3.7 million years ago

[JTEM is my hero]

My best guess for the LCA, the Homo/Pan split is
about 3.7 million years ago.

We were told for like a generation that it was about
6 million years. This was based on the fantasy that
mtDNA mutates at a steady of near clockwork rate.

It doesn't. It's heavily selected for. In the deep past
the right mtDNA line was a powerful advantage. It
helped people live beyond the Tropics and even
outside the sub tropics, the mtDNA helping to keep
us warm. And as populations lived longer, the right
mtDNA made a huge difference. It slows down with
age, so a new line that gets older before slowing
down is an advantage. It's also associated with cancer.

The age ranges with the lowest risk of cancer TODAY
is like 20 to 44. People over 55 have like 4x to 5x the
risk. People dropping dead of cancer at 30 never made
a difference, evolutionarily speaking, when few ever
lived that long anyway. But as living longer posed an
advantage -- knowledge, skills being kept, passed down
-- the older they could push peak cancer cases the
better. And that, yes, that directly translates to selective
pressures on mtDNA.

So moving to new territories AND living longer were
both placing selective pressures on mtDNA, making it
change. No "Clock Like" mutation rate. Evolution.

Of course this rate it going to be a lot, Lot, LOT slower
once a population is stable. If the climate is good, if
the birth rate is high enough to not worry about the
people dying, there's very little pressure on mtDNA to
change. But, if you assume that the line which saw
precious little pressure mutated at the exact same rate
as a line that saw a great deal, your estimates are WAY
off.

No, the "Molecular Dating" is rancid dog meat...

Anyway, with selective pressures causing a lot of
changes in some mtDNA, and with the assumption that
these rapid changes were not rapid, "Molecular Dating"
wildly exaggerated the divergence point, placing it at
about 6 million years or more for the LCA. It had to be
more recent. A lot more recent.

I can go into other details but the short & sweet here is
that the Pan/Homo split took place around 3.7 million
years ago.

::Discuss::


-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/713613768636137472

[jillery]

On Mon, 3 Apr 2023 23:37:37 -0700 (PDT), JTEM wrote:

>My best guess for the LCA, the Homo/Pan split is
>about 3.7 million years ago.
>
>We were told for like a generation that it was about
>6 million years. This was based on the fantasy that
>mtDNA mutates at a steady of near clockwork rate.

<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).
**************************************

So not 6mya and not just mtDNA. Instead, there are multiple lines of
evidence providing a broad range of plausible dates.

>It doesn't. It's heavily selected for.

<https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3757997/>
**************************************
Due to a combined lack of protective histones, ROS generation in the
inner membrane, and limited repair mechanisms, mtDNA is particularly
susceptible to damage and has a mutation rate estimated to be 10 to 20
times higher than that of nuclear DNA
***************************************

Also, mutation rates are based on averages of observed data across
multiple generations. There is no presumption of a "steady clockwork
rate".

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

[Öö Tiib]

On Tuesday, 4 April 2023 at 09:40:10 UTC+3, JTEM is my hero wrote:
> My best guess for the LCA, the Homo/Pan split is
> about 3.7 million years ago.
>
>

> ::Discuss::
>
It is easier to compare gene sequences that haven't been subject
of other ways of changing those, but only mutations. That is why
scientists use mtDNA and Y chromosome DNA to determine
distance and inheritance. Those genes are not subjects of
recombination.

Majority of mutations are neutral and do not cause noticeable
differences in animal organism but are inherited regardless.
Selective pressures do not cause changes in genes. Random
mutations cause changes in genes. Selective pressures choose
what mutations are more likely to survive. But some mutations
had to survive if whole specie survived.

Current science is that average mammal of today differs from
its ancestors 3.7 millions years ago by about 0.7% of base pairs.
That is so regardless it had pressures to change or to stay
unchanged.

It comes from measured quantities. The mammalian
genome mutation rate is about 2.2 × 10 in −9 per base pair
per year. It is not same for whatever base pair as different
regions are differently conserved. But overall the reasons
of mutations, 6 repair mechanisms and proportions of
the more or less conserved regions are about same for all
mammals and have been about same for many millions of
years before.

If you have information that it is wrong then go ahead and share.
But do not talk about warmth, cancer, teaching offspring or any
of such being more important for ape than for bear or wolf.
Those are orthogonal, unrelated subjects.

[JTEM is my hero]

jillery wrote:


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

I LOVE IT! Typical of Wiki uselessness and the mindless contradictions of
usenet (f)Lame warriors: "There's no fossils, but the fossils prove it!"

: the fossil evidence is now fully compatible with older chimpanzee–human
: divergence dates [7 to 10 Ma...

WHAT fossil evidence?

Show us.

> **************************************
> While "original divergence" between populations may have occurred as
> early as 13 million years ago (Miocene),

This is an a-prior assumption.

Why believe any such thing, unless you WANT a very old divergence date?

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

Why? You're religious, pointing to The Gospels of Wiki, written by usenet
trolls.

You don't give a reason, you simply pronounce it.

> So not 6mya and not just mtDNA.

You could just Google it, and see that the interwebs are absolutely
BRISTLING with citations naming the 6 million years. and other
years, yes, but you being autistic you can't deal with ambiguities.

> Instead, there are multiple lines of
> evidence providing a broad range of plausible dates.

No. There aren't. That is the point.

There is "Molecular Dating" alone and it sucks. It's just plain
wrong. It tends to WAY over exaggerate dates.

> >It doesn't. It's heavily selected for.

> <https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3757997/>
> **************************************
> Due to a combined lack of protective histones, ROS generation in the
> inner membrane, and limited repair mechanisms, mtDNA is particularly
> susceptible to damage and has a mutation rate estimated to be 10 to 20
> times higher than that of nuclear DNA
> ***************************************

Okay. This doesn't address what I said, which is that mtDNA is under
HEAVY selection, or at least it was in the past.

You're literally "Arguing" against evolution in your need to contradict.

> Also, mutation rates are based on averages of observed data across
> multiple generations. There is no presumption of a "steady clockwork
> rate".

You're describing a "Steady" rate, an average.

And the fact is that the rate right now is WAY slower than in
the past, when humans were stretching into new environments.

We began as a tropical into sub tropics species. We needed
to evolve to cope with cold climates, and mtDNA was an
extremely important part of that.

Of course I did lay this all out in my original post, and not one word
of it registered in your, um, your "Special" mind.

Par for the course.

-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/713714006743973888

[JTEM is my hero]

Öö Tiib wrote:

> It is easier to compare gene sequences that haven't been subject
> of other ways of changing those, but only mutations. That is why
> scientists use mtDNA and Y chromosome DNA to determine
> distance and inheritance. Those genes are not subjects of
> recombination.

They are subject to heavy selection, of course. the y chromosome
in chimps is heavily selected for, as there is enormous sperm
competition between chimps. So Chimps accumulate changes at
a far great (faster rate) than so called moderns. However, if you
assume the retarded "Molecular Clock" then your time of divergence
with humans is going to be wildly exaggerated. BECAUSE of this
selective pressure.

> Selective pressures do not cause changes in genes.

We're just going to stop right there. No point in moving on, not after
a mistake THAT massive...




-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/713714006743973888

[Öö Tiib]

On Wednesday, 5 April 2023 at 08:00:11 UTC+3, JTEM is my hero wrote:
> Öö Tiib wrote:
>
> > It is easier to compare gene sequences that haven't been subject
> > of other ways of changing those, but only mutations. That is why
> > scientists use mtDNA and Y chromosome DNA to determine
> > distance and inheritance. Those genes are not subjects of
> > recombination.
>
> They are subject to heavy selection, of course. the y chromosome
> in chimps is heavily selected for, as there is enormous sperm
> competition between chimps. So Chimps accumulate changes at
> a far great (faster rate) than so called moderns. However, if you
> assume the retarded "Molecular Clock" then your time of divergence
> with humans is going to be wildly exaggerated. BECAUSE of this
> selective pressure.

You snipped:

> > Majority of mutations are neutral and do not cause noticeable
> > differences in animal organism but are inherited regardless.

It is because value of vast majority of base pairs does not matter.
That is obvious and so you probably saw your error.

> > Selective pressures do not cause changes in genes.
> We're just going to stop right there. No point in moving on, not after
> a mistake THAT massive...
>

And here you run.

