Why you are wrong

[JTEM is my hero]

#1. Our ancestors populate the globe and they have
for a very long time. Very long. MILLIONS of years.

That's how far back our ancestors go in Asia... at the
extreme minimum.

#2. Modern man descends from an Eurasian population.
Yes, even the African population in whatever "Out of
Africa" dispersals are themselves descended from an
Eurasian population.

No, sorry, this is fact.

Evidence for this Eurasian origins is preserved in the
nuclear DNA, chromosome 11, where we find what
remains of an extremely ancient mtDNA line, far older
than any supposed "Mitochondrial Eve," and this line
is Eurasian.

If it's not, then the way we interpret DNA evidence is
out the window, it's completely wrong, and any hope
of using "Molecular dating" is gone forever. Sorry, but
to argue that this very ancient DNA is not very much
older than the so called "Mitochondrial Eve," or that it
does not originate outside of Africa, is to argue that
everything you've always believed about DNA is wrong.

#3. There's some very inconvenient retrovirus evidence.

Apparently African apes carry the evidence for a retrovirus
outbreak that occurred millions of years ago. Asian apes
and humans do not.

#4. We evolved under conditions where DHA was plentiful.

Our brains need DHA. It doesn't matter if you can find 6
thousand species for whom this is not true, because it
is true for us modern humans. We need DHA and whatever
adaptation that allows us to synthesize it from ALA just
plain isn't that old. The "Molecular Dating" crowd says it's
only 80k years old! So either there were no modern
humans before 80k years ago, no big brains, or our ancestors
were getting their DHA elsewhere.

NOTE: Evolutionarily speaking, the reliance on DHA had
to come before the adaptation to help synthesize it,
ESPECIALLY when you consider we're still not great at it.

#5. Coastal Dispersal.

Our ancestors did not take a train, they didn't drive a car
and they weren't even riding in a horse drawn buggy.

Nope.

Our ancestors spread from Australia to southern most
Africa, and everywhere in between, following the coast.

Oh. Maybe I should add: This means they were exploiting
the sea.

There's no getting around this. None. Coastal Dispersal
requires "Aquatic Ape." They're one and the same.

Our ancestors were not in search of a Burger King. They
weren't on a scavenger hunt. It wasn't a potato sack race
either. No. They were eating. They were living there, eating.
They were consuming resources then moving on.




-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/716003746293923841

[John Harshman]

On 5/2/23 3:13 PM, JTEM is my hero wrote:
>
> #1. Our ancestors populate the globe and they have
> for a very long time. Very long. MILLIONS of years.
>
> That's how far back our ancestors go in Asia... at the
> extreme minimum.
>
> #2. Modern man descends from an Eurasian population.
> Yes, even the African population in whatever "Out of
> Africa" dispersals are themselves descended from an
> Eurasian population.
>
> No, sorry, this is fact.
>
> Evidence for this Eurasian origins is preserved in the
> nuclear DNA, chromosome 11, where we find what
> remains of an extremely ancient mtDNA line, far older
> than any supposed "Mitochondrial Eve," and this line
> is Eurasian.
>
> If it's not, then the way we interpret DNA evidence is
> out the window, it's completely wrong, and any hope
> of using "Molecular dating" is gone forever. Sorry, but
> to argue that this very ancient DNA is not very much
> older than the so called "Mitochondrial Eve," or that it
> does not originate outside of Africa, is to argue that
> everything you've always believed about DNA is wrong.

Have you considered the possibility that the numt in question was
introgressed from Neandertals or Denisovans, i.e. that the numt
originated in Eurasia but the rest of the genome did not?

[marc verhaegen]

Op woensdag 3 mei 2023 om 00:16:36 UTC+2 schreef JTEM is my hero:

> #1. Our ancestors populate the globe and they have
> for a very long time. Very long. MILLIONS of years.
> That's how far back our ancestors go in Asia... at the
> extreme minimum.

Early-Miocene Hominoidea lived in northern Tethys Ocean coastal forests.
Late-Miocene hominids lived in Red Sea coastal forests.
Pliocene Homo lived along the northern Indian Ocean coasts.
Pleistocene Homo dispersed intercontinentally (Asia-Africa-Europe).
Mid-late-Pleistocene also subtropically.

> #2. Modern man descends from an Eurasian population.
> Yes, even the African population in whatever "Out of
> Africa" dispersals are themselves descended from an
> Eurasian population. No, sorry, this is fact.

Hominoidea = out-of-S-Asian coasts,
Pliocene Homo = out-of-Red-Sea-coasts -> S.Asia (retroviral data),
Pleistocene Homo = out-of-Ind.Ocean-coasts.
Google:
-aquarboreal
-Gondwanatalks Verhaegen :-)

[JTEM is my hero]

John Harshman wrote:

> Have you considered the possibility that the numt in question was
> introgressed from Neandertals or Denisovans, i.e. that the numt
> originated in Eurasia but the rest of the genome did not?

Given the ferocity in which they shove the Out of Africa purity
nonsense onto us, they will no doubt eventually "Find" the mtDNA
line in Neanderthals and/or Denisovans exactly the same way they
have never tried to claim before.

Considering how common it is throughout Eurasia, they should
also fake find it in Neanderthals...

Secondly, there were five points raised, so even if they fake find
some mtDNA tomorrow it can't change the other four. And I'm
not claiming I presented an exhaustive list.

It's just plain NOT how reality works. We're dealing with a proverbial
"Big Picture" here, not a pixel.



-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/716003746293923841

[John Harshman]

On 5/2/23 4:20 PM, JTEM is my hero wrote:
> John Harshman wrote:
>
>> Have you considered the possibility that the numt in question was
>> introgressed from Neandertals or Denisovans, i.e. that the numt
>> originated in Eurasia but the rest of the genome did not?
>
> Given the ferocity in which they shove the Out of Africa purity
> nonsense onto us, they will no doubt eventually "Find" the mtDNA
> line in Neanderthals and/or Denisovans exactly the same way they
> have never tried to claim before.

Has anyone ever diagnosed you as paranoid?

> Considering how common it is throughout Eurasia, they should
> also fake find it in Neanderthals...
>
> Secondly, there were five points raised, so even if they fake find
> some mtDNA tomorrow it can't change the other four. And I'm
> not claiming I presented an exhaustive list.
>
> It's just plain NOT how reality works. We're dealing with a proverbial
> "Big Picture" here, not a pixel.

That was the one I had a question about. Could you post the original
citation again?

[JTEM is my hero]

John Harshman wrote:

> Has anyone ever diagnosed you as paranoid?

lol!

If you had been the real Harpman you'd remember how I was debunking
the fake "no interbreeding" claims years before you accepted it. And I
do mean debunking it: Deconstructing the claims against it.

So if you weren't certifiable, if you weren't a sock puppet, you'd know
what a fucking idiot someone would have to be to talk the way you
do...

> > Secondly, there were five points raised, so even if they fake find
> > some mtDNA tomorrow it can't change the other four. And I'm
> > not claiming I presented an exhaustive list.
> >
> > It's just plain NOT how reality works. We're dealing with a proverbial
> > "Big Picture" here, not a pixel.

> That was the one I had a question about.

No. You rationalized. There is a difference.

If you had any questions you'd question how it could even be possible
that, if it were the result of interbreeding, we haven't found it already
in any of the DNA testing of Neanderthal and Denisovan remains.




-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/716003746293923841

[John Harshman]

Has anyone looked?

[JTEM is my hero]

John Harshman wrote:

> Has anyone looked?

You're asking if anyone has looked for Denisovan or Neanderthal DNA?

Is that correct?

Or are you asking if anyone has ever "Looked" to see how it compares
to modern DNA... maybe through it in the same database or something?

Is that your question?

Let me know which question you're asking while pretending you're not
a raging narcissist trying to obfuscate. I'm really intrigued. Well. Not
*Really* but I'm giving you an opportunity to bone up on sarcasm here.


REMINDER: I raised five points. The troll is focusing tightly on one,
misunderstanding & misrepresenting it, and pretending this addresses
the other four when it doesn't even counter the one.





-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/716268653482524672

[peter2...@gmail.com]

On Tuesday, May 2, 2023 at 7:10:09 PM UTC-4, marc verhaegen wrote:
> Op woensdag 3 mei 2023 om 00:16:36 UTC+2 schreef JTEM is my hero:

JTEM is doing quite nicely against Harshman, but you aren't
helping him here with your digressions.

> > #1. Our ancestors populate the globe and they have
> > for a very long time. Very long. MILLIONS of years.
> > That's how far back our ancestors go in Asia... at the
> > extreme minimum.

> Early-Miocene Hominoidea lived in northern Tethys Ocean coastal forests.

Which ones? Sivapithecus/Ramapithecus are off the direct line of human descent.
Proconsul lived in Africa. In fact, almost all early Miocene Hominoidea lived in Africa.
Look up all the other Miocene apes in the cladogram at the bottom of the following webpage, and weep.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ape

> Late-Miocene hominids lived in Red Sea coastal forests.

You are ignoring Sahelanthropus, which lived in central Africa, without giving any justification.

> Pliocene Homo lived along the northern Indian Ocean coasts.

Earlier, the "reasoning" you gave for this is that we have no fossils of Pliocene Homo in Africa.

Later, you admitted that we have NO fossils of Pliocene Homo in ASIA either.
You are a worse reasoner than John Harshman.

> Pleistocene Homo dispersed intercontinentally (Asia-Africa-Europe).
> Mid-late-Pleistocene also subtropically.

> > #2. Modern man descends from an Eurasian population.
> > Yes, even the African population in whatever "Out of
> > Africa" dispersals are themselves descended from an
> > Eurasian population. No, sorry, this is fact.

And those in turn were descended from an African population.
So this was a digression.

> Hominoidea = out-of-S-Asian coasts,
False, see above. [keywords: cladogram, Wikipedia]

> Pliocene Homo = out-of-Red-Sea-coasts -> S.Asia (retroviral data),
> Pleistocene Homo = out-of-Ind.Ocean-coasts.
> Google:
> -aquarboreal
> -Gondwanatalks Verhaegen :-)

The usual regurgitated laziness. :-(


Fortunately for you, JTEM is more than holding his own.
He's bearding the Harshman lion in his own den of
phylogenetic analysis of molecular data.

The one weakness is the connection between coastal dispersal
and the claim that it began in Asia rather than Africa. I doubt
that Harshman has the diligence to figure this out on his own.


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

[John Harshman]

On 5/3/23 1:10 PM, JTEM is my hero wrote:
> John Harshman wrote:
>
>> Has anyone looked?
>
> You're asking if anyone has looked for Denisovan or Neanderthal DNA?
>
> Is that correct?

No.

> Or are you asking if anyone has ever "Looked" to see how it compares
> to modern DNA... maybe through it in the same database or something?
>
> Is that your question?

No.

> Let me know which question you're asking while pretending you're not
> a raging narcissist trying to obfuscate. I'm really intrigued. Well. Not
> *Really* but I'm giving you an opportunity to bone up on sarcasm here.

I'm asking if anyone has looked for the Chromosome 11 numt in Neandertal
or Denisovan DNA.

> REMINDER: I raised five points. The troll is focusing tightly on one,
> misunderstanding & misrepresenting it, and pretending this addresses
> the other four when it doesn't even counter the one.

I make no such claims.

[marc verhaegen]

Op donderdag 4 mei 2023 om 00:20:10 UTC+2 schreef peter2...@gmail.com:

> On Tuesday, May 2, 2023 at 7:10:09 PM UTC-4, marc verhaegen wrote:

...

> > Early-Miocene Hominoidea lived in northern Tethys Ocean coastal forests.

> Which ones? Sivapithecus/Ramapithecus are off the direct line of human descent.
> Proconsul lived in Africa. In fact, almost all early Miocene Hominoidea lived in Africa.

:-DDD
Do you believe that pongids nor hylobatids have ancestors??

Where do orangs, gibbons, siamans live?
:-) Yes, indeed.

It's not so difficult (from my talk Sunday, google WHATtalk):

Indian subcontinent approaching S-Eurasia ~25 Ma? → archipel fm + coastal forests
= OWM/ape split → aquarbor.Hominoidea = islands + peninsulas : Latisternalia
body +, arms +, central=vertical lumbar spine 7 → 5?, tail → 0, very broad sternum–thorax–pelvis = very drastic changes !!

India further underneath Eurasia = lesser/great ape split ~20 Ma? = E/W split?
hylobatids → East → Tethys Ocean coastal forests → SE.Asia

Mesopotamian Seaway closure ~15 Ma = hominid/pongid split?
- pongids → E → TethysInd.Ocean → S.Asia sivapiths, Pongo ...
- hominids → W → Medit.Tethys Sea, rivers, lakes :
dryopiths, Trachilos footprints, Oreopithecus ...

Red Sea colonized by hominids s.s., who split ~8 Ma
- Sahelanthropus ? Orrorin ? Ardipithecus ?
- Gorilla → N-Rift → Praeanthr.afarensis–boisei...
- Homo–Pan in Red Sea until 5.33 Ma?
Francesca Mansfield : Zanclean mega-flood opened Red Sea → Gulf ?
- Pan → E-African coast → S-Rift → Australop.africanus–robustus... // Gorilla
- Homo → S.Asian coast → Java ... littoral Homo ~2 Ma? diving H.erectus

Retroviral evidence:
Pliocene human ancestors (+ Pongo + hylobtids) were NOT in Africa
(vs australopiths, Pan & Gorilla).

Evolution of type C viral genes : evidence for an Asian Origin of Man
RE Benveniste & GJ Todaro 1976 Nature 261:101-8
org/10.1038/261101a0
OWMs & Apes incl. Man possess (as a normal component of their cell.DNA) gene sequences (viro-genes) related to the RNA of a vims isolated from baboons.
A comparison of the viral gene sequences & the other cell.sequences distinguishes OWMs & apes that have evolved in Africa from those in Asia : by these criteria, among the apes, only gorilla & chimpanzee seem to be African
gibbon, orang & Man are identified as Asian.
Concl.: most of Man's evolution has occurred outside Africa.

Lineage-Specific Expansions of Retroviral Insertions within the Genomes of African Great Apes, but Not Humans and Orangutans
CT Yohn cs 2005 PLoS Biol.3:e110 10.1371/journal.pbio.0030110
… we characterize a RV element (PTERV1 = P.troglodytes endogenous retro-virus-1) that
- has become integrated in the germ-line of African great ape & OWM spp,
- but is absent from humans & Asian ape genomes.  …
Phylogenetic analysis of the endogenous RV reveals :
- the gorilla & chimp elements share a monophyletic origin with a subset of the OWM-RV elements,
- but the average sequence divergence exceeds neutral expectation for a strictly nuclear inherited DNA molecule. …
Our data are consistent with a RV infection that bombarded Pan & Gorilla genomes independently & concurrently, 3–4 Ma.

Pliocene Homo simply followed S_Asian Ind.Ocean coastal forests:
H.erectus Java early-Pleist. dived frequently for shellfish:
-brain++ (DHA in aq.foods)
-pachy-osteo-sclerosis only in slow+shallow divers (incl. earliest Cetacea & Pinnipedia)
-shellfish engravings, google "Joordens Munro"
-stone tools (cf. sea-otter)
-platycephaly, platymeria, platypelloidy = incompatible with fast running,
-island colonizations etc.etc.etc.

Only incredible imbeciles believe their ancestors ran after African antelopes... :-DDD

[John Harshman]

On 5/3/23 3:19 PM, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Tuesday, May 2, 2023 at 7:10:09 PM UTC-4, marc verhaegen wrote:
>> Op woensdag 3 mei 2023 om 00:16:36 UTC+2 schreef JTEM is my hero:
>
> JTEM is doing quite nicely against Harshman, but you aren't
> helping him here with your digressions.
>
>>> #1. Our ancestors populate the globe and they have
>>> for a very long time. Very long. MILLIONS of years.
>>> That's how far back our ancestors go in Asia... at the
>>> extreme minimum.
>
>> Early-Miocene Hominoidea lived in northern Tethys Ocean coastal forests.
>
> Which ones? Sivapithecus/Ramapithecus are off the direct line of human descent.
> Proconsul lived in Africa. In fact, almost all early Miocene Hominoidea lived in Africa.
> Look up all the other Miocene apes in the cladogram at the bottom of the following webpage, and weep.
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ape
>
>
>> Late-Miocene hominids lived in Red Sea coastal forests.
>
> You are ignoring Sahelanthropus, which lived in central Africa, without giving any justification.
>
>
>
>> Pliocene Homo lived along the northern Indian Ocean coasts.
>
> Earlier, the "reasoning" you gave for this is that we have no fossils of Pliocene Homo in Africa.
>
> Later, you admitted that we have NO fossils of Pliocene Homo in ASIA either.
> You are a worse reasoner than John Harshman.

