What is Modern Man? Defining what we mean

[JTEM is my hero]

When we say that "Modern Man" arose in Asia or
Africa we're being more than a little ambiguous.

What do we mean "Modern Man?"

If you read the media, what everyone mistakens
for "Science," it's pretty clear that the owners of
the paleo anthropology social program play fast
& loose with their definitions. There's some pretty
NOT modern specimens which are called modern.

And that's okay. Or would be if they were the least
bit consistent.

Skull shape, for example, really isn't that important.
Human activity -- our diet, HOW we eat, utensils --
have dramatically altered the human face. And one
study shows that the human skull in Europe has
seen some significant changes in only the last 600
years! If it weren't for the geographiical & temporal
proximity, one could be forgiven for "Discovering"
two different species or at least sub species...

https://www.birmingham.ac.uk/news-archive/2006/research-reveals-the-changing-shape-of-the-human-face

So we can all buy into the "Well they look archaic but
they're really modern" because we can't really go by
looks. But the laughing stock that is paleo anthology
doesn't go by looks, it goes by Africa.

If it's not modern and it's found in Africa then it's modern.

If it's equally as non modern and it's found outside of Africa,
it's not modern.

So, when do modern humans begin?

I like to argue that modern man starts with erectus.

It seems to me likely that if erectus existed today we
could successfully interbreed. And it seems beyond
question that more archaic types, like Denisovans, had
to be breeding with erectus. (more on that later)

The human body undergoes great changes due to diet,
lifestyle, environment... habit.

Then there's sexual selection!

So going by looks is stupid. Yes, something can "Look"
very archaic but be a "Modern" human, unless you really
need to get mindlessly superficial in your distinctions.

Again, the problem is one of consistency. Science is
consistent, paleo anthropology is not...

So my best guess here is that "Modern Man" starts with
erectus. They were the likely benefits of the chromosome
fusion, slamming the breaks on interbreeding with older,
more archaic Homo. They lost the baculum, with them no
longer being genetically influenced by older Homo. They
developed larger and more complex brains...

Next guess would be Heidelberg Man. But is he better
viewed as the destination than the start?





-- --

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

[John Harshman]

Thanks for the definition, which is especially important if your
definition is idiosyncratic, as this one is. Since you likely consider
Homo habilis to be non-human, not a member of Homo, would you then say
that "modern man" = "Homo"? And that genus Homo originated in Asia? But
what about Homo sapiens? Is Homo sapiens (what everyone else thinks of
as "modern man") from Africa or Asia?

But what "older, more archaic Homo" are there? Where are their fossils?

I have my doubts that the chromosome fusion has anything to do with
speciation or isolation or any benefits. Do you have evidence for that?

[Pro Plyd]

John Harshman wrote:

>
> Thanks for the definition, which is especially important if your
> definition is idiosyncratic, as this one is. Since you likely consider
> Homo habilis to be non-human, not a member of Homo, would you then say
> that "modern man" = "Homo"? And that genus Homo originated in Asia? But
> what about Homo sapiens? Is Homo sapiens (what everyone else thinks of
> as "modern man") from Africa or Asia?

"Anatomically Modern Human" is a more useful descriptive term

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

Early modern human (EMH) or anatomically modern human (AMH)[1]
are terms used to distinguish Homo sapiens (the only extant
Hominina species) that are anatomically consistent with the
range of phenotypes seen in contemporary humans, from extinct
archaic human species. This distinction is useful especially
for times and regions where anatomically modern and archaic
humans co-existed ...

... The divergence of the lineage leading to H. sapiens out
of ancestral H. erectus (or an intermediate species such as
Homo antecessor) is estimated to have occurred in Africa
roughly 500,000 years ago. The earliest fossil evidence of
early modern humans appears in Africa around 300,000 years
ago ...

> But what "older, more archaic Homo" are there? Where are their fossils?

Don't expect him to have any data to proffer...

> I have my doubts that the chromosome fusion has anything to do with
> speciation or isolation or any benefits. Do you have evidence for that?
>

See above.

[JTEM is my hero]

Pro Plyd wrote:

> ... The divergence of the lineage leading to H. sapiens out
> of ancestral H. erectus (or an intermediate species such as
> Homo antecessor) is estimated to have occurred in Africa
> roughly 500,000 years ago.

Based on... what?

> The earliest fossil evidence of
> early modern humans appears in Africa around 300,000 years
> ago ...

There's no such thing.

> > But what "older, more archaic Homo" are there? Where are their fossils?

> Don't expect him to have any data to proffer...

Really? That's you're answer and you're going to stick to it? You're not aware
of any Homo prior to erectus? You are actually claiming this? And you need
"Data" to prove that any Homo existed before erectus?

No, honey, you're fucked up. You're a emotionally damaged, mentally
disordered basket case posting behind a slew of rotating sock puppets.




-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/718514359723229184

[JTEM is my hero]

John Harshman wrote:

> Thanks for the definition, which is especially important if your
> definition is idiosyncratic, as this one is. Since you likely consider
> Homo habilis to be non-human, not a member of Homo, would you

Look. You're a troll and a faker. What the fuck does habilis have to do
with MODERN man? The topic is MODEN man. Regardless of how
anyone might want to classify habilis nobody want to classify is as
MODERN man. Nobody.

> But what "older, more archaic Homo" are there? Where are their fossils?

It's a mystery. A total mystery. That, or you're a useless troll.

> I have my doubts that the chromosome fusion has anything to do with
> speciation or isolation or any benefits.

No you don't. You're a troll. You have to pretend to find fault.





-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/718514359723229184

[John Harshman]

On 5/29/23 9:35 PM, JTEM is my hero wrote:
> John Harshman wrote:
>
>> Thanks for the definition, which is especially important if your
>> definition is idiosyncratic, as this one is. Since you likely consider
>> Homo habilis to be non-human, not a member of Homo, would you
>
> Look. You're a troll and a faker. What the fuck does habilis have to do
> with MODERN man? The topic is MODEN man. Regardless of how
> anyone might want to classify habilis nobody want to classify is as
> MODERN man. Nobody.

Just trying to establish what you mean by "modern man". So far we know
that you include H. erectus but not some unspecified "older, more
archaic Homo". Identifying the OMAH would help to clarify the meaning of
MM for you. Is it true that H. habilis isn't even Homo?

>> But what "older, more archaic Homo" are there? Where are their fossils?
>
> It's a mystery. A total mystery. That, or you're a useless troll.

If you're going to present an idiosyncratic, personal definition, then
in order to make any sense of it you're going to have to explain just
what you mean. Focus.

>> I have my doubts that the chromosome fusion has anything to do with
>> speciation or isolation or any benefits.
>
> No you don't. You're a troll. You have to pretend to find fault.

Seriously, I doubt there's any correlation. Why would we expect there to
be? Accusing people of trolling is the easy way out of a discussion. But
why are you avoiding this discussion? One might speculate it's because
you can't actually provide evidence, but you could quash that notion by
providing evidence.

[JTEM is my hero]

John Harshman wrote:

> Just trying to

You're a raging narcissist trying to block any discussion that it can't
control. You're actually pretending -- using more than one sock
puppet -- that I made up the fact that there are Homo prior to erectus.
You actually demanded evidence for same, you're so blind to your
own stupidity.

> If you're

What's the topic? You saw this thread I started, you're pretending to
be interested, want to participate, so what is the topic?




-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/718514359723229184

[JTEM is my hero]

Pro Plyd wrote:

> Early modern human (EMH) or anatomically modern human (AMH)[1]
> are terms used to distinguish Homo sapiens (the only extant
> Hominina species) that are anatomically consistent with

So... looks.