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

On 2023-04-05 06:43:58 +0000, 嘱 Tiib said:

> On Wednesday, 5 April 2023 at 08:00:11 UTC+3, JTEM is my hero wrote:

>> 脰枚 Tiib wrote:>> > It is easier to compare gene sequences that

>> haven't been subject> > of other ways of changing those, but only
>> mutations. That is why> > scientists use mtDNA and Y chromosome DNA to
>> determine> > distance and inheritance. Those genes are not subjects of>
>> > recombination.
>>
>> They are subject to heavy selection, of course. the y chromosome> in
>> chimps is heavily selected for, as there is enormous sperm> competition
>> between chimps. So Chimps accumulate changes at> a far great (faster
>> rate) than so called moderns. However, if you> assume the retarded
>> "Molecular Clock" then your time of divergence> with humans is going to
>> be wildly exaggerated. BECAUSE of this> selective pressure.
>
> You snipped:
>>> Majority of mutations are neutral and do not cause noticeable
>>> differences in animal organism but are inherited regardless.
>
> It is because value of vast majority of base pairs does not matter.
> That is obvious and so you probably saw your error.

You are an optimist, 嘱. What in JTEM's previous posting leads you to
think he is able to recognize his error?

>
>>> Selective pressures do not cause changes in genes.
>> We're just going to stop right there. No point in moving on, not after>
>> a mistake THAT massive...>And here you run.

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

[marc verhaegen]

Op dinsdag 4 april 2023 om 08:40:10 UTC+2 schreef JTEM is my hero:

I have no idea, JTEM, but the usual dates of H/P = 6-5 Ma fit remarkably well with all we know IMO, esp. the comparative data:
I'm pretty sure the H/P LCA waded-climbed already bipedally in swamp forests of the Red Sea,
and when the Red Sea opened into the Gulf,
- Pan went right -> E.Afr.coastal forests -> southern Rift -> Transvaal -> africanus->robustus, google "aquarboreal",
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/271769593_Marc_Verhaegen_1987-2013_Human_Evolution_papers
- Homo went left -> S.Asian coasts -> early-Pleist.Java Mojokerto H.erectus, google "coastal dispersal Pleistocene Homo":
H.erectus shell engravings (google "Joordens Munro"), larger brain (DHA), pachyosteosclerosis etc.etc.
Simple, no? :-)
Francesca Mmansfield thinks the Zanclean mega-flood 5.33 Ma caused the opening of the Red Sea into the Gulf.
She may well be correct IMO.
Google "GondwanaTalks Verhaegen English".

[JTEM is my hero]

Öö Tiib wrote:

>JTEM is my hero wrote:
> > Öö Tiib wrote:
> >
> > > It is easier to compare gene sequences that haven't been subject
> > > of other ways of changing those, but only mutations. That is why
> > > scientists use mtDNA and Y chromosome DNA to determine
> > > distance and inheritance. Those genes are not subjects of
> > > recombination.
> >
> > They are subject to heavy selection, of course. the y chromosome
> > in chimps is heavily selected for, as there is enormous sperm
> > competition between chimps. So Chimps accumulate changes at
> > a far great (faster rate) than so called moderns. However, if you
> > assume the retarded "Molecular Clock" then your time of divergence
> > with humans is going to be wildly exaggerated. BECAUSE of this
> > selective pressure.

> You snipped:

Yup. Ii castrated you. That was me.

I did not quote the irrelevant bit. Whether changes are neutral or not
has absolutely nothing what so ever to do with the fact that changes
to mtDNA are assumed to always occur at the same clock like rate.

> > > Selective pressures do not cause changes in genes.

> > We're just going to stop right there. No point in moving on, not after
> > a mistake THAT massive...

This was smart of me. No point in going further if some troll is going
to say something THAT obviously wrong... stupid... comical in scale,
it's so stupid.




-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/713719423361531904/i-wanted-to-but-i-could-not-talk-to-roomie-into

[JTEM is my hero]

Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:

> You are an optimist, 嘱. What in JTEM's previous posting leads you to
> think he is able to recognize his error?

I thank you for not taking your lithium, donning a new sock puppet and
agree with yourself -- I am, after all, THAT important to you -- but you are
a blithering idiot and not just insane.

What you're claiming here, and using this present sock puppet to agree
with, is that "Molecular Dating" always determines with accuracy which
mutations as neutral and then refuses to incorporate them into their
calculation.

it's shocking that you haven't embarrassed yourself to death, yet.

Molecular dating is looking at THE NUMBER of changes -- mutations --
and assuming a standard, clock like rate of accumulation. And, from
there determining a date.

It literally doesn't mean a goddamn thing if said mutations are neutral.




-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/713714006743973888

[jillery]

On Tue, 4 Apr 2023 21:51:59 -0700 (PDT), JTEM is my hero
<jte...@gmail.com> wrote:

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

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).

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

>I LOVE IT! Typical of Wiki uselessness and the mindless contradictions of
>usenet (f)Lame warriors: "There's no fossils, but the fossils prove it!"

Since you don't like Wiki cites, cite something you do like, assuming
you know how.

>: the fossil evidence is now fully compatible with older chimpanzee–human
>: divergence dates [7 to 10 Ma...
>
>WHAT fossil evidence?
>
>Show us.

You show your complete disregard for citations. So to quote someone
you regard so highly, "Google it for yourself."


<citation restored>

<https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3757997/>
**************************************
Due to a combined lack of protective histones, ROS generation in the
inner membrane, and limited repair mechanisms, mtDNA is particularly
susceptible to damage and has a mutation rate estimated to be 10 to 20
times higher than that of nuclear DNA
***************************************

>This is an a-prior assumption.
>
>Why believe any such thing, unless you WANT a very old divergence date?
>

>Why? You're religious, pointing to The Gospels of Wiki, written by usenet
>trolls.

As proved by the restored citation, the above is NOT from Wiki.

Once again, since you don't like my cite, cite something you do like,
assuming you know how.

>You don't give a reason, you simply pronounce it.

So what makes your pronouncements any better?

>> So not 6mya and not just mtDNA.
>
>You could just Google it,

Unlike you, I did Google it, and cited it, and quoted it.

>and see that the interwebs are absolutely
>BRISTLING with citations naming the 6 million years. and other
>years, yes, but you being autistic you can't deal with ambiguities.
>
>> Instead, there are multiple lines of
>> evidence providing a broad range of plausible dates.
>
>No. There aren't. That is the point.

So back up your claims, assuming you know how.

>There is "Molecular Dating" alone and it sucks. It's just plain
>wrong. It tends to WAY over exaggerate dates.

Nuclear DNA and mtDNA provide independent lines of evidence, as do
dates of hominin fossils and other paleontological artifacts, for a
date of the LCA between humans and other apes between 4 and 13mya.

>> >It doesn't. It's heavily selected for.

You don't specify your "it".

>> <https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3757997/>
>> **************************************
>> Due to a combined lack of protective histones, ROS generation in the
>> inner membrane, and limited repair mechanisms, mtDNA is particularly
>> susceptible to damage and has a mutation rate estimated to be 10 to 20
>> times higher than that of nuclear DNA
>> ***************************************
>
>Okay. This doesn't address what I said, which is that mtDNA is under
>HEAVY selection, or at least it was in the past.

mtDNA mutation rates are independent of selection, HEAVY or otherwise.
As my cite states, mtDNA mutations are almost always recessive and/or
neutral, and so typically are not selected against. Also, human ova
have 100k-600k mitochondria each, which allows substantial diversity
without affecting functionality.

>You're literally "Arguing" against evolution in your need to contradict.

OTOH you're literally spewing mindless noise in your need to
mindlessly contradict.

>> Also, mutation rates are based on averages of observed data across
>> multiple generations. There is no presumption of a "steady clockwork
>> rate".
>
>You're describing a "Steady" rate, an average.

"average" <> "steady".

>And the fact is that the rate right now is WAY slower than in
>the past, when humans were stretching into new environments.

Cite, assuming you know how.

>We began as a tropical into sub tropics species. We needed
>to evolve to cope with cold climates, and mtDNA was an
>extremely important part of that.
>
>Of course I did lay this all out in my original post, and not one word
>of it registered in your, um, your "Special" mind.

I acknowledge you claimed "all this" in your OP. Apparently baseless
claims prove it in your mind.


>Par for the course.


That's the one thing you got right in this topic.

[JTEM is my hero]

jillery wrote:

> Since you don't like Wiki cites, cite something you do like

Why? What haven't you been able to find?

The importance of DHA to our brains? Coastal Dispersal?
The 6 million year old point of divergence?

What oh what did you Google for and come up dry?

Oo! I know: The Retro Virus evidence? It's lame, you trying
to claim that, but you have yet to identify anything you could
not find on your own.

I HAVE, however, identified the contractions in your cite,
pointed out that there is absolute no fossil evidence for the
claims being made by your precious Wiki.

> >WHAT fossil evidence?
> >
> >Show us.

> You show your complete

So you have nothing. Nothing at all.

