Afro- & anthropocentric prejudices in PA

[marc verhaegen]

Afro+anthropocentric prejudices:

1) Austalopiths are no human ancestors (anthropocentric prejudice), but were fossil relatives of Pan or Gorilla.
2) Out-of-Africa is wrong (afrocentric prejudice): Pliocene Homo lived along southern Asian coasts.
3) Miocene "apes" were no quadrupedal knuckle-walkers (anthropocentric prejudice), but swamp-forest dwellers, already "bipedal" (aquarboreal).
4) Plio-Pleistocene human ancestors did not live in savannas, certainly not hunting (afro+anthropocentric fantasy), but have always been waterside.

IOW, paleo-anthropology before "coastal dispersal" (aquatic ape) is at least as wrong as geology was before "plate tectonics" (continental drift).

Google:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0169534702024904
https://www.gondwanatalks.com/l/the-waterside-hypothesis-wading-led-to-upright-walking-in-early-humans/

[JTEM is my hero]

Look. The LCA lived 5, 6, 7, 8...13 million years ago. It's a fact. And modern
humans arose less than 100k, maybe 100k, 100-200k and anything up to
400k. Plus humans left Africa 100k, 60k and 30k years ago. And when they
left they spread out via Coastal Dispersal and they didn't.

Anything else is *Crazy Talk*!





-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/713809263307472896

[jillery]

On Thu, 6 Apr 2023 12:30:29 -0700 (PDT), JTEM trolled:

>marc verhaegen wrote:
>
>> Afro+anthropocentric prejudices:
>>
>> 1) Austalopiths are no human ancestors (anthropocentric prejudice), but were fossil relatives of Pan or Gorilla.
>> 2) Out-of-Africa is wrong (afrocentric prejudice): Pliocene Homo lived along southern Asian coasts.
>> 3) Miocene "apes" were no quadrupedal knuckle-walkers (anthropocentric prejudice), but swamp-forest dwellers, already "bipedal" (aquarboreal).
>> 4) Plio-Pleistocene human ancestors did not live in savannas, certainly not hunting (afro+anthropocentric fantasy), but have always been waterside.
>>
>> IOW, paleo-anthropology before "coastal dispersal" (aquatic ape) is at least as wrong as geology was before "plate tectonics" (continental drift).
>>
>> Google:
>> https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0169534702024904
>> https://www.gondwanatalks.com/l/the-waterside-hypothesis-wading-led-to-upright-walking-in-early-humans/
>
>Look. The LCA lived 5, 6, 7, 8...13 million years ago. It's a fact.

On Tue, 4 Apr 2023 21:51:59 -0700 (PDT), JTEM wrote:
>On Tue, 04 Apr 2023 05:59:46 -0400, jillery <69jp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>><https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chimpanzee%E2%80%93human_last_common_ancestor>
>>**************************************
>>While "original divergence" between populations may have occurred as
>>early as 13 million years ago (Miocene), hybridization may have been
>>ongoing until as recently as 4 million years ago (Pliocene).
>>**************************************
>
>Why believe any such thing, unless you WANT a very old divergence date?


Let the *Crazy Talk* continue.

>And modern
>humans arose less than 100k, maybe 100k, 100-200k and anything up to
>400k. Plus humans left Africa 100k, 60k and 30k years ago. And when they
>left they spread out via Coastal Dispersal and they didn't.
>
>Anything else is *Crazy Talk*!


--

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

[JTEM is my hero]

jillery wrote:

> >>While "original divergence" between populations may have occurred as
> >>early as 13 million years ago

There is ZERO support for this claim. None what so ever. And it is the
furthest thing from consensus.

You probably didn't know this on account of the fact that you retarded, and
not just emotionally disturbed.

Google it. See what other sources claim. This has already been suggested,
and you have already failed. You autistic types tend to fixate on things...

> Let the *Crazy Talk* continue.

It already did! You just REPOSTED an already refuted cite, one that claims
fossils that don't actually exist.



-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/713876271508193280

[jillery]

On Fri, 7 Apr 2023 11:30:42 -0700 (PDT), JTEM trolled:

> jillery wrote:
>
>><https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chimpanzee%E2%80%93human_last_common_ancestor>
>>**************************************

>>While "original divergence" between populations may have occurred as

>>early as 13 million years ago (Miocene), hybridization may have been
>>ongoing until as recently as 4 million years ago (Pliocene).
>>**************************************
>

>There is ZERO support for this claim. None what so ever. And it is the
>furthest thing from consensus.

*****************************************************

On Thu, 6 Apr 2023 12:30:29 -0700 (PDT), JTEM wrote:

>Look. The LCA lived 5, 6, 7, 8...13 million years ago. It's a fact.

*****************************************************

Let me know if you ever stop arguing with yourself.

Meanwhile, your *Crazy Talk* continues.

[JTEM is my hero]

jillery wrote:

> >>While "original divergence" between populations may have occurred as
> >>early as 13 million years ago

No support for this what so ever. Your precious Wiki gospels I mean cite
goes on to claim fossil evidence, which doesn't exist.