There's nothing "anatomically consistent," btw. There isn't "Anatomical
Consistency" right now. I mean, just look at teeth! Right now, amongst
people living today there is a wide variety of teeth -- in size and even in
number! "Most people" can be said to have 32. "Most." Not all.

https://www.dentalcarenetwork.com/conditions-and-concerns/appearance/tooth-shape

In our post science, post news world people pretend that there's no
such this as race but, for anyone for whom it actually matters, like
police investigating a homicide, they routinely distinguish between
race, going by human remains.

> the
> range of phenotypes seen in contemporary humans, from

There is NOTHING anyone is pretending to be a "Modern Human"
from 200,000 years ago which wouldn't stick out as abnormal in
any crowd.

You're going by looks. AND THEY DON'T EVEN LOOK MODERN!

You're going by looks.




-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/717522942454579200

[John Harshman]

On 5/30/23 8:13 AM, JTEM is my hero wrote:
> John Harshman wrote:
>
>> Just trying to
>
> You're a raging narcissist trying to block any discussion that it can't
> control. You're actually pretending -- using more than one sock
> puppet -- that I made up the fact that there are Homo prior to erectus.
> You actually demanded evidence for same, you're so blind to your
> own stupidity.
>
>> If you're
>
> What's the topic? You saw this thread I started, you're pretending to
> be interested, want to participate, so what is the topic?

A few points:

I have never used any sock puppets. I'm not trying to block discussion;
I'm trying to have one, and you are refusing. You won't tell me what you
refer to when you talk about "Homo prior to erectus". Based on your past
claims, it's by no means clear what you would mean by that.

The topic is "what is modern man?" I'm trying to get you to clarify the
ambiguity in your idiosyncratic, personal definition. Nobody else thinks
that H. erectus is "modern man". And what other people call prior
species of Homo (all of them in Africa), you mostly appear to reject as
apes on the chimpanzee or gorilla lines. So what's left?

[JTEM is my hero]

John Harshman wrote:

> JTEM is my hero wrote:
> > You're a raging narcissist trying to block any discussion that it can't
> > control. You're actually pretending -- using more than one sock
> > puppet -- that I made up the fact that there are Homo prior to erectus.
> > You actually demanded evidence for same, you're so blind to your
> > own stupidity.
> >
> >> If you're
> >
> > What's the topic? You saw this thread I started, you're pretending to
> > be interested, want to participate, so what is the topic?

> A few points:

No. What is the topic?

> The topic is "what is modern man?"

That's a question. Not a statement. So you're "Arguing" that I'm asking a
question.

Nobody outside the social program of paleo anthropology is claiming
that there is just one working answer. And whatever answer you choose,
whatever answer you're working with needs to fit inside of an articulated,
CONSISTENT model for human evolution.

Pretend you adhere to whatever definition you want, as if you eve have,
and incorporate that into a complete picture, something that encompasses
everything.





-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/718766392127750144

[jillery]

On Tue, 30 May 2023 08:27:01 -0700 (PDT), JTEM is my hero
<jte...@gmail.com> wrote:

>Pro Plyd wrote:
>
>> Early modern human (EMH) or anatomically modern human (AMH)[1]
>> are terms used to distinguish Homo sapiens (the only extant
>> Hominina species) that are anatomically consistent with
>
>So... looks.

Incorrect. "looks" include cultural artifacts and ornamentation. The
word Pro Ployd uses above is "anatomy". There's a difference. Look
it up.

>There's nothing "anatomically consistent," btw. There isn't "Anatomical
>Consistency" right now. I mean, just look at teeth! Right now, amongst
>people living today there is a wide variety of teeth -- in size and even in
>number! "Most people" can be said to have 32. "Most." Not all.
>
>https://www.dentalcarenetwork.com/conditions-and-concerns/appearance/tooth-shape

There are always variations within biological populations. They are
included in the specifications which describe a species.

>In our post science, post news world people pretend that there's no
>such this as race but, for anyone for whom it actually matters, like
>police investigating a homicide, they routinely distinguish between
>race, going by human remains.
>
>> the
>> range of phenotypes seen in contemporary humans, from
>
>There is NOTHING anyone is pretending to be a "Modern Human"
>from 200,000 years ago which wouldn't stick out as abnormal in
>any crowd.
>
>You're going by looks. AND THEY DON'T EVEN LOOK MODERN!
>
>You're going by looks.


--

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

[JTEM is my hero]

jillery wrote:

> "looks" include

So "Looks."

> The word Pro Ployd uses above is "anatomy".

So "Looks."

"THIS one /Looks/ different from THAT one."

> There's a difference.

There is a difference between how things look and how things
look...

> >There's nothing "anatomically consistent," btw. There isn't "Anatomical
> >Consistency" right now. I mean, just look at teeth! Right now, amongst
> >people living today there is a wide variety of teeth -- in size and even in
> >number! "Most people" can be said to have 32. "Most." Not all.
> >
> >https://www.dentalcarenetwork.com/conditions-and-concerns/appearance/tooth-shape

> There are always variations

That's what I just said. There is no consistency. There's variation instead.

> >In our post science, post news world people pretend that there's no
> >such this as race but, for anyone for whom it actually matters, like
> >police investigating a homicide, they routinely distinguish between
> >race, going by human remains.

Very true. There is variation. There are distinctions. An increase in
distinction -- like going from wolves to all our dog breeds -- does not
a new "Species" make. And a reduction in the number of distinctions
is even more obviously NOT a big deal.





-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/718766392127750144

[jillery]

On Tue, 30 May 2023 22:44:30 -0700 (PDT), JTEM trolled:

> jillery wrote:
>
>>Incorrect. "looks" include cultural artifacts and ornamentation. The
>>word Pro Ployd uses above is "anatomy". There's a difference. Look
>>it up.
>

>So "Looks."
>
>> The word Pro Ployd uses above is "anatomy".
>
>So "Looks."

Look it up.

[John Harshman]

On 5/30/23 9:50 PM, JTEM is my hero wrote:
> John Harshman wrote:
>
>> JTEM is my hero wrote:
>>> You're a raging narcissist trying to block any discussion that it can't
>>> control. You're actually pretending -- using more than one sock
>>> puppet -- that I made up the fact that there are Homo prior to erectus.
>>> You actually demanded evidence for same, you're so blind to your
>>> own stupidity.
>>>
>>>> If you're
>>>
>>> What's the topic? You saw this thread I started, you're pretending to
>>> be interested, want to participate, so what is the topic?
>
>> A few points:
>
> No. What is the topic?

You're a raging narcissist trying to block any discussion that it can't

control, to coin a phrase. Why else would you snip and ignore almost
everything I say.

>> The topic is "what is modern man?"
>
> That's a question. Not a statement. So you're "Arguing" that I'm asking a
> question.

You are. That it's a rhetorical question doesn't make it not a question,
and that it's a question doesn't make it not the topic.

> Nobody outside the social program of paleo anthropology is claiming
> that there is just one working answer. And whatever answer you choose,
> whatever answer you're working with needs to fit inside of an articulated,
> CONSISTENT model for human evolution.
>
> Pretend you adhere to whatever definition you want, as if you eve have,
> and incorporate that into a complete picture, something that encompasses
> everything.

I'm asking about your definition, which is unclear. What are the "Homo
prior to erectus", according to your definition of Homo? For bonus
points, where did they live and how do we know that?

[JTEM is my hero]

Mentally retarded and NOT named jillery wrote:

> Look it up.

Done. You're going by looks You're saying "This LOOKS
different from that."

