
search of a Starbucks.

There. That's your "Science." Take it. Take it all,
bitch, or STOP being such a goddamn hypocrite and
/Suddenly/ deciding that "Science" is gospel when
& where your beliefs require it (and no place else).




-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/120915531433

[J.LyonLayden]

On Sunday, June 7, 2015 at 12:22:00 PM UTC-4, JTEM wrote:
> J.LyonLayden wrote:
>
> > None of any of this is fact, stupid.
>
> Wrong, as usual. Quite a lot of this is fact.
>
> A great deal of evidence does converge around 2
> million years ago (a little sooner).

I know I've provided a lot of it in this thread.
What is not fact is the conclusions you draw from that evidence.

>
> > Well everyone in the scientific community thinks
>
> If there were a place & time when everyone in the
> scientific community really did think something,
> you'd know that it has to be wrong...

We all think that the Earth revolves around the sun.
The introgression of 3 million year old genes around 37 thousand years ago is a similarly supported fact, and only Third World Creationists like the one who stole the Hobbit bones dispute that fact.

>
> The unambiguous fact is that science's record here
> sucks. You know it sucks. You know that
> paleoanthropology isn't even a real science! And

It's better than ignoring the parts you don't like the way you do.

> yet you turn around and call it a science, pretend
> it's infallible BECAUSE that's what your preferred
> answer requires right now...

No it's not. We are discussing the introgression of 3million unit old genes introgressing into our genome 37 thousand years ago.

>
> Well, if what science thinks really matters to you
> then your Sundaland is shit. It's the racist fantasy
> of some fringe lunatics.

Every one knows the continent was there, I haven't seen anyone disputing it in decades.

>
> "Out of Africa," you dimwit! Mankind dropped from
> the sky, fully formed, exactly as he appears now,
> then immediately spread across the entire globe in
> search of a Starbucks.

Well even though I realize that man could have come from Central Asia or the Middle east, I understand why the majority of scientists don't make that claim.
Not only do they fear being called racists, but in truth there isn't enough evidence yet to tell us exactly where the first member of our genome evolved.
However, we DO have plenty of evidence for the introgressed genes we are discussing.

>
> There. That's your "Science." Take it. Take it all,
> bitch, or STOP being such a goddamn hypocrite and
> /Suddenly/ deciding that "Science" is gospel when
> & where your beliefs require it (and no place else).

I don't think science is gospel but I don't throw the baby out with the bathwater!

Some Melanesians and Sri Lankans and Pakistanis have a gene introgressed from a highly divergent hominid.
There's a clear lineage of highly divergent hominid right in the center of those three places in a continent that is now underwater.
Balangoda man in Sri Lanka has erectus traits 30 thousand years ago and STILL has erectus traits 6000 years ago, provided further proff of the introgression.
That's a lot more evidence than what they used to come up with OOA, which is basically limited to "The San live in Africa and they have really old ancestral genes."

>
>
>
>
> -- --
>
> http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/120915531433

[JTEM]

J.LyonLayden wrote:

> JTEM wrote:

> > A great deal of evidence does converge around 2
> > million years ago (a little sooner).
>
> I know I've provided a lot of it in this thread.

Whether this thread or some other, doesn't matter. You
have provided evidence. I know that. And I have.

Read this cite 18 times and let it sink in:

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

: We estimate the divergence time of H. sapiens from
: 16 genetic distances to be around 1.7 Ma which is
: consistent with evidence for the earliest migration
: out of Africa. These findings call into question
: the mitochondrial "African Eve" hypothesis based on
: a far more recent origin for H. sapiens and show
: that humans did not go through a bottleneck in
: their recent evolutionary history.

No dates are exact. But this, genetically, aligns
almost perfectly with your "Advanced" tools as
well as the presence of Homo in Asia... AND your
own genetic "Evidence."

It all lines up.

> > The unambiguous fact is that science's record here
> > sucks. You know it sucks. You know that
> > paleoanthropology isn't even a real science! And

> It's better than ignoring the parts you don't like the way you do.

I'm not ignoring anything.

All the evidence intersects temporally and, perhaps,
even genetically. All that evidence says one human
species, beginning some time soon after 2 million
years ago...

This is simply the evidence.

I'm sure there were numerous populations to have
arisen -- population AT LEAST as different from
each other as our "Races" and "Ethnicitiess" used
to be, and probably more so.

So what?

So they looked a lot different from each other
than we do -- AFTER thousands of years of
sailing ships, trade, empires/invasions, slavery
(etc).