Like I said, you autistic types tends to fixate. You posted an unsupported
claim, one that isn't even popular yet someone the usenet trolls who author
Wiki articles like it, and you've now posted it,, what? At least three times?

Was does that idiotic brain of yours think has changed this time?

> >Look. The LCA lived 5, 6, 7, 8...13 million years ago. It's a fact.

Yeah. This is called sarcasm.

S-A-R-C-A-S-A-M

I was making fun of you and other jackoffs.

So how us the support for your claims. Show us the fossils that support your
dating.

I'm laughing at you!





-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/713876271508193280

[jillery]

On Fri, 7 Apr 2023 20:41:30 -0700 (PDT), JTEM trolled:

> jillery wrote:
>
>>>><https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chimpanzee%E2%80%93human_last_common_ancestor>
>>>>**************************************

>>>>While "original divergence" between populations may have occurred as

>>>>early as 13 million years ago (Miocene), hybridization may have been
>>>>ongoing until as recently as 4 million years ago (Pliocene).
>>>>**************************************
>>>
>>>There is ZERO support for this claim. None what so ever. And it is the
>>>furthest thing from consensus.
>>
>>
>>*****************************************************
>>On Thu, 6 Apr 2023 12:30:29 -0700 (PDT), JTEM wrote:
>>

>>>Look. The LCA lived 5, 6, 7, 8...13 million years ago. It's a fact.

>>*****************************************************

>
>Yeah. This is called sarcasm.
>
>S-A-R-C-A-S-A-M

Yeah, that's what trolls say whenever they're caught eating their own
feet.

>I was making fun of you and other jackoffs.
>
>So how us the support for your claims. Show us the fossils that support your
>dating.
>
>I'm laughing at you!

You're laughing at the idiot in the mirror.

[marc verhaegen]

Savanna believer's "argument":

> You're laughing at the idiot in the mirror.

??

IIRC, this was a discussion of when Homo & Pan diverged...??

I think Francesca Mansfield may well be correct that Homo & Pan split exactly 5.33 Ma,
i.e. when the Zanclean mega-flood opened the Red Sea into the Gulf of Aden:
- Pan went right (E.Afr.coasts),
- Homo went left (S.Asian coasts).

Simple, no? :-)

It's a possibility: at least, it fits with everything we know:
https://www.gondwanatalks.com/l/the-waterside-hypothesis-wading-led-to-upright-walking-in-early-humans/

[JTEM is my hero]

jillery wrote:

>JTEM trolled:

> >>>Look. The LCA lived 5, 6, 7, 8...13 million years ago. It's a fact.

Hmm. All those different dates? DIFFERENT dates?

> >Yeah. This is called sarcasm.
> >
> >S-A-R-C-A-S-A-M

Of course sarcasm is wasted on the stupid...




-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/713876271508193280

[JTEM is my hero]

marc verhaegen wrote:

> I think Francesca Mansfield may well be correct that Homo & Pan split exactly 5.33 Ma,

I think it was more recent: 3.7 million years, give or take. And I've held this opinion
quite independent of your notion that Australopithecus gave rise to Chimps. But it
certainly does fit with your ideas.




-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/713876271508193280

[jillery]

On Sat, 8 Apr 2023 19:25:08 -0700 (PDT), JTEM trolled:

>jillery wrote:
>
>>JTEM trolled:
>
>> >>>Look. The LCA lived 5, 6, 7, 8...13 million years ago. It's a fact.
>
>Hmm. All those different dates? DIFFERENT dates?

Those DIFFERENT dates identify a range. Of course willfully stupid
trolls have no idea what a "range" is, and are proud of it.

[jillery]

On Sat, 8 Apr 2023 05:24:28 -0700 (PDT), marc verhaegen
<littor...@gmail.com> wrote:

>Savanna believer's "argument":

You raise a strawman. Nobody on T.O. posted a "savanna" claim.

>IIRC, this was a discussion of when Homo & Pan diverged...??

"this" can't reasonably be considered a discussion when trolls
repeatedly delete relevant text.

More to the point, date of Pan/Homo LCA is just one of many
speculations raised by your OP. Do you not recall all of them?

>I think Francesca Mansfield may well be correct that Homo & Pan split exactly 5.33 Ma,
>i.e. when the Zanclean mega-flood opened the Red Sea into the Gulf of Aden:
>- Pan went right (E.Afr.coasts),
>- Homo went left (S.Asian coasts).
>
>Simple, no? :-)
>
>It's a possibility: at least, it fits with everything we know:
>https://www.gondwanatalks.com/l/the-waterside-hypothesis-wading-led-to-upright-walking-in-early-humans/

I acknowledge that possibility. I disagree it fits with all, or even
most, of the evidence; ex. genetic diversity of modern African vs.
non-African human populations.