Literally, that's what it is.

We know from published studies that anatomy can LOOK
very different but those LOOKS aren't very significant at
all.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/science/skull-find-prompts-rethink-on-early-hominid-names-1.1570652

If you LOOK for differences you find differences. If you LOOK
for similarities you find similarities. In either case you are
going by LOOKS.

So 1.8 million years ago they looked so different that people
thought they were looking at different species, and now they
claim that they're looking at the same POPULATION. That,
these all lived in the same place at roughly the same time.

The fact that THE APPEARANCE of human anatomy seems
to have coalesced -- even though it really hasn't -- over a
period of tens of thousands of years doesn't seem significant
at all. Because it's not. You're pretending there's significance
in the observation -- THE LOOKING -- when there's no reason
why that should be true. You need to make a case, and you
haven't. You make a claim, which isn't even necessarily true,
and then pretend you said something important.




-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/tagged/species

[JTEM is my hero]

John Harshman wrote:

> You're a

So you're as original as you are mentally healthy... not at all.

> Why else would you snip

You never had any to begin with.

> > That's a question. Not a statement. So you're "Arguing" that I'm asking a
> > question.

> You are.

Okay. And this triggered you... why?

> > Nobody outside the social program of paleo anthropology is claiming
> > that there is just one working answer. And whatever answer you choose,
> > whatever answer you're working with needs to fit inside of an articulated,
> > CONSISTENT model for human evolution.

BNGO!

> I'm asking

So you said that I asked a question and you're also saying that you're
not answering it.




-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/tagged/species

[John Harshman]

You are unacquainted with rhetorical questions?

[JTEM is my hero]

John Harshman wrote:

> You are

YOU said that I asked a question. But you never answered it.

You fled from it. You dodged, you ran away on tippy toes like
a little girl frightened by a spider.





-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/718766392127750144

[John Harshman]

On 5/31/23 3:08 PM, JTEM is my hero wrote:
> John Harshman wrote:
>
>> You are
>
> YOU said

Please. You have no idea what I said, and you snipped it several posts
ago. Now, if you want my answer to your rhetorical question, it's the
standard one: Modern man refers to Homo sapiens, sometimes known as Homo
sapiens sapiens. Homo erectus is a different species, although "species"
doesn't mean all that much if you try to extend it very far in time,
since ancestors grade into descendants so as to leave no clear dividing
line.

I don't mind if you want a different meaning for your personal use, but
you will have to be clear about what you mean, which so far you are not.
You have said that "modern man" includes H. erectus but not more
primitive members of Homo. You need to specify those more primitive
members if you want your meaning to be clear. If.

[JTEM is my hero]

John Harshman wrote:


> > YOU said

> Please. You have no idea what I said

And I quote:

: > > That's a question. Not a statement. So you're "Arguing" that I'm asking a
: > > question.
:
: > You are.

You're a raging narcissist interested only in stopping discussion.




-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/718766392127750144

[John Harshman]

On 5/31/23 4:36 PM, JTEM is my hero wrote:
> John Harshman wrote:
>
>
>>> YOU said
>
>> Please. You have no idea what I said
>
> And I quote:
>
> : > > That's a question. Not a statement. So you're "Arguing" that I'm asking a
> : > > question.
> :
> : > You are.
>
> You're a raging narcissist interested only in stopping discussion.

You snipped out all the real discussion, which was on my part only. You
may be fooling at most one person, but that's only if we count you.

[JTEM is my hero]

John Harshman wrote:

> You snipped

You never had any for me to snip in the first place. If you did, would
you be cowering behind the Harkming handle?

You made it clear you have no intention of entering into any
discussion. So, why are you here?




-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/682192196226760704

[jillery]

So you STILL don't understand the difference between "looks" and
"anatomy". Quelle surprise.

[John Harshman]

On 5/31/23 9:21 PM, JTEM is my hero wrote:
> John Harshman wrote:
>
>> You snipped
>
> You never had any for me to snip in the first place. If you did, would
> you be cowering behind the Harkming handle?
>
> You made it clear you have no intention of entering into any
> discussion. So, why are you here?

And so the experiment in engagement ends. Conclusion: JTEM is incapable
of answering the simplest questions on the subjects he thinks he's the
world's greatest expert on. He is not my hero.

[JTEM is my hero]

John Harshman wrote:

> And so

YOU stated that I asked a question. If you want to pretend that
you answered it, fine. Copy & paste that answer here:

{Crickets}



-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com

[JTEM is my hero]

jillery wrote:

> So you STILL don't understand the difference between "looks" and
> "anatomy".

Lol!

"I'm not saying they look different. They don't. But their anatomy is
different. But that doesn't mean they look different."




-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com

[jillery]

On Thu, 1 Jun 2023 22:53:07 -0700 (PDT), JTEM is my hero
<jte...@gmail.com> wrote:

>jillery wrote:
>
>> So you STILL don't understand the difference between "looks" and
>> "anatomy".
>
>Lol!
>
>"I'm not saying they look different. They don't. But their anatomy is
>different. But that doesn't mean they look different."

Cite your quote... oh wait... you don't know how... nevermind.

[John Harshman]

On 6/1/23 10:54 PM, JTEM is my hero wrote:
> John Harshman wrote:
>
>> And so
>
> YOU stated that I asked a question. If you want to pretend that
> you answered it, fine. Copy & paste that answer here:
>
> {Crickets}

Do you know what a rhetorical question is? Do you know who is supposed
to answer a rhetorical question? (Hint: those were not rhetorical
questions. Hint #2: look at your thread title.)

[peter2...@gmail.com]

On Monday, May 29, 2023 at 6:37:44 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
> On 5/29/23 1:15 PM, JTEM is my hero wrote:
> >
> > When we say that "Modern Man" arose in Asia or
> > Africa we're being more than a little ambiguous.
> >
> > What do we mean "Modern Man?"
> >
> > If you read the media, what everyone mistakens
> > for "Science," it's pretty clear that the owners of
> > the paleo anthropology social program play fast
> > & loose with their definitions. There's some pretty
> > NOT modern specimens which are called modern.
> >
> > And that's okay. Or would be if they were the least
> > bit consistent.
> >
> > Skull shape, for example, really isn't that important.

You didn't comment on this, John. Did you study enough anatomy
to know just which elements of the skull are diagnostic for Homo
or Homo erectus or Homo sapiens and which are not?

A well known example: the Piltdown forger had to break
off the part where the dentary bone joins the rest of the skull,
because that would have given the game away: it could easily
have been identified as the jaw of a non-human ape. The current
"consensus" is that it is the jaw of an orangutan.


> > Human activity -- our diet, HOW we eat, utensils --
> > have dramatically altered the human face. And one
> > study shows that the human skull in Europe has
> > seen some significant changes in only the last 600
> > years! If it weren't for the geographiical & temporal
> > proximity, one could be forgiven for "Discovering"
> > two different species or at least sub species...
> >
> > https://www.birmingham.ac.uk/news-archive/2006/research-reveals-the-changing-shape-of-the-human-face

All I got was a summary with no illustrations.
It appears that one has to email the keepers of the archive
just to find out whether there is an online copy.