Humans look very, VERY different NOW, and the
earth it tiny, MINISCULE, compared to pre historic
times. Interbreeding is going on like mad,
compared to prehistoric times. And all this has
been happening for THOUSANDS of years. And STILL
we humans look very different.

One species, many DIFFERENCES...

Of course there were much more, much bigger
differences in the past.

Other than the fact that any dork worth his
Phd would kill his own mother for the opportunity
to "Discover" and "Name" a new species, is there
any reason to believe we are dealing with separate
species here?

Nope.






-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/120929120881

[J.LyonLayden]

Yep. Because if you don't have a Neanderthal femur, then you owe some of your ancestry to non-Neanderthals. And if you have a chin, you owe part of your ancestry to something other than Denisovans.
If we jumble them up all into one pile, it makes it laborious and confusing to talk about how modern humans came about.
Species is a useful term, no more.
And see the other thread to understand why the verdict is still out on the designation of various hominids as "species."
As long as the verdict's still out, you don't own the dictionary, bud.

[JTEM]

J.LyonLayden wrote:

> Yep. Because if you don't have a Neanderthal femur,
> then you owe some of your ancestry to non-Neanderthals.

Logically, that's ridiculous.

> If we jumble them up all into one pile, it makes it
> laborious and confusing to talk about how modern humans
> came about.

No it isn't.

> Species is a useful term, no more.

It's not useful at all. It was applied at a time when
by doing so they thought they meant an evolutionary
dead end. They thought they were establishing a
relationship which literally is FALSE. All their
assumptions were wrong. All the reasoning for calling
them a different species was WRONG.

We corrected the error with dogs & wolves, it's
time we corrected it in the case of ourselves.






-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/121019674178

[J.LyonLayden]

On Monday, June 8, 2015 at 4:31:45 PM UTC-4, JTEM wrote:
> J.LyonLayden wrote:
>
> > Yep. Because if you don't have a Neanderthal femur,
> > then you owe some of your ancestry to non-Neanderthals.
>
> Logically, that's ridiculous.

So you believe in rapid convergent evolution do you?
That is so much more ridiculous.

>
> > If we jumble them up all into one pile, it makes it
> > laborious and confusing to talk about how modern humans
> > came about.
>
> No it isn't.

Yes it is. I want to discuss which population spread Microcephalin D, for instance.
If you take the word species away from me, I have to write an entire sentence every time I want to denote that population. When I want to differentiate that population from Neanderthals, Denisovans, LM3, and our y/mt DNA ancestral line, then I have to write "Neanderthals, Denisovans, LM3, and our y/mt DNA ancestral line" every time instead of just writing "other species of Homo."

>
> > Species is a useful term, no more.
>
> It's not useful at all. It was applied at a time when
> by doing so they thought they meant an evolutionary
> dead end. They thought they were establishing a
> relationship which literally is FALSE. All their
> assumptions were wrong. All the reasoning for calling
> them a different species was WRONG.
>
> We corrected the error with dogs & wolves, it's
> time we corrected it in the case of ourselves.

So you want to lump dire wolves and bear-dogs into the same species as wolves if we find introgression too?


>
>
>
>
>
>
> -- --
>
> http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/121019674178

[J.LyonLayden]

On Monday, June 8, 2015 at 4:31:45 PM UTC-4, JTEM wrote:
> J.LyonLayden wrote:
>
> > Yep. Because if you don't have a Neanderthal femur,
> > then you owe some of your ancestry to non-Neanderthals.
>
> Logically, that's ridiculous.


So you believe in rapid convergent evolution do you?
That is so much more ridiculous.

Everyone's femur alive today looks like it evolved from a type that was already a part of the anatomy of Asians, Levantines, and Africans who lived 115 thousand years ago, because it has the same exact shape. No living person's femur looks like it evolved from a Neanderthal femur, and Neanderthals of only 24k ago still have distinctly Neanderthal femurs.
The same can be said of many other distinct Neanderthal anatomical traits.

The only way someone with Neanderthal ancestry can have a femur like ours is if his ancestors mated with someone with femurs like ours, unless you believe in causeless, baseless, light speed convergent evolution.

[JTEM]

J.LyonLayden wrote:

> So you believe in rapid convergent evolution do you?

Evolution takes place in as much time as it has.

> > > If we jumble them up all into one pile, it makes it
> > > laborious and confusing to talk about how modern humans
> > > came about.
> >
> > No it isn't.

> Yes it is. I want to discuss which population spread
> Microcephalin D

You have yet to establish what it is you mean by this.

> for instance. If you take the word species away from me, I
> have to write an entire sentence every time I want to
> denote that population.

Or you could just say "Population."

Remember: You're claiming to be a writer here...

> writing "other species of Homo."