You seem unable to post without aiming a gratuitous insult as some third
party, often me. Why is that?

>> Pleistocene Homo dispersed intercontinentally (Asia-Africa-Europe).
>> Mid-late-Pleistocene also subtropically.
>
>>> #2. Modern man descends from an Eurasian population.
>>> Yes, even the African population in whatever "Out of
>>> Africa" dispersals are themselves descended from an
>>> Eurasian population. No, sorry, this is fact.
>
> And those in turn were descended from an African population.
> So this was a digression.
>
>> Hominoidea = out-of-S-Asian coasts,
> False, see above. [keywords: cladogram, Wikipedia]
>
>> Pliocene Homo = out-of-Red-Sea-coasts -> S.Asia (retroviral data),
>> Pleistocene Homo = out-of-Ind.Ocean-coasts.
>> Google:
>> -aquarboreal
>> -Gondwanatalks Verhaegen :-)
>
> The usual regurgitated laziness. :-(
>
>
> Fortunately for you, JTEM is more than holding his own.
> He's bearding the Harshman lion in his own den of
> phylogenetic analysis of molecular data.

Your viewpoint is highly clouded by your pathological hatred of me and
embrace of anyone who dislikes me. And you should know better than to
take JTEM's claims at face value.

If you think that's the one weakness, you aren't thinking. I don't think
any of those points can be defended if examined closely. Why don't you
try that with one of them?

[JTEM is my hero]

John Harshman wrote:

> If you think that's the one weakness, you aren't thinking. I don't think
> any of those points can be defended if examined closely. Why don't you
> try that with one of them?

Luckily nobody has to.

You're not the real Harkmunn. The Real Harpshman knew he was a frigging
idiot who argued AGAINST interbreeding between so called moderns and
Neanderthals... not to mention a boatload of other incredibly stupid ideas
he held... all going back well over a decade.

And the points I raised here? If you're admitting that you're ignorant here,
that everything is news to you, then just ask the psychiatric nurse to help
you perform a Google search and read up on what you've been missing!






-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/716286146131394560

[JTEM is my hero]

John Harshman wrote:

> I'm asking if anyone has looked for the Chromosome 11 numt in Neandertal
> or Denisovan DNA.

So what you're asking is if anyone looked at Neanderthal or Denisovan DNA,
as the comparison to modern human DNA is just something we can go
ahead & assume... if they ever bothered to look for Neanderthal or Denisovan
DNA.

AND you're pretending to NOT be a sick troll attempting to obfuscate!

So, quite literally, you have no argument. You read the five points I raised, you
have absolutely nothing to say in rebuttal so you're pulling the usual.




-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/716286146131394560

[John Harshman]

On 5/3/23 5:20 PM, JTEM is my hero wrote:
> John Harshman wrote:
>
>> I'm asking if anyone has looked for the Chromosome 11 numt in Neandertal
>> or Denisovan DNA.
>
> So what you're asking is if anyone looked at Neanderthal or Denisovan DNA,

Nope. That's not in fact the question. Do you in fact know if any
sequenced Neandertal or Denisovan genome either contains or lacks the
numt in question? I do find that the human reference genome doesn't have
the full sequence, though it has two fragments of it.

> as the comparison to modern human DNA is just something we can go
> ahead & assume... if they ever bothered to look for Neanderthal or Denisovan
> DNA.
>
> AND you're pretending to NOT be a sick troll attempting to obfuscate!
>
> So, quite literally, you have no argument. You read the five points I raised, you
> have absolutely nothing to say in rebuttal so you're pulling the usual.

I'm assuming this is your source:

H Zischler, H Geisert, A von Haeseler, S Pääbo. 1995. A nuclear 'fossil'
of the mitochondrial D-loop and the origin of modern humans. Nature
378:489-92.

Unfortunately, all I have access to is the abstract, which says almost
nothing, and the sequence itself from GenBank. What do you know about it?

[JTEM is my hero]

John Harshman wrote:

> > So what you're asking is if anyone looked at Neanderthal or Denisovan DNA,

> Nope. That's not in

It's the question. That is what you're asking. You want to know if anyone looked
for Neanderthal and Denisovan DNA. Because if they did then they know what
it looks like, how it compares to our own -- what is shares in common with us
and what it does not.

This is reality. And you're so fucked up you're asking if anyone ever thought to
look at Neanderthal and Denisovan DNA, even as you pretend that you're not
asking this.





-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/716346368172654592/what-is-your-favorite-tv-show-and-why

[marc verhaegen]

me:

> >> Late-Miocene hominids lived in Red Sea coastal forests.

netloon:

> > You are ignoring Sahelanthropus, which lived in central Africa, without giving any justification.

:-DDD
From my 2022 book "De evolutie van de mens" p.200
"Sahelanthropus ('Sahel-mens', ’Toumaï‘ TM-266, 7–6 Ma) staat zowat halfweg Pierolapithecus en een kleine gorilla: opvallend grove oogbeschermende voorhoofds-richel (~18 mm dik), hersenen niet groter dan bij chimps (~365 cc), hoektanden kleiner, kiesglazuur dikker, bijna zoals bij orangoetans. Geen echte tweebener, denkt Macchiarelli (2020), en ook Marc Meyer (2022) vindt de sterk gebogen ellepijp chimp-achtig. Het fossiel komt uit een meerafzetting in Tsjaad, toen een palmrijk zoetwater-gebied met vissen, waterschildpadden, varanen, pythons, krokodillen, pauwen, zwanen, reigers en slanghals-vogels, diverse otters, aard- en stekelvarkens, slankapen, antiloop- en girafachtigen, drietenige paardjes, en allerlei dikhuiden, het anthracothere 'nijlpaard' Lybicosaurus kwam uit de ondiepe zeeën van het Lybische Sirt-bekken (Lihoreau 2006, Louchart 2008, Munro 2010, Novello 2017)."

IOW, lake + fish, turtles, swans, otters etc.
obviously swamp forest.
Google "aquarboreal".

Why not inform a little bit before trying to say something??

[John Harshman]

On 5/3/23 9:12 PM, JTEM is my hero wrote:
> John Harshman wrote:
>
>>> So what you're asking is if anyone looked at Neanderthal or Denisovan DNA,
>
>> Nope. That's not in
>
> It's the question. That is what you're asking. You want to know if anyone looked
> for Neanderthal and Denisovan DNA. Because if they did then they know what
> it looks like, how it compares to our own -- what is shares in common with us
> and what it does not.

Still not the question. There are several published Denisovan and
Neandertal genomes. Have you, or anyone else, determined if the control
region numt you're talking about is or isn't in any of them?

> This is reality. And you're so fucked up you're asking if anyone ever
> thought to look at Neanderthal and Denisovan DNA, even as you pretend
> that you're not asking this.

I'm asking a very specific and relevant question, and you refuse to answer.

[JTEM is my hero]

John Harshman wrote:

> JTEM is my hero wrote:
> > It's the question. That is what you're asking. You want to know if anyone looked
> > for Neanderthal and Denisovan DNA. Because if they did then they know what
> > it looks like, how it compares to our own -- what is shares in common with us
> > and what it does not.

> Still not the question.

Of course it is. The set {DNA} includes {NUMT}. The only one on earth mentally
unhinged enough to pretend otherwise is you. So, nobody else being you, you
are asking is anyone ever looked at Neanderthal and Denisovan DNA.

You could avoid looking so stupid by trying to overcome your advanced Narcissistic
Personality Disorder, STOP obfuscating and looking at all five points together.




-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/716364343858561024

[John Harshman]

On 5/4/23 11:33 AM, JTEM is my hero wrote:
> John Harshman wrote:
>
>> JTEM is my hero wrote:
>>> It's the question. That is what you're asking. You want to know if anyone looked
>>> for Neanderthal and Denisovan DNA. Because if they did then they know what
>>> it looks like, how it compares to our own -- what is shares in common with us
>>> and what it does not.
>
>> Still not the question.
>
> Of course it is. The set {DNA} includes {NUMT}. The only one on earth mentally
> unhinged enough to pretend otherwise is you. So, nobody else being you, you
> are asking is anyone ever looked at Neanderthal and Denisovan DNA.

That's like saying "Have you read War and Peace?" is the same as "Does
Napoleon appear on page 377 of War and Peace?".

I'm going to suppose that you can't answer the question. I will further
assume that you have never actually read the paper in which that
particular numt appears. Am I right about that?

> You could avoid looking so stupid by trying to overcome your advanced Narcissistic
> Personality Disorder, STOP obfuscating and looking at all five points together.

That's silly. They need to be considered one at a time. I'm choosing to
start with this one.

[JTEM is my hero]

John Harshman wrote:

> > Of course it is. The set {DNA} includes {NUMT}. The only one on earth mentally
> > unhinged enough to pretend otherwise is you.

> That's like saying "Have you read War and Peace?" is the same as "Does
> Napoleon appear on page 377 of War and Peace?".

No it isn't. You're simply crazy.

You're not making an argument here, because you're simply obfuscating the
way you clinical narcissists always do.

If you want to argue that Neanderthals and/or Denisovans carry the exact
same chromosome 11 insert, you go right ahead. Nobody has stopped you.

THIS WAS YOUR EIGTH POST HERE!

It's abundantly clear that you DON'T want to make any such argument and
yet you're still obfuscating, pretending I need to "Prove" something here.

You do. Prove someone just your NUMT. Now THAT would be an "Argument"
but you ever did that. You can't. You don't even know how.

You're a raging narcissist.




-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/716364343858561024

[John Harshman]

On 5/4/23 2:21 PM, JTEM is my hero wrote:
> John Harshman wrote:
>
>>> Of course it is. The set {DNA} includes {NUMT}. The only one on earth mentally
>>> unhinged enough to pretend otherwise is you.
>
>> That's like saying "Have you read War and Peace?" is the same as "Does
>> Napoleon appear on page 377 of War and Peace?".
>
> No it isn't. You're simply crazy.
>
> You're not making an argument here, because you're simply obfuscating the
> way you clinical narcissists always do.
>
> If you want to argue that Neanderthals and/or Denisovans carry the exact
> same chromosome 11 insert, you go right ahead. Nobody has stopped you.

Exactly. I'm not making an argument. I'm asking a question, which you
consistently fail to answer by the tactic changing it into a quite
different and silly one.

> THIS WAS YOUR EIGTH POST HERE!

I keep hoping that you will eventually respond.

Did you read the original paper in Nature? I can see only the abstract,
which says nothing. Can you tell me what it says?

> It's abundantly clear that you DON'T want to make any such argument and
> yet you're still obfuscating, pretending I need to "Prove" something here.
>
> You do. Prove someone just your NUMT. Now THAT would be an "Argument"
> but you ever did that. You can't. You don't even know how.

True, I don't know how to "prove someone just your NUMT"; I don't even
know what that means. I'm asking for information.

> You're a raging narcissist.

Suppose I am. Why do you keep answering me by not answering me?

[JTEM is my hero]

John Harshman wrote:

> JTEM is my hero wrote:
> > You're not making an argument here, because you're simply obfuscating the
> > way you clinical narcissists always do.

> Exactly. I'm not making an argument.

Exactly. You're a clinical narcissist.

Oh; 100% of all sociopaths & psychopaths are narcissists.

And you're a raging narcissist...








-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/716345593177489408

[John Harshman]

On 5/4/23 7:54 PM, JTEM is my hero wrote:
> John Harshman wrote:
>
>> JTEM is my hero wrote:
>>> You're not making an argument here, because you're simply obfuscating the
>>> way you clinical narcissists always do.
>
>> Exactly. I'm not making an argument.
>
> Exactly. You're a clinical narcissist.
>
> Oh; 100% of all sociopaths & psychopaths are narcissists.
>
> And you're a raging narcissist...

Why won't you ever answer my questions?

[peter2...@gmail.com]

On Wednesday, May 3, 2023 at 6:47:08 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
> On 5/3/23 3:19 PM, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Tuesday, May 2, 2023 at 7:10:09 PM UTC-4, marc verhaegen wrote:
> >> Op woensdag 3 mei 2023 om 00:16:36 UTC+2 schreef JTEM is my hero:
> >
> > JTEM is doing quite nicely against Harshman, but you aren't
> > helping him here with your digressions.
> >
> >>> #1. Our ancestors populate the globe and they have
> >>> for a very long time. Very long. MILLIONS of years.
> >>> That's how far back our ancestors go in Asia... at the
> >>> extreme minimum.
> >
> >> Early-Miocene Hominoidea lived in northern Tethys Ocean coastal forests.
> >
> > Which ones? Sivapithecus/Ramapithecus are off the direct line of human descent.
> > Proconsul lived in Africa. In fact, almost all early Miocene Hominoidea lived in Africa.
> > Look up all the other Miocene apes in the cladogram at the bottom of the following webpage, and weep.
> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ape
> >
> >
> >> Late-Miocene hominids lived in Red Sea coastal forests.
> >
> > You are ignoring Sahelanthropus, which lived in central Africa, without giving any justification.
> >
> >
> >
> >> Pliocene Homo lived along the northern Indian Ocean coasts.
> >
> > Earlier, the "reasoning" you gave for this is that we have no fossils of Pliocene Homo in Africa.
> >
> > Later, you admitted that we have NO fossils of Pliocene Homo in ASIA either.
> > You are a worse reasoner than John Harshman.


> You seem unable to post without aiming a gratuitous insult as some third
> party, often me. Why is that?

You seem to see things that aren't there.

> >> Pleistocene Homo dispersed intercontinentally (Asia-Africa-Europe).
> >> Mid-late-Pleistocene also subtropically.
> >
> >>> #2. Modern man descends from an Eurasian population.
> >>> Yes, even the African population in whatever "Out of
> >>> Africa" dispersals are themselves descended from an
> >>> Eurasian population. No, sorry, this is fact.
> >
> > And those in turn were descended from an African population.
> > So this was a digression.
> >
> >> Hominoidea = out-of-S-Asian coasts,
> > False, see above. [keywords: cladogram, Wikipedia]
> >
> >> Pliocene Homo = out-of-Red-Sea-coasts -> S.Asia (retroviral data),
> >> Pleistocene Homo = out-of-Ind.Ocean-coasts.
> >> Google:
> >> -aquarboreal
> >> -Gondwanatalks Verhaegen :-)
> >
> > The usual regurgitated laziness. :-(
> >
> >
> > Fortunately for you, JTEM is more than holding his own.
> > He's bearding the Harshman lion in his own den of
> > phylogenetic analysis of molecular data.

Note the specific closing phrase. This was before JTEM went on a trolling rampage
about #2, but I especially had #4 in mind, which you have left untouched.

> Your viewpoint is highly clouded by your pathological hatred of me and
> embrace of anyone who dislikes me.

You sound paranoid here. I know you've stretched your use of that word
well beyond the breaking point numerous times, but when I use it, I'm very careful to
stay within the bounds of the official definition. Here I wrote "sound" rather than "are."

>And you should know better than to
> take JTEM's claims at face value.

I never take them at face value. Always I look for evidence.
And once in a blue moon, he comes through, like he did on #4 in sci.bio.paleontology.

I was referring only to #5 here.

> If you think that's the one weakness, you aren't thinking. I don't think
> any of those points can be defended if examined closely. Why don't you
> try that with one of them?

If you had bothered to read what I wrote before the statement
with with you took umbrage, you would know that I have tried it
with #1 and #2.

Why don't YOU try it with #4? You are our resident expert on
molecular phylogeny, not I -- both here and in sci.bio.paleontology.

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

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

[peter2...@gmail.com]

Following up to myself to make two little corrections.

On Friday, May 5, 2023 at 11:26:48 AM UTC-4, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Wednesday, May 3, 2023 at 6:47:08 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
> > On 5/3/23 3:19 PM, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:

> > > Fortunately for you, JTEM is more than holding his own.
> > > He's bearding the Harshman lion in his own den of
> > > phylogenetic analysis of molecular data.
> Note the specific closing phrase. This was before JTEM went on a trolling rampage
> about #2,

Correction: about #3.

[...]