> > So we can all buy into the "Well they look archaic but
> > they're really modern" because we can't really go by
> > looks. But the laughing stock that is paleo anthology
> > doesn't go by looks, it goes by Africa.
> >
> > If it's not modern and it's found in Africa then it's modern.
> >
> > If it's equally as non modern and it's found outside of Africa,
> > it's not modern.
> >
> > So, when do modern humans begin?
> >
> > I like to argue that modern man starts with erectus.
> >
> > It seems to me likely that if erectus existed today we
> > could successfully interbreed. And it seems beyond
> > question that more archaic types, like Denisovans, had
> > to be breeding with erectus. (more on that later)
> >
> > The human body undergoes great changes due to diet,
> > lifestyle, environment... habit.
> >
> > Then there's sexual selection!
> >
> > So going by looks is stupid. Yes, something can "Look"
> > very archaic but be a "Modern" human, unless you really
> > need to get mindlessly superficial in your distinctions.
> >
> > Again, the problem is one of consistency. Science is
> > consistent, paleo anthropology is not...
> >
> > So my best guess here is that "Modern Man" starts with
> > erectus. They were the likely benefits of the chromosome
> > fusion, slamming the breaks on interbreeding with older,
> > more archaic Homo. They lost the baculum, with them no
> > longer being genetically influenced by older Homo. They
> > developed larger and more complex brains...
> >
> > Next guess would be Heidelberg Man. But is he better
> > viewed as the destination than the start?

> Thanks for the definition, which is especially important if your
> definition is idiosyncratic, as this one is. Since you likely consider

> Homo habilis to be non-human, not a member of Homo, would you then say
> that "modern man" = "Homo"?

Why do you ignore his choice: Homo erectus? Too hasty a reading?
Your next question suggests that:

> And that genus Homo originated in Asia?

You are too trigger-happy over the general mention of Asia.
As a result, you are in danger of derailing the thread by bringing in an issue
that tends to embroil Marc Verhaegan. That is inconsistent with
your frequent repetitious railing against others "hijacking" a thread.


> But what about Homo sapiens? Is Homo sapiens (what everyone else thinks of
> as "modern man") from Africa or Asia?

"everyone"? Don't some restrict it to our subspecies, Homo sapiens sapiens?
And what does "everyone" refer to as "archaic Homo"? as "archaic Homo sapiens"?

>
> But what "older, more archaic Homo" are there? Where are their fossils?

Again you seem to have read too hastily -- this time yourself!
Look at what you wrote about Homo habilis.

> I have my doubts that the chromosome fusion has anything to do with

> speciation or isolation or any benefits. Do you have evidence for that?

The usual reason given for mules and hinnies being "sterile" [actually, almost]
is that the extra chromosome has nothing to pair up with during meiosis.
The few -- very few -- exceptions are not enough to keep the mule/hinny
"species" going in the wild. Why do you think archaic humans were different?


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

[peter2...@gmail.com]

On Friday, June 2, 2023 at 9:10:40 AM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
> On 6/1/23 10:54 PM, JTEM is my hero wrote:
> > John Harshman wrote:
> >
> >> And so
> >
> > YOU stated that I asked a question. If you want to pretend that
> > you answered it, fine. Copy & paste that answer here:
> >
> > {Crickets}
> Do you know what a rhetorical question is?

Do you think the first half of the thread title is a rhetorical question?
Is this another case of you reading something too hastily -- ignoring the
second half of the thread title?

Those are NOT rhetorical questions. I already caught two cases
of sloppy reading by you in my first post to this thread, done
in direct reply to you.

> Do you know who is supposed
> to answer a rhetorical question? (Hint: those were not rhetorical
> questions.

That remains to be seen. Once you answer my first post, there might be
a clarification. And if there is, we might or might not see whether it supports
or undermines your "Hint". If you ignore key questions and statements
of mine there, that will undermine it.

Please resist the temptation to ask what I mean by that closing "it." until
you have carefully read the whole paragraph.

> Hint #2: look at your thread title.)

I did, the whole title. Did you?


Peter Nyikos

[John Harshman]

On 6/2/23 7:47 AM, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Monday, May 29, 2023 at 6:37:44 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
>> On 5/29/23 1:15 PM, JTEM is my hero wrote:
>>>
>>> When we say that "Modern Man" arose in Asia or
>>> Africa we're being more than a little ambiguous.
>>>
>>> What do we mean "Modern Man?"
>>>
>>> If you read the media, what everyone mistakens
>>> for "Science," it's pretty clear that the owners of
>>> the paleo anthropology social program play fast
>>> & loose with their definitions. There's some pretty
>>> NOT modern specimens which are called modern.
>>>
>>> And that's okay. Or would be if they were the least
>>> bit consistent.
>>>
>>> Skull shape, for example, really isn't that important.
>
> You didn't comment on this, John. Did you study enough anatomy
> to know just which elements of the skull are diagnostic for Homo
> or Homo erectus or Homo sapiens and which are not?
>
> A well known example: the Piltdown forger had to break
> off the part where the dentary bone joins the rest of the skull,
> because that would have given the game away: it could easily
> have been identified as the jaw of a non-human ape. The current
> "consensus" is that it is the jaw of an orangutan.

How is that relevant to the topic?

No. The point is that his "modern man" includes both H. erectus and H.
sapiens and probably others. Given that he considers some species
usually placed in Homo as on the chimpanzee or gorilla lines, it seems
likely that his definition of "modern man" also fits his definition of
Homo. But he won't clarify.

> Your next question suggests that:
>
>> And that genus Homo originated in Asia?
>
> You are too trigger-happy over the general mention of Asia.
> As a result, you are in danger of derailing the thread by bringing in an issue
> that tends to embroil Marc Verhaegan. That is inconsistent with
> your frequent repetitious railing against others "hijacking" a thread.

That's just senseless manufacturing of a complaint.

>> But what about Homo sapiens? Is Homo sapiens (what everyone else thinks of
>> as "modern man") from Africa or Asia?
>
> "everyone"? Don't some restrict it to our subspecies, Homo sapiens sapiens?
> And what does "everyone" refer to as "archaic Homo"? as "archaic Homo sapiens"?

Generally, these days, Homo sapiens is restricted to H. sapiens sapiens.
"Archaic Homo sapiens" is largely an obsolete term.

>> But what "older, more archaic Homo" are there? Where are their fossils?
>
> Again you seem to have read too hastily -- this time yourself!
> Look at what you wrote about Homo habilis.

What about it? I was asking JTEM, who likely doesn't think of H. habilis
as Homo. It isn't at all clear what he thinks of as "older, more archaic
Homo", and he won't say.

>> I have my doubts that the chromosome fusion has anything to do with
>> speciation or isolation or any benefits. Do you have evidence for that?
>
> The usual reason given for mules and hinnies being "sterile" [actually, almost]
> is that the extra chromosome has nothing to pair up with during meiosis.
> The few -- very few -- exceptions are not enough to keep the mule/hinny
> "species" going in the wild. Why do you think archaic humans were different?

You are wrong about the reason for mule sterility, and if the human case
were similar (sterility of heterozygotes), then the first person to have
the chromosomal mutation would have been sterile. We could discuss this
matter, but you might want to google a bit first.

[John Harshman]

On 6/2/23 8:28 AM, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:

> On Friday, June 2, 2023 at 9:10:40 AM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
>> On 6/1/23 10:54 PM, JTEM is my hero wrote:
>>> John Harshman wrote:
>>>
>>>> And so
>>>
>>> YOU stated that I asked a question. If you want to pretend that
>>> you answered it, fine. Copy & paste that answer here:
>>>
>>> {Crickets}
>> Do you know what a rhetorical question is?
>
> Do you think the first half of the thread title is a rhetorical question?
> Is this another case of you reading something too hastily -- ignoring the
> second half of the thread title?

You understand that the body of the post answers the question, right?

> Those are NOT rhetorical questions. I already caught two cases
> of sloppy reading by you in my first post to this thread, done
> in direct reply to you.

Those two cases are imaginary on your part, perhaps due to sloppy reading.