[marc verhaegen]

> >I think Francesca Mansfield may well be correct that Homo & Pan split exactly 5.33 Ma,
> >i.e. when the Zanclean mega-flood opened the Red Sea into the Gulf of Aden:
> >- Pan went right (E.Afr.coasts),
> >- Homo went left (S.Asian coasts).
> >Simple, no? :-)
> >It's a possibility: at least, it fits with everything we know:
> >https://www.gondwanatalks.com/l/the-waterside-hypothesis-wading-led-to-upright-walking-in-early-humans/

antelope runner:
> I acknowledge that possibility.

:-)

> I disagree it fits with all, or even
> most, of the evidence; ex. genetic diversity of modern African vs.
> non-African human populations.

This is much much later: it has 0 to do with it.

[JTEM is my hero]

jillery wrote:

> Those DIFFERENT dates identify a range.

No, my little tire retreader. Those different dates expose the idiocy
that pretends to be a science.

And none of them are based on anything but assumptions.




-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/714091698115035136

[JTEM is my hero]

jillery wrote:

> "this" can't reasonably be considered a discussion when trolls
> repeatedly delete relevant text.

Nothing you say is relevant -- symptomatic but not relevant -- and
nobody is cancelling your posts. I guess we can add paranoia to
your already extensive list of flaws...




-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/714091698115035136

[jillery]

On Sun, 9 Apr 2023 07:30:03 -0700 (PDT), JTEM trolled:

> jillery wrote:
>
>> "this" can't reasonably be considered a discussion when trolls
>> repeatedly delete relevant text.
>
>Nothing you say is relevant

And so yet another discussion stopper.

>-- symptomatic but not relevant -- and
>nobody is cancelling your posts. I guess we can add paranoia to
>your already extensive list of flaws...

JTEM continues to argue with the person in the mirror.

[jillery]

On Sun, 9 Apr 2023 05:13:27 -0700 (PDT), marc verhaegen
<littor...@gmail.com> wrote:

>> >I think Francesca Mansfield may well be correct that Homo & Pan split exactly 5.33 Ma,
>> >i.e. when the Zanclean mega-flood opened the Red Sea into the Gulf of Aden:
>> >- Pan went right (E.Afr.coasts),
>> >- Homo went left (S.Asian coasts).
>> >Simple, no? :-)
>> >It's a possibility: at least, it fits with everything we know:
>> >https://www.gondwanatalks.com/l/the-waterside-hypothesis-wading-led-to-upright-walking-in-early-humans/
>
>antelope runner:

Your allusion-fragment above sounds like a native-American name. If
you mean to refer to something about persistence-hunting, that doesn't
inform pan/homo LCA.

>> I acknowledge that possibility.
>
>:-)
>> I disagree it fits with all, or even
>> most, of the evidence; ex. genetic diversity of modern African vs.
>> non-African human populations.
>
>This is much much later: it has 0 to do with it.

Incorrect:
<https://www.annualreviews.org/doi/10.1146/annurev.genom.9.081307.164258?url_ver=Z39.88-2003&rfr_id=ori%3Arid%3Acrossref.org&rfr_dat=cr_pub++0pubmed>
*******************************************
According to the Out of Africa (OOA) model of modern human origins,
anatomically modern humans originated in Africa and then spread across
the rest of the globe within the past ~100,000 years (202). The
transition to modern humans within Africa was not sudden; rather, the
paleobiological record indicates an irregular mosaic of modern,
archaic, and regional morphological and behavioral traits that
occurred over a substantial period of time and across a broad
geographic range within Africa.
******************************************

This distinction is evidence for:

1. modern Africans evolved from ancestral stock of great age and
diversity.
2. modern non-Africans evolved from a genetically restricted slice of
that African diversity more recently.

Your "waterside hypothesis" doesn't account for this distinction.

[jillery]

On Sun, 9 Apr 2023 07:27:39 -0700 (PDT), JTEM is my hero
<jte...@gmail.com> wrote:

> jillery wrote:
>
>> Those DIFFERENT dates identify a range.
>
>No, my little tire retreader. Those different dates expose the idiocy
>that pretends to be a science.
>
>And none of them are based on anything but assumptions.

And YOUR date is based on hot air and fart noises.

[JTEM is my hero]

Insane and retarded, jillery wrote:

> JTEM continues to

Do you have ANY idea what you're "Arguing" against, and why?

You don't. Go ahead. Spell it out. Explain WHAT you're disagreeing
with and why.

You're just an idiot acting out.

It's okay to cheat, go back and look, but you're either going to
remain just as confused or, if you see your problem, you will
never scrape together the maturity to admit it.



-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/714153202668503040

[JTEM is my hero]

jillery wrote:

> And YOUR date is based on

Your data. What we agree on.

EVERYONE accepts Coastal Dispersal.

EVERYONE accepts the fact that our brains are reliant on
DHA and had to evolve under circumstances where it was
freely available.

EVERYONE agree that the Chromosome 11 insert, the
Nuclear Insert exist, that this is a very ancient mtDNA line
that is significantly older than any Mitochondrial Eve in
the Out of Africa purity model, and that it's Eurasian in
origins.

YOUR OWN CLAIMS dispute the molecular dating -- the
imaginary Molecular Clock -- insisting upon non existing
fossils.