There is no such "Fossil Evidence." Your "Cite" is refuted. It's
off the table. Move on,






-- --

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

[Öö Tiib]

On Thursday, 6 April 2023 at 02:05:11 UTC+3, JTEM is my hero wrote:
> Öö Tiib wrote:
>
> >JTEM is my hero wrote:
> > > Öö Tiib wrote:
> > >
> > > > It is easier to compare gene sequences that haven't been subject
> > > > of other ways of changing those, but only mutations. That is why
> > > > scientists use mtDNA and Y chromosome DNA to determine
> > > > distance and inheritance. Those genes are not subjects of
> > > > recombination.
> > >
> > > They are subject to heavy selection, of course. the y chromosome
> > > in chimps is heavily selected for, as there is enormous sperm
> > > competition between chimps. So Chimps accumulate changes at
> > > a far great (faster rate) than so called moderns. However, if you
> > > assume the retarded "Molecular Clock" then your time of divergence
> > > with humans is going to be wildly exaggerated. BECAUSE of this
> > > selective pressure.
>
> > You snipped:
> Yup. Ii castrated you. That was me.
>
> I did not quote the irrelevant bit. Whether changes are neutral or not
> has absolutely nothing what so ever to do with the fact that changes
> to mtDNA are assumed to always occur at the same clock like rate.

Precisely. Mutations happen because of factors that cause inaccuracies
in replication and limitations in the 6 repair mechanisms in action. You
provide zero evidence about any of that been changed in any direction
during few last millions of years. You even do not talk about it.

You are correct that if concrete random genetic change is neutral (no
subject to pressure) or has some effect (is subject to pressure) does
not alter mutation rate at all. But conclusion from it is exactly that all
your blather about warmth, teaching offspring, cancer and what was
there was irrelevant as it has nothing to do with the rate of point
changes.

> > > > Selective pressures do not cause changes in genes.
>
> > > We're just going to stop right there. No point in moving on, not after
> > > a mistake THAT massive...
> This was smart of me. No point in going further if some troll is going
> to say something THAT obviously wrong... stupid... comical in scale,
> it's so stupid.
>

You are wrong and your stupidity is not comical. Also your talks about
sock puppets used are simply sad. Please take whatever your doctor
prescribed.

[JTEM is my hero]

Öö Tiib wrote:

> JTEM is my hero wrote:
> > I did not quote the irrelevant bit. Whether changes are neutral or not
> > has absolutely nothing what so ever to do with the fact that changes
> > to mtDNA are assumed to always occur at the same clock like rate.

> Precisely.

Correct. I did not remove anything relevant. It was obfuscation and not
at all germane to the conversation.

> You
> provide zero evidence about any of that been changed in any direction
> during few last millions of years. You even do not talk about it.

I never pretended there was some imaginary "Molecular Clock" in the
first place. Why would I try to claim that it changed?

You are in denial of evolution. What I am stating is indisputable fact --
mtDNA is under selective pressures, and when Homo spread to new
environments the mtDNA was under great selection.

Fact. Nobody disputes it. Nobody disputes the link between mtDNA
and cancer, the link to mtDNA and body heat, the fact that mtDNA
slows down with age and the longer that takes the better off a
population that benefits from grandparents is.

Nobody.

And you're claiming that evolution doesn't exist. You're "Arguing"
that I must prove that what Darwin mistakenly called "Natural
Selection" exists.

No. I'm not playing.

Fuck off.

> > > > > Selective pressures do not cause changes in genes.

Damn! This was a real STUPID thing for you to say!

Retract.




-- --

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

[jillery]

On Wed, 5 Apr 2023 20:06:29 -0700 (PDT), JTEM continues to troll:

> jillery wrote:
>
>> Since you don't like Wiki cites, cite something you do like
>
>Why? What haven't you been able to find?

Why do you refuse to cite?

Why do you delete the cites I posted?

[JTEM is my hero]

Mentally unhinged, autistic and stupid, jillery wrote:

> >Why? What haven't you been able to find?

> Why do you refuse to cite?

Cite... what?

Be specific. Tell me what exactly you Googled and were unable to
verify on your own... Coastal Dispersal? Was that it?

You say stupid shit, often. And you get called out on that stupid
shit. But you're so demented you apparently believe that the problem
wasn't saying stupid shit, the problem was that getting called out was
magic and made stupid shit look like stupid shit.

No, you're a stupid shit head! And you proved it! Here. Prove it again:

What is it you can't find? You're ignorant on some topic, I mentioned
it, and your snot covered fingers where unable to find anything on
Google when you searched for.... what?

Go on. Don't answer. Because you are a stupid shit head!

XOXOXOX


-- --

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

[Öö Tiib]

On Thursday, 6 April 2023 at 22:25:20 UTC+3, JTEM is my hero wrote:
> Öö Tiib wrote:
>
> > JTEM is my hero wrote:
> > > I did not quote the irrelevant bit. Whether changes are neutral or not
> > > has absolutely nothing what so ever to do with the fact that changes
> > > to mtDNA are assumed to always occur at the same clock like rate.
>
> > Precisely.
> Correct. I did not remove anything relevant. It was obfuscation and not
> at all germane to the conversation.
>

Sentence "Mutations happen because of factors that cause inaccuracies

in replication and limitations in the 6 repair mechanisms in action."

proves you wrong? Why it hurts you to be wrong? Is your self image
"smart"?

> > You
> > provide zero evidence about any of that been changed in any direction
> > during few last millions of years. You even do not talk about it.
>
> I never pretended there was some imaginary "Molecular Clock" in the
> first place. Why would I try to claim that it changed?
>

That is not a clock. Replication has accuracy and that accuracy is very
good but not 100% perfect. As there are very lot of base pairs some
of those change in every animal generation. Vast majority change
nothing in properties of individual but are inherited regardless.

> You are in denial of evolution. What I am stating is indisputable fact --
> mtDNA is under selective pressures, and when Homo spread to new
> environments the mtDNA was under great selection.
>

I am not in denial of evolution. Selective pressures have not altered
accuracy of cell replications in humans and/or chimps in neither
direction. There are no pressure to mutate more or to mutate less.

> Fact. Nobody disputes it. Nobody disputes the link between mtDNA
> and cancer, the link to mtDNA and body heat, the fact that mtDNA
> slows down with age and the longer that takes the better off a
> population that benefits from grandparents is.
>
> Nobody.
>

I did not dispute it ... I said that it is irrelevant. Selective pressures
can only select some concrete base pair mutations if such happen,
not cause those. Half of the mutations of parent will be inherited
to kid anyway by plain mechanic of sexual reproduction and
pressure can not alter that fact.

> And you're claiming that evolution doesn't exist. You're "Arguing"
> that I must prove that what Darwin mistakenly called "Natural
> Selection" exists.
>

I am doing nothing like that. You know it by seeing what you snip,
you are just pretending. Darwin had no equipment to research
molecular biology.

> No. I'm not playing.
>
> Fuck off.
>

That is weird way to try to entertain us. Internet is full of profane
idiots. You are being boring.

[marc verhaegen]

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

[JTEM is my hero]

Öö Tiib wrote:

> JTEM is my hero wrote:
> It was obfuscation and not at all germane to the conversation.
>
> Sentence "Mutations happen because of factors that cause inaccuracies
> in replication and limitations in the 6 repair mechanisms in action."
> proves you wrong?

Stop obfuscating.

> > I never pretended there was some imaginary "Molecular Clock" in the
> > first place. Why would I try to claim that it changed?

> That is not a clock.

Stop obfuscating. If anyone doesn't know, and they are genuinely curious,
they are going to Google "Molecular Clock" right now and see that I did
not invent the term, they are going to see the retarded troll game you're
playing.

There is no "Molecular Clock." BECAUSE there is this thing called evolution.
Nature places "Selective Pressures" on an organism. If the larger specimens
can't hide, get picked off by birds, this is selective pressure to remain small.

Evolution.

When there is selective pressure the changes to the DNA are relatively
rapid. Looking at the level of a population, they can be incredibly fast, like
in the case of a Founder Effect where outlying traits might rise to
prominence in a single generation... albeit a small population at first.

MOVING is an event where selective pressures are going to be at work.

Just the different climate: Our mtDNA relates to body heat!

Stay put though and there's not any new selective pressure.

Assume that both groups mutate at the same rate and you've got a wildly
exaggerated time of divergence, which is exactly what "Molecular Dating"
does.

That's your lesson for today.