>> Do you know who is supposed
>> to answer a rhetorical question? (Hint: those were not rhetorical
>> questions.
>
> That remains to be seen. Once you answer my first post, there might be
> a clarification. And if there is, we might or might not see whether it supports
> or undermines your "Hint". If you ignore key questions and statements
> of mine there, that will undermine it.

None of this seems relevant to whether my questions were rhetorical or
to their answers.

> Please resist the temptation to ask what I mean by that closing "it." until
> you have carefully read the whole paragraph.

I have no idea why ignoring key questions in some other post would
undermine my hint.

> > Hint #2: look at your thread title.)
>
> I did, the whole title. Did you?

Yep. Hint: "we" in that title refers to JTEM, and in the body of the
post he defines "modern man". Nor is he interested in contributions from
anyone else, given his contempt for other people.

[peter2...@gmail.com]

On Friday, June 2, 2023 at 12:35:40 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
> On 6/2/23 7:47 AM, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Monday, May 29, 2023 at 6:37:44 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
> >> On 5/29/23 1:15 PM, JTEM is my hero wrote:
> >>>
> >>> When we say that "Modern Man" arose in Asia or
> >>> Africa we're being more than a little ambiguous.
> >>>
> >>> What do we mean "Modern Man?"
> >>>
> >>> If you read the media, what everyone mistakens
> >>> for "Science," it's pretty clear that the owners of
> >>> the paleo anthropology social program play fast
> >>> & loose with their definitions. There's some pretty
> >>> NOT modern specimens which are called modern.
> >>>
> >>> And that's okay. Or would be if they were the least
> >>> bit consistent.
> >>>
> >>> Skull shape, for example, really isn't that important.
> >
> > You didn't comment on this, John. Did you study enough anatomy
> > to know just which elements of the skull are diagnostic for Homo
> > or Homo erectus or Homo sapiens and which are not?

<crickets>

> > A well known example: the Piltdown forger had to break
> > off the part where the dentary bone joins the rest of the skull,
> > because that would have given the game away: it could easily
> > have been identified as the jaw of a non-human ape. The current
> > "consensus" is that it is the jaw of an orangutan.

> How is that relevant to the topic?

Looks like you were too hasty in reading again. You left the
crickets chirping.

> >>> Human activity -- our diet, HOW we eat, utensils --
> >>> have dramatically altered the human face. And one
> >>> study shows that the human skull in Europe has
> >>> seen some significant changes in only the last 600
> >>> years! If it weren't for the geographiical & temporal
> >>> proximity, one could be forgiven for "Discovering"
> >>> two different species or at least sub species...
> >>>
> >>> https://www.birmingham.ac.uk/news-archive/2006/research-reveals-the-changing-shape-of-the-human-face
> >
> > All I got was a summary with no illustrations.
> > It appears that one has to email the keepers of the archive
> > just to find out whether there is an online copy.
> >
> >
> >>> So we can all buy into the "Well they look archaic but
> >>> they're really modern" because we can't really go by
> >>> looks. But the laughing stock that is paleo anthology
> >>> doesn't go by looks, it goes by Africa.
> >>>
> >>> If it's not modern and it's found in Africa then it's modern.
> >>>
> >>> If it's equally as non modern and it's found outside of Africa,
> >>> it's not modern.
> >>>
> >>> So, when do modern humans begin?
> >>>
> >>> I like to argue that modern man starts with erectus.

You ignored this the last time around, dealing directly with JTEM.
Why weren't you satisfied with this comment?
It is as far as he can be expected to go with the second
half of his thread title.

The ball's in your court, but you aren't playing.

That's not a point, that's an unnecessary redundancy, unless
you believe that Homo erectus is NOT ancestral to Homo sapiens.
But you've given no hint of that beyond this little tidbit.

Come to think of it, you may well be such a knee-jerk cladophile that
you believe that there is not a single ancestor-descendant
relationship anywhere in Hominoidea (including ALL species known
from fossils), nor in the evolutionary tree of Equioidea depicted
in Kathleen Hunt's superb FAQ:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/horses/horse_evol.html

The lineage starting with Hyracotherium and ending in Equus
depicts 8 distinct ancestor-descendant relationships
(9 if you count Kalobatippus). But you implicitly deny that there are any.

> Given that he considers some species
> usually placed in Homo as on the chimpanzee or gorilla lines, it seems
> likely that his definition of "modern man" also fits his definition of
> Homo. But he won't clarify.


> > Your next question suggests that:
> >
> >> And that genus Homo originated in Asia?
> >
> > You are too trigger-happy over the general mention of Asia.
> > As a result, you are in danger of derailing the thread by bringing in an issue
> > that tends to embroil Marc Verhaegan. That is inconsistent with
> > your frequent repetitious railing against others "hijacking" a thread.

> That's just senseless manufacturing of a complaint.

Thoroughly insincere, flagrantly hypocritical taunt noted.

Warning: I can back up what I wrote just now, but you have
no justification for your taunt, none whatsoever.

> >> But what about Homo sapiens? Is Homo sapiens (what everyone else thinks of
> >> as "modern man") from Africa or Asia?
> >
> > "everyone"? Don't some restrict it to our subspecies, Homo sapiens sapiens?
> > And what does "everyone" refer to as "archaic Homo"? as "archaic Homo sapiens"?

> Generally, these days, Homo sapiens is restricted to H. sapiens sapiens.
> "Archaic Homo sapiens" is largely an obsolete term.

Can you cite an authoritative source for this? Anything by John Hawks would qualify.

Do you include Denisovians and Neanderthals in Homo sapiens sapiens?

What about Heildelberg man, specifically mentioned by JTEM and
ignored by you (see above)?

Here is how the Wikipedia entry on it begins:

"Homo heidelbergensis (also H. sapiens heidelbergensis) is an extinct species or subspecies of archaic human which existed during the Middle Pleistocene."

> >> But what "older, more archaic Homo" are there? Where are their fossils?
> >
> > Again you seem to have read too hastily -- this time yourself!
> > Look at what you wrote about Homo habilis.

> What about it?

Polemical question noted.

> I was asking JTEM, who likely doesn't think of H. habilis
> as Homo. It isn't at all clear what he thinks of as "older, more archaic
> Homo", and he won't say.

That last clause is patently unfair, and your whole statement is an obfuscation,
in light of your polemical question.

Here is what he wrote about habilis:

"What the fuck does habilis have to do
with MODERN man? The topic is MODE[R]N man. Regardless of how
anyone might want to classify habilis nobody want to classify is as
MODERN man. Nobody."

> >> I have my doubts that the chromosome fusion has anything to do with
> >> speciation or isolation or any benefits. Do you have evidence for that?
> >
> > The usual reason given for mules and hinnies being "sterile" [actually, almost]
> > is that the extra chromosome has nothing to pair up with during meiosis.
> > The few -- very few -- exceptions are not enough to keep the mule/hinny
> > "species" going in the wild. Why do you think archaic humans were different?

> You are wrong about the reason for mule sterility,

Sorry, that is the reason more than one site gave, and you aren't even
MENTIONING another, nor did they. Wikipedia is mum on the whole subject.

> and if the human case
> were similar (sterility of heterozygotes), then the first person to have
> the chromosomal mutation would have been sterile.

Again, you are AT BEST reading what I wrote hastily.

Worse, you are not thinking like a scientist. It could have happened several times,
and if you keep making stupid comments like the above, you'll be reigniting
JTEM's suspicions that you have stolen the identity of the real John Harshman.

> We could discuss this
> matter, but you might want to google a bit first.