We both agree these fossils don't exist. You were shamed
already, taunted for your stupid claims, ridiculed; challenged
to cite these specific fossils and of course you never so much
as tried! Why would you? You know, you agree that they never
existed...

You're too stupid to figure this out but, you can argue realities
all day long with sane people. But with sane people you can
show them how the points that they agree with refute them.

You, not being sane, can't see this...




-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/714153202668503040

[JTEM is my hero]

jillery wrote:

> According to the Out of Africa (OOA) model of modern human origins,
> anatomically modern humans originated in Africa and then spread across
> the rest of the globe within the past ~100,000 years (202).

How long did it take? Because humans are widely varied in appearance now,
and appearance is all you're going by.

Literally.

But, "Anatomically Modern" doesn't even mean that a single member of our
genus living 100k years ago could pass for a "Modern" human today. It just
claims that traits fell within a range seen in modern humans.

> 2. modern non-Africans evolved from a genetically restricted slice of
> that African diversity more recently.

Actually, BILLIONS of people walking around right now preserve the evidence
of the "Mitochondrial Eve" far older than the one in the Out of Africa purity
model, and it's Eurasian in origins. This far older than your "past 100k~" and
actually supposed the argument that your "Out of Africa" population was
itself descended from a far earlier Eurasian group.

Well. Potentially Melanesian. But you get the point.

Sticking with YOUR dating, YOUR argument, you have to be wrong. The origins
had to be outside of Africa.

> Your "waterside hypothesis" doesn't account for this distinction.

Actually it explains it perfectly.

"Waterside" aka "Littoral" aka "Aquatic Ape" and even aka "Coastal Dispersal"
says that we had ancestors exploiting the sea. They sort of combined hunting
and gathering into one, picking up shellfish -- living animals, so to speak --
and scavenging beached.. anything.

They ate and moved on.

Occasionally groups pushed inland for various reasons, this happening with
regular frequency and greater necessity once our present Quaternary Period
began, our present ice age.

The breaking off and pushing inland would have started almost immediately,
and probably account for the rise of apes altogether.

Some of the earlier break away groups, from our perspective, would have
been Ardi and Lucy. Some of the last would have been the peopling of the
Americas, where the first were to arrive along the coast only to eventually
push inland.

Adaptation by break away groups was probably helped along by interbreeding
with the descendants of groups that had pushed inland earlier.

There was likely bottlenecks, the chromosome fusion being amongst the
most recent, putting the brakes on interbreeding with more "Primitive"
forms and resetting this whole process... which just started all over again
giving rise to our immediate ancestors, such as Neanderthals and
Denisovans.

So Aquatic Ape, Waterside (etc) explains your "fossil record" AS WELL AS
the things you left out, AND the DNA evidence AND explains how brains
dependent upon DHA could evolve under circumstances where, IN YOUR
CASE, it just didn't exist, but exploiting marine resources granted it in
great abundance.

So the good Doctor explains everything and you have to leave out entire
tomes worth of facts & evidence to make your model of human evolution
work at all.



-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/714267256849301504

[jillery]

On Sun, 9 Apr 2023 19:28:47 -0700 (PDT), JTEM trolled:

>Insane and retarded, jillery wrote:
>
>> JTEM continues to
>
>Do you have ANY idea what you're "Arguing" against, and why?
>
>You don't. Go ahead. Spell it out. Explain WHAT you're disagreeing
>with and why.

I did. You deleted it.

>You're just an idiot acting out.
>It's okay to cheat, go back and look, but you're either going to
>remain just as confused or, if you see your problem, you will
>never scrape together the maturity to admit it.

You're a legend in your own mind.

[jillery]

On Tue, 11 Apr 2023 00:26:50 -0700 (PDT), JTEM wrote:

> jillery wrote:
>
>> According to the Out of Africa (OOA) model of modern human origins,
>> anatomically modern humans originated in Africa and then spread across
>> the rest of the globe within the past ~100,000 years (202).
>
>How long did it take? Because humans are widely varied in appearance now,
>and appearance is all you're going by.
>
>Literally.

Incorrect. Also, "appearance" doesn't inform how long it took.

>But, "Anatomically Modern" doesn't even mean that a single member of our
>genus living 100k years ago could pass for a "Modern" human today. It just
>claims that traits fell within a range seen in modern humans.

The "claim" distinguishes between anatomically modern humans and
culturally modern humans. While their fossils are indistinguishable,
their cultural artifacts are very distinct.

>> 2. modern non-Africans evolved from a genetically restricted slice of
>> that African diversity more recently.
>
>Actually, BILLIONS of people walking around right now preserve the evidence
>of the "Mitochondrial Eve" far older than the one in the Out of Africa purity
>model, and it's Eurasian in origins. This far older than your "past 100k~" and
>actually supposed the argument that your "Out of Africa" population was
>itself descended from a far earlier Eurasian group.