> > >>> #3. There's some very inconvenient retrovirus evidence.
> > >>> Apparently African apes carry the evidence for a retrovirus
> > >>> outbreak that occurred millions of years ago. Asian apes
> > >>> and humans do not.

[...]

> > I don't think
> > any of those points can be defended if examined closely. Why don't you
> > try that with one of them?

> If you had bothered to read what I wrote before the statement
> with with you took umbrage, you would know that I have tried it
> with #1 and #2.

That should just read "with #1"; my try with #2 came after
the statement with which John took umbrage. It appears
that John didn't bother to read that try either.


Peter Nyikos

[John Harshman]

On 5/5/23 8:45 AM, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
> Following up to myself to make two little corrections.
>
> On Friday, May 5, 2023 at 11:26:48 AM UTC-4, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Wednesday, May 3, 2023 at 6:47:08 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
>>> On 5/3/23 3:19 PM, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>>>> Fortunately for you, JTEM is more than holding his own.
>>>> He's bearding the Harshman lion in his own den of
>>>> phylogenetic analysis of molecular data.
>> Note the specific closing phrase. This was before JTEM went on a trolling rampage
>> about #2,
>
> Correction: about #3.

He may be trolling about #3 also, but the rampage I know about is
regarding #2.

>>>>>> #3. There's some very inconvenient retrovirus evidence.
>>>>>> Apparently African apes carry the evidence for a retrovirus
>>>>>> outbreak that occurred millions of years ago. Asian apes
>>>>>> and humans do not.
> [...]
>
>>> I don't think
>>> any of those points can be defended if examined closely. Why don't you
>>> try that with one of them?
>
>> If you had bothered to read what I wrote before the statement
>> with with you took umbrage, you would know that I have tried it
>> with #1 and #2.
>
> That should just read "with #1"; my try with #2 came after
> the statement with which John took umbrage. It appears
> that John didn't bother to read that try either.

I can't locate a response from you to #2. Are you getting your numbers
wrong again? #2 is the numt.

[John Harshman]

So you would say that "You are a worse reasoner than John Harshman" was
not intended as an insult to me as well as JTEM?

>>>> Pleistocene Homo dispersed intercontinentally (Asia-Africa-Europe).
>>>> Mid-late-Pleistocene also subtropically.
>>>
>>>>> #2. Modern man descends from an Eurasian population.
>>>>> Yes, even the African population in whatever "Out of
>>>>> Africa" dispersals are themselves descended from an
>>>>> Eurasian population. No, sorry, this is fact.
>>>
>>> And those in turn were descended from an African population.
>>> So this was a digression.
>>>
>>>> Hominoidea = out-of-S-Asian coasts,
>>> False, see above. [keywords: cladogram, Wikipedia]
>>>
>>>> Pliocene Homo = out-of-Red-Sea-coasts -> S.Asia (retroviral data),
>>>> Pleistocene Homo = out-of-Ind.Ocean-coasts.
>>>> Google:
>>>> -aquarboreal
>>>> -Gondwanatalks Verhaegen :-)
>>>
>>> The usual regurgitated laziness. :-(
>>>
>>>
>>> Fortunately for you, JTEM is more than holding his own.
>>> He's bearding the Harshman lion in his own den of
>>> phylogenetic analysis of molecular data.
>
> Note the specific closing phrase. This was before JTEM went on a trolling rampage
> about #2, but I especially had #4 in mind, which you have left untouched.

I prefer to deal with one thing at a time, but feel free to try it
yourself. You could ask what his support is for the claim. I would also
ask whether H. sapiens is unique among living primates in its need for
DHA, or what the distribution of such needs is. And whether there are
sources other than fish.

>> Your viewpoint is highly clouded by your pathological hatred of me and
>> embrace of anyone who dislikes me.
>
> You sound paranoid here. I know you've stretched your use of that word
> well beyond the breaking point numerous times, but when I use it, I'm very careful to
> stay within the bounds of the official definition. Here I wrote "sound" rather than "are."

I think there's ample evidence.

>> And you should know better than to
>> take JTEM's claims at face value.
>
> I never take them at face value. Always I look for evidence.
> And once in a blue moon, he comes through, like he did on #4 in sci.bio.paleontology.

Not familiar. What are you referring to?

How does than mitigate the attack on me?

>> If you think that's the one weakness, you aren't thinking. I don't think
>> any of those points can be defended if examined closely. Why don't you
>> try that with one of them?
>
> If you had bothered to read what I wrote before the statement
> with with you took umbrage, you would know that I have tried it
> with #1 and #2.
>
> Why don't YOU try it with #4? You are our resident expert on
> molecular phylogeny, not I -- both here and in sci.bio.paleontology.

That's more molecular biology than molecular phylogeny. I suppose I'm
the closest thing to an expert around here, but you could probably
manage it. Again, you should start by asking for his evidence. He won't
say, but it seems the only practical way to proceed.

[peter2...@gmail.com]

You are helping me to confirm the correctness of my statement:
a rational person who hasn't seen a hopelessly biased
sampling of my posts would zero in on the asinine "You seem unable to post without..."

Just be glad I compared you *favorably* with Marc.

[Marc, not JTEM. It shouldn't be difficult to tell their styles apart.
You agreed in s.b.p. that Marc is not a troll, after all.]

> >>>> Pleistocene Homo dispersed intercontinentally (Asia-Africa-Europe).
> >>>> Mid-late-Pleistocene also subtropically.
> >>>
> >>>>> #2. Modern man descends from an Eurasian population.
> >>>>> Yes, even the African population in whatever "Out of
> >>>>> Africa" dispersals are themselves descended from an
> >>>>> Eurasian population. No, sorry, this is fact.
> >>>
> >>> And those in turn were descended from an African population.
> >>> So this was a digression.
> >>>
> >>>> Hominoidea = out-of-S-Asian coasts,
> >>> False, see above. [keywords: cladogram, Wikipedia]
> >>>
> >>>> Pliocene Homo = out-of-Red-Sea-coasts -> S.Asia (retroviral data),
> >>>> Pleistocene Homo = out-of-Ind.Ocean-coasts.
> >>>> Google:
> >>>> -aquarboreal
> >>>> -Gondwanatalks Verhaegen :-)
> >>>
> >>> The usual regurgitated laziness. :-(
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Fortunately for you, JTEM is more than holding his own.
> >>> He's bearding the Harshman lion in his own den of
> >>> phylogenetic analysis of molecular data.
> >
> > Note the specific closing phrase. This was before JTEM went on a trolling rampage
> > about #2, but I especially had #4 in mind, which you have left untouched.

> I prefer to deal with one thing at a time,

That's quite a bacpkedal from the absurd thing you told JTEM:

"They need to be considered one at a time."

You've dealt with #2 in a boring, long-winded back and forth.
It's been obvious for several posts that he does not have information about that numt
being either present or absent in Neanderthals or Denisovians.

It's high time for you to switch from #2 to another point,
but you seem not to want to do it, even though both #3 and
#4 call for your knowledge of molecular phylogeny.

> but feel free to try it
> yourself. You could ask what his support is for the claim. I would also
> ask whether H. sapiens is unique among living primates in its need for
> DHA, or what the distribution of such needs is.

That last bit would be a digression to someone who has read #4.

> And whether there are sources other than fish.

Read #4, thou sluggard.

> >> Your viewpoint is highly clouded by your pathological hatred of me and
> >> embrace of anyone who dislikes me.
> >
> > You sound paranoid here.

I used this word because I wanted you to get some appreciation for its
correct use. But far more important is the reckless disregard of the truth
about me which makes your statement clinically paranoid.

What evidence do you have that I hate you even as much as you hate me?
Just look at what you said about "embrace". The way you take one insult
after another from JTEM without a murmur, while taking umbrage
against every criticism ["insult," you call them all] I make of you,
a casual reader might think you've embraced JTEM because he dislikes *me*.

> > I know you've stretched your use of that word
> > well beyond the breaking point numerous times, but when I use it, I'm very careful to
> > stay within the bounds of the official definition. Here I wrote "sound" rather than "are."

> I think there's ample evidence.

You never provided any for the official definition, so you are either seriously deluded
or shamelessly lying about what you think. I think the latter is the correct explanation,
because you've very seriously indulged in that behavior before.

Moreover, you've posted stupid accusations of paranoia that had nothing whatsoever
to do with even a *realistic* fear of being persecuted. Would you like for me
to recall a couple for you?


CONCLUDED in next reply. Probably only Monday, since I have a few other
people to attend to, and it's Friday evening already.

[John Harshman]

That doesn't seem like an answer. But I suppose you're saying that not
every single post of your contains gratuitous insults aimed at third
parties. I'm reminded of the old saying, "A jesuit accused of killing
three men and a dog will triumphantly produce the dog, alive."

> [Marc, not JTEM. It shouldn't be difficult to tell their styles apart.
> You agreed in s.b.p. that Marc is not a troll, after all.]

True.

>>>>>> Pleistocene Homo dispersed intercontinentally (Asia-Africa-Europe).
>>>>>> Mid-late-Pleistocene also subtropically.
>>>>>
>>>>>>> #2. Modern man descends from an Eurasian population.
>>>>>>> Yes, even the African population in whatever "Out of
>>>>>>> Africa" dispersals are themselves descended from an
>>>>>>> Eurasian population. No, sorry, this is fact.
>>>>>
>>>>> And those in turn were descended from an African population.
>>>>> So this was a digression.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Hominoidea = out-of-S-Asian coasts,
>>>>> False, see above. [keywords: cladogram, Wikipedia]
>>>>>
>>>>>> Pliocene Homo = out-of-Red-Sea-coasts -> S.Asia (retroviral data),
>>>>>> Pleistocene Homo = out-of-Ind.Ocean-coasts.
>>>>>> Google:
>>>>>> -aquarboreal
>>>>>> -Gondwanatalks Verhaegen :-)
>>>>>
>>>>> The usual regurgitated laziness. :-(
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Fortunately for you, JTEM is more than holding his own.
>>>>> He's bearding the Harshman lion in his own den of
>>>>> phylogenetic analysis of molecular data.
>>>
>>> Note the specific closing phrase. This was before JTEM went on a trolling rampage
>>> about #2, but I especially had #4 in mind, which you have left untouched.
>
>> I prefer to deal with one thing at a time,
>
> That's quite a bacpkedal from the absurd thing you told JTEM:
>
> "They need to be considered one at a time."

Minor differences in phrasing are not intended as a backpedal.

> You've dealt with #2 in a boring, long-winded back and forth.
> It's been obvious for several posts that he does not have information about that numt
> being either present or absent in Neanderthals or Denisovians.
>
> It's high time for you to switch from #2 to another point,
> but you seem not to want to do it, even though both #3 and
> #4 call for your knowledge of molecular phylogeny.

No, they call for JTEM to respond to questions, which is unlikely.

>> but feel free to try it
>> yourself. You could ask what his support is for the claim. I would also
>> ask whether H. sapiens is unique among living primates in its need for
>> DHA, or what the distribution of such needs is.
>
> That last bit would be a digression to someone who has read #4.

No, it's a crucial piece of information. We could discuss it if you
like. JTEM certainly won't.

>> And whether there are sources other than fish.
>
> Read #4, thou sluggard.
>
>
>>>> Your viewpoint is highly clouded by your pathological hatred of me and
>>>> embrace of anyone who dislikes me.
>>>
>>> You sound paranoid here.
>
> I used this word because I wanted you to get some appreciation for its
> correct use. But far more important is the reckless disregard of the truth
> about me which makes your statement clinically paranoid.
>
> What evidence do you have that I hate you even as much as you hate me?

Well, I don't generally launch gratuitous attacks on you when responding
to third parties, and yet you do that frequently. That seems like
evidence to me.

> Just look at what you said about "embrace". The way you take one insult
> after another from JTEM without a murmur, while taking umbrage
> against every criticism ["insult," you call them all] I make of you,
> a casual reader might think you've embraced JTEM because he dislikes *me*.

No rational reader would think I have embraced JTEM. And yet you
compliment him when you think he's exposing some bad behavior on my
part. That's the "embrace" part.

>>> I know you've stretched your use of that word
>>> well beyond the breaking point numerous times, but when I use it, I'm very careful to
>>> stay within the bounds of the official definition. Here I wrote "sound" rather than "are."
>
>> I think there's ample evidence.
>
> You never provided any for the official definition, so you are either seriously deluded
> or shamelessly lying about what you think. I think the latter is the correct explanation,
> because you've very seriously indulged in that behavior before.

This is not a matter I choose to discuss with you. But I'm pretty sure
I've never lied to you. I do indeed think you display many symptoms of
paranoia. Others, if there are any reading, may draw their own conclusions.

> Moreover, you've posted stupid accusations of paranoia that had nothing whatsoever
> to do with even a *realistic* fear of being persecuted. Would you like for me
> to recall a couple for you?

No. Of course there's no need for any such fear to be realistic.

Perhaps we could drop all this crap and try to get on topic?

[JTEM is my hero]

John Harshman wrote:

> Why won't you ever answer my questions?

Because you're a raging narcissist who is not asking questions
as part of a discussion but, as a clinical narcissist, trying block
discussion.

I laid out five points. If you want to argue against any of them,
go ahead. Argue. If you have a question, find the answer. You're
pretending to be an academic. You're pretending that research
is second nature to you. So you find your answer and you
incorporate your answer into your agreement or disagreement.

But I'm not your therapist, this isn't treatment for your personality
disorder.




-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/716847865999360000

[John Harshman]

On 5/9/23 8:55 PM, JTEM is my hero wrote:
> John Harshman wrote:
>
>> Why won't you ever answer my questions?
>
> Because you're a raging narcissist who is not asking questions
> as part of a discussion but, as a clinical narcissist, trying block
> discussion.
>
> I laid out five points. If you want to argue against any of them,
> go ahead. Argue. If you have a question, find the answer. You're
> pretending to be an academic. You're pretending that research
> is second nature to you. So you find your answer and you
> incorporate your answer into your agreement or disagreement.

No, I'm not pretending to be an academic. That's Peter. If you really
wanted to have a discussion, you would answer questions, especially
about sources. Your purpose, however, seems to be just to tell everyone
else that they're idiots.

[peter2...@gmail.com]

On Wednesday, May 10, 2023 at 12:16:09 AM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
> On 5/9/23 8:55 PM, JTEM is my hero wrote:
> > John Harshman wrote:
> >
> >> Why won't you ever answer my questions?
> >
> > Because you're a raging narcissist who is not asking questions
> > as part of a discussion but, as a clinical narcissist, trying block
> > discussion.
> >
> > I laid out five points. If you want to argue against any of them,
> > go ahead. Argue. If you have a question, find the answer. You're
> > pretending to be an academic. You're pretending that research
> > is second nature to you. So you find your answer and you
> > incorporate your answer into your agreement or disagreement.

> No, I'm not pretending to be an academic. That's Peter.

Equivocation by you, which could be construed as defamation, noted.


I need to get ready for a medical appointment,
but shortly after my return home, I will start on unfinished business
with you of various different sorts on this thread.

> If you really
> wanted to have a discussion, you would answer questions, especially
> about sources.

If you really wanted to have a discussion, you would have asked
JTEM questions about his other four (4) points once it became clear
that he wouldn't answer the one question you've been obsessed with..

JTEM has been withholding references on all 5 points, but here are
two which Marc provided me with today. See whether you
can figure out which of the 5 they apply to:

"Evolution of type C viral genes: evidence for an Asian Origin of Man" RE Benveniste & GJ Todaro 1976 Nature 261:101-8 org/10.1038/261101a0

> - "Lineage-specific expansions of retroviral insertions within the genomes of African great apes, but not humans and orangutans" CT Yohn cs 2005 PLoS Biol.3:e110 10.1371/journal.pbio.0030110

A much tougher assignment: see whether you can ask intelligent questions
about them.


Peter Nyikos

[John Harshman]

On 5/10/23 10:28 AM, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Wednesday, May 10, 2023 at 12:16:09 AM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
>> On 5/9/23 8:55 PM, JTEM is my hero wrote:
>>> John Harshman wrote:
>>>
>>>> Why won't you ever answer my questions?
>>>
>>> Because you're a raging narcissist who is not asking questions
>>> as part of a discussion but, as a clinical narcissist, trying block
>>> discussion.
>>>
>>> I laid out five points. If you want to argue against any of them,
>>> go ahead. Argue. If you have a question, find the answer. You're
>>> pretending to be an academic. You're pretending that research
>>> is second nature to you. So you find your answer and you
>>> incorporate your answer into your agreement or disagreement.
>
>> No, I'm not pretending to be an academic. That's Peter.
>
> Equivocation by you, which could be construed as defamation, noted.