I already did a LOT of googling, using two other search engines besides Google. It's your turn,
assuming you can curb your obsession with dominating every exchange between us.

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

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

[John Harshman]

You seem less interested in discussing anything than in scoring some
kind of points against me, and I don't know the game here.

Another point for you!

And another point for you. Did you win yet?

>> Given that he considers some species
>> usually placed in Homo as on the chimpanzee or gorilla lines, it seems
>> likely that his definition of "modern man" also fits his definition of
>> Homo. But he won't clarify.
>
>
>>> Your next question suggests that:
>>>
>>>> And that genus Homo originated in Asia?
>>>
>>> You are too trigger-happy over the general mention of Asia.
>>> As a result, you are in danger of derailing the thread by bringing in an issue
>>> that tends to embroil Marc Verhaegan. That is inconsistent with
>>> your frequent repetitious railing against others "hijacking" a thread.
>
>> That's just senseless manufacturing of a complaint.
>
> Thoroughly insincere, flagrantly hypocritical taunt noted.
>
> Warning: I can back up what I wrote just now, but you have
> no justification for your taunt, none whatsoever.

OK, back it up. You can probably score another point.

>>>> But what about Homo sapiens? Is Homo sapiens (what everyone else thinks of
>>>> as "modern man") from Africa or Asia?
>>>
>>> "everyone"? Don't some restrict it to our subspecies, Homo sapiens sapiens?
>>> And what does "everyone" refer to as "archaic Homo"? as "archaic Homo sapiens"?
>
>> Generally, these days, Homo sapiens is restricted to H. sapiens sapiens.
>> "Archaic Homo sapiens" is largely an obsolete term.
>
> Can you cite an authoritative source for this? Anything by John Hawks would qualify.

Here's one: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC122156/

> Do you include Denisovians and Neanderthals in Homo sapiens sapiens?

No. They generally are considered separate species.

> What about Heildelberg man, specifically mentioned by JTEM and
> ignored by you (see above)?
>
> Here is how the Wikipedia entry on it begins:
>
> "Homo heidelbergensis (also H. sapiens heidelbergensis) is an extinct species or subspecies of archaic human which existed during the Middle Pleistocene."

Generally considered a wastebasket taxon, though also sometimes used as
a species, with some specimens stuck elsewhere.

>>>> But what "older, more archaic Homo" are there? Where are their fossils?
>>>
>>> Again you seem to have read too hastily -- this time yourself!
>>> Look at what you wrote about Homo habilis.
>
>> What about it?
>
> Polemical question noted.

Another point for you, but a non-answer.

>> I was asking JTEM, who likely doesn't think of H. habilis
>> as Homo. It isn't at all clear what he thinks of as "older, more archaic
>> Homo", and he won't say.
>
> That last clause is patently unfair, and your whole statement is an obfuscation,
> in light of your polemical question.
>
> Here is what he wrote about habilis:
>
> "What the fuck does habilis have to do
> with MODERN man? The topic is MODE[R]N man. Regardless of how
> anyone might want to classify habilis nobody want to classify is as
> MODERN man. Nobody."

The question had to do with his definition of Homo, not of "modern man".
And he won't say. But I think you scored two more points.

>>>> I have my doubts that the chromosome fusion has anything to do with
>>>> speciation or isolation or any benefits. Do you have evidence for that?
>>>
>>> The usual reason given for mules and hinnies being "sterile" [actually, almost]
>>> is that the extra chromosome has nothing to pair up with during meiosis.
>>> The few -- very few -- exceptions are not enough to keep the mule/hinny
>>> "species" going in the wild. Why do you think archaic humans were different?
>
>> You are wrong about the reason for mule sterility,
>
> Sorry, that is the reason more than one site gave, and you aren't even
> MENTIONING another, nor did they. Wikipedia is mum on the whole subject.

You must understand that there is no such thing as "the extra
chromosome". Donkeys and horses have approximately the same genetic
material, just packaged differently. The so-called extra chromosome is
homologous to two chromosomes in the other species. This, of itself,
results in only a slight reduction in fertility. It's the various
translocations, parts switched between chromosomes, that cause the big
problem. This causes one chromosome to pair in a non-binary way, each
translocated portion pairing with its homolog, and one ends up with
chains of chromosomes being pulled at their centromeres in different
directions.

Try this:
https://rep.bioscientifica.com/view/journals/rep/4/3/jrf_4_3_009.xml

>> and if the human case
>> were similar (sterility of heterozygotes), then the first person to have
>> the chromosomal mutation would have been sterile.
>
> Again, you are AT BEST reading what I wrote hastily.
>
> Worse, you are not thinking like a scientist. It could have happened several times,
> and if you keep making stupid comments like the above, you'll be reigniting
> JTEM's suspicions that you have stolen the identity of the real John Harshman.

Another point for you, but no substance. The problem is that each
chromosomal mutant in your scenario is independenly sterile, i.e. does
not produce viable gametes. So you have independent mutations, which
even if somehow they meet each other, can't fertilize each other's
gametes, there being none on either side.

What really happens, on the other hand, is a slight loss of fertility.
Again, humans have one chromosomal event in their history, while horses
and donkeys have manyt. That's the big difference.

>> We could discuss this
>> matter, but you might want to google a bit first.
>
> I already did a LOT of googling, using two other search engines besides Google. It's your turn,
> assuming you can curb your obsession with dominating every exchange between us.

Your search abilities seem quite limited. But how did you like those
links? All better?

[JTEM is my hero]

jillery wrote:

> Cite

Look. You're unhinged. You're a complete nutter and a fraud so
I have to explain something to you:

We don't have soft tissues. We don't have internal organs. In
the vast majority of cases we don't have DNA. All anyone is
ever going by is looks. When you say "Anatomy" you mean
"These remains LOOK different from those remains."

I know you're incapable of grasping a word of this and that's
what makes you so funny!



-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/719055696694542336

[jillery]

On Fri, 2 Jun 2023 16:52:39 -0700 (PDT), JTEM trolled:
> jillery wrote:
>> JTEM trolled:


<relevant text restored>

>>>"I'm not saying they look different. They don't. But their anatomy is
>>>different. But that doesn't mean they look different."
>>
>>
>>Cite your quote... oh wait... you don't know how... nevermind.
>

>Look. You're unhinged. You're a complete nutter and a fraud so
>I have to explain something to you:

You also don't know how to explain. An explanation would start by
identifying the source of your quote, and then go on to state your
reason for posting it. Perhaps you have so much trouble doing even
that minimum is because you made up that quote.

>We don't have soft tissues. We don't have internal organs. In
>the vast majority of cases we don't have DNA. All anyone is
>ever going by is looks. When you say "Anatomy" you mean
>"These remains LOOK different from those remains."
>
>I know you're incapable of grasping a word of this and that's
>what makes you so funny!

Your inspiration for this particular troll was a post from Pro Ployd
about distinguishing H. erectus from early modern humans, which is a
matter of anatomy, and distinguishing early modern humans from H.
sapiens sapiens, which is a matter of archaeology. Unlike you, he
even provided a cite:

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_modern_human>

So no, early modern humans looked different from us, not anatomically,
but culturally. That's a difference you refuse to acknowledge.

Feel free to delete all of these relevant comments, like you almost
always do.

[JTEM is my hero]

Insane, stupid but not named jillery wrote:

> You also

You're going by looks. That's all there is. Just looks. And we
know that isn't definitive.




-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/719055696694542336

[marc verhaegen]

I didn't read everything:

> > >>> What do we mean "Modern Man?"

H.s.sapiens.