Incorrect:
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitochondrial_Eve>
*******************************
As of 2013, estimates on the age of this split ranged at around
155,000 years ago, consistent with a date later than the speciation of
Homo sapiens but earlier than the recent out-of-Africa dispersal.
********************************

>Well. Potentially Melanesian. But you get the point.

I suppose, if your point is to post yet another self-parody.

>Sticking with YOUR dating, YOUR argument, you have to be wrong. The origins
>had to be outside of Africa.
>
>> Your "waterside hypothesis" doesn't account for this distinction.
>
>Actually it explains it perfectly.

The following says nothing about how modern African populations are
more genetically diverse than modern non-African populations. To the
contrary, it implies there should be no distinction.

[JTEM is my hero]

jillery wrote:

> You deleted it.

I couldn't have castrated you. You never had any to begin with.

> You're

Again, what are you pretending that I said? You know, what you
need to tell yourself you're "Disagreeing" with?

You have no idea.



-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/714293011660587008

[JTEM is my hero]

jillery wrote:

> JTEM wrote:
> >How long did it take? Because humans are widely varied in appearance now,
> >and appearance is all you're going by.
> >
> >Literally.

> Incorrect.

No. It's exactly correct.

> Also, "appearance" doesn't inform how long it took.

I just said that.

> >But, "Anatomically Modern" doesn't even mean that a single member of our
> >genus living 100k years ago could pass for a "Modern" human today. It just
> >claims that traits fell within a range seen in modern humans.

> The "claim" distinguishes between anatomically modern humans and
> culturally modern humans.

No. The claim is that archaic Homo was a modern human.

> While their fossils are indistinguishable,

Wrong. Dead wrong. Blithering idiot wrong.

They never look "Modern" at all. Again, their traits supposedly land
within a range that encompasses modern humans.

But this is so fake! By calling an archaic Homo a "Modern human" you
just inserted their traits within that range! You can fudge this all you
want, create all kinds of "Breakthrough Discoveries" if you want.

This is NOT a real science, after all. Who cares if you're right or wrong?
It's not going to cost you a military contract, nobody is going to die and
you weren't going to create an all new industry with it anyway...

It's not a real science. It's a Sample/Selection/Preservation bias.

It breaks a fundamental rule of science, doesn't pass the duck test!

It's sampling is bogus.





-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/714293011660587008

[jillery]

On Tue, 11 Apr 2023 12:45:05 -0700 (PDT), JTEM trolled:

> jillery wrote:
>
>> You deleted it.
>
>I couldn't have castrated you. You never had any to begin with.
>
>> You're
>
>Again, what are you pretending that I said? You know, what you
>need to tell yourself you're "Disagreeing" with?

You first.

[jillery]

On Tue, 11 Apr 2023 12:51:14 -0700 (PDT), JTEM is my hero
<jte...@gmail.com> wrote:

> jillery wrote:
>
>> JTEM wrote:
>> >How long did it take? Because humans are widely varied in appearance now,
>> >and appearance is all you're going by.
>> >
>> >Literally.
>
>> Incorrect.
>
>No. It's exactly correct.

You have no idea what you're talking about and are proud of it.

>> Also, "appearance" doesn't inform how long it took.
>
>I just said that.

You said nothing like that.

>> >But, "Anatomically Modern" doesn't even mean that a single member of our
>> >genus living 100k years ago could pass for a "Modern" human today. It just
>> >claims that traits fell within a range seen in modern humans.
>
>> The "claim" distinguishes between anatomically modern humans and
>> culturally modern humans.
>
>No. The claim is that archaic Homo was a modern human.

Incorrect. Another self-parody?

>> While their fossils are indistinguishable,
>
>Wrong. Dead wrong. Blithering idiot wrong.

Cite.

>They never look "Modern" at all. Again, their traits supposedly land
>within a range that encompasses modern humans.

Only in JTEM world does "a range that encompasses modern humans" not
look modern.

>But this is so fake! By calling an archaic Homo a "Modern human" you
>just inserted their traits within that range! You can fudge this all you
>want, create all kinds of "Breakthrough Discoveries" if you want.
>
>This is NOT a real science, after all. Who cares if you're right or wrong?
>It's not going to cost you a military contract, nobody is going to die and
>you weren't going to create an all new industry with it anyway...
>
>It's not a real science. It's a Sample/Selection/Preservation bias.
>
>It breaks a fundamental rule of science, doesn't pass the duck test!
>
>It's sampling is bogus.


--

[JTEM is my hero]

jillery wrote:

> >Again, what are you pretending that I said? You know, what you
> >need to tell yourself you're "Disagreeing" with?

> You first.

Lol! Pussy.

You re-re-re-reposted a long refuted Wiki cite which contradicted fact,
claiming fossil evidence when there is none. You CHERRY PICKED
this cite because you wanted a very old date, to contradict the 3.7
million year date I suggested. That's why you wanted old. That's why
you intentionally ignored countless cites offering different dates to
focus like a laser beam on the piece of crap we call Wiki.

You're a mentally unhinged troll.

Now go make a new sock puppet and agree with yourself... like always.