My, you're prickly. Let me assure you that I believe you are actually an
academic and that you really are Peter Nyikos, mathematics professor.
But remember who I was talking to: JTEM, who thinks we're both sock
puppets of the same unknown entity.

>> If you really
>> wanted to have a discussion, you would answer questions, especially
>> about sources.
>
> If you really wanted to have a discussion, you would have asked
> JTEM questions about his other four (4) points once it became clear
> that he wouldn't answer the one question you've been obsessed with..

That's silly. If he won't answer questions about one point, isn't that
evidence that he wouldn't answer questions about the others? And of
course he's shown that he won't.

> JTEM has been withholding references on all 5 points, but here are
> two which Marc provided me with today. See whether you
> can figure out which of the 5 they apply to:
>
> "Evolution of type C viral genes: evidence for an Asian Origin of Man" RE Benveniste & GJ Todaro 1976 Nature 261:101-8 org/10.1038/261101a0
>> - "Lineage-specific expansions of retroviral insertions within the genomes of African great apes, but not humans and orangutans" CT Yohn cs 2005 PLoS Biol.3:e110 10.1371/journal.pbio.0030110
>
> A much tougher assignment: see whether you can ask intelligent questions
> about them.

I may be a bit prickly myself, but wasn't that intended to be insulting?

It seems clear enough that trying to talk to JTEM about anything is
impossible. You are free to make the attempt, and I'm certainly willing
to discuss the various points with you or anyone else who will actually
do it.

[peter2...@gmail.com]

On Friday, May 5, 2023 at 12:20:11 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
> On 5/5/23 8:45 AM, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
> > Following up to myself to make two little corrections.
> >
> > On Friday, May 5, 2023 at 11:26:48 AM UTC-4, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> On Wednesday, May 3, 2023 at 6:47:08 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
> >>> On 5/3/23 3:19 PM, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> >>>> Fortunately for you, JTEM is more than holding his own.
> >>>> He's bearding the Harshman lion in his own den of
> >>>> phylogenetic analysis of molecular data.


> >> Note the specific closing phrase. This was before JTEM went on a trolling rampage
> >> about #2,
> >
> > Correction: about #3.

I was right the first time, as you next noted:

> He may be trolling about #3 also, but the rampage I know about is
> regarding #2.

The word "also" needs clarification. He's serious in maintaining that
#2 is correct, and the same applies to all five points. His trolling
is a bunch of personal attacks directed at you about the one question
in re #2 that you've tried to get answered so far.

> >>>>>> #3. There's some very inconvenient retrovirus evidence.
> >>>>>> Apparently African apes carry the evidence for a retrovirus
> >>>>>> outbreak that occurred millions of years ago. Asian apes
> >>>>>> and humans do not.
> > [...]
> >
> >>> I don't think
> >>> any of those points can be defended if examined closely. Why don't you
> >>> try that with one of them?
> >
> >> If you had bothered to read what I wrote before the statement
> >> with with you took umbrage, you would know that I have tried it
> >> with #1 and #2.
> >
> > That should just read "with #1"; my try with #2 came after
> > the statement with which John took umbrage. It appears
> > that John didn't bother to read that try either.

> I can't locate a response from you to #2. Are you getting your numbers
> wrong again? #2 is the numt.

I got #2 right, as you saw in your reply to my post of which this was
an attempted correction. You replied to them in reverse order.


Peter Nyikos

[John Harshman]

On 5/10/23 6:25 PM, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Friday, May 5, 2023 at 12:20:11 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
>> On 5/5/23 8:45 AM, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> Following up to myself to make two little corrections.
>>>
>>> On Friday, May 5, 2023 at 11:26:48 AM UTC-4, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> On Wednesday, May 3, 2023 at 6:47:08 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
>>>>> On 5/3/23 3:19 PM, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>
>>>>>> Fortunately for you, JTEM is more than holding his own.
>>>>>> He's bearding the Harshman lion in his own den of
>>>>>> phylogenetic analysis of molecular data.
>
>
>>>> Note the specific closing phrase. This was before JTEM went on a trolling rampage
>>>> about #2,
>>>
>>> Correction: about #3.
>
> I was right the first time, as you next noted:
>
>
>> He may be trolling about #3 also, but the rampage I know about is
>> regarding #2.
>
> The word "also" needs clarification. He's serious in maintaining that
> #2 is correct, and the same applies to all five points. His trolling
> is a bunch of personal attacks directed at you about the one question
> in re #2 that you've tried to get answered so far.

Whether you should call it trolling is unclear, but whatever you call it
he's done it to anyone who responds to any of his points.

>>>>>>>> #3. There's some very inconvenient retrovirus evidence.
>>>>>>>> Apparently African apes carry the evidence for a retrovirus
>>>>>>>> outbreak that occurred millions of years ago. Asian apes
>>>>>>>> and humans do not.
>>> [...]
>>>
>>>>> I don't think
>>>>> any of those points can be defended if examined closely. Why don't you
>>>>> try that with one of them?
>>>
>>>> If you had bothered to read what I wrote before the statement
>>>> with with you took umbrage, you would know that I have tried it
>>>> with #1 and #2.
>>>
>>> That should just read "with #1"; my try with #2 came after
>>> the statement with which John took umbrage. It appears
>>> that John didn't bother to read that try either.
>
>> I can't locate a response from you to #2. Are you getting your numbers
>> wrong again? #2 is the numt.
>
> I got #2 right, as you saw in your reply to my post of which this was
> an attempted correction. You replied to them in reverse order.

I didn't actually see that. You were replying to a bit of the
preparatory verbiage to #2, basically what #2 was supposed to prove. But
the actual substance of #2 was the numt, which you didn't respond to.

[marc verhaegen]

...

> > JTEM has been withholding references on all 5 points, but here are
> > two which Marc provided me with today. See whether you
> > can figure out which of the 5 they apply to:

> > - "Evolution of type C viral genes: evidence for an Asian Origin of Man" RE Benveniste & GJ Todaro 1976 Nature 261:101-8 org/10.1038/261101a0

> >> - "Lineage-specific expansions of retroviral insertions within the genomes of African great apes, but not humans and orangutans" CT Yohn cs 2005 PLoS Biol.3:e110 10.1371/journal.pbio.0030110

I saw my name, but have no idea what you're talking about.
These 2 articles who that our Pliocene ancestors were NOT in Africa.
Of course not: Homo after the Homo/Pan split c 5 Ma lived along the Indian Ocean shores in S-Asia:
apiths (incl. "habilis", "naledi" etc.) are fossil relatives of Gorilla (E.Africa) or Pan (S.Africa): they have 0 to do with Homo:
many PAs are incredibly afro- & anthropocentrically biased: they see everywhere "human ancestors"... :-DDD
PA textbooks describe
- 100s of early ape fossils in Africa, Europe, Arabia, Asia, e.g. "dryopiths"
- 100s of fossils of relatives of Asian orangutans, e.g. "sivapiths"
+- 0 fossils of relatives of African apes (gorillas, bonobo+chimp) !?!?
- 100s & 100s of fossils of relatives of *us*, in Africa & Eurasia
= statistically impossible, of course:
= incredible Ego+Afro+Anthropo-centric Bias:

• “The evolution of the australopithecine crania was the antithesis of the Homo line. Instead of becoming less ape-like, as in Homo, they become more ‘ape-like’. Cranial proportions and ectocranial features that were thought to be unique among pongids evolved separately [?? --mv] in the australopithecines parallel [?? --mv] with the great apes. The features of KNM-WT 17000, therefore, are not as ‘primitive’ as they look. The robust Australopithecus did not evolve from a big-toothed pongid ancestor with large cranial superstructures, but from a small-toothed hominid with a rounder, smoother ectocranium, like A.africanus”. Ferguson 1989.
• “Plio-Pleistocene hominids had markedly abbreviated [enamel] growth periods relative to modern man, similar to those of the modem great apes”. Bromage & Dean 1985.
• “Enamel thickness has been secondarily reduced in the African apes and also, although at a different rate and extent, in the orang-utan. Thick enamel, previously the most important characteristic in arguments about the earliest hominid, does not therefore identify a hominid”. Martin 1985.
• In the S.African fossils including Taung, “sulcal patterns of 7 australopithecine encocasts appear to be ape-like rather than human-like”. Falk 1987.
• “Cranial capacity, the relationship between endocast and skull, sulcal pattern, brain shape and cranial venous sinuses, all of these features appear to be consistent with an ape-like external cortical morphology in Hadar early hominids”. Falk, 1985.
• In the type spm of A.afarensis, “the lower 3rd premolar of ‘A.africanus afarensis’ LH-4 is completely apelike”. Ferguson 1987.
• “A.afarensis is much more similar cranially to the modern African apes than to modern humans”. Schoenemann 1989.
• “Olson's assertion that the lateral inflation of the A.L.333-45 mastoids is greater than in any extant ape is incorrect if the fossil is compared to P.troglodytes males or some Gorilla males and females. Moreover, the pattern of pneumatization in A.afarensis is also found only in the extant apes among other hominoids”. Kimbel cs 1984.
• “Prior to the identification of A.afarensis the asterionic notch was thought to characterize only the apes among hominoids. Kimbel & Rak relate this asterionic sutural figuration to the pattern of cranial cresting and temporal bone pneumatization shared by A.afarensis and the extant apes”. Kimbel cs 1984.
• “... the fact that 2 presumed Paranthropus [robustus] skulls were furnished with high sagittal crests implied that they had also possessed powerful occipital crests and ape-like planum nuchale... Nuchal crests which are no more prominent - and indeed some less prominent - will be found in many adult apes”. Zuckerman 1954.
• In Sts.5, MLD-37/38, SK-47, SK-48, SK-83, Taung, KNM-ER 406, O.H.24 and O.H.5, “craniometric analysis showed that they had marked similarities to those of extant pongids. These basicranial similarities between Plio-Pleistocene hominids and extant apes suggest that the upper respiratory systems of these groups were also apelike in appearance... Markedly flexed basicrania [are] found only in modern humans after the 2nd year...”. Laitman & Heimbuch 1982.
• “The total morphological pattern with regard to the nasal region of Australopithecus can be characterized by a flat, non-protruding nasal skeleton which does not differ qualitatively from the extant nonhuman hominoid pattern, one which is in marked contrast to the protruding nasal skeleton of modern H. sapiens”. Franciscus & Trinkaus 1988.
• “Incisal dental microwear in A.afarensis is most similar to that observed in Gorilla”. Ryan & Johanson 1989.
• The composite skull reconstructed mostly from A.L.333 specimens “looked very much like a small female gorilla”. Johanson & Edey 1981:351.
• “Other primitive [advanced gorilla-like!! --mv] features found in KNM-WT-17000, but not know or much discussed for A.afarensis, are: very small cranial capacity; low posterior profile of the calvaria; nasals extended far above the frontomaxillar suture and well onto an uninflated glabella; and extremely convex inferolateral margins of the orbits such as found in some gorillas”. Walker cs 1986.
• As for the maximum parietal breadth and the biauriculare in O.H.5 and KNM-ER 406 “the robust australopithecines have values near the Gorilla mean: both the pongids and the robust australopithecines have highly pneumatized bases”. Kennedy 1991.
• In O.H.5, “the curious and characteristic features of the Paranthropus skull... parallel some of those of the gorilla”. Robinson 1960.
• The A.boisei “lineage has been characterized by sexual dimorphism of the degree seen in modern Gorilla for the length of its known history”. Leakey & Walker 1988.
• A.boisei teeth showed “a relative absence of prism decussation”; among extant hominoids, “Gorilla enamel showed relatively little decussation ...”. Beynon & Wood 1986.
• “Alan [Walker] has analysed a number of Australopithecus robustus teeth and they fall into the fruit-eating category. More precisely, their teeth patterns look like those of chimpanzees... Then, when be looked at some Homo erectus teeth, he found that the pattern changed”. Leakey 1981:74-75.
• “The ‘keystone’ nasal bone arrangement suggested as a derived diagnostic of Paranthropus [robustus] is found in an appreciable number of pongids, particularly clearly in some chimpanzees”. Eckhardt:, 1987.
• “P. paniscus provides a suitable comparison for Australopithecus [Sts.5]; they are similar in body size, postcranial dimensions and... even in cranial and facial features”. Zihlman cs 1978.
• “A. africanus Sts.5, which... falls well within the range of Pan troglodytes, is markedly prognathous or hyperprognathous”". Ferguson 1989.
• In Taung, “I see nothing in the orbits, nasal bones, and canine teeth definitely nearer to the human condition than the corresponding parts of the skull of a modern young chimpanzee”. Woodward 1925.
• “The Taung juvenile seems to resemble a young chimpanzee more closely than it resembles L338y-6”, a juvenile A.boisei. Rak & Howell 1978.
• “In addition to similarities in facial remodeling it appears that Taung and Australopithecus in general, had maturation periods similar to those of the extant chimpanzee”. Bromage 1985.
• “I estimate an adult capacity for Taung ranging from 404-420 cm2, with a mean of 412 cm2. Application of Passingham’s curve for brain development in Pan is preferable to that for humans because (a) brain size of early hominids approximates that of chimpanzees, and (b) the curves for brain volume relative to body weight are essentially parallel in pongids and australopithecines, leading Hofman to conclude that ‘as with pongids, the australopithecines probably differed only in size, not in design’”. Falk 1987.
• In Taung, “pneumatization has also extended into the zygoma and hard palate. This is intriguing because an intrapalatal extension of the maxillary sinus has only been reported in chimpanzees and robust australopithecines among higher primates”. Bromage & Dean 1985.
• “That the fossil ape Australopithecus [Taung] ‘is distinguished from all living apes by the... unfused nasal bones…’ as claimed by Dart (1940), cannot be maintained in view of the very considerable number of cases of separate nasal bones among orang-utans and chimpanzees of ages corresponding to that of Australopithecus”. Schultz 1941.

Etc.etc.

In sum, only incredible imbeciles believe they descend from Lucy.
:-DDD

[John Harshman]

On 5/10/23 10:28 AM, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:

From the discussion section of the second reference:

"While similar infections with a related retrovirus appear commonplace
among the Old World monkeys, contemporary human and orangutan
populations show no molecular vestiges of this infection (see Figure 2).
The molecular basis for this historical difference is unclear. While
geographic isolation of the African and Asian ape lineages during the
Miocene [30,31] might account for part of this difference, the ancestral
habitat of early hominids is generally thought to have overlapped, in
part, with the African apes [32,33]. Furthermore, both Asian (macaque)
and African (baboon) Old World monkeys show evidence of PTERV1 proviral
integrations less than 2 million years ago, indicating that the
exogenous source virus is either endemic to both continents or that
ancestral populations frequented both continents.

Several speculative scenarios may be envisioned to explain the absence
of retrovirus in both the orangutan and human lineages. It is possible
that the African apes evolved a susceptibility, or humans and Asian apes
developed resistance to infection, although in either scenario
convergent evolution would have had to have occurred with respect to the
viral infections. Studies of the retroviral infection of the Lake
Casitas mouse population reveal that such susceptibility/resistance
genes may emerge very quickly among closely related strains of mice
[34]. Another scenario may be that the lineage that ultimately gave rise
to humans did not occupy the same habitat as the ancestral chimpanzee
and gorilla lineages. An excursion by early hominids to Eurasia during
the time that PTERV1 infected African great apes and then a return to
Africa would explain this phylogenetic inconsistency. It is also
possible that this effect may have been created by dramatic differences
in ancestral population structure. If, for example, the ancestral
populations of humans and orangutans were substantially larger than
those of the African great apes, the fixation of new insertions (1/2N)
would occur much more rapidly within small inbred populations even if
similar infection rates existed. A similar model has recently been
proposed, albeit in the opposite direction, to explain an increase of
“apparent” Alu Ya5 and Yb8 retroposition activity in the human lineage
but not in chimpanzees and gorillas [35]. In this regard, it is
interesting that documented differences in the patterns of endogenous
retrovirus between domesticated and feral species have been attributed
to inbreeding [19,20]. There is, however, no evidence to date that the
ancestral populations of chimpanzees were smaller than that of humans.
Recent studies suggest that ancestral chimpanzee populations, in fact,
may have been two to four times larger [36,37] than the effective human
population size (greater than 10,000). A dramatic population crash in
ancestral gorilla and chimpanzee populations would be required to
explain the effect we have observed. Further population genetic studies
of contemporary great apes or paleoanthropological work may help to
eliminate these and other possible scenarios."