H.erectus Java was quite different, e.g. pachy-osteo-sclerosis (POS occiput++), platycephaly, brain CC c 800 cc, platypelloidy (wide pelvis & probably whole body), platymeria (dorso-ventrally flattened femur) etc.

H.neanderthalensis or H.s.neanderthalensis (interfertile): less POS, larger CC, still platycephaly, platypelloidy & platymeria, very long & horizontal femoral neck, rel.long 1st & 5th pedal & manual digits, foramen magnum more dorsal on skull-base, mid-facial prognathism & larger piriform aperture surrounded by very large paranasal air sinuses (vs H.erectus: small PNSs!) etc.

IOW, there's 0 doubt He, more than Hn, frequently dived (POS) for shellfish: stone tools, island colonizations, shell engravings, DHA etc. Only *incredible* imbeciles believe their Plio- or early-Pleistocene ancestors ran after antelopes!


...

> > >>> So, when do modern humans begin?

No doubt Homo began in S.Asia: we have no Pliocene African retroviral DNA. This is best explained by my "hominoid splitting & plate tectonics" hypothesis: Late-Miocene HPG lived in Red Sea forests: Gorilla followed the incipient N-Rift->Afar: afarensis->boisei. When the Zanclean mega-flood 5.33 Ma opened the Red Sea into the Gulf of Aden, Pan went right (E.Afr.coast->S-Rift->Transvaal: africanus->robustus // Gorilla), and Pliocene Homo went left: S.Asian coast.

But when & where Hss began, is less obvious: Middle-East? c 200 ka?

...

> > >>> I like to argue that modern man starts with erectus.

No!

...

> > > that tends to embroil Marc Verhaegan.

??? Try to write my name correctly: there a countless Dutch surnames Ver....en, e.g.
Verwilg(h)en = from the willow, Verhaeg(h)en = from the hedge.

> > > And what does "everyone" refer to as "archaic Homo"? as "archaic Homo sapiens"?

He & Hn. Not sapiens!

...

> Here is how the Wikipedia entry on it begins:

Wiki is hopelessly retarded (as are still many?most PAs).

...

> > > Look at what you wrote about Homo habilis.

Google "not Homo but Australopithecus or Pan habilis".
Also most "naledi" & "sediba" are not Homo, but Pan, fossil subgenus Australopithecus?

[Pro Plyd]

jillery wrote:
> On Tue, 30 May 2023 08:27:01 -0700 (PDT), JTEM is my hero
> <jte...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Pro Plyd wrote:
>>
>>> Early modern human (EMH) or anatomically modern human (AMH)[1]
>>> are terms used to distinguish Homo sapiens (the only extant
>>> Hominina species) that are anatomically consistent with
>>
>> So... looks.
>
>
> Incorrect. "looks" include cultural artifacts and ornamentation. The
> word Pro Ployd uses above is "anatomy". There's a difference. Look
> it up.

Well stated.


>> There's nothing "anatomically consistent," btw. There isn't "Anatomical
>> Consistency" right now. I mean, just look at teeth! Right now, amongst
>> people living today there is a wide variety of teeth -- in size and even in
>> number! "Most people" can be said to have 32. "Most." Not all.
>>
>> https://www.dentalcarenetwork.com/conditions-and-concerns/appearance/tooth-shape
>
>
> There are always variations within biological populations. They are
> included in the specifications which describe a species.
>
>
>> In our post science, post news world people pretend that there's no
>> such this as race but, for anyone for whom it actually matters, like
>> police investigating a homicide, they routinely distinguish between
>> race, going by human remains.
>>
>>> the
>>> range of phenotypes seen in contemporary humans, from
>>
>> There is NOTHING anyone is pretending to be a "Modern Human"
>>from 200,000 years ago which wouldn't stick out as abnormal in
>> any crowd.
>>
>> You're going by looks. AND THEY DON'T EVEN LOOK MODERN!

>>
>> You're going by looks.

AAers look an aquatic seal with smooth hairless skin, and decide
based on looks that humans are aquatic too.

[Pro Plyd]

JTEM is my hero wrote:

> Pro Plyd wrote:
>
>> ... The divergence of the lineage leading to H. sapiens out
>> of ancestral H. erectus (or an intermediate species such as
>> Homo antecessor) is estimated to have occurred in Africa
>> roughly 500,000 years ago.
>
> Based on... what?

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

Follow the cites in the article.

>> The earliest fossil evidence of
>> early modern humans appears in Africa around 300,000 years
>> ago ...
>
> There's no such thing.

Your evidence?

>>> But what "older, more archaic Homo" are there? Where are their fossils?
>

>> Don't expect him to have any data to proffer...
>
> Really?

Your reply here is data free.

[peter2...@gmail.com]

On Thursday, July 13, 2023 at 1:40:37 AM UTC-4, Pro Plyd wrote:
> jillery wrote:
> > On Tue, 30 May 2023 08:27:01 -0700 (PDT), JTEM is my hero
> > <jte...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Pro Plyd wrote:
> >>
> >>> Early modern human (EMH) or anatomically modern human (AMH)[1]
> >>> are terms used to distinguish Homo sapiens (the only extant
> >>> Hominina species) that are anatomically consistent with
> >>
> >> So... looks.
> >
> >
> > Incorrect. "looks" include cultural artifacts and ornamentation. The
> > word Pro Ployd uses above is "anatomy". There's a difference. Look
> > it up.
>
> Well stated.
>
>
> >> There's nothing "anatomically consistent," btw. There isn't "Anatomical
> >> Consistency" right now. I mean, just look at teeth! Right now, amongst
> >> people living today there is a wide variety of teeth -- in size and even in
> >> number! "Most people" can be said to have 32. "Most." Not all.
> >>
> >> https://www.dentalcarenetwork.com/conditions-and-concerns/appearance/tooth-shape
> >
> >
> > There are always variations within biological populations. They are
> > included in the specifications which describe a species.
> >

Like a stopped clock, JTEM is right about twice a day, so nobody
commented on his next statement [except me now, see below].

> >> In our post science, post news world people pretend that there's no
> >> such this as race but, for anyone for whom it actually matters, like
> >> police investigating a homicide, they routinely distinguish between
> >> race, going by human remains.

Also, when going by descriptions of a suspect. Race is one of
the most prominent distinguishing characteristics, and we have
to live with this inconvenient truth whether we like it or not.

> >>> the
> >>> range of phenotypes seen in contemporary humans, from
> >>
> >> There is NOTHING anyone is pretending to be a "Modern Human"
> >>from 200,000 years ago which wouldn't stick out as abnormal in
> >> any crowd.
> >>
> >> You're going by looks. AND THEY DON'T EVEN LOOK MODERN!

JTEM is going by looks here.

> >> You're going by looks.

The irony is lost on JTEM.

> AAers look an aquatic seal with smooth hairless skin, and decide
> based on looks that humans are aquatic too.

So do sharks, which sometimes mistake humans for seals,
and humans paddling surfboards for dolphins.


Peter Nyikos

[jillery]

On Fri, 14 Jul 2023 13:49:01 -0700 (PDT), "peter2...@gmail.com"
<peter2...@gmail.com> wrote:

"race", however it's defined, doesn't inform any reasonable discussion
about eary modern humans.