-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/714435427497558016

[jillery]

On Wed, 12 Apr 2023 20:54:23 -0700 (PDT), JTEM trolled:

>Lol! Pussy.
>
>You re-re-re-reposted a long refuted Wiki cite which contradicted fact,
>claiming fossil evidence when there is none. You CHERRY PICKED
>this cite because you wanted a very old date, to contradict the 3.7
>million year date I suggested. That's why you wanted old. That's why
>you intentionally ignored countless cites offering different dates to
>focus like a laser beam on the piece of crap we call Wiki.

None of the above is factually correct. All of the above is mindless,
baseless, willfully stupid noise from a mindless, baseless, willfully
stupid troll, who has no idea what he's talking about and is proud of
it.

JTEM's current spate of rants should give many T.O. regulars pause, as
not very long ago they collectively aped his mindless, baseless,
willfully stupid noise against jillery. One even had the audacity to
claim that the number of posters aping JTEM demonstrated the veracity
of said noise.

[JTEM is my hero]

Retarded as well as Disordered, jillery wrote:

> the god like JTEM bestowed upon us:

> >You re-re-re-reposted a long refuted Wiki cite which contradicted fact,
> >claiming fossil evidence when there is none. You CHERRY PICKED
> >this cite because you wanted a very old date, to contradict the 3.7
> >million year date I suggested. That's why you wanted old. That's why
> >you intentionally ignored countless cites offering different dates to
> >focus like a laser beam on the piece of crap we call Wiki.

> None of the above is factually correct.

https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/N0q0u56Xbh4/m/ts-yTrIXBQAJ

You posted that cite a rock bottom minimum three times, though it was
refuted after the first. You just ignore anything that doesn't agree with
your agenda and repeat the bullshit.

Look. Count the quote marks, keeping in mind the first time something
is posted there are none. So a rock bottom minimum of three times.

The cite cherry picks the oldest and all but ignored dating for the LCA,
and references non existing fossils.

It's worthless. But you had to know that because Wiki is not and never
has been a legitimate cite. It's "Authored" by a handful of troll and is
subject to easy monetary influences.

It's just not a real cite. No professor would ever accept Wiki as a cite.
No high school teacher either.




-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/714435427497558016

[jillery]

On Thu, 13 Apr 2023 22:51:18 -0700 (PDT), JTEM continues to argue with
the person in the mirror:

>https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/N0q0u56Xbh4/m/ts-yTrIXBQAJ
>
>You posted that cite a rock bottom minimum three times, though it was
>refuted after the first. You just ignore anything that doesn't agree with
>your agenda and repeat the bullshit.
>
>Look. Count the quote marks, keeping in mind the first time something
>is posted there are none. So a rock bottom minimum of three times.
>
>The cite cherry picks the oldest and all but ignored dating for the LCA,
>and references non existing fossils.
>
>It's worthless. But you had to know that because Wiki is not and never
>has been a legitimate cite. It's "Authored" by a handful of troll and is
>subject to easy monetary influences.
>
>It's just not a real cite. No professor would ever accept Wiki as a cite.
>No high school teacher either.


--

[JTEM is my hero]

Brain damaged, or maybe that's just an excuse, jillery wrote:

> JTEM, whom I worship as a deity gifted us:
> >https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/N0q0u56Xbh4/m/ts-yTrIXBQAJ

Yup. The shit head just keeps reposting the same idiocy.

The oldest of old, the first "Chimp" fossil is no more than a tooth, hardly the
best evidence for anything, and it's only about half a million years old. So
keep cherry picking the oldest estimated date for the LCA that you could
find. That just makes your position more idiotic.

You want a 13 million year old LCA? Fine. You're missing 12.5 million years
worth of fossils, plus most of the fossils after that.

The good Doctor provided you with an answer. You can start thinking or you
can continue acting out and pretending you're not certifiable.




-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/714525062601064448

[jillery]

On Fri, 14 Apr 2023 23:38:18 -0700 (PDT), JTEM trolled:

>Brain damaged, or maybe that's just an excuse, jillery wrote:
>
>Yup. The shit head just keeps reposting the same idiocy.

You're still arguing with the person in the mirror.

>The oldest of old, the first "Chimp" fossil is no more than a tooth, hardly the
>best evidence for anything, and it's only about half a million years old. So
>keep cherry picking the oldest estimated date for the LCA that you could
>find. That just makes your position more idiotic.

Sez the troll who picked his date out of his ass.

[marc verhaegen]

savanna believers' "arguments":

> Sez the troll who picked his date out of his ass.

Sigh...

[jillery]

On Tue, 18 Apr 2023 09:18:22 -0700 (PDT), marc verhaegen
<littor...@gmail.com> wrote:

aquaboreal believers "arguments":

>savanna believers' "arguments":
>
>> Sez the troll who picked his date out of his ass.
>
>Sigh...

So it's ok with you to insist some arbitrary date must be right just
because you say so. Quelle surprise.