-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/714153321890463744

[Öö Tiib]

On Monday, 10 April 2023 at 21:05:16 UTC+3, JTEM is my hero wrote:
> Öö Tiib wrote:
>
> > JTEM is my hero wrote:
> > It was obfuscation and not at all germane to the conversation.
> >
> > Sentence "Mutations happen because of factors that cause inaccuracies
> > in replication and limitations in the 6 repair mechanisms in action."
> > proves you wrong?
> Stop obfuscating.
>
> > > I never pretended there was some imaginary "Molecular Clock" in the
> > > first place. Why would I try to claim that it changed?
>
> > That is not a clock.
> Stop obfuscating. If anyone doesn't know, and they are genuinely curious,
> they are going to Google "Molecular Clock" right now and see that I did
> not invent the term, they are going to see the retarded troll game you're
> playing.
>

It is figurative term of technique that uses rate of random mutations
to deduce time when two life forms diverged.

> There is no "Molecular Clock." BECAUSE there is this thing called evolution.
> Nature places "Selective Pressures" on an organism. If the larger specimens
> can't hide, get picked off by birds, this is selective pressure to remain small.
>
> Evolution.
>

How can evolution contradict with its own component? It can not. And
random mutations happening is vital component of evolution.

The size of the specimen differs because of having different mutations.
For example smaller one had mutation causing slightly worse appetite, bigger
one had mutation causing slightly slower metabolism. Those among number
of mutations that made no changes.

> When there is selective pressure the changes to the DNA are relatively
> rapid. Looking at the level of a population, they can be incredibly fast, like
> in the case of a Founder Effect where outlying traits might rise to
> prominence in a single generation... albeit a small population at first.
>
> MOVING is an event where selective pressures are going to be at work.
>

Not true. When there is strong selective pressure to size then properties
of specie change quickly. Mutations happen still at about same rate. Wolf
and Chihuahua diverged only tens of thousands years ago by genetic
evidence but size difference is major.
African savanna elephants diverged from African forest elephants lot
longer time ago but had no pressure to size. And so their size is about
same but genes way more different than genes of Wolf and Chihuahua.

> Just the different climate: Our mtDNA relates to body heat!
>
> Stay put though and there's not any new selective pressure.
>
> Assume that both groups mutate at the same rate and you've got a wildly
> exaggerated time of divergence, which is exactly what "Molecular Dating"
> does.
>
> That's your lesson for today.
>

Yet genes of both Wolf and Chihuahua have mutated at about same rate
since they diverged. Selective pressures have chosen different mutations
but that is irrelevant to pace of mutations.

[JTEM is my hero]

Öö Tiib wrote:

> It is figurative term of

Stop obfuscating. You're exposed. Again, if anyone besides you is here,
and they don't already know (fat chance), and they're curious, they
Googled it. They know you're a blithering idiot trying to obfuscate.

You're just a sick troll hiding behind rotating sock puppets.



-- --

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

[Öö Tiib]

On Tuesday, 11 April 2023 at 10:00:17 UTC+3, JTEM is my hero wrote:
> Öö Tiib wrote:
>
> > It is figurative term of
> Stop obfuscating. You're exposed. Again, if anyone besides you is here,
> and they don't already know (fat chance), and they're curious, they
> Googled it. They know you're a blithering idiot trying to obfuscate.
>

Mutations are still part of evolution. Mutation rate is still low
but existent. You still fail to tell how figurative terminology
used contradicts with evolution.

> You're just a sick troll hiding behind rotating sock puppets.
>

Take your meds ... I live in different country (and even on lot of cases
continent) than all other regulars here. Also my English is not
good ... maybe only Nando has worse. So people would discover
fast if I would use sock puppet and that is one of very few things
for what Dig bans here so I do not see a point.

[jillery]

On Tue, 11 Apr 2023 03:04:05 -0700 (PDT), Öö Tiib <oot...@hot.ee>
wrote:

JTEM accuses others of what he does, a common habit among trolls.

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

On 2023-04-11 10:04:05 +0000, 嘱 Tiib said:

> On Tuesday, 11 April 2023 at 10:00:17 UTC+3, JTEM is my hero wrote:

>> 嘱 Tiib wrote:>> > It is figurative term of

>> Stop obfuscating. You're exposed. Again, if anyone besides you is
>> here,> and they don't already know (fat chance), and they're curious,
>> they> Googled it. They know you're a blithering idiot trying to
>> obfuscate.>Mutations are still part of evolution. Mutation rate is
>> still low
> but existent. You still fail to tell how figurative terminology
> used contradicts with evolution.
>> You're just a sick troll hiding behind rotating sock puppets.>Take your
>> meds ... I live in different country (and even on lot of cases
> continent) than all other regulars here. Also my English is notgood

You are too modest. Your English may not be perfect, but it's always
understandable and coherent. Also it's a million times better than my
Estonian.

> ... maybe only Nando has worse. So people would discover
> fast if I would use sock puppet and that is one of very few things
> for what Dig bans here so I do not see a point.

[Bob Casanova]

On Tue, 11 Apr 2023 03:04:05 -0700 (PDT), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by 嘱 Tiib <oot...@hot.ee>:

>On Tuesday, 11 April 2023 at 10:00:17 UTC+3, JTEM is my hero wrote:

Your English is fine and understandable; only those such as
the above, who have a neurotic need to feel superior (even
if the feeling is delusional), would say otherwise.
>
--

Bob C.

"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"

- Isaac Asimov

[JTEM is my hero]

Öö Tiib wrote:

> Mutations are still part of evolution. Mutation rate is still

Great. You're answering a question nobody asked, responding to
something nobody said.

The so called "Molecular Clock" is idiocy. It's false. It's predicated on
the believe that evolution never existed, there is no such thing as
natural selection and any changes to mtDNA over time all occurred
as the result of random mutations happening at a consistent rate.

If you have a group under heavy selective pressure, and a group under
little or none, and assume that they changed at the same "Clock like
pace," you are going to wildly exaggerate the date of divergence. And
this is what has happened. And this is exactly what they did. And
instead of correcting the error -- pushing things more recent -- they
went in the opposite direction. NOW the idiots are claiming as much
as 13 million years ago for a point of divergence.. instead of the
original 6 million based on a non existing "Molecular Clock."






-- --

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

[JTEM is my hero]

jillery wrote:

> JTEM accuses others of what he does

Cite me doing this. Actual quotes.

Don't be a pussy. Seriously. STOP being a pussy and do it.

Do you dare even try?

So let's see your actual quotes.




-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/713714006743973888

[jillery]

On Tue, 11 Apr 2023 14:19:23 -0700 (PDT), JTEM trolled:

> jillery wrote:
>
>> JTEM accuses others of what he does
>
>Cite me doing this. Actual quotes.

You don't specify what your "this" is. Quelle surprise.

[Öö Tiib]

On Wednesday, 12 April 2023 at 00:20:17 UTC+3, JTEM is my hero wrote:
> Öö Tiib wrote:
>
> > Mutations are still part of evolution. Mutation rate is still
> Great. You're answering a question nobody asked, responding to
> something nobody said.
>
> The so called "Molecular Clock" is idiocy. It's false. It's predicated on
> the believe that evolution never existed, there is no such thing as
> natural selection and any changes to mtDNA over time all occurred
> as the result of random mutations happening at a consistent rate.
>

Yes, it is figurative term there are no actual molecular clock or counter
mechanisms involved. Rate is purely statistical. Can be estimated
well enough for to have a significant digit or two and order of
magnitude. Mutations can not contradict with evolution as these are
component of it.

> If you have a group under heavy selective pressure, and a group under
> little or none, and assume that they changed at the same "Clock like
> pace," you are going to wildly exaggerate the date of divergence. And
> this is what has happened. And this is exactly what they did. And
> instead of correcting the error -- pushing things more recent -- they
> went in the opposite direction. NOW the idiots are claiming as much
> as 13 million years ago for a point of divergence.. instead of the
> original 6 million based on a non existing "Molecular Clock."
>

"Heavy pressure" means something like selective breeding, do you
have evidence that it did happen with humans? Yes you snipped
my example of elephants and canines ... pace was about same despite
one had selective breeding others did not.

[JTEM is my hero]

jillery wrote:

> JTEM trolled:

> > Mentally unstable jillery wrote:
>>> JTEM accuses others of what he does
> >
> >Cite me doing this. Actual quotes.

> You don't specify what your "this" is. Quelle surprise.

Lol! Loser! Waving your disorder around like a flag, again!




-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/714340841585623040

[JTEM is my hero]

Öö Tiib wrote:

> > If you have a group under heavy selective pressure, and a group under
> > little or none, and assume that they changed at the same "Clock like
> > pace," you are going to wildly exaggerate the date of divergence. And
> > this is what has happened. And this is exactly what they did. And
> > instead of correcting the error -- pushing things more recent -- they
> > went in the opposite direction. NOW the idiots are claiming as much
> > as 13 million years ago for a point of divergence.. instead of the
> > original 6 million based on a non existing "Molecular Clock."
> >
> "Heavy pressure" means something like selective breeding

No. It means things like "They can't cope with the cold."