Or, "other populations of humans."






-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/121053479513

[J.LyonLayden]

On Tuesday, June 9, 2015 at 8:32:57 PM UTC-4, JTEM wrote:
> J.LyonLayden wrote:
>
> > So you believe in rapid convergent evolution do you?
>
> Evolution takes place in as much time as it has.

So in just 30 thousand years you can evolve an Hss femur from a Neanderthal femur, even though it took Hss at least half a million years to evolve it himself.
And the reason that Neanderthal evolved an Hss femur instead of something totally different is because....evolution is psychic with itself or there's a pre-existing alien micro-chip telling us how to evolve, or what?

The environment that Hss evolved in was different from the environment Neanderthal evolved in, and the Hss femur evolved from an ancestral femur to both Neanderthals and HSS femurs... not from a fully evolved Neanderthal femur.

So you're explanation requires bot coincidence and probably magic or an act of God, whereas mine only requires the known and accepted realities of hybridization and introgression.

>
> > > > If we jumble them up all into one pile, it makes it
> > > > laborious and confusing to talk about how modern humans
> > > > came about.
> > >
> > > No it isn't.
>
> > Yes it is. I want to discuss which population spread
> > Microcephalin D
>
> You have yet to establish what it is you mean by this.

I've provided you with papers that discuss the problem of the microcephalin D sweep and you can google hundreds more PLOS1 articles that discuss this problem.
If you don't believe in introgression or sweeps, then this is not the discussion for you.
This is a discussion for 2015 genetics, not 1990s apologism that seeks to wish away introgression with thousands of coincidences and unlikelihoods for no apparent reason.
I know that you will never admit that the only alternative to introgression is a highly unlikely series of coincidences 9in fact that might not even be able to explain it, it's pretty impossible that it's anything but introgression to any non AOO apologist scientist practicing today).
But just out of curiosity, why do people like you take such pains and come up with such highly unlikely scenarios to explain away introgression, when introgression works to explain it just fine? What is it that you have again introgression?
What is it that you have against the probability that the 3 million year old genes in Sri Lankans and Pakistanis come from the highly divergent hominids that were likely there (Narmada, Soloensis, or the hobbit?)

Do you not understand that introgression is a much simpler explanation that genetic drift+founder effect+coincidence+rapid sexual selection+pre-agricultural hierarchy+ deep African substructure and that while no one says that introgression is impossible, amny scientists say that the second explanation might not be adequate even if we allow for HUNDREDS of coincidences?

What do you hate about introgression so much that you would spend so much time trying to prove the entire scientific community wrong about it?

[JTEM]

J.LyonLayden wrote:

> So in just 30 thousand years you can evolve an
> Hss femur from a Neanderthal femur

A femur can & will evolve -- adapt -- in as much
time as is necessary.

If there's only 500 years, and it's necessary,
it will happen. The alternative is that the
population will go extinct.

See, you view everything BACKWARDS. If you
start in the past and move forward, most
times there is no evolution. The vast majority
of times a population is placed in a sink or
swim situation is sinks.

Period.

EXTINCTION and not evolution is the norm.





-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/121165529878

[J.LyonLayden]

On Wednesday, June 10, 2015 at 7:26:07 PM UTC-4, JTEM wrote:
> J.LyonLayden wrote:
>
> > So in just 30 thousand years you can evolve an
> > Hss femur from a Neanderthal femur
>
> A femur can & will evolve -- adapt -- in as much
> time as is necessary.
>
> If there's only 500 years, and it's necessary,
> it will happen. The alternative is that the
> population will go extinct.

And there is only one way to adapt, huh? The same one hss had already developed?

How about the two extra folds they had in their brain structure, was it necessary for them to lose those rapidly too in between 40k and 21k ago to be just like Hss in order to survive?

And in that 19 thousand years I guess they evolved their shoulder bones into the shape of homo sapiens idaltu from 140 thousand years before and all other Hss that came after him?

Interesting religion you have their.

[JTEM]

J.LyonLayden wrote:

> And there is only one way to adapt, huh?

You've confused numerous issues, none of them
you understand.

In this case it began with my correcting you
over your unsupportable "separate species"
claim, which you have somehow misrepresented
into some sort of adapted evolution thing.

For your present confusion, Google "Convergent
Evolution."

Or, better yet simply understand that your
poor language choices are communicating ideas
that are not only unsupportable, but have
somehow become your argument.

"Well I chose these words which denote a
separate species. Thus, that proves they
are a separate species."

It's really dumb and I must ask you to please
stop.



-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/121235384943

[J.LyonLayden]

Do you understand Hawkes' explanation of why the non-recombination proves that microcephalin D did not evolve in our genome, but from a hominid that split off 1.1 million years ago?