I found the part about macaques particularly noteworthy.

[peter2...@gmail.com]

On Wednesday, May 10, 2023 at 9:11:39 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
> On 5/10/23 10:28 AM, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Wednesday, May 10, 2023 at 12:16:09 AM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
> >> On 5/9/23 8:55 PM, JTEM is my hero wrote:
> >>> John Harshman wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Why won't you ever answer my questions?
> >>>
> >>> Because you're a raging narcissist who is not asking questions
> >>> as part of a discussion but, as a clinical narcissist, trying block
> >>> discussion.
> >>>
> >>> I laid out five points. If you want to argue against any of them,
> >>> go ahead. Argue. If you have a question, find the answer. You're
> >>> pretending to be an academic. You're pretending that research
> >>> is second nature to you. So you find your answer and you
> >>> incorporate your answer into your agreement or disagreement.
> >
> >> No, I'm not pretending to be an academic. That's Peter.
> >
> > Equivocation by you, which could be construed as defamation, noted.

> My, you're prickly.

Stop the hypocritical baloney. You responded with a thoroughly irrational
tirade when I made negative comments about your rationality in reply
to Marc (and not you), and here you were talking to JTEM (and not me)
who can be EXPECTED to read your comment as "The person pretending
to be an academic is Peter."

> Let me assure you that I believe you are actually an
> academic and that you really are Peter Nyikos, mathematics professor.

It is JTEM who needs this assurance, not me. Why don't you tell him
this directly?

> But remember who I was talking to: JTEM, who thinks we're both sock
> puppets of the same unknown entity.

That's precisely why I said he can be expected to construe your equivocation
in the pejorative direction.

> >> If you really
> >> wanted to have a discussion, you would answer questions, especially
> >> about sources.
> >
> > If you really wanted to have a discussion, you would have asked
> > JTEM questions about his other four (4) points once it became clear
> > that he wouldn't answer the one question you've been obsessed with..

> That's silly.

You are being irrational again. It is obvious that he won't answer because
he doesn't know the answer to ONE question. But he might know
the answer to several others that you aren't asking.

> If he won't answer questions about one point, isn't that
> evidence that he wouldn't answer questions about the others?

To use a term which you've used this week: I call that crap evidence.
And with at least as much justice as you used it against JTEM.

> And of
> course he's shown that he won't.

And of course, you are being blatantly irrational here.
You seem to have stopped thinking like a scientist altogether
in response to me.

> > JTEM has been withholding references on all 5 points, but here are
> > two which Marc provided me with today. See whether you
> > can figure out which of the 5 they apply to:
> >
> > "Evolution of type C viral genes: evidence for an Asian Origin of Man" RE Benveniste & GJ Todaro 1976 Nature 261:101-8 org/10.1038/261101a0
> >> - "Lineage-specific expansions of retroviral insertions within the genomes of African great apes, but not humans and orangutans" CT Yohn cs 2005 PLoS Biol.3:e110 10.1371/journal.pbio.0030110
> >
> > A much tougher assignment: see whether you can ask intelligent questions
> > about them.
> I may be a bit prickly myself, but wasn't that intended to be insulting?

No, I was just being sarcastic, with your obsession with ONE
question at the back of my mind. I know you are capable of asking
other intelligent questions, but you are endlessly dragging your feet.

And your irrational "And of course he's shown he wont" is just
part of that foot-dragging.

>
> It seems clear enough that trying to talk to JTEM about anything is
> impossible.

You are wrong.

You are free to make the attempt, and I'm certainly willing
> to discuss the various points with you or anyone else who will actually
> do it.

Sorry, I'm not letting you pass the buck to me. You know more about
evolutionary genetics than I do, and this attempt is a cop out.

Peter Nyikos

[John Harshman]

On 5/11/23 2:55 PM, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Wednesday, May 10, 2023 at 9:11:39 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
>> On 5/10/23 10:28 AM, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, May 10, 2023 at 12:16:09 AM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
>>>> On 5/9/23 8:55 PM, JTEM is my hero wrote:
>>>>> John Harshman wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Why won't you ever answer my questions?
>>>>>
>>>>> Because you're a raging narcissist who is not asking questions
>>>>> as part of a discussion but, as a clinical narcissist, trying block
>>>>> discussion.
>>>>>
>>>>> I laid out five points. If you want to argue against any of them,
>>>>> go ahead. Argue. If you have a question, find the answer. You're
>>>>> pretending to be an academic. You're pretending that research
>>>>> is second nature to you. So you find your answer and you
>>>>> incorporate your answer into your agreement or disagreement.
>>>
>>>> No, I'm not pretending to be an academic. That's Peter.
>>>
>>> Equivocation by you, which could be construed as defamation, noted.
>
>> My, you're prickly.
>
> Stop the hypocritical baloney. You responded with a thoroughly irrational
> tirade when I made negative comments about your rationality in reply
> to Marc (and not you), and here you were talking to JTEM (and not me)
> who can be EXPECTED to read your comment as "The person pretending
> to be an academic is Peter."

Nobody should be concerned with how JTEM reads anything. You, on the
other hand, should be able to recognize a joke when you see it.

> > Let me assure you that I believe you are actually an
>> academic and that you really are Peter Nyikos, mathematics professor.
>
> It is JTEM who needs this assurance, not me. Why don't you tell him
> this directly?

There seems no value in telling him anything.

>> But remember who I was talking to: JTEM, who thinks we're both sock
>> puppets of the same unknown entity.
>
> That's precisely why I said he can be expected to construe your equivocation
> in the pejorative direction.

It doesn't matter. Nothing would change his mind. He lives in his own
little world. No need to obsess over it.

>>>> If you really
>>>> wanted to have a discussion, you would answer questions, especially
>>>> about sources.
>>>
>>> If you really wanted to have a discussion, you would have asked
>>> JTEM questions about his other four (4) points once it became clear
>>> that he wouldn't answer the one question you've been obsessed with..
>
>> That's silly.
>
> You are being irrational again. It is obvious that he won't answer because
> he doesn't know the answer to ONE question. But he might know
> the answer to several others that you aren't asking.

I doubt it. Have you had any success with that?

>> If he won't answer questions about one point, isn't that
>> evidence that he wouldn't answer questions about the others?
>
> To use a term which you've used this week: I call that crap evidence.
> And with at least as much justice as you used it against JTEM.

Again, have you had success with asking him questions?

>> And of
>> course he's shown that he won't.
>
> And of course, you are being blatantly irrational here.
> You seem to have stopped thinking like a scientist altogether
> in response to me.

There seems no sensible response to that.

>>> JTEM has been withholding references on all 5 points, but here are
>>> two which Marc provided me with today. See whether you
>>> can figure out which of the 5 they apply to:
>>>
>>> "Evolution of type C viral genes: evidence for an Asian Origin of Man" RE Benveniste & GJ Todaro 1976 Nature 261:101-8 org/10.1038/261101a0
>>>> - "Lineage-specific expansions of retroviral insertions within the genomes of African great apes, but not humans and orangutans" CT Yohn cs 2005 PLoS Biol.3:e110 10.1371/journal.pbio.0030110
>>>
>>> A much tougher assignment: see whether you can ask intelligent questions
>>> about them.
>> I may be a bit prickly myself, but wasn't that intended to be insulting?
>
> No, I was just being sarcastic, with your obsession with ONE
> question at the back of my mind. I know you are capable of asking
> other intelligent questions, but you are endlessly dragging your feet.
>
> And your irrational "And of course he's shown he wont" is just
> part of that foot-dragging.

Once again, is your recent experience with JTEM leading you to believe
he would answer questions?

>> It seems clear enough that trying to talk to JTEM about anything is
>> impossible.
>
> You are wrong.

Great. Where is the evidence of this?

[JTEM is my hero]

John Harshman wrote:

> No, I'm not pretending to be an academic.

Lol! You've been pretending to be an academic for YEARS!

But, again, those five points: Do you have an argument for
or against them? Still waiting.

If you honestly have a question, you go right ahead and
"Research" your answer. And I for one can't wait until
you're finished, and incorporate your findings into your
agreement or disagreement.






-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/717065307257176065

[marc verhaegen]

Op donderdag 11 mei 2023 om 18:37:34 UTC+2 schreef John Harshman:
...

> > "Evolution of type C viral genes: evidence for an Asian Origin of Man" RE Benveniste & GJ Todaro 1976 Nature 261:101-8 org/10.1038/261101a0

> > "Lineage-specific expansions of retroviral insertions within the genomes of African great apes, but not humans and orangutans" CT Yohn cs 2005 PLoS Biol.3:e110 10.1371/journal.pbio.0030110

> From the discussion section of the second reference:
> "While similar infections with a related retrovirus appear commonplace

> among the Old World monkeys, contemporary human & orangutan

> populations show no molecular vestiges of this infection (see Figure 2).
> The molecular basis for this historical difference is unclear. While

> geographic isolation of the African & Asian ape lineages during the

> Miocene [30,31] might account for part of this difference, the ancestral
> habitat of early hominids is generally thought to have overlapped, in

> part, with the African apes [32,33]. ...

Yes, Darwin already thought so (understandably - I thought so too once).
But he & I were wrong here:
see my 2nd book p.299 & my 2nd WHATtalk:
late-Miocene Gorilla & Homo-Pan were vertical aquarboreals in Red Sea forests:
they frequently waded bipedally + climbed arms overhead in the branches above the water:
when the Red Sea opened into the Gulf (Zanclean mega-flood 5.33 Ma? Francesca Mansfield),
Homo went left (S-Asian coastal forests) & Pan simply went right (E.Afr.coastal forests) :-)
google "WHATtalk verhaegen"
https://www.gondwanatalks.com/l/the-waterside-hypothesis-wading-led-to-upright-walking-in-early-humans/

[John Harshman]

This seems irrelevant to the question of interpreting the retroviral data.

[Bob Casanova]

On Fri, 12 May 2023 14:47:21 -0700, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by John Harshman
<john.h...@gmail.com>:

Irrelevancies, handwaving and self-references seem to be the
order of the day.
>
--

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

[erik simpson]

Cranks are cranks.

[Bob Casanova]

On Fri, 12 May 2023 17:22:26 -0700 (PDT), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by erik simpson
<eastsi...@gmail.com>:

>Cranks are cranks.
>
Yepper.

[marc verhaegen]

Op vrijdag 12 mei 2023 om 23:52:47 UTC+2 schreef John Harshman:

...
> >>> "Evolution of type C viral genes: evidence for an Asian Origin of Man" RE Benveniste & GJ Todaro 1976 Nature 261:101-8 org/10.1038/261101a0
> >>> "Lineage-specific expansions of retroviral insertions within the genomes of African great apes, but not humans and orangutans" CT Yohn cs 2005 PLoS Biol.3:e110 10.1371/journal.pbio.0030110

Harschman:

> >> From the discussion section of the second reference:
> >> "While similar infections with a related retrovirus appear commonplace
> >> among the Old World monkeys, contemporary human & orangutan
> >> populations show no molecular vestiges of this infection (see Figure 2).
> >> The molecular basis for this historical difference is unclear. While
> >> geographic isolation of the African & Asian ape lineages during the
> >> Miocene [30,31] might account for part of this difference, the ancestral
> >> habitat of early hominids is generally thought to have overlapped, in
> >> part, with the African apes [32,33]. ...

> > Yes, Darwin already thought so (understandably - I thought so too once).
> > But he & I were wrong here:
> > see my 2nd book p.299 & my 2nd WHATtalk:
> > late-Miocene Gorilla & Homo-Pan were vertical aquarboreals in Red Sea forests:
> > they frequently waded bipedally + climbed arms overhead in the branches above the water:
> > when the Red Sea opened into the Gulf (Zanclean mega-flood 5.33 Ma? Francesca Mansfield),
> > Homo went left (S-Asian coastal forests) & Pan simply went right (E.Afr.coastal forests) :-)
> > google "WHATtalk verhaegen"
> > https://www.gondwanatalks.com/l/the-waterside-hypothesis-wading-led-to-upright-walking-in-early-humans/

> This seems irrelevant to the question of interpreting the retroviral data.

:-DDD
"seems" to you???
Can you read?? and do you know the difference between Asia & Africa?? :-DDD

"Homo went left (S-Asian coastal forests) & Pan simply went right (E.Afr.coastal forests)"

google
- WHATtalk verhaegen
- https://www.gondwanatalks.com/l/the-waterside-hypothesis-wading-led-to-upright-walking-in-early-humans/

[marc verhaegen]

traditional PA "discussion":

> >Cranks are cranks.

> Yepper.

[John Harshman]

OK, this *is* irrelevant to the question of interpreting the retroviral
data. If you have to believe that humans evolved in Asia in order to
interpret the data as evidence that humans evolved in Asia, it's not
evidence at all. If the reason humans didn't get it is because it was
specific to Africa, why do the two Asian monkeys checked also have it?

[marc verhaegen]

Op zaterdag 13 mei 2023 om 15:16:13 UTC+2 schreef John Harshman:

It's very relevant: can you read?? and do you know the difference between Asia & Africa?? :-DDD

"Homo went left (S-Asian coastal forests) & Pan simply went right (E.Afr.coastal forests)"
google
- WHATtalk verhaegen
- https://www.gondwanatalks.com/l/the-waterside-hypothesis-wading-led-to-upright-walking-in-early-humans/

Inform before trying to say somthing, my littel boy.

[John Harshman]

Interesting. Mr. Verhaegen, like JTEMm seems incapable of engaging with
a subject and quickly turns to childish insults. Perhaps there's
something to jillery's notion that JTEM is his sock puppet after all.

[jillery]

To be precise, jillery didn't specify who was the puppeteer of JTEM's
socks. IMO there is evidence that suggest both are at best poorly
trained AI output.

--
You're entitled to your own opinions.
You're not entitled to your own facts.

[John Harshman]

Then again, people of the proper mindset can do very good simulations of
poorly trained AI.

[jillery]

On Sat, 13 May 2023 10:28:31 -0700, John Harshman

IMO such people are a worse alternative to poorly trained AI. YMMV.

[peter2...@gmail.com]

On Thursday, May 11, 2023 at 10:15:36 AM UTC-4, marc verhaegen wrote:
> ...
> > > JTEM has been withholding references on all 5 points, but here are
> > > two which Marc provided me with today. See whether you
> > > can figure out which of the 5 they apply to:
> > > - "Evolution of type C viral genes: evidence for an Asian Origin of Man" RE Benveniste & GJ Todaro 1976 Nature 261:101-8 org/10.1038/261101a0
> > >> - "Lineage-specific expansions of retroviral insertions within the genomes of African great apes, but not humans and orangutans" CT Yohn cs 2005 PLoS Biol.3:e110 10.1371/journal.pbio.0030110

> I saw my name, but have no idea what you're talking about.

I'm talking about the five points your loyal ally JTEM made in
the OP to this thread:

https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/CAyFg5nfTCk/m/y--9bdW9BAAJ

OP means "original post" in this context. I gave you the url just in case
you use a weird newsreader that makes it hard to navigate threads.

Harshman ignored the comment to which you are responding,
so I will tell you: they are directly relevant to point #3.
Once you read it, it will be obvious to you.


Please try to engage in discussion about these 5 points
instead of going into long monologues like the following
which don't address any specific points made by the participants.

> These 2 articles who that our Pliocene ancestors were NOT in Africa.
> Of course not: Homo after the Homo/Pan split c 5 Ma lived along the Indian Ocean shores in S-Asia:
> apiths (incl. "habilis", "naledi" etc.) are fossil relatives of Gorilla (E.Africa) or Pan (S.Africa): they have 0 to do with Homo:

The naledi part has been hotly debated, on another talk.origins thread,
"John Hawks on H. naledi", and you've run away from the debate there.
There is NO mention of Homo naledi anywhere below.

>
> many PAs are incredibly afro- & anthropocentrically biased: they see everywhere "human ancestors"... :-DDD
> PA textbooks describe

Please tell us what PA stands for. In the USA it mostly stands for "Pennsylvania."
Don't assume readers are familiar with your private jargon.