They had no idea what mtDNA was, they weren't breeding for it. They
were breeding with the survivors.

The mostly likely source of selective pressures was pushing north, out
of tropical and sub tropical environments.






-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/714340841585623040

[jillery]

On Wed, 12 Apr 2023 15:05:34 -0700 (PDT), JTEM trolled:

> jillery wrote:
>
>> JTEM trolled:
>> > Mentally unstable jillery wrote:
>>>> JTEM accuses others of what he does
>> >
>> >Cite me doing this. Actual quotes.
>
>> You don't specify what your "this" is. Quelle surprise.
>
>Lol! Loser! Waving your disorder around like a flag, again!

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

[Gary Hurd]

European hominins?

The generally poor quality of reporting of our human ancestral lineage is amazing. This paper Lutz, H., Engel, T., Lischewsky, B. and von Berg, A., 2017, “A new great ape with startling resemblances to African members of the hominin tribe, excavated from the Mid-Vallesian Dinotheriensande of Eppelsheim. First report (Hominoidea, Miocene, MN 9, Proto-Rhine River, Germany)” Mainzer Naturwissenschaftliches Archiv, 54, attracted ridiculous headlines. This was also just after the publication of “Potential hominin affinities of Graecopithecus from the Late Miocene of Europe" (Jochen Fuss, Nikolai Spassov, David R. Begun, Madelaine Böhme, May 22, 2017 PLoS ONE12(5): e0177127).

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Adam_Bonwitt/publication/320518472_A_new_great_ape_with_startling_resemblances_to_African_members_of_the_hominin_tribe_excavated_from_the_Mid-Vallesian_Dinotheriensande_of_Eppelsheim_First_report_Hominoidea_Miocene_MN_9_Proto-Rhine_Riv/links/59e9bee2a6fdccfe7f0601d6/A-new-great-ape-with-startling-resemblances-to-African-members-of-the-hominin-tribe-excavated-from-the-Mid-Vallesian-Dinotheriensande-of-Eppelsheim-First-report-Hominoidea-Miocene-MN-9-Proto-Rhine.pdf

The Graecopithecus fossils were presented by Fuss et al (2017) as early human ancestors, not "the first humans." Nor were they presented as the last common ancestor between human and chimp lineages. But many news headlines were falsely claiming "humans evolved in Europe!" Soon after the absurd media distortions died down they are fired up again by Lutz et al (2017).

The science reported starts with the fact that the closest living relatives of modern humans are the African great apes; the chimps and gorillas.

From genetic studies it had been estimated that our last common ancestors (LCA) with the other great apes lived about eight to 14 million years ago. Priya Moorjani, Carlos Eduardo G. Amorim, Peter F. Arndt, and Molly Przeworski 2016 "Variation in the molecular clock of primates" Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A.; 113(38): 10607–10612. concluded; “Taking this approach, we estimate the human and chimpanzee divergence time is 12.1 million years, and the human and gorilla divergence time is 15.1 million years.”

The oldest African fossils of our ancestral line are Orrorin tugenensis ( ~5.8–6.0 Ma), and Sahelanthropus tchadensis (~6–7 Ma). However, both of these species have a number of characteristics like up-right posture, and relatively smaller teeth to rule them out as being the last common ancestor (LCA). They were already ‘too human.’ About 14 million years ago, there were a group of apes diverging on the edges of the expanding savannas in Southern Europe. The human-chimp LCA was somewhere in between those two known groups of fossils.

The dryopithecines were Eurasian apes commonly thought by professionals to be the closest candidates to the LCA.*1 Fossils for 8 species in that group are known dating from over 20 million to just 7 million years ago. This covered the time period that the human-chimp LCA would have lived. The study that has poor creationists and racists so confused used CAT scans to look at the dental structure of Graecopithecus freybergi from Greece, and Graecopithecus sp. from Azmaka, Bulgaria. Their approximate age was just over 7 million years ago.

Their conclusion was that there were dental features placing Graecopithecus into the human side of the lineage, and the hunt for the human-chimp LCA continues. But the real discovery is that the search area for the LCA is not limited to Africa. These Graecopithecus fossils were not "the first humans." If we were to see one in the flesh it would be in a Zoo, not in a suit. The modern humans emerged from African migrations into Eurasia, and subsequent divergence and recombination over the last 400 thousand years.

Since Oct. 20, 2017 we have been seeing more popular press stupidity following the pre-publication release of Lutz et al. Their discovery was two teeth they attribute to a single individual. While newspapers trumpet the “re-writing of human evolution,” the facts are that the new find is not assigned any exact affiliation, but are suggested to be a new species in the Dryopithecus group. They have less affiliation with the hominins than Graecopithecus.

But the real discovery is that the search area for the LCA is not limited to Africa.

It is much better to read the actual scientific reports than the confused presentations of journalists.

Carol V. Ward, Ashley S. Hammond, J. Michael Plavc, David R.Begune 2019 "A late Miocene hominid partial pelvis from Hungary" Journal of Human Evolution
Abstract: A recently discovered partial hipbone attributed to the 10 million-year-old fossil ape Rudapithecus hungaricus from Rudabánya, Hungary, differs from the hipbones of cercopithecids and earlier apes in functionally significant ways.

Gerard D. Gierliński, Grzegorz Niedźwiedzki, Martin G. Lockley, Athanassios Athanassiou, Charalampos Fassoulas, Zofia Dubicka, Andrzej Boczarowski, Matthew R.Bennett, Per Erik Ahlberg
2017 "Possible hominin footprints from the late Miocene (c. 5.7 Ma) of Crete?" Proceedings of the Geologists' Association, Volume 128, Issues 5–6, October 2017, Pages 697-710
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S001678781730113X

hominin trackway - good evidence

*1 “The Descent of Man and Selection in Relation to Sex” Charles R. Darwin, Charles Murray, ed. Vol. 2, 1871, Page 199.

“On the Birthplace and Antiquity of Man.—We are naturally led to enquire where was the birthplace of man at that stage of descent when our progenitors diverged from the Catarhine stock. The fact that they belonged to this stock clearly shews that they inhabited the Old World; but not Australia nor any oceanic island, as we may infer from the laws of geographical distribution. In each great region of the world the living mammals are closely related to the extinct species of the same region. It is therefore probable that Africa was formerly inhabited by extinct apes closely allied to the gorilla and chimpanzee; and as these two species are now man's nearest allies, it is somewhat more probable that our early progenitors lived on the African continent than elsewhere. But it is useless to speculate on this subject, for an ape nearly as large as a man, namely the Dryopithecus of Lartet, which was closely allied to the anthropomorphous Hylobates, existed in Europe during the Upper Miocene period; and since so remote a period the earth has certainly undergone many great revolutions, and there has been ample time for migration on the largest scale.”

Interestingly, the Dryopithecus are currently thought to be close to the last common ancestor to chimps and humans. Charles Darwin scores again!

[Burkhard]

On Thursday, April 13, 2023 at 6:30:19 PM UTC+1, Gary Hurd wrote:

> > You're entitled to your own opinions.
> > You're not entitled to your own facts.
> European hominins?
>
> The generally poor quality of reporting of our human ancestral lineage is amazing. This paper Lutz, H., Engel, T., Lischewsky, B. and von Berg, A., 2017, “A new great ape with startling resemblances to African members of the hominin tribe, excavated from the Mid-Vallesian Dinotheriensande of Eppelsheim.

I used to date a girl from there, it's just a few miles from where I grew up! I just thought I should share that

[jillery]

In the category of "Darwin vs Necrophilia"

>They were breeding with the survivors.

jillery wonders how many species successfully bred with corpses.