Do you finally understand what John Hawkes said about species introgressing other species ALL the time in mammalian evolution?

Do you finally understand what the D means in terms like Microcephalin-D and ASPM-D?

Or do I need to educate you some more today?


Using "covergent evolution" to try to explain why people with Neanderthal genes have Hss femurs is about the most ignorant and laughable thing you've done all week, though.

When two separate species from widely different genuses both develop fins (that are never the same exact shape and dimensions by the way) over millions of years, sure that's convergent evolution.

But you erroneously keep saying that people with Neanderthal genes might be more Neanderthal than we think they are, because you think they are measuring the same loci when they say "humans are 97% the same as Neanderthals" and when they say "some modern humans have 2% neanderthal ancestry (Hint: these are two different measurements of two different things and have nothing to do with each other.)

And believing that people with Neanderthal genes might be as much Neanderthal as Hss has caused you to try and explain the lack of any neanderthal femur, shoulder bone shape, or brain shape in modern humans and the universal existence of an Hss anatomy in modern humans with "convergent evolution."
That's science fiction, my man.

I would absolutely LOVE to see you post your idea that Hss femurs and Hss brain shapes in modern people are the result of convergent evolution on the John Hawkes or Deinekes blog. They would rip you apart and thousands of readers would be laughing about your ignorance for weeks.

Please, please post that on a forum or blog that someone still reads I want to see hundreds of people tell you how wrong you are.

[JTEM]

J.LyonLayden wrote:

> Do you understand Hawkes' explanation of why the
> non-recombination proves that microcephalin D did
> not evolve in our genome

There it is again...

As all the other evidence establishes, ESPECIALLY
LM3, it almost certainly evolved in our genome. Just
not within the (now) dominate population.

The LM3 group existed. It was human. It was "Fully
Modern" by all official accounts. It did contribute
to our gene pool. But, it was not dominant. The
DNA from a different group is dominant within us
today. Meaning, there's a lot more from it than
the LM3 group...

And please either STOP talking about your 1.1
million year old split, or come up with a cite.
At present, the split seems to align with
everything else -- the 1.7 million year period
(give or take some).




-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/121254748338

[J.LyonLayden]

On Thursday, June 11, 2015 at 3:59:34 PM UTC-4, JTEM wrote:
> J.LyonLayden wrote:
>
> > Do you understand Hawkes' explanation of why the
> > non-recombination proves that microcephalin D did
> > not evolve in our genome
>
> There it is again...
>
> As all the other evidence establishes, ESPECIALLY
> LM3, it almost certainly evolved in our genome. Just
> not within the (now) dominate population.

So you just skipped over the evidence Hawkes provided with the non-recombining?
LM3 insertions doen't recombine, buddy.
"Two things make this case especially persuasive. First, there is almost no evidence of recombination between the D and non-D haplogroups. If they existed within the same population for 1.7 million years, they should have recombined a lot with each other, and we should see some of those recombinants today. We don't. The best explanation is that the alleles were in different ancient populations, somewhat isolated from each other so that recombination was very rare. "

http://johnhawks.net/weblog/reviews/neandertals/neandertal_dna/introgression_faq_2006.html

>
> The LM3 group existed. It was human. It was "Fully
> Modern" by all official accounts. It did contribute
> to our gene pool. But, it was not dominant. The
> DNA from a different group is dominant within us
> today. Meaning, there's a lot more from it than
> the LM3 group...

What's that got to do with Microcephalin showing no signs of recombination before 37000 years ago?

>
> And please either STOP talking about your 1.1
> million year old split, or come up with a cite.
> At present, the split seems to align with
> everything else -- the 1.7 million year period
> (give or take some).

Three out of the 7 sites I gave you had the 1.1 million year date.
I am not giving it to you a second time, but I will keep on using it since it pisses you off and shows that you didn't read the things I've already cited.


>
>
>
>
> -- --
>
> http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/121254748338

[JTEM]

J.LyonLayden wrote:

> So you just skipped over the evidence Hawkes provided with the non-recombining?

Paleoanthropology has no evidence. It's never understood
DNA. It's always defaulted to "Different Species" and
has only yielded when the evidence has left it so far
behind that it's embarrassing.

> LM3 insertions doen't recombine, buddy.
> "Two things make this case especially persuasive. First, there is almost no evidence of recombination between the D and non-D haplogroups. If they existed within the same population for 1.7 million years, they should have recombined a lot with each other

No support for this.

In fact, what support there is seems to point to the
opposite. Modern humans bred like rabbits with LM3,
yet we'd have no way of even guessing this if it wasn't
for that one lucky insertion.