> - 100s of early ape fossils in Africa, Europe, Arabia, Asia, e.g. "dryopiths"
> - 100s of fossils of relatives of Asian orangutans, e.g. "sivapiths"
> +- 0 fossils of relatives of African apes (gorillas, bonobo+chimp) !?!?

Be specific: WHICH relatives? ANSWER: this third statistic refers to relatives that
split after the LCA of *Homo* and *Pan* AND to the conventional wisdom
about the australo/ardipiths being on our side of the split.
This is in contrast to your notion that the australo/ardipiths are represented by 100s of fossils
"and are relatives of African apes (gorillas, bonobo+chimp)".

Ah, but do any of the 100s of fossils since that split come from locations
where there are chimps and gorillas today?

> - 100s & 100s of fossils of relatives of *us*, in Africa & Eurasia
> = statistically impossible, of course:

Not until you answer my question with specific data.

Is your laughter emoji below a continuation of your demeaning insult?
If so, you ought to be ashamed of yourself.

> :-DDD


I keep telling you, Laughing Marc, that talk.origins is different from what you were
used to in earlier years. The regulars here are unimpressed by what they call "quote mines"
and "cherry-picked quotes" because they only tell one side of the story and do not engage counter-arguments.

It is the mark of a crank that he thinks that the brightest scientific minds
are unable to come up with rebuttals to comments that the crank emits.
I'm not even a biologist, yet I've come up with rebuttal after rebuttal of comments
that you thought were the last word on the subject.


You began a lot of threads in talk.origins and sci.bio.paleontology which
duplicated a lot of information from each other. The time would have been
better spent organizing the above mass of quotes into several topics,
and then presenting the topics in separate threads, and above all,
GIVING BIBLIOGRAPHIC INFORMATION instead of just a bunch of authors' names and dates.


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

[marc verhaegen]

Op maandag 15 mei 2023 om 14:20:23 UTC+2 schreef peter2...@gmail.com:

...

> > > > - "Evolution of type C viral genes: evidence for an Asian Origin of Man" RE Benveniste & GJ Todaro 1976 Nature 261:101-8 org/10.1038/261101a0
> > > > - "Lineage-specific expansions of retroviral insertions within the genomes of African great apes, but not humans and orangutans" CT Yohn cs 2005 PLoS Biol.3:e110 10.1371/journal.pbio.0030110

> > I saw my name, but have no idea what you're talking about.

> I'm talking about the ( points your loyal ally JTEM made in

> the OP to this thread:
> https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/CAyFg5nfTCk/m/y--9bdW9BAAJ
> OP means "original post" in this context. I gave you the url just in case
> you use a weird newsreader that makes it hard to navigate threads.
> Harshman ignored the comment to which you are responding,
> so I will tell you: they are directly relevant to point #3.
> Once you read it, it will be obvious to you.

#3. There's some very inconvenient retrovirus evidence.
Apparently African apes carry the evidence for a retrovirus
outbreak that occurred millions of years ago. Asian apes
and humans do not.

Yes, of course: Homo-Pan left the Red Sea coastal forests when the Red Sea opened into the Gulf (5.33 Ma thinks Francesca Mansfield: Zanclean mega-flood):
- Pan went right: W.Afr.coastal forests+rivers, even partly molluscivorous? tool use, +-larger brain in Au.habilis etc.
- Homo went left: S.Asia: there's 0 doubt early-Pleist.H.erectus in Java frequently dived for shellfish: pachyosteosclerosis, larger brain++ (DHA in seafood),
see my book
https://www.gondwanatalks.com/l/the-waterside-hypothesis-wading-led-to-upright-walking-in-early-humans/

> Please try to engage in discussion about these 5 points
> instead of going into long monologues like the following
> which don't address any specific points made by the participants.

> > These 2 articles prove that our Pliocene ancestors were NOT in Africa.

> > Of course not: Homo after the Homo/Pan split c 5 Ma lived along the Indian Ocean shores in S-Asia:
> > apiths (incl. "habilis", "naledi" etc.) are fossil relatives of Gorilla (E.Africa) or Pan (S.Africa): they have 0 to do with Homo:
> The naledi part has been hotly debated, on another talk.origins thread,
> "John Hawks on H. naledi", and you've run away from the debate there.

Hawks is a ridiculous antelope-hunter.
Google "verhaegen naledi".

> There is NO mention of Homo naledi anywhere below.

:-)

> > many PAs are incredibly afro- & anthropocentrically biased: they see everywhere "human ancestors"... :-DDD
> > PA textbooks describe
> Please tell us what PA stands for.

Paleo-anthropology/ists.

> In the USA it mostly stands for "Pennsylvania."
> Don't assume readers are familiar with your private jargon.

Not private: well-known to all PAs.
PAs claim they've found:

> > - 100s of early ape fossils in Africa, Europe, Arabia, Asia, e.g. "dryopiths"
> > - 100s of fossils of relatives of Asian orangutans, e.g. "sivapiths"
> > +- 0 fossils of relatives of African apes (gorillas, bonobo+chimp) !?!?

> Be specific: WHICH relatives? ANSWER: this third statistic refers to relatives that
> split after the LCA of *Homo* and *Pan* AND to the conventional wisdom
> about the australo/ardipiths being on our side of the split.

There were at least *2* us/apith splits, of course:
- 8 or 7 Ma HP/Gorilla (IMO in the Red Sea: formation of northern-Rift)
- c 5 Ma Homo/Pan (IMO when the Red Sea opened into the Gulf: Homo->S.Asia, Pan->E.Afr.coasts->southern-Rift)

> This is in contrast to your notion that the australo/ardipiths are represented by 100s of fossils
> "and are relatives of African apes (gorillas, bonobo+chimp)".

Ah? how?

> Ah, but do any of the 100s of fossils since that split come from locations
> where there are chimps and gorillas today?

2 splits:
-Gorilla-Praeanthr.afarensis->boisei cs followed the N-Rift->C-Africa,
-Pan-Australop.africanus->robustus cs followed the S-Rift->C-Africa.

> > - 100s & 100s of fossils of relatives of *us*, in Africa & Eurasia
> > = statistically impossible, of course:

> Not until you answer my question with specific data.

See above & below:

> > = incredible Ego+Afro+Anthropo-centric Bias:
> > • “The evolution of the australopithecine crania was the antithesis of the Homo line. Instead of becoming less ape-like, as in Homo, they become more ‘ape-like’. Cranial proportions and ectocranial features that were thought to be unique among pongids evolved separately [no!! --mv] in the australopithecines parallel [no!! --mv] with the great apes. The features of KNM-WT 17000, therefore, are not as ‘primitive’ as they look. The robust Australopithecus [boisei --mv] did not evolve from a big-toothed pongid ancestor with large cranial superstructures, but from a small-toothed hominid with a rounder, smoother ectocranium, like A.africanus”. Ferguson 1989.
> > • “Plio-Pleistocene hominids had markedly abbreviated [enamel] growth periods relative to modern man, similar to ... modem great apes”. Bromage & Dean 1985.

> > • “Enamel thickness has been secondarily reduced in the African apes and also, although at a different rate and extent, in the orang-utan. Thick enamel, previously the most important characteristic in arguments about the earliest hominid, does not therefore identify a hominid”. Martin 1985.

> > • In the S.African fossils incl.Taung, “sulcal patterns of 7 australopithecine encocasts appear to be ape-like rather than human-like”. Falk 1987.
> > • “Cranial capacity, the relationship between endocast and skull, sulcal pattern, brain shape and cranial venous sinuses, all of these features appear to be consistent with an ape-like external cortical morphology in Hadar early hominids”. Falk 1985.

> > • In the type spm of A.afarensis, “the lower 3rd premolar of ‘A.africanus afarensis’ LH-4 is completely apelike”. Ferguson 1987.
> > • “A.afarensis is much more similar cranially to the modern African apes than to modern humans”. Schoenemann 1989.
> > • “Olson's assertion that the lateral inflation of the A.L.333-45 mastoids is greater than in any extant ape is incorrect if the fossil is compared to P.troglodytes males or some Gorilla males and females. Moreover, the pattern of pneumatization in A.afarensis is also found only in the extant apes among other hominoids”. Kimbel cs 1984.
> > • “Prior to the identification of A.afarensis the asterionic notch was thought to characterize only the apes among hominoids. Kimbel & Rak relate this asterionic sutural figuration to the pattern of cranial cresting and temporal bone pneumatization shared by A.afarensis and the extant apes”. Kimbel cs 1984.

> > • “... the fact that 2 presumed Paranthropus [Au.robustus --mv] skulls were furnished with high sagittal crests implied that they had also possessed powerful occipital crests and ape-like planum nuchale... Nuchal crests which are no more prominent - and indeed some less prominent - will be found in many adult apes”. Zuckerman 1954.
> > • In Sts.5, MLD-37/38, SK-47, SK-48, SK-83, Taung, KNM-ER 406, O.H.24 and O.H.5, “craniometric analysis showed that they had marked similarities to extant pongids. These basicranial similarities between Plio-Pleistocene hominids and extant apes suggest that the upper respiratory systems of these groups were also apelike in appearance... Markedly flexed basicrania [are] found only in modern humans after the 2nd year...”. Laitman & Heimbuch 1982.
> > • “The total morphological pattern with regard to the nasal region of Australopithecus can be characterized by a flat, non-protruding nasal skeleton which does not differ qualitatively from the extant nonhuman hominoid pattern, one which is in marked contrast to the protruding nasal skeleton of modern H.sapiens”. Franciscus & Trinkaus 1988.

> > • “Incisal dental microwear in A.afarensis is most similar to that observed in Gorilla”. Ryan & Johanson 1989.
> > • The composite skull reconstructed mostly from A.L.333 specimens “looked very much like a small female gorilla”. Johanson & Edey 1981:351.
> > • “Other primitive [advanced gorilla-like!! --mv] features found in KNM-WT-17000, but not know or much discussed for A.afarensis, are: very small cranial capacity; low posterior profile of the calvaria; nasals extended far above the frontomaxillar suture and well onto an uninflated glabella; and extremely convex inferolateral margins of the orbits such as found in some gorillas”. Walker cs 1986.
> > • As for the maximum parietal breadth and the biauriculare in O.H.5 and KNM-ER 406 “the robust australopithecines have values near the Gorilla mean: both the pongids and the robust australopithecines have highly pneumatized bases”. Kennedy 1991.

> > • In O.H.5, “the curious and characteristic features of the Paranthropus skull ... parallel some of those of the gorilla”. Robinson 1960.

> > • The A.boisei “lineage has been characterized by sexual dimorphism of the degree seen in modern Gorilla for the length of its known history”. Leakey & Walker 1988.
> > • A.boisei teeth showed “a relative absence of prism decussation”; among extant hominoids, “Gorilla enamel showed relatively little decussation ...”. Beynon & Wood 1986.
> > • “Alan [Walker] has analysed a number of Australopithecus robustus teeth and they fall into the fruit-eating category. More precisely, their teeth patterns look like those of chimpanzees... Then, when be looked at some Homo erectus teeth, he found that the pattern changed”. Leakey 1981:74-75.
> > • “The ‘keystone’ nasal bone arrangement suggested as a derived diagnostic of Paranthropus [robustus] is found in an appreciable number of pongids, particularly clearly in some chimpanzees”. Eckhardt:, 1987.
> > • “P. paniscus provides a suitable comparison for Australopithecus [Sts.5]; they are similar in body size, postcranial dimensions and... even in cranial and facial features”. Zihlman cs 1978.

> > • “A.africanus Sts.5, which... falls well within the range of Pan troglodytes, is markedly prognathous or hyperprognathous”". Ferguson 1989.

> > • In Taung, “I see nothing in the orbits, nasal bones, and canine teeth definitely nearer to the human condition than the corresponding parts of the skull of a modern young chimpanzee”. Woodward 1925.

> > • “The Taung juvenile seems to resemble a young chimpanzee more closely than it resembles L338y-6”, a juvenile boisei. Rak & Howell 1978.
> > • “In addition to similarities in facial remodeling it appears that Taung and Australopithecus in general, had maturation periods similar to the extant chimpanzee”. Bromage 1985.

> > • “I estimate an adult capacity for Taung ranging from 404-420 cm2, with a mean of 412 cm2. Application of Passingham’s curve for brain development in Pan is preferable to that for humans because (a) brain size of early hominids approximates that of chimpanzees, and (b) the curves for brain volume relative to body weight are essentially parallel in pongids and australopithecines, leading Hofman to conclude that ‘as with pongids, the australopithecines probably differed only in size, not in design’”. Falk 1987.
> > • In Taung, “pneumatization has also extended into the zygoma and hard palate. This is intriguing because an intrapalatal extension of the maxillary sinus has only been reported in chimpanzees and robust australopithecines among higher primates”. Bromage & Dean 1985.
> > • “That the fossil ape Australopithecus [Taung] ‘is distinguished from all living apes by the... unfused nasal bones…’ as claimed by Dart (1940), cannot be maintained in view of the very considerable number of cases of separate nasal bones among orang-utans and chimpanzees of ages corresponding to that of Australopithecus”. Schultz 1941.
> > Etc.etc.
> > In sum, only incredible imbeciles believe they descend from Lucy.

> Is your laughter emoji below a continuation of your demeaning insult?

Very demeaning, but no insult: only very very unscient.people still believe Lucy is their grand-grand-grand-mother.

> If so, you ought to be ashamed of yourself.

> > :-DDD

> I keep telling you, Laughing Marc, that talk.origins is different from what you were
> used to in earlier years. The regulars here are unimpressed by what they call "quote mines"
> and "cherry-picked quotes" because they only tell one side of the story and do not engage counter-arguments.

???
I keep only telling you what is scientifically obvious: apiths were fossil relatives of Gorilla or Pan, NOT of Homo.

> It is the mark of a crank that he thinks that the brightest scientific minds
> are unable to come up with rebuttals to comments that the crank emits.
> I'm not even a biologist,

Yes, Peter, hum.evolution is about biology & nothing else...

> yet I've come up with rebuttal after rebuttal of comments
> that you thought were the last word on the subject.
> You began a lot of threads in talk.origins and sci.bio.paleontology which
> duplicated a lot of information from each other. The time would have been
> better spent organizing the above mass of quotes into several topics,
> and then presenting the topics in separate threads, and above all,
> GIVING BIBLIOGRAPHIC INFORMATION instead of just a bunch of authors' names and dates.
> Peter Nyikos

I've done nother else than GIVING BIBLIOGRAPHIC INFORMATION,
e.g. again:

1985 Med Hypoth 16:17-32 "The aquatic ape theory: evidence and a possible scenario"
1986 E.Morgan & MV New Scient 1498:62-63 "In the beginning was the water"
1986 Marswin 7:64-69 "Een korte inleiding tot de waterapentheorie"
1987 Nature 325:305-6 "Origin of hominid bipedalism"
1987 Hum Evol 2:381 "Speech origins"
1987 Med Hypoth 24:293-9 "The aquatic ape theory and some common diseases"
1987 Marswin 8:142-151 "Vertonen de fossiele hominiden tekens van wateraanpassing?"
1988 Specul Sci Technol 11:165-171 "Aquatic ape theory and speech origins: a hypothesis"
1990 Hum Evol 5:295-7 "African ape ancestry"
1991 Med Hypoth 35:108-114 "Aquatic ape theory and fossil hominids"
1991 M Roede cs eds 1991 "The Aquatic Ape: Fact or Fiction?" Souvenir London :75-112 "Aquatic features in fossil hominids?"
1991 ib.:182-192 "Human regulation of body temperature and water balance"
1992 Hum Evol 7:63-64 "Did robust australopithecines partly feed on hard parts of Gramineae?"
1992 Language Origins Society Forum 15:17-18 "KNM-ER 1470 and KNM-ER 1805 endocasts"
1993 Nutr Health 9:165-191 "Aquatic versus savanna: comparative and paleo-environmental evidence"
1994 Hum Evol 9:121-139 "Australopithecines: ancestors of the African apes?"
1995 Med Hypoth 44:409-413 "Aquatic ape theory, speech origins, and brain differences with apes and monkeys"
1995 ReVision 18:34-38 "Aquatic ape theory, the brain cortex, and language origins"
1996 Hum Evol 11:35-41 "Morphological distance between australopithecine, human and ape skulls"
1997 R Bender, MV, N Oser Anthropol Anz 55:1-14 "Der Erwerb menschlicher Bipedie aus der Sicht der Aquatic Ape Theory"
1997 New Scient 2091:53 "Sweaty humans"
1997 Hadewijch Antwerp 220pp In den Beginne was het Water – Nieuwste Inzichten in de Evolutie van de Mens
1998 in MA Raath ... PV Tobias eds 1998 Dual Congress Univ Witwatersrand Jo'burg :128-9 "Australopithecine ancestors of African apes?"
1998 + P-F Puech ib.:47 "Wetland apes: hominid palaeo-environment and diet"
1999 + S Munro Mother Tongue 5:161-168 "Bipeds, Tools and Speech"
1999 + N McPhail, S Munro Eur.Sociobiol.Society Newsletter 50:4-12 "Bipedalism in chimpanzee and gorilla forebears"
1999 + S Munro Water & Human Evolution Symposium Univ Gent :11-23 "Australopiths wading? Homo diving?"
2000 + P-F Puech Hum Evol 15:175-186 "Hominid lifestyle and diet reconsidered: paleo-environmental and comparative data"
2000 + Munro in J-L Dessalles cs eds 2000 "The Evolution of Language" Ecole Nat Sup Télécomm.Paris:236-240 "The origins of phonetic abilities: a study of the comparative data with reference to the aquatic theory"
2002 + S Munro Nutr Health 16:25-27 "The continental shelf hypothesis"
2002 + P-F Puech, S Munro Trends Ecol Evol 17:212-7 (google aquarboreal) "Aquarboreal ancestors?"
2004 + S Munro Hum Evol 19:53-70 "Possible preadaptations to speech – a preliminary comparative approach"
2007 + S Munro in SI Muñoz ed 2007 "Ecology Research Progress" Nova NY:1-4 "New directions in palaeoanthropology"
2007 + S Munro, M Vaneechoutte, R Bender, N Oser ib.:155-186 (google econiche Homo) "The original econiche of the genus Homo: open plain or waterside?"
2009 + S Munro in NI Xirotiris cs eds 2009 "Fish and Seafood – Anthropological and Nutritional Perspectives" 28th ICAF Confer.Kamilari Crete:37-38 "Littoral diets in early hominoids and/or early Homo?"
2009 S Munro, MV ib.:28-29 "Pachyosteosclerosis suggests archaic Homo exploited sessile littoral foods"
2010 New Scient 2782:69 Lastword 16.10.10 "Oi, big nose!"
2011 + S Munro HOMO – J compar hum Biol 62:237-247 "Pachyosteosclerosis suggests archaic Homo frequently collected sessile littoral foods"
2011 + Munro, Puech, Vaneechoutte in M Vaneechoutte, Kuliukas, MV eds 2011 ebook Bentham Sci Publ "Was Man More Aquatic in the Past?" :67-81 "Early Hominoids: orthograde aquarboreals in flooded forests?"
2011 M Vaneechoutte, S Munro, MV ib.:181-9 "Seafood, Diving, Song and Speech" (google)
2011 S Munro, MV ib.:82-105 "Pachyosteosclerosis in archaic Homo: heavy skulls for diving, heavy legs for wading?"
2012 M Vaneechoutte, S Munro, MV J compar hum Biol 63:496-503 "Book review: Reply to John Langdon’s review of the eBook Was Man More Aquatic in the Past?" Bentham Sci Publ
2013 Hum Evol 28:237-266 "The aquatic ape evolves: common misconceptions and unproven assumptions about the so-called Aquatic Ape Hypothesis"
2016 E Schagatay cs "A reply to Alice Roberts and Mark Maslin: Our ancestors may indeed have evolved at the shoreline – and here is why..."
2022 Acad.Uitg. Eburon Utrecht NL 325pp De Evolutie van de Mens - waarom wij rechtop lopen en kunnen spreken

[JTEM is my hero]

Bob Casanova wrote:

> Irrelevancies, handwaving and self-references seem to be the
> order of the day.

You really do reserve this particular alter for declaring your
superiority, exclusively. Which is weird, because we both
know that if you were superior you wouldn't be compelled
to constantly declare it.



-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/717611036225748992

[JTEM is my hero]

John Harshman wrote:

> OK, this *is* irrelevant to the question of interpreting the retroviral
> data.

Yes you are. If you actually cared to interpret it, you would have
already. The thread is 16 days old and you have yet to do say.

The evidence supports an Asian origins of modern man, yes.
Chimps are closer to humans than they are gorillas, Chimps
carry the evidence for the retrovirus, humans do not.

Yes that alone suggests an Asian origins: African apes have it,

Asian apes and humans do not.

Yes you can explore this question deeper, which you haven't.
You could research it, which you didn't. So that leaves what
we have and what we have is this retrovirus evidence that
supports an Asian origins for humans.

You can keep on clinging to evidence that you don't have, you
can keep on demanding that others give you different evidence
but the fact remains: The evidence we have supports an Asian
origins.



-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/717611036225748992

[John Harshman]

On 5/17/23 11:35 PM, JTEM is my hero wrote:
> Bob Casanova wrote:
>
>> Irrelevancies, handwaving and self-references seem to be the
>> order of the day.
>
> You really do reserve this particular alter for declaring your
> superiority, exclusively. Which is weird, because we both
> know that if you were superior you wouldn't be compelled
> to constantly declare it.

Is that right, "JTEM is my hero"?

[John Harshman]

On 5/17/23 11:44 PM, JTEM is my hero wrote:
> John Harshman wrote:
>
>> OK, this *is* irrelevant to the question of interpreting the retroviral
>> data.
>
> Yes you are. If you actually cared to interpret it, you would have
> already. The thread is 16 days old and you have yet to do say.
>
> The evidence supports an Asian origins of modern man, yes.
> Chimps are closer to humans than they are gorillas, Chimps
> carry the evidence for the retrovirus, humans do not.

Macaques also carry this evidence, and they're Asian. How do you deal
with that?

Also, what does an event millions of years ago have to do with modern
humans, which are only a few hundred thousand years old?

[marc verhaegen]

Op donderdag 18 mei 2023 om 15:21:58 UTC+2 schreef John Harshman:

> On 5/17/23 11:44 PM, JTEM is my hero wrote:
> > John Harshman wrote:

> >> OK, this *is* irrelevant to the question of interpreting the retroviral
> >> data.

> > Yes you are. If you actually cared to interpret it, you would have
> > already. The thread is 16 days old and you have yet to do say.
> > The evidence supports an Asian origins of modern man, yes.
> > Chimps are closer to humans than they are gorillas, Chimps
> > carry the evidence for the retrovirus, humans do not.

> Macaques also carry this evidence, and they're Asian. How do you deal
> with that?

All African Catarrhini have de RV evidence, e.g. Pan & Gorilla,
no Asian Catarrhini have it, e.g. Homo & Pongo.

> Also, what does an event millions of years ago have to do with modern
> humans, which are only a few hundred thousand years old?

Please inform a bit before talking:
the RV evidence show that our Pliocene were NOT in Africa.
Early-Pleist.H.erectus lived on Java etc.: Java is NOT Africa.

> > Yes that alone suggests an Asian origins: African apes have it,
> > Asian apes and humans do not.
> > Yes you can explore this question deeper, which you haven't.
> > You could research it, which you didn't. So that leaves what
> > we have and what we have is this retrovirus evidence that
> > supports an Asian origins for humans.
> > You can keep on clinging to evidence that you don't have, you
> > can keep on demanding that others give you different evidence
> > but the fact remains: The evidence we have supports an Asian
> > origins.

:-) Yes, obvious!

If you want to know *why* Pliocene Homo was in Asia,
see my 2022 book p.299-300
https://www.gondwanatalks.com/l/the-waterside-hypothesis-wading-led-to-upright-walking-in-early-humans/

[John Harshman]

On 5/18/23 9:11 AM, marc verhaegen wrote:
> Op donderdag 18 mei 2023 om 15:21:58 UTC+2 schreef John Harshman:
>> On 5/17/23 11:44 PM, JTEM is my hero wrote:
>>> John Harshman wrote:
>
>>>> OK, this *is* irrelevant to the question of interpreting the retroviral
>>>> data.
>
>>> Yes you are. If you actually cared to interpret it, you would have
>>> already. The thread is 16 days old and you have yet to do say.
>>> The evidence supports an Asian origins of modern man, yes.
>>> Chimps are closer to humans than they are gorillas, Chimps
>>> carry the evidence for the retrovirus, humans do not.
>
>> Macaques also carry this evidence, and they're Asian. How do you deal
>> with that?
>
> All African Catarrhini have de RV evidence, e.g. Pan & Gorilla,
> no Asian Catarrhini have it, e.g. Homo & Pongo.

You are wrong about the second claim, since macaques are cararrhines.
And we don't know about the first claim, since nobody (at least in the
paper you cited as your source) looked at most African cararrhines.

>> Also, what does an event millions of years ago have to do with modern
>> humans, which are only a few hundred thousand years old?
>
> Please inform a bit before talking:
> the RV evidence show that our Pliocene were NOT in Africa.
> Early-Pleist.H.erectus lived on Java etc.: Java is NOT Africa.

The claim was about early modern humans, i.e. H. sapiens sapiens, not H.
erectus.

>>> Yes that alone suggests an Asian origins: African apes have it,
>>> Asian apes and humans do not.
>>> Yes you can explore this question deeper, which you haven't.
>>> You could research it, which you didn't. So that leaves what
>>> we have and what we have is this retrovirus evidence that
>>> supports an Asian origins for humans.
>>> You can keep on clinging to evidence that you don't have, you
>>> can keep on demanding that others give you different evidence
>>> but the fact remains: The evidence we have supports an Asian
>>> origins.
>
> :-) Yes, obvious!
>
> If you want to know *why* Pliocene Homo was in Asia,
> see my 2022 book p.299-300
> https://www.gondwanatalks.com/l/the-waterside-hypothesis-wading-led-to-upright-walking-in-early-humans/
>

Very suspicious of self-published "books".

[Bob Casanova]

On Thu, 18 May 2023 06:12:58 -0700, the following appeared

in talk.origins, posted by John Harshman
<john.h...@gmail.com>:

Ouch! :-)

[JTEM is my hero]

John Harshman wrote:

> Is that right, "JTEM is my hero"?

JTEM is right. JTEM is always right.




-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/717482033459429376

[JTEM is my hero]

John Harshman wrote:

> Macaques also carry this evidence, and they're Asian. How do you deal
> with that?

: Furthermore, both Asian (macaque) and African (baboon) Old World monkeys
: show evidence of PTERV1 proviral integrations less than 2 million years ago

Once again, the Harkmann alter proves it's a mindless troll that seeks
only to obfuscate...

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1054887/

HINT: 2 million years ago is different from 3 to 4 million years ago.

> Also, what does an event millions of years ago have to do with modern
> humans

So modern humans sprang from the air... when was it? A hundred thousand
years ago? Or 2 hundred thousand? Are they up to 4 hundred thousand yet?

But they sprang from the air?

The evidence supports the claim that modern humans arose from an Asian
ancestor, not an African.



-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/717482033459429376

[JTEM is my hero]

John Harshman wrote:

> You are wrong about the second claim, since macaques are

You're lying:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1054887/

: Furthermore, both Asian (macaque) and African (baboon) Old World
: monkeys show evidence of PTERV1 proviral integrations less than 2
: million years ago

Your macaque ancestors were not included in the event being discussed.
They appear to have acquired it quite some time later.




-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/717282714287521792

[JTEM is my hero]

Bob Casanova wrote:

> Ouch! :-)

Next time have them dab a little vasoline on the tip.




-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/717417486869544960

[John Harshman]

On 5/18/23 2:59 PM, JTEM is my hero wrote:
> John Harshman wrote:
>
>> You are wrong about the second claim, since macaques are
>
> You're lying:
>
> https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1054887/
> : Furthermore, both Asian (macaque) and African (baboon) Old World
> : monkeys show evidence of PTERV1 proviral integrations less than 2
> : million years ago
>
> Your macaque ancestors were not included in the event being discussed.
> They appear to have acquired it quite some time later.

And yet the human ancestors living in the same place, as well as other
apes in the area, did not. Go figure.

[John Harshman]

On 5/18/23 2:56 PM, JTEM is my hero wrote:
> John Harshman wrote:
>
>> Macaques also carry this evidence, and they're Asian. How do you deal
>> with that?
>
> : Furthermore, both Asian (macaque) and African (baboon) Old World monkeys
> : show evidence of PTERV1 proviral integrations less than 2 million years ago
>
> Once again, the Harkmann alter proves it's a mindless troll that seeks
> only to obfuscate...
>
> https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1054887/
>
> HINT: 2 million years ago is different from 3 to 4 million years ago.

So why didn't humans get the virus 2 million years ago? Why didn't,
apparently, any other apes? Of course, we still don't know the source
for either event. What this shows is that the absence of PTERV1 in
certain taxa and its presence in others is not strictly along
continental lines, and that kills off the distribution as evidence for
your scenario.

>> Also, what does an event millions of years ago have to do with modern
>> humans
>
> So modern humans sprang from the air... when was it? A hundred thousand
> years ago? Or 2 hundred thousand? Are they up to 4 hundred thousand yet?
>
> But they sprang from the air?
>
> The evidence supports the claim that modern humans arose from an Asian
> ancestor, not an African.

The evidence, if you accept that as evidence, shows that a human
ancestor 3-4 million years ago lived in Asia, not that modern humans
originated in Asia. There's a difference.

[JTEM is my hero]

What is there to "Figure?" There was an event including apes, but not Asian
apes and humans, and then another event that did not include apes or
humans.

There's nothing the least bit inconsistent on my end. And you're an idiot.
You keep trying to react to one of five points, never successfully, all the
while pretending to be "Arguing."





-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/717417486869544960

[JTEM is my hero]

John Harshman wrote:

> > HINT: 2 million years ago is different from 3 to 4 million years ago.

> So why didn't humans get the virus 2 million years ago?

I don't care. Our ancestors weren't in Africa 3 to 4 million years ago when
African apes were infected. That is the point.

> What this shows is that the absence of PTERV1 in
> certain taxa and its presence in others is not strictly along
> continental lines

If you weren't a fraud, some crazy spazz pretending to be intelligent, you
might've noted that their range includes Africa. Today. So there's no
support for your claims.

> and that kills off the distribution as evidence for
> your scenario.

No it doesn't. Because our ancestors weren't in Africa when it was
infecting our closest relatives, who were a lot closer back then.

> The evidence, if you accept that as evidence, shows that a human
> ancestor 3-4 million years ago lived in Asia

Not Africa. A human ancestor lived in Asia and not Africa. This is ONE
of the five points I raised.






-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/717417486869544960

[marc verhaegen]

Op vrijdag 19 mei 2023 om 01:30:25 UTC+2 schreef John Harshman:

> On 5/18/23 2:56 PM, JTEM is my hero wrote:

...

> > The evidence supports the claim that modern humans arose from an Asian
> > ancestor, not an African.

> The evidence, if you accept that as evidence, shows that a human
> ancestor 3-4 million years ago lived in Asia, not that modern humans
> originated in Asia.

:-) scenario p.299-300 in my book
https://www.gondwanatalks.com/l/the-waterside-hypothesis-wading-led-to-upright-walking-in-early-humans/

Late-Miocene hominids s.s. (HPG) lived in the (incipient) Red Sea forests, google "aquarboreal":
-- Gorilla fossil subgenus Praeanthropus afarensis->boisei followed the incipient northern Rift,
-- Homo & Pan left the Red Sea after it opened into the Gulf (caused by the Zanclean mega-flood 5.33 Ma, Francesca mansfield thinks):
-Pan went right: E-Afr.coastal forest -> southern Rift -> fossil subgenus Australopith.africanus->robustus (// afarensis->boisei),
-Homo went left: S.Asian coasts (no RV) -> early-Pleist.H.erectus Java shellfish-diving: pachy-osteo-sclerosis, large brain, stone tools, shell engravings...etc. :-)

[John Harshman]

Not actually a response to the point, was it?

[Pro Plyd]

JTEM is my hero wrote:

> John Harshman wrote:
>
>> JTEM is my hero wrote:

>>> You're not making an argument here, because you're simply obfuscating the
>>> way you clinical narcissists always do.
>
>> Exactly. I'm not making an argument.
>
> Exactly. You're a clinical narcissist.
>
> Oh; 100% of all sociopaths & psychopaths are narcissists.
>
> And you're a raging narcissist...


"JTEM is my hero" irony anyone?