--

[jillery]

On Thu, 13 Apr 2023 10:28:05 -0700 (PDT), Gary Hurd <gary...@cox.net>
wrote:

>Gerard D. Gierli?ski, Grzegorz Nied?wiedzki, Martin G. Lockley, Athanassios Athanassiou, Charalampos Fassoulas, Zofia Dubicka, Andrzej Boczarowski, Matthew R.Bennett, Per Erik Ahlberg

>2017 "Possible hominin footprints from the late Miocene (c. 5.7 Ma) of Crete?" Proceedings of the Geologists' Association, Volume 128, Issues 5–6, October 2017, Pages 697-710
>https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S001678781730113X
>
>hominin trackway - good evidence
>
>*1 “The Descent of Man and Selection in Relation to Sex” Charles R. Darwin, Charles Murray, ed. Vol. 2, 1871, Page 199.
>
>“On the Birthplace and Antiquity of Man.—We are naturally led to enquire where was the birthplace of man at that stage of descent when our progenitors diverged from the Catarhine stock. The fact that they belonged to this stock clearly shews that they inhabited the Old World; but not Australia nor any oceanic island, as we may infer from the laws of geographical distribution. In each great region of the world the living mammals are closely related to the extinct species of the same region. It is therefore probable that Africa was formerly inhabited by extinct apes closely allied to the gorilla and chimpanzee; and as these two species are now man's nearest allies, it is somewhat more probable that our early progenitors lived on the African continent than elsewhere. But it is useless to speculate on this subject, for an ape nearly as large as a man, namely the Dryopithecus of Lartet, which was closely allied to the anthropomorphous Hylobates, existed in Europe during the Upper Miocene
>period; and since so remote a period the earth has certainly undergone many great revolutions, and there has been ample time for migration on the largest scale.”
>
>Interestingly, the Dryopithecus are currently thought to be close to the last common ancestor to chimps and humans. Charles Darwin scores again!

Thank you for these excellent and relevant citations. I have no doubt
JTEM will find them as remarkable as I do, although for very different
reasons.

[Burkhard]

On Thursday, April 13, 2023 at 11:35:19 PM UTC+1, jillery wrote:
> In the category of "Darwin vs Necrophilia"
> >They were breeding with the survivors.
> jillery wonders how many species successfully bred with corpses.
>
> --

somewhat shockingly, the best birds
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/jun/09/sex-depravity-penguins-scott-antarctic

OK, for a certain value of "successful" and "bred", but I'm sure one of them had fun :o)

[jillery]

On Thu, 13 Apr 2023 15:58:09 -0700 (PDT), Burkhard
<b.sc...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:

The more we learn about other animals, the more we discover "sexually
depraved" behavior among them. As another example, who would have
guessed giraffe regularly practice sodomy.

I agree the success of necrophiliac penguins very much depends on how
success is defined. I speculate such behavior results from a lack of
Internet access.

I suppose even masturbating animals enjoy themselves, but that doesn't
lead to reproductive success either.

[Öö Tiib]

It has nothing to do with rate of mutations. Nothing changed mechanisms
that result with mutations. The rate is about same for all alive mammals,
humans included.

Going north despite need to cope with cold there indicates they had
gained something (perhaps randomly) that helped to deal with the
issue like thicker hair (Proboscidea) or ability to figure how to make
clothes, how to build warm shelter, how to use fire safely (Hominidae).
I do not see how pressure to dive into bodies of water is concluded
from it. But neither Marc nor you tell anything about that.

[JTEM is my hero]

Off her meds and in need of a sedative, jillery lashed out:

> So you

What is it you're pretending to "Disagree" with? Like you're
capable of answering THIS TIME, so very much unlike all
the other times you were directly challenged to state as
much...

You're an attention starved imbecile with the I.Q. of a gnat.



-- --

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

[JTEM is my hero]

Gary Hurd wrote:

> From genetic studies it had been estimated that our last common ancestors (LCA) with
> the other great apes lived about eight to 14 million years ago.

Are you out of your fucking mind?

Chimps are so close to us right now that there are many who argue we should abolish
Pan altogether, classify Chimps as a second species of Homo!

I've never met ANYONE who clings to a 14 million year old LCA. It's absurd. It's contrived.
It's not based on reality, the claim is based on an agenda, the necessity to promote a
specific agenda.

Just to demonstrate the idiocy in your date: The oldest CLAIMED Chimpanzee fossils
are only teeth -- AND YOU'RE DISPUTING CLAIMS BASED ON TEETH HERE -- are half
a million years old. Which means you're missing AT LEAST 13.5 million years worth of
Chimp fossils. At least.

Oh, that's right, YOU'RE FUCKNG INSANE! You have no idea that you just "Argued" against
teeth based claims. Well, go back to the top of your post and start reading. The finds in
Germany you're attempting to dispute were -- now get this -- teeth. So if we apply your
argument elsewhere in the fossil record, LIKE CHIMPS, then we don't even have the half
million year old Chimp fossils anymore...

Damn. Seriously. DAMN! You are an idiot...



-- --

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

[JTEM is my hero]

With snot caked finger, jillery mistakenly wrote:

> Thank you for these excellent and relevant citations.

"Yes, Mr. Left Hand, thank you so much!"

"Don't mention it, Mr. Right Hand. I'm your best friend."

"Of course, Mr. Left Hand. We have so much fun together
and Child Serves never visits, and mommy never gets
drunk and beats us."

"That's right, Mr. Right Hand. We're so popular and everyone
invites us to their birthday parties and, and, and we have a
father and nobody teases us at school."

"So true, Mr. Left Hand."



In the end, it's just a mental case jerking itself off...



-- --

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

[JTEM is my hero]

Öö Tiib wrote:

> It has nothing to do with rate of mutations.

You have no fucking clue. None.

It's regarding populations. A random mutation that poses
a disadvantage is not going to propagate. A mutation that
is an advantage will propagate. A neutral mutation may or
may not. It doesn't really matter.

In the course of a single generation, given the Founder
Effect, you ignorant snot wad, an outlier trait (and it's
DNA) can come to characterize a population. A change
to the environment might result in the same type of
swift transformation of the populations genetic makeup
i.e. evolution.

I'm not going to explain this again. Have your meds
adjusted. Go back and read everything I have already
explained to you on this topic. Ask a grownup to help.




-- --

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

[jillery]

On Sat, 22 Apr 2023 06:03:34 -0700 (PDT), JTEM trolled:

> Öö Tiib wrote:
>
>> It has nothing to do with rate of mutations.
>
>You have no fucking clue. None.

Here's some clues for you:

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

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

[jillery]

On Sat, 22 Apr 2023 05:50:51 -0700 (PDT), JTEM trolled:

>Gary Hurd wrote:
>
>> From genetic studies it had been estimated that our last common ancestors (LCA) with
>> the other great apes lived about eight to 14 million years ago.
>
>Are you out of your fucking mind?
>
>Chimps are so close to us right now that there are many who argue we should abolish
>Pan altogether, classify Chimps as a second species of Homo!
>
>I've never met ANYONE who clings to a 14 million year old LCA.

How many evolutionary anthropologists have you met?

OTOH you replied to Gary Hurd, who is an evolutionary anthropologist.
And he cited serveral other evolutionary anthropologists, cites which
you conveniently deleted. And I have cited several evolutionary
anthropologists, cites which you also conveniently deleted. Quelle
surprise.

>It's absurd. It's contrived.
>It's not based on reality, the claim is based on an agenda, the necessity to promote a
>specific agenda.
>
>Just to demonstrate the idiocy in your date: The oldest CLAIMED Chimpanzee fossils
>are only teeth -- AND YOU'RE DISPUTING CLAIMS BASED ON TEETH HERE -- are half
>a million years old. Which means you're missing AT LEAST 13.5 million years worth of
>Chimp fossils. At least.

What date do you base on fossil chimpanzee teeth?

>Oh, that's right, YOU'RE FUCKNG INSANE! You have no idea that you just "Argued" against
>teeth based claims. Well, go back to the top of your post and start reading. The finds in
>Germany you're attempting to dispute were -- now get this -- teeth. So if we apply your
>argument elsewhere in the fossil record, LIKE CHIMPS, then we don't even have the half
>million year old Chimp fossils anymore...
>
>Damn. Seriously. DAMN! You are an idiot...

--

[JTEM is my hero]

Retarded. Autistic. Mentally ill, jillery wrote:

> Here's some clues for you:

Speaking of which, what does your mental illness cause you to
believe you are refuting?

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

Go on; what are you pretending is contradicting me, and why?

You do this ALL THE TIME. You post random cites which you
never read, forget about understanding them, and you pretend
they support some stupid claim you made or refute someone
else... and they do neither.

Go on; what oh what are you pretending this "Cite" refutes?

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

Same with this one, idiot.

Take your meds, open a window & let some air in then explain
exactly what that fucked up excuse for a mind thinks it's
contradicting, and why.

Lol! Like you dare... pussy!



-- --

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

[JTEM is my hero]

jillery wrote:

> >I've never met ANYONE who clings to a 14 million year old LCA.

> How many evolutionary anthropologists have you met?

Go out on the limb here so I can abuse you the way your mother did:

Do you believe that the LCA lived more than 13 million years ago?

Yes or no: Answer!

> OTOH you replied to Gary Hurd, who is an evolutionary anthropologist.

I replied to a fucking sock puppet, your personality disorder hijacking a
disused handle.