...and we both agree it had to happen plenty of
times WITHOUT such a lucky insertion to let us know.





-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/121254748338

[J.LyonLayden]

I'll say it again- LM3 insertions don't recombine .

Sad that you won't listen to me when I tell you several times that LM3 has nothing to recombine with, and instead of going back and reading what recombination is you continue to compare it with LM3.

You can't say, "First, there is almost no evidence of recombination between the LM3 and non-LM3 haplogroups" because it doesn't make sense!

We have two copies of microcephalin per person, we only have one mt DNA haplogroup per person...there's no recombining with LM3 so it can't show this kind of OVERWHELMING evidence that microcephalin does.


John Hawkes explains this and you skim over it so that you can quickly find something to nitpick!
Read the damn thing and comprehend it, please- I seriously want you to understand this, I am not your enemy.

Not only can LM3 not give us a history of recombination since it doesn't recombine, it only split off from us 400k ago... so of course it won't show us any divergent 1.7 million year old genes!

Stop using LM3 like duck tape for anything that has to do with assimilated or introgressed genes, because mtDNA haplogroups gets passed on differently than Microcephalin chromosomes, and mtDNA insertions are frozen in time and cease to mutate while being passed and so they aren't even comparable.



>
>
>
>
>
> -- --
>
> http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/121254748338

[JTEM]

J.LyonLayden wrote:

> I'll say it again- LM3 insertions don't recombine .

No insertions "recombine."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_recombination

> Sad that you won't listen to me when I tell you several times that LM3 has nothing to recombine with, and instead of going back and reading what recombination is you continue to compare it with LM3.

Omg, you honestly don't grasp the issues here... it's
not just an act...

> We have two copies of microcephalin per person, we only have one mt DNA haplogroup per person...there's no recombining with LM3 so it can't show this kind of OVERWHELMING evidence that microcephalin does.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_recombination

Please. You're misusing "Recombination" here.

> John Hawkes explains this and you skim over it so that you can quickly find something to nitpick!

He doesn't say anything similar to what you're saying
here.

> Not only can LM3 not give us a history of recombination since

You're confusing this "Recombination" with "introgression,"
which are not the same thing at all.

> it doesn't recombine

Nothing "Recombines" per say.

> Stop using LM3 like duck tape for

You don't understand any of this.

You don't understand what any of your cites are
saying, you don't understand what I'm saying,
you just plain don't understand.





-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/121254748338

[J.LyonLayden]

On Friday, June 12, 2015 at 1:36:13 AM UTC-4, JTEM wrote:
> J.LyonLayden wrote:
>
> > I'll say it again- LM3 insertions don't recombine .
>
> No insertions "recombine."
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_recombination
>
> > Sad that you won't listen to me when I tell you several times that LM3 has nothing to recombine with, and instead of going back and reading what recombination is you continue to compare it with LM3.
>
> Omg, you honestly don't grasp the issues here... it's
> not just an act...

Yawn, Trying to be vague because you know you lost again.

Ok please tell us how we could discern whether or not the LM3 insertion developed inside our outside of our genome by looking at it's recombination in modern populations.
You know, like we can with Microcephalin D?

Even if the actual LM3 entered our gene pool, and not just the insertion. it would not be a "recombimnation between haplogroups" as Hawkes describes because an individual can only hold one mt DNA haplogroup at a time.
He isn't talking about a population, but in an individual.
I.E. For recombination to have occurred in an individual, he or she must have a copy of Ancetsral Micro D AND a copy of Micro D.
You cannot have two copies of myDNA in the same person, therefore you cannot have recombination between haplogroups where mt DNA is concerned.

[JTEM]

J.LyonLayden wrote:

> Ok please tell us how we could discern whether or not the LM3 insertion developed inside our outside of our genome by looking at it's recombination in modern populations.

"Recombination" means that the child "inherits"
genes it didn't get from either parent.

In other words mom has AB, dad has CD and we
think the baby would get some combination of
both -- AD, AC, BC or BD.

Right?

But with recombination the baby instead gets
AG or XC... anything but the combination of
genes from his parents that he was supposed
to get.

Now, as near as I can tell -- and your
position is SO confused to begin with, even
before all the contradictory cites you
produced -- but as near as I can tell the
whole "Recombination" thing is supposed to
be an issue because it's how genes are
alleged to jump from one "Species" to another.

Species have natural/genetic barriers to
reproducing with each other. One "Out" here
is if there's a recombination, removing or
at least lessening harm from the genes of
a separate species, allowing interbreeding.





-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/120644845731