[Pro Plyd]

JTEM is my hero wrote:

> John Harshman wrote:
>
>> Is that right, "JTEM is my hero"?
>
> JTEM is right. JTEM is always right.

Classic narcissim

[Pro Plyd]

JTEM is my hero wrote:

> Bob Casanova wrote:
>
>> Ouch! :-)
>
> Next time have them dab a little vasoline on the tip.

Speaking from experience?

[Pro Plyd]

JTEM is my hero wrote:

> John Harshman wrote:
>
>> Macaques also carry this evidence, and they're Asian. How do you deal
>> with that?
>
> : Furthermore, both Asian (macaque) and African (baboon) Old World monkeys
> : show evidence of PTERV1 proviral integrations less than 2 million years ago
>
> Once again, the Harkmann alter proves it's a mindless troll that seeks
> only to obfuscate...
>
> https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1054887/

"Lineage-Specific Expansions of Retroviral Insertions
within the Genomes of African Great Apes but Not Humans
and Orangutans"

"Most human endogenous retroviruses are thought to
have emerged as a result of ancient infections more
than 25 million years ago, followed by subsequent
retrotransposition events. Several lines of evidence
indicate that chimpanzee and gorilla PTERV1 copies
arose from an exogenous source. First, there is
virtually no overlap (less than 4%) between the
location of insertions among chimpanzee, gorilla,
macaque, and baboon, making it unlikely that
endogenous copies existed in a common ancestor and
then became subsequently deleted in the human lineage
and orangutan lineage. Second, the PTERV1 phylogenetic
tree is inconsistent with the generally accepted
species tree for primates, suggesting a horizontal
transmission as opposed to a vertical transmission
from a common ape ancestor. An alternative
explanation may be that the primate phylogeny is
grossly incorrect, as has been proposed by a minority
of anthropologists [29]. This seems unlikely in light
of the extensive molecular evolutionary data that
have been collected over the last few years that
clearly place orangutan as the outgroup species to
the human–chimpanzee–gorilla clade and Old World
monkeys as an outgroup to the human/ape lineage."

[marc verhaegen]

Op vrijdag 19 mei 2023 om 18:02:03 UTC+2 schreef John Harshman:

Exactly a response to the point:
Pliocene human ancestors were not in Africa:
they were following the S.Asian coasts. :-)

[JTEM is my hero]

Pro Plyd wrote:

> "JTEM is my hero"

Of course I am. That's why you insist on trolling. begging for
some negative attention. It's because I'm your hero.

Why else would you act like such a jackass?





-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/717726670165098497

[JTEM is my hero]

I've fucked lots of trolls, and they always loved it.




-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/717726670165098497

[JTEM is my hero]

Pro Plyd wrote:

> An alternative
> explanation may be that the primate phylogeny is
> grossly incorrect, as has been proposed by a minority
> of anthropologists [29]. This seems unlikely in light
> of the extensive molecular evolutionary data that
> have been collected over the last few years that
> clearly place orangutan as the outgroup species to
> the human–chimpanzee–gorilla clade and Old World
> monkeys as an outgroup to the human/ape lineage."

You're an idiot. You're a mouth breathing, knuckle dragging,
drool soaked idiot but, BOTH the scenarios you propose are
assuming that humans evolve from apes.

It's the other way around.

This is what the good Doctor is saying, it's the model he
proposes.

THE FIRST to split off from the human line, adapting to the
forest, losing it's bipedal means of locomotion were the
orangutans, over in Asia. THEY LAST to split off from the
human line, adapt to the forest, lose it's bipedal locomotion
were the Chimps.

So if you have a group moving between southeast Asia and
Africa, just going by the facts you raised here; where did it
begin? Did it begin in Asia where the earliest branching took
place, or did it begin in Africa were the last branching happened?

You've got it backwards. You have a Chimp splitting off from
the other Chimps and turning itself into a human. This is why
you can't be right.

You're arguing against a model you never paid attention to,
much less understood.


-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/717726670165098497

[Pro Plyd]

JTEM is my hero wrote:
> Pro Plyd wrote:
>
>> JTEM is my hero wrote:
>>> Bob Casanova wrote:
>>>
>>>> Ouch! :-)
>>>
>>> Next time have them dab a little vasoline on the tip.
>
>> Speaking from experience?
>
> I've fucked lots of trolls, and they always loved it.

You fucked yourself? Quelle surprise. Not.

[Pro Plyd]

JTEM is my hero wrote:

> Pro Plyd wrote:
>
>> An alternative
>> explanation may be that the primate phylogeny is
>> grossly incorrect, as has been proposed by a minority
>> of anthropologists [29]. This seems unlikely in light
>> of the extensive molecular evolutionary data that
>> have been collected over the last few years that
>> clearly place orangutan as the outgroup species to
>> the human–chimpanzee–gorilla clade and Old World
>> monkeys as an outgroup to the human/ape lineage."
>
> You're

right again. The fact that orangutans are not in the
human-chimpanzee-gorilla clade is particularly damning.


That excerpt is from the link YOU posted

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1054887/

[Pro Plyd]

Nor even a link to a real research article in a peer reviewed
journal...

[marc verhaegen]

...

> >>>> The evidence supports the claim that modern humans arose from an Asian
> >>>> ancestor, not an African.

> >>> The evidence, if you accept that as evidence, shows that a human
> >>> ancestor 3-4 million years ago lived in Asia, not that modern humans
> >>> originated in Asia.

> >> :-) scenario p.299-300 in my book
> >> https://www.gondwanatalks.com/l/the-waterside-hypothesis-wading-led-to-upright-walking-in-early-humans/
> >> Late-Miocene hominids s.s. (HPG) lived in the (incipient) Red Sea
> >> forests, google "aquarboreal":
> >> -- Gorilla fossil subgenus Praeanthropus afarensis->boisei followed
> >> the incipient northern Rift,
> >> -- Homo & Pan left the Red Sea after it opened into the Gulf (caused

> >> by the Zanclean mega-flood 5.33 Ma, Francesca Mansfield thinks):

> >> -Pan went right: E-Afr.coastal forest -> southern Rift -> fossil
> >> subgenus Australopith.africanus->robustus (// afarensis->boisei),
> >> -Homo went left: S.Asian coasts (no RV) -> early-Pleist.H.erectus Java
> >> shellfish-diving: pachy-osteo-sclerosis, large brain, stone tools,
> >> shell engravings...etc. :-)

kudu runner:

> > Not actually a response to the point, was it?

A perfect answer to the point.

another kudu runner:

> Nor even a link to a real research article in a peer reviewed
> journal...

1) Is that an argument?? :-DDD The evidence is obvious, except to kudu runners.
2) Several links to peer-reviewed journals. Read the article before trying to say something!

Australopiths = Aquarboreal Ancestors of African Apes.
Our Pliocene Homo ancestors did not live in Africa: absence of African retroviral DNA.
Only retarded self-declared anthropologists deny this.

[JTEM is my hero]

Pro Plyd wrote:

> JTEM is my hero wrote:

> > I've fucked lots of trolls, and they always loved it.

> You fucked

Lots of trolls. And they always loved it. Squealed like pigs,
they did.



-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/718976728957140992

[JTEM is my hero]

Pro Plyd wrote:

> right again. The fact that orangutans are not in the
> human-chimpanzee-gorilla clade is particularly damning.

This "Clad" is artificial. You can't saw a Chimp or a human
and half, find a label that lists "Clad."

Can you not grasp this?

The more distant relative is the furthest away from Africa.

The Asian ape branched off FIRST.

This is according to you.

That means the lines starts in Asia.

But...

There's also the retrovirus evidence. This points to humans
not being in Africa at the time. And I hate to say it but it's
consistent with the good Doctor's idea of a branching in
Eurasia. I've always disagreed but we must admit the facts
and the facts are that his model does explain the evidence.

I prefer the model where the "Waterside" population was
present in Africa, but was either wiped out completely by
the retrovirus or, more likely, their numbers were so thin
that they were bred out of existence by contact with
(breeding with) other, larger groups.

Waterside has zero difficulties in explaining the evidence,
while all you have is denial of the facts, rude words and an
insistence that we can't build models -- the "Big Picture" is
not allowed.






-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/718976728957140992

[marc verhaegen]

Op zaterdag 3 juni 2023 om 00:25:40 UTC+2 schreef JTEM is my hero:

...

> There's also the retrovirus evidence. This points to humans
> not being in Africa at the time. And I hate to say it but it's
> consistent with the good Doctor's idea of a branching in
> Eurasia. I've always disagreed but we must admit the facts
> and the facts are that his model does explain the evidence.

Hypothesis (my book p.299-300):
when the Red Sea began to form (Africa/Arabia) it was colonized by some hominids:
late-Mocene hominids s.s.(HPG) lived in Red Sea swamp forests:
- Gorilla 8 or 7 Ma followed the incipient northern-Rift -> Afar etc.
- H & P split when the Red Sea opened into the Gulf/Aden (Francesca thinks caused by the Zanclean mega-flood 5.33 Ma):
-- Pan went right -> southern-Rift -> Transvaal etc.
-- Homo went left (no Afr.retrovirus) -> Java etc.
:-) Simple, no?

Early-Pleistocene H.erectus specialized in shellfish-diving,
then spread intercontinentally along Indian Ocean & Medit.coasts & rivers?

[marc verhaegen]

Op vrijdag 12 mei 2023 om 23:52:47 UTC+2 schreef John Harshman:
...
> >>> "Evolution of type C viral genes: evidence for an Asian Origin of Man" RE Benveniste & GJ Todaro 1976 Nature 261:101-8 org/10.1038/261101a0
> >>> "Lineage-specific expansions of retroviral insertions within the genomes of African great apes, but not humans and orangutans" CT Yohn cs 2005 PLoS Biol.3:e110 10.1371/journal.pbio.0030110

> >> From the discussion section of the 2nd reference: "While similar infections with a related RV appear commonplace among the OWMonkeys, contemporary human & orang populations show no molecular vestiges of this infection (Fig.2). The molecular basis for this historical difference is unclear. While geographic isolation of the African & Asian ape lineages during the Miocene [30,31] might account for part of this difference, the ancestral habitat of early hominids is generally thought to have overlapped, in part, with the African apes [32,33]. ...

> > Yes, Darwin already thought so (understandably - I thought so too once). But he & I were wrong here: see my 2nd book p.299 & my 2nd WHATtalk: late-Miocene Gorilla & Homo-Pan were vertical aquarboreals in Red Sea forests: they frequently waded bipedally + climbed arms overhead in the branches above the water: when the Red Sea opened into the Gulf (Zanclean mega-flood 5.33 Ma? Francesca Mansfield), Homo went left (S-Asian coastal forests) & Pan simply went right (E.Afr.coastal forests) :-) Google "WHATtalk verhaegen" https://www.gondwanatalks.com/l/the-waterside-hypothesis-wading-led-to-upright-walking-in-early-humans/

> This seems irrelevant to the question of interpreting the retroviral data.

???
:-DDD
Not at all!
*Think* a *little* bit,
e.g.
1) retroviral DNA: Pliocene human ancestors were NOT in Africa,
2) fossil H.erectus Java early-Pleistocene,
3) fossil apiths = Pan (all S.African hominid fossils) or Gorilla (most E.African hominid fossils),
4) geological & comparative-biological evidence: late-Miocene hominids (sensu HPG) lived in Red Sea forests:
--Gorilla 8-7 Ma followed the incipient N-Rift->Afar->Lucy etc.
--Homo-Pan 5.33 Ma (Zanclean mega-flood open the Red Sea into the Gulf/Aden):
Pan went right->E.Afr.coast->S-Rift->Transvaal->Taung etc. //Gorilla in N-Rift,
Homo went initially left->S.Asian coast->Java early-Pleist.H.erectus:
pachyosteosclerosis, brain+, mid-facial projection, platycephaly, sheel engravings, stone tools etc.
= lifestyle incl.shellfish-diving.
Google
-WHATtalk verhaegen
-gondwanatalks verhaegen

[John Harshman]

Spam is no substitute for reasoning.

[David Greig]

On 2023-06-05, John Harshman <john.h...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Spam is no substitute for reasoning.
>

what the fuck did I just try to read

[John Harshman]

There's your problem: you tried to read it. It was a typical post from
Mr. Verhaegen.

[Bob Casanova]

On Wed, 7 Jun 2023 06:05:20 -0700, the following appeared in
talk.origins, posted by John Harshman
<john.h...@gmail.com>:

Newsflash! When last seen, Mr. Verhaegen was wading toward
deeper water, swiping fruitlessly (NPI) at high-hanging
pomegranates. Film at eleven."
>
--

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

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

On 2023-06-07 15:38:42 +0000, Bob Casanova said:

> On Wed, 7 Jun 2023 06:05:20 -0700, the following appeared in
> talk.origins, posted by John Harshman
> <john.h...@gmail.com>:
>
>> On 6/7/23 2:35 AM, David Greig wrote:
>>> On 2023-06-05, John Harshman <john.h...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> Spam is no substitute for reasoning.
>>>>
>>>
>>> what the fuck did I just try to read
>>>
>>>
>> There's your problem: you tried to read it. It was a typical post from
>> Mr. Verhaegen.
>>
> Newsflash! When last seen, Mr. Verhaegen was wading toward
> deeper water, swiping fruitlessly (NPI) at high-hanging
> pomegranates. Film at eleven."

Before I started reading Marc Verhaegen's posts I had some sympathy for
the theory of the aquatic ape (_some_ sympathy, not a lot), ever since
I heard Elaine Morgan talking about it on television many years ago and
reading her book. Marc Verhaegen, however, has cured me of that and
convinced me that whatever it may have been 50 years ago it has become
a refuge for cranks.

--
athel cb : Biochemical Evolution, Garland Science, 2016

[*Hemidactylus*]

When I first read of AAT in the late 90s based on Morgan I found it a
fascinating idea, but the novelty wore off. Verhaegen may have been posting
here back then.

I was far more intrigued by Ted Steele’s ideas on retrovectors serving as a
means to channel adaptive immunity info across Weismann’s barrier. I was
skeptical, but the way he presented the notion in _Lamarck’s Signature_
helped me shore up my skepticism of such a thing. There’s value in that at
least.

Steele’s more recent forays into astrobiology whereby stuff like COVID
comes from space via meteors is more amusing than something I find very
helpful. It seems far more tractable though than interstellar or
intergalactic directed panspermia.

[Bob Casanova]

On Wed, 7 Jun 2023 19:06:20 +0200, the following appeared in
talk.origins, posted by Athel Cornish-Bowden
<athe...@gmail.com>:

It has indeed. And much like another such refuge/soapbox
seen here it relies on cherry-picked data and suppression of
any contradictory data.

[JTEM is my hero]

Someone not really named John Harshman spammed:

[...]

Do you think the very last person to believe in Piltdown Man
was embarrassed over their gullibility, or do you think that
they went to their grave grasping at the fraud?

You Out of Africa purity idiots should find out... see what
your future holds for you.




-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/720565414942343168

[JTEM is my hero]

Bob Casanova wrote:

[...]

Wow. The spazz is using the bob alter to declare itself
superior... as always.

Challenge, and don't pretend you're reading this:

What is your most intelligent, on topic post from the
last month?

HINT: You're a fraud.





-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/720565414942343168

[JTEM is my hero]

Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:

> Before I started reading Marc Verhaegen's posts I had some sympathy for
> the theory of the aquatic ape

It's universally agreed upon. You being a mentally ill sock
puppet you didn't know this but, "Coastal Dispersal" is
Aquatic Ape. They weren't following that coast like in
search of an all-night Burger King. They were surviving
there, eating. It was their habitat.

Again, you being a mentally ill troll you don't know this,
and you still don't after I pointed it out to you. Maybe if
you were just stupid you could "Figure it out" after it
was pointed out to you a number of times, but your
debilitating mental illness(es) are never going to allow
you to see it.

But, here in reality, even Out of Africa purists aren't
arguing against Aquatic Ape, they're arguing over how
far back it started.

Again: Coastal Dispersal.

DON'T YOU DARE SURPRISE ME OR YOUR MENTAL
HEALTH PROVIDER BY GOOGLING IT! You stay just
as ignorant, just as fucked up as you always have
been... as if anyone would need to tell you that.




-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/720565414942343168

[John Harshman]

On 6/21/23 3:15 AM, JTEM is my hero wrote:
> Someone not really named John Harshman spammed:

Obviously you aren't really JTEM, because you spelled my name correctly.