ANYONE so fucking stupid as to dismiss teeth when the only evidence
for Chimps even as far back HALF A MILLION YEARS is teeth, probably
eats out of a dumpster and posts from library because the shelter
doesn't have computers...

Just Google it, you fucked up spazz. Google it. Chimps really are so
close to humans, genetically, that many really do argue that we should
do away with Pan altogether and reclassify them as Homo.

Done.

But even THAT is so far removed from you, from any form of "academia"
that you pretend to be part of... or once heard about... anyway, even a
rudimentary 30 second Google search is TOO difficult and TOO much of
a threat for your ever so fragile emotional state...

Impressive!

This is basic shit.

We're not even close to anything resembling controversial here. Yet, you're
so emotionally frail that you can't deal with it!

Chimps are VERY close to us genetically. No denying it. Close enough to
think of them as a species of Homo.




-- --

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

[jillery]

On Tue, 25 Apr 2023 14:33:17 -0700 (PDT), JTEM trolled:

>Retarded. Autistic. Mentally ill, jillery wrote:
>
>> Here's some clues for you:
>
>Speaking of which, what does your mental illness cause you to
>believe you are refuting?

Since you asked, any alleged mental illness doesn't inform this
discussion. You're welcome.

[jillery]

On Tue, 25 Apr 2023 14:45:23 -0700 (PDT), JTEM trolled:

> jillery wrote:
>
>> >I've never met ANYONE who clings to a 14 million year old LCA.
>
>> How many evolutionary anthropologists have you met?

So none. Quelle surprise.

>Go out on the limb here so I can abuse you the way your mother did:
>
>Do you believe that the LCA lived more than 13 million years ago?
>
>Yes or no: Answer!

You first.

>> OTOH you replied to Gary Hurd, who is an evolutionary anthropologist.
>
>I replied to a fucking sock puppet, your personality disorder hijacking a
>disused handle.
>
>ANYONE so fucking stupid as to dismiss teeth when the only evidence
>for Chimps even as far back HALF A MILLION YEARS is teeth, probably
>eats out of a dumpster and posts from library because the shelter
>doesn't have computers...
>
>Just Google it, you fucked up spazz. Google it. Chimps really are so
>close to humans, genetically, that many really do argue that we should
>do away with Pan altogether and reclassify them as Homo.

That's not evidence for a date of the LCA between human and
chimpanzee. Your comments above show you don't know how to cite and
you don't even know what evidence to cite.

>Done.
>
>But even THAT is so far removed from you, from any form of "academia"
>that you pretend to be part of... or once heard about... anyway, even a
>rudimentary 30 second Google search is TOO difficult and TOO much of
>a threat for your ever so fragile emotional state...
>
>Impressive!
>
>This is basic shit.
>
>We're not even close to anything resembling controversial here. Yet, you're
>so emotionally frail that you can't deal with it!
>
>Chimps are VERY close to us genetically. No denying it. Close enough to
>think of them as a species of Homo.


--

[Öö Tiib]

On Saturday, 22 April 2023 at 16:05:28 UTC+3, JTEM is my hero wrote:
> Öö Tiib wrote:
>
> > It has nothing to do with rate of mutations.
>
> You have no fucking clue. None.
>

Yet still nothing changed mechanisms that result with mutations.

The rate is about same for all alive mammals, humans included.

> It's regarding populations. A random mutation that poses
> a disadvantage is not going to propagate. A mutation that
> is an advantage will propagate. A neutral mutation may or
> may not. It doesn't really matter.
>

Yes you reiterate what we agree and what is irrelevant.
What you discard is that at least 75% of mutations are of that
last, "neutral" category. So mammal species that did split 5
millions years ago have about 0.6% of base pairs different
from common ancestor. And about 1.2% of base pairs are
different from each other plus lot of said differences are
totally neutral.

That is so if all three have all traits rather close. These are
very close when environment where that ancestor was close
to optimal stayed same for each of split specie. So all
mutations that weren't neutral or very insignificant posed
only one or other disadvantage and so were selected against.
Like opossums are quite similar to what they were 5 millions
years ago.

That is also so when all three differ in major way because the
environments differed or changed and in different manners
posing new pressures. So the split species adapted in different
directions. Like grizzly and polar bear that give still fertile
hybrids despite of major differences.

IOW the selection pressure does have nothing to do with
rate of mutations in DNA. Species differ or not but DNA
differs inevitably and by about same amount.

> In the course of a single generation, given the Founder
> Effect, you ignorant snot wad, an outlier trait (and it's
> DNA) can come to characterize a population. A change
> to the environment might result in the same type of
> swift transformation of the populations genetic makeup
> i.e. evolution.
>

No one disagrees with it. You just discard that vast majority of
base pair changes are totally neutral but just happen anyway.
Why you continue to behave like immature wuss during you
yourself being confused and so for decades, only you can tell.
It is boring, sad and not entertaining. Grow up. Search for your
ability to reason within that pile ... or don't, your tragedy not
mine.

> I'm not going to explain this again. Have your meds
> adjusted. Go back and read everything I have already
> explained to you on this topic. Ask a grownup to help.
>

Yes don't explain same thing over what no one disagrees
with but what does not matter. Mechanisms and
environmental factors that result with random mutations
haven't evolved nor changed during last tens of millions of
years for mammals so mutation rate is about same. That is
why we can calculate that Chihuahua diverged from wolves
about 30 000 years ago and that domestic pig diverged from
eurasian wild boar about 9 000 years ago. Read the articles,
these explain how it works. And stop wiggling around and
explaining what does not matter.

[jillery]

On Wed, 26 Apr 2023 08:47:08 -0700 (PDT), Öö Tiib <oot...@hot.ee>
wrote:

As you note above, JTEM repeatedly conflates mutation rate with the
expression of phenotypic mutations. Founder effects and selection
pressures don't inform the causes of different types of genetic
mutations aka mutation rate.

[JTEM is my hero]

Crippled by mental disorders, jillery babbled:

> I absolutely adore JTEM who bestowed upon us all:

> >Speaking of which, what does your mental illness cause you to
> >believe you are refuting?

> Since you asked

You didn't answer. You posted two URLs pretending that they
somehow contradicted me. Explain what specifically they
contradict, and why.

You can't.

As a narcissist you're certain of your own idiocy, so you can't try
to answer.





-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/715586857263595520

[JTEM is my hero]

jillery wrote:

> So none. Quelle surprise.

I have no use for you.

NOTHING I could say, NO ANSWER IN EXISTENCE can alter any
fact here. And you're so far gone that you can't grasp this. You
would rather disgrace yourself like you're doing rather than even
TRY to make a real argument...

> >Go out on the limb here so I can abuse you the way your mother did:
> >
> >Do you believe that the LCA lived more than 13 million years ago?
> >
> >Yes or no: Answer!

> You first.

Did you look up at the subject line, you retard?

What does it say?

I'm going to stop here because the only person capable of believing
you are not a crazy troll is you, posting under a different handle.

You are "Challenging" me to state something that is in the subject
line, all because your severe personality disorder prevents you from
answer a challenge posed to yourself...




-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/715586857263595520

[JTEM is my hero]

jillery wrote:

> As you note above, JTEM repeatedly conflates mutation rate with the
> expression of phenotypic mutations.

Lol!

You don't even know what the subject line states, you literally have no
clue what I've said here -- YOU EVEN CHALLENGED ME TO STATE,
YES OR NO, IF I BELIEVE THE LCA LIVED MORE THAN 13 MILLION
YEARS AGO!

Hey, shit for brains; over here! Can you see this? Well, you drooling
reject from the halfway home, JTEM has been pointing out that
molecular dating is a fantasy. YOU are pretending it is not, because
as a psychopath suffer a compulsion to contradict.




-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/715586857263595520

[Öö Tiib]

Here you ignore the fact that reality does not change because one
imbecile writes something incorrect in a post and subject line of it in
some corner of Internet. Reality does not care even if millions do so
resulting with Internet being over 90% of nonsense content.
What you said was wrong, that is usual and does not matter to
rate of mutations because factors that cause those haven't changed
for mammals during millions of years.

[JTEM is my hero]

Öö Tiib wrote:

> Here you ignore the fact that reality does not change because one
> imbecile writes something incorrect

That's a mischaracterization of everything EXCEPT the fact that you
are just one person.

It's not merely "Incorrect" to challenge me to state something when
my statement is the very subject under debate.

This goes beyond mere "Error."

You, under that other handle, were directly challenged to state, yes
or no, if you believe the LCA lived more than 13 million years ago.
And you cowered from that challenge, and instead "Challenged" me
to state something that I not only stated but put into the subject
line.

AND THEN you pretended that my comments about molecular dating
are really about not molecular dating...