[marc verhaegen]

kudu runners' arguments:

> aquaboreal believers "arguments":

???
It's aqua+arbor, my little boy: water+tree.
Google "gorilla wading" & "bonobo wading".
https://www.gondwanatalks.com/l/the-waterside-hypothesis-wading-led-to-upright-walking-in-early-humans/

[jillery]

On Wed, 19 Apr 2023 06:03:08 -0700 (PDT), marc verhaegen
<littor...@gmail.com> wrote:

>kudu runners' arguments:
>
>> aquaboreal believers "arguments":
>
>???
>It's aqua+arbor, my little boy: water+tree.

Your spelling flame is all wet:
**************************
On Thu, 16 Mar 2023 08:03:39 -0700 (PDT), marc verhaegen
<littor...@gmail.com> wrote:

>Google:
>-aquarboreal
**************************

[Pancho Sanza]

Gisulat ni jillery:

>GondwanaTalks Verhaegen

>>kudu runners' arguments:

At least he's got "kudu" right.

>>>aquaboreal believers "arguments":

>>???
>>It's aqua+arbor, my little boy: water+tree.

>Your spelling flame is all wet:
>**************************
>On Thu, 16 Mar 2023 08:03:39 -0700 (PDT), marc verhaegen
><littor...@gmail.com> wrote:

>>Google:
>>-aquarboreal
>**************************

Or, in GondwanaTalks' case: aqua bore all.

--
Pancho (Google GondwanaTalks Verhaegen)

[JTEM is my hero]

Totally insane and not just stupid, jillery wrote:

> The love of my life, JTEM gifted me with:

> >The oldest of old, the first "Chimp" fossil is no more than a tooth, hardly the
> >best evidence for anything, and it's only about half a million years old. So
> >keep cherry picking the oldest estimated date for the LCA that you could
> >find. That just makes your position more idiotic.

> Sez the troll who picked his date out of his ass.

That's the best you've got? Pretending it was me who claims to have found
and dated the Chimp teeth, assuming that they're even Chimp teeth? You
just pretend it was me and then your 12.5 million years of missing fossils
turns into 13 millions years worth of missing fossils, and that's much
easier to explain? That makes sense to you? To your messed up mind?

You need to open a window, get some air...



-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/715256725101592576

[marc verhaegen]

Op zaterdag 22 april 2023 om 14:35:27 UTC+2 schreef JTEM is my hero:

...

JTEM, why "argue" with uninformed fanatics who use "arguments" like this:

> > Sez the troll who picked his date out of his ass.

???

English is the 5th language I had to learn at school (after Dutch, Franch, Latin & German).
Sez=says??
The rest is incomprehensible to me.

[jillery]

On Sat, 22 Apr 2023 09:00:59 -0700 (PDT), marc verhaegen
<littor...@gmail.com> wrote:

>Op zaterdag 22 april 2023 om 14:35:27 UTC+2 schreef JTEM is my hero:
>
>...
>
>JTEM, why "argue" with uninformed fanatics who use "arguments" like this:

Hmmm... let's review just SOME of the "arguments" your sock puppet
uses:

... emotional spazz

... You disgrace science just by existing

... I keep forgetting that you are SO full of shit

... You are ten shades of FUCKED UP

... suffered a traumatic brain injury

... You are a fraud

... one big ass personality disorder

... a dogmatic jackwad

... you are a joke that Freud told

... you are 10 shades of FUCKED

... you're a fucking idiot

... You're a lying sack of shit.

... your mental disorder causes

... FRAUD!

... stop talking shit

... go fuck yourself

... You're a religious twat

... you're an emotional basket case

... FUCKED IN THE HEAD

... Utter bullshit.

... What a mental case!


Your mommy called; your twisted knappies need changing.

[JTEM is my hero]

jillery wrote:

> Hmmm... let's review just SOME of the "arguments" your sock puppet
> uses:

You failed again. You proved that you're a fraud, again.

Ad hominem is when you insult as an argument -- INSTEAD of an
argument. Where there is a legitimate argument, AND it is pointed
out that you're a goddamn blithering idiot, it is not ad hominem.

I pointed out that the very oldest Chimp fossil, and all we've got is
teeth for that matter, would be half a million years old, and going
by popular dating that leaves 5.5 million years with Chimp fossils
entirely missing! And how does that severely damaged brain
react? Why, you dismiss teeth as evidence all together and throw
out a 14 million year old point of divergence, leaving a now 13.5
million year absence of Chimp fossils!

This, you do thinking that you're countering the good Doctor's
idea that we have have found the Chimp ancestors, only they don't
look like Chimps. They look more like Homo than Pan...

Oo! And your retarded cite pretending that your idiotic dating is
supported by fossils?!?

You're sick. Literally. You're disordered. There is something very
wrong with you. You have this compulsion to say incredibly stupid
things and then Double Down when caught!

The human brain is dependent upon DHA. According to sources,
we're not getting enough NOW, and this is 80k years AFTER we
evolved some adaptation that lets us better synthesize it.. AND
THAT YOUR RETARD DATING! Not reality. There is no molecular
clock. Molecular Dating is prone to exaggerate age! But even
going by your own 80k date for the adaption, it's WAY too recent
to account for the evolution of our brains!