>> >>> the
>> >>> range of phenotypes seen in contemporary humans, from
>> >>
>> >> There is NOTHING anyone is pretending to be a "Modern Human"
>> >>from 200,000 years ago which wouldn't stick out as abnormal in
>> >> any crowd.
>> >>
>> >> You're going by looks. AND THEY DON'T EVEN LOOK MODERN!
>
>JTEM is going by looks here.
>
>> >> You're going by looks.
>
>The irony is lost on JTEM.
>
>
>> AAers look an aquatic seal with smooth hairless skin, and decide
>> based on looks that humans are aquatic too.
>
>So do sharks, which sometimes mistake humans for seals,
>and humans paddling surfboards for dolphins.
>
>
>Peter Nyikos

[JTEM is my hero]

Pro Plyd wrote:

> AAers look an aquatic seal with smooth hairless skin, and decide
> based on looks that humans are aquatic too.

You, being retarded, probably believe the idiocy you spew. Or you
are so fluid in your, um, your "Reality" you can both believe it and
not believe, depending on what can fool you into thinking you're
not a jackass.

DHA alone is all the proof anyone ever needed that Aquatic Ape
is fact. There is simply no means for our ancestors to have
acquired DHA in great enough quantities so that our evolution
would be dependent upon it, short of an aquatic diet.

That one piece. Want another? Try "Coastal Dispersal."

Morons think they were stopping at Denny's for a "Grand Slam"
breakfast as they followed a map to southeast Asia and beyond.
Those of us who were not deprived of oxygen for long periods of
time as a child realize that "Coastal Dispersal" requires that they
were living on the shore, exploiting marine resources.

That's it: The exploited resources and then moved on. Eventually
the "Moving On" brought them to everywhere from Australia to
South Africa...

So we have two facts -- not speculation facts -- that tell us our
ancestors where on the shore, exploiting marine resources, and
they fit together with a glove.

And they fit human dispersal.

Savanna idiocy can't even explain the savanna.






-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/722829763403743232

[JTEM is my hero]

Pro Plyd wrote:

> > Based on... what?

Looks. Based on looks.

> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_modern_human

So looks. This is what you're saying.

> >> The earliest fossil evidence of
> >> early modern humans appears in Africa around 300,000 years
> >> ago ...
> >
> > There's no such thing.

> Your evidence?

It's the other way around, sparkles. You want to pretend there was
some "Modern Humans" running around 300,000 years ago so you
need the evidence. Not me.

There is nothing that could be mistaken for a modern human that
was living 300,000 years ago.

In fact, your so called "Moderns" didn't even look modern when
they first arrived in Europe. Cro magnon was a hybrid, and became
MORE MODERN in appearance as a result of interbreeding with
Neanderthals. Wolpoff proved this, what, a generation or two ago?




-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/722829763403743232

[JTEM is my hero]

peter2...@gmail.com wrote:

> > >> In our post science, post news world people pretend that there's no
> > >> such this as race but, for anyone for whom it actually matters, like
> > >> police investigating a homicide, they routinely distinguish between
> > >> race, going by human remains.

> Also, when going by descriptions of a suspect. Race is one of
> the most prominent distinguishing characteristics, and we have
> to live with this inconvenient truth whether we like it or not.

Race is immutable. For many years I have been screaming at the bed
wetters to get of the "Race" kick, because if race is the problem then
there is literally no solution, except perhaps genocide. And assuming
that they do not favor genocide, that leaves no solution.

So pick something else... economics... education... class... ANYTHING
that isn't immutable. But race is immutable.

Just look at any albino African. African Americans, any whose heritage
in this country can be traced back 100 years or more, is of mixed blood
and it would still be quite rare for an albino African American to be
mistaken for anything other than an African American. It's not color.

Forensic science depends on being right about "Race," it can't exist
and get such matters wrong and it operates in a world of races.

> JTEM is going by looks here.

JTEM is pointing out that someone pretending to not go by looks is
going by looks. JTEM never claimed that he avoids appearances.

Reading comprehension. Get some.




-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/722829763403743232

[JTEM is my hero]

jillery wrote:

> "race", however it's defined, doesn't inform any reasonable discussion
> about eary modern humans.

It doesn't write letters, if that's what you're saying, but it is infinitely
better stated that these so called "Different" species were more on
the line of different "Races."

"But human appearance has coalesced over time! That proves they
were different species."

No, sugar lumps, that pretty much establishes that they weren't.




-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/722829763403743232

[jillery]

On Fri, 14 Jul 2023 22:45:57 -0700 (PDT), JTEM is my hero
<jte...@gmail.com> wrote:

>Race is immutable.


Race is defined by whatever distinguishing characteristics racists
imagine are important, whether or not these characteristics are
heritable, whether or not they identify a distinct population, whether
or not they are even real. Race is the epitome of mutability.

[JTEM is my hero]

jillery wrote:

> Race is defined by whatever distinguishing characteristics racists
> imagine are important,

That is simply not true. Anyone whose job depends on getting it
right certainly operates under the assumption that you are a
goddamn retard... forensic scientists, for example.

It's true that interbreeding can make things very hard. One example
is Egyptology where there have been migrations/invasions coming
from everywhere, over a period of thousands of years. But that's
literally at the crossroads of three continents...





-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/722829763403743232

[jillery]

On Tue, 18 Jul 2023 20:51:04 -0700 (PDT), JTEM trolled:

There are populations and haplotypes and cultures and ethnicities.
These are what forensics and Egyptologists describe. These words
correlate to reality. These words are not what racists mean by
"race". There is no coherent meaning to "white race" and "black race"
and "aryan race" and "jewish race" and "mexican race".

[JTEM is my hero]

Mentally ill and not named jillery wrote:

> There are

It's not like I had any patience for you yesterday, and your brand
of mental problem. And I didn't have patience the day before.
So why that deranged cesspool you pretend in a mind would
think I'd have any use for you today...

I spelled it out for you. The problem here, I spelled it out. You
could incorporate what I said into your response but that
would require you to be almost as intelligent as you're pretending
to be.


Go away, Find a topic that interests you.





-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/721968221374365696/saw-a-ghost-today-in-fact-saw-two

[israel sadovnik]

What is Modern Man?
Used technologies of the 21st century and
philosophy of the 18th century

[jillery]

On Wed, 19 Jul 2023 20:04:39 -0700 (PDT), JTEM trolled:

>Go away,


You first.

>Find a topic that interests you.

Find a topic that you know what you're talking about.

[JTEM is my hero]

Finishing with it's chew toy, jillery barked:

> You first.

Again, you're not very bright (or at all bright) but I began this
thread. I did go first. And you are pathetic.

Forensic scientists have to deal with race all the time, and
not in the theoretical. People can be of mixed heritage but
this requires -- does not exclude -- the distinct characteristics
of the different heritages.

You're simply a frigging jackass lapping up headlines.




-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/723347629580419072

[jillery]

On Thu, 20 Jul 2023 04:12:58 -0700 (PDT), JTEM trolled:

>Finishing with it's chew toy, jillery barked:
>
>> You first.
>
>Again, you're not very bright (or at all bright) but I began this
>thread. I did go first.

This thread well demonstrates you have no idea what you're talking
about. Not only did you not go first, you never went at all.


>And you are pathetic.


Yeah, I get that a lot from willfully stupid trolls.

[JTEM is my hero]

Mentally ill and not even named jillery wrote:

> This thread

This thread and every other thread is a stage for you, one where
you play act at being someone who isn't quite as pathetic as you
know you are.

You don't know jack. Knowledge follows interest and all you're
interested in is cowering from your all too obvious inferiority.

You're misunderstanding and misrepresenting "Looks." avoiding
at all cost the actual discussion, because this is what narcissists
do.




-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/723026966788423680

[Pro Plyd]

JBUM is no hero wrote:
>
Not now jon jon, adults are talking.

[Pro Plyd]

[JTEM is my hero]

You went back to the end of May to be offended by a question
you couldn't understand even if you read it.





-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/726557549488439296