We needed Aquatic Ape.






-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/714713784084791296

[jillery]

On Sun, 23 Apr 2023 20:56:21 -0700 (PDT), JTEM trolled:

>You failed again. You proved that you're a fraud, again.

Sez the troll who conveniently deleted his ad-hominem "arguments".

[JTEM is my hero]

jillery wrote:

> Sez the

Says you. You didn't even try to deny much less defend your
incredibly stupid actions.




-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/715597892514103296

[jillery]

On Tue, 25 Apr 2023 14:26:11 -0700 (PDT), JTEM trolled:

>You didn't even try to deny much less defend your
>incredibly stupid actions.

You first.

[JTEM is my hero]

jillery wrote:

> You first.

>Lol! Are you honestly so damaged you can't see how ridiculously
childish you are?

That's a child's reaction! And the fact that you think it clever and
effective... wow. You true are fucked up.

I'm laughing at you.




-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/715640258603171840

[jillery]

On Wed, 26 Apr 2023 23:25:01 -0700 (PDT), JTEM is my hero
<jte...@gmail.com> wrote:

>I'm laughing at you.

You're laughing at the person in the mirror.

[JTEM is my hero]

Lee Olsen aka a basket full of alters, jillery wrote:

> You're laughing at the person in the mirror.

https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/lCJUZc7EFqs/m/90DfETjfWd4J

You "Cited" 13 million years or more, claiming that this was supported
by fossils.





-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com

[jillery]

On Thu, 27 Apr 2023 00:42:47 -0700 (PDT), JTEM lied:

>https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/lCJUZc7EFqs/m/90DfETjfWd4J
>
>You "Cited" 13 million years or more, claiming that this was supported
>by fossils.

Your cite shows you're lying.

[JTEM is my hero]

jillery wrote:

> Your cite shows you're lying.

It showed that the LCA could not have lived any further back than
6.3 million years. YOU pretended it was 13. And 14. Depending
on alter.




-- --

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

[jillery]

On Tue, 2 May 2023 08:34:07 -0700 (PDT), JTEM trolled:

>jillery wrote:
>
>> Your cite shows you're lying.
>
>It showed that the LCA could not have lived any further back than
>6.3 million years.

It does NOT.

> YOU pretended it was 13. And 14.

I did NOT.


>Depending on alter.


You're lying.

[JTEM is my hero]

Mentally unhinged, frightened & defensive, jillery lied:

> It does NOT.

Does not.. what?

What did the cite say? Quote it.

You can't. You're incapable. Your disabling Narcissistic Personality
Disorder locks you out of so much as trying, because you know
what you are. From my perspective I'm hurling insults. From your
point of view I'm seeing the real you.

Go on; prove me wrong.

I'm laughing at you!




-- --

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

[jillery]

On Wed, 3 May 2023 21:21:06 -0700 (PDT), JTEM trolled:

>
>Mentally unhinged, frightened & defensive, jillery lied:
>
>> It does NOT.
>
>Does not.. what?

Since you asked:
***************************************
On Wed, 03 May 2023 03:27:49 -0400, jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>On Tue, 2 May 2023 08:34:07 -0700 (PDT), JTEM trolled:
>
>>jillery wrote:
>>
>>> Your cite shows you're lying.
>>
>>It showed that the LCA could not have lived any further back than
>>6.3 million years.
>
>
>It does NOT.
>
>
>> YOU pretended it was 13. And 14.
>
>
>I did NOT.
>
>
>>Depending on alter.
>
>
>You're lying.

****************************************
You're welcome.

[JTEM is my hero]

Massive personality disorder, jillery wrote:

> > JTEM truthed:

> >>It showed that the LCA could not have lived any further back than
> >>6.3 million years.

> >It does NOT.

: The split happened 6.3 million years ago at the earliest,
: say the scientists.

https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/lCJUZc7EFqs/m/90DfETjfWd4J

Wow. It does absolutely refute you.



-- --

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

[jillery]

On Thu, 4 May 2023 20:12:58 -0700 (PDT), JTEM trolled:

>Massive personality disorder, jillery wrote:
>
>> > JTEM truthed:
>> >>It showed that the LCA could not have lived any further back than
>> >>6.3 million years.
>
>> >It does NOT.
>
>: The split happened 6.3 million years ago at the earliest,
>: say the scientists.
>
>https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/lCJUZc7EFqs/m/90DfETjfWd4J
>
>Wow. It does absolutely refute you.

Your post, and your cites in your post, don't provide any evidence for
your claims. Apparently you have no idea what "evidence" means.

[JTEM is my hero]

While gunk accumulated in the corner of his mouth, jillery wrote:

> JTEM, a veritable god to me wrote:

> >: The split happened 6.3 million years ago at the earliest,
> >: say the scientists.
> >https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/lCJUZc7EFqs/m/90DfETjfWd4J
> >
> >Wow. It does absolutely refute you.

> Your post

Yes. My post. It refutes you.




-- --

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