> What you said was wrong

Nope. Molecular dating is wrong. If you use it on different genes you
get WILDLY different results. If it were real, this could not happen.

Molecular dating greatly exaggerates age. Maybe I could further
clarify and say WHEN IT IS COMPARING TWO POPULATIONS. And
it does greatly exaggerate age. Because it assumes identical
mutation rates when this can't happen at all. It's a fundamental fact
of science. You may have even heard of it, you fraud: Evolution.

Evolution doesn't change size or color or anything like that. It
changes DNA.




-- --

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

[Öö Tiib]

On Thursday, 27 April 2023 at 09:20:32 UTC+3, JTEM is my hero wrote:
> Öö Tiib wrote:
>
> > Here you ignore the fact that reality does not change because one
> > imbecile writes something incorrect
> That's a mischaracterization of everything EXCEPT the fact that you
> are just one person.
>
> It's not merely "Incorrect" to challenge me to state something when
> my statement is the very subject under debate.
>
> This goes beyond mere "Error."
>
> You, under that other handle, were directly challenged to state, yes
> or no, if you believe the LCA lived more than 13 million years ago.
> And you cowered from that challenge, and instead "Challenged" me
> to state something that I not only stated but put into the subject
> line.
>

What other handle? Me and jillery same person? :D Take your meds.

> AND THEN you pretended that my comments about molecular dating
> are really about not molecular dating...
>
> > What you said was wrong
>
> Nope. Molecular dating is wrong. If you use it on different genes you
> get WILDLY different results. If it were real, this could not happen.
>

That I also already explained and it is trivial. There are 6 different repair
mechanisms in action and these keep different parts of genome under
different level of checking and repairing. As result likelihood of a point
mutation is very far from uniform. Just read the articles sometime.

> Molecular dating greatly exaggerates age. Maybe I could further
> clarify and say WHEN IT IS COMPARING TWO POPULATIONS. And
> it does greatly exaggerate age. Because it assumes identical
> mutation rates when this can't happen at all. It's a fundamental fact
> of science. You may have even heard of it, you fraud: Evolution.
>
> Evolution doesn't change size or color or anything like that. It
> changes DNA.
>

Yes, mutations change DNA, selection selects (or mostly on over
75% of cases ignores) those changes. That is evolution. As part
of evolution are mutations we can say that evolution changes DNA.

[jillery]

On Wed, 26 Apr 2023 20:10:34 -0700 (PDT), JTEM lied:


>You didn't answer.


Yes I did. You didn't like the answer. There's a difference.

[jillery]

On Wed, 26 Apr 2023 20:21:34 -0700 (PDT), JTEM trolled:

>I'm going to stop here...


...until the next time.

[jillery]

On Wed, 26 Apr 2023 20:28:58 -0700 (PDT), JTEM lied:

On Wed, 26 Apr 2023 20:21:34 -0700 (PDT), JTEM trolled:

>I'm going to stop here

Less than 8 minutes. That didn't take long at all.

[JTEM is my hero]

Öö Tiib wrote:

> What

So, again, I posit a 3.7 million year date of divergence.

Molecular dating is idiocy, there are no fossils, the best, safest, most
conservative "Guess" as to the missing fossils is that we have found
them only they don't look like Chimps... placing them more recent...

The oldest "Chimp" fossils anywhere are only half a million years old,
If they are 100% definitely "Chimp" -- no question about it -- then what
does that say about the 10 million year old teeth in Germany that
look like Ardi & Lucy?

This actually alines well with estimates on the retrovirus evidence,
where African apes carry the evidence for it's spread by Asian apes
and humans do not.

That is usually placed at 3 to 4 million years.

Wow. And I said 3.7 million years...

> > Nope. Molecular dating is wrong. If you use it on different genes you
> > get WILDLY different results. If it were real, this could not happen.

> That I also already explained

Yeah. I explained it in the very first post in this thread: Molecular dating
sucks. It's not real. There is no molecular clock.

> > Molecular dating greatly exaggerates age. Maybe I could further
> > clarify and say WHEN IT IS COMPARING TWO POPULATIONS. And
> > it does greatly exaggerate age. Because it assumes identical
> > mutation rates when this can't happen at all. It's a fundamental fact
> > of science. You may have even heard of it, you fraud: Evolution.

So, again: I say 3.7 million years ago.

I agree with the good Doctor that the Chimp ancestor did not look like
Chimps. It looked more like Homo.

I have noticed, and I remember going back to a time when there were
actual humans here, that as the evidence pushed the LCA more & more
recent, the media has been moving in the opposite direction.

Here. You're pretending to be various long-time posters:

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

That's 2009. The piece in Nature was claiming 6.3 million years AT THE
EARLIEST, with interbreeding continuing for more than another million
years.

which in itself is stupid. There is no solid line dividing closely related
populations into separate species. There is no definitive "Test" to see
if two populations are the same or different species. But, the single
BEST and most definitive test is interbreeding. And they are saying that
was going on...

Read the post. Click the cite. You clearly missed the last 16 years of
evidence in your need to contradict...

And yes there were other studies, other conclusions, based on the DNA.
They generally pushed everything MORE recent.

I didn't make up the 3.7 million year date. I never sequenced any DNA,
certainly never studied it. I'm taking it from actual published works and
marrying it to other information -- like the retrovirus.








-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/715578920636907520

[JTEM is my hero]

So the pussy is pretending to "Argue" the dating of the LCA yet
won't even state WHEN it believes the LCA lived.

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

Yeah, the pussy is 16 years behind the times even as it pretends
to be a long-time regular... several long-time regulars.




-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/715578920636907520

[JTEM is my hero]

Apparently "jillary" used to post as "Lee Olsen" and has reverted
to it's OCPD habits...

The LCA lived approximately 3.7 million years ago. THIS is a
close match to numerous data points, and not dependent upon
non-existing fossils.




-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/715578920636907520

[JTEM is my hero]

[Snip the severely disordered Lee Olsen]

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

That's a (f)Lame war from back when there were actual people posting
here...

And that's the real Ron O! Yes, the real one was also a dick...

The real Harptmen? Ditto. Total dick.

And now these sock puppets are all the same lunatic "arguing" with itself!

So, again: A 3.7 million year old point of divergence.





-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/715578920636907520

[jillery]

On Thu, 27 Apr 2023 00:34:13 -0700 (PDT), JTEM trolled:

>The LCA lived approximately 3.7 million years ago. THIS is a
>close match to numerous data points, and not dependent upon
>non-existing fossils.

You *still* haven't identified these "numerous data points". Quelle
surprise.

[Öö Tiib]

On Thursday, 27 April 2023 at 10:30:32 UTC+3, JTEM is my hero wrote:
> Öö Tiib wrote:
>
> > What
>
> So, again, I posit a 3.7 million year date of divergence.
>

To my knowledge groundlessly. These species started to diverge about
10M years ago and hybridisation events with offspring participating in
evolution stopped about 5M years ago.

> Molecular dating is idiocy, there are no fossils, the best, safest, most
> conservative "Guess" as to the missing fossils is that we have found
> them only they don't look like Chimps... placing them more recent...
>
> The oldest "Chimp" fossils anywhere are only half a million years old,
> If they are 100% definitely "Chimp" -- no question about it -- then what
> does that say about the 10 million year old teeth in Germany that
> look like Ardi & Lucy?
>

Chimp lives in environments where good fossils are rare, so enjoy
the consequence of us having not too lot of data. That does not
mean you fill it fantasies. We do not know is correct answer. Molecular
dating is not idiocy. If it is too complex for you then that does not
make it idiocy.

> This actually alines well with estimates on the retrovirus evidence,
> where African apes carry the evidence for it's spread by Asian apes
> and humans do not.
>
> That is usually placed at 3 to 4 million years.
>
> Wow. And I said 3.7 million years...
>

So humans do not have retrovirus of apes dated 3 to 4 millions years?
Perhaps then the divergence was earlier than 3 to 4 millions years?

> > > Nope. Molecular dating is wrong. If you use it on different genes you
> > > get WILDLY different results. If it were real, this could not happen.
>
> > That I also already explained
>
> Yeah. I explained it in the very first post in this thread: Molecular dating
> sucks. It's not real. There is no molecular clock.
>

That I also addressed. It is figurative term about far more complex
processes than some kind of actual clock. It sucks but it is best we have
and accurate enough to estimate first digit or two in distance in time.

> > > Molecular dating greatly exaggerates age. Maybe I could further
> > > clarify and say WHEN IT IS COMPARING TWO POPULATIONS. And
> > > it does greatly exaggerate age. Because it assumes identical
> > > mutation rates when this can't happen at all. It's a fundamental fact
> > > of science. You may have even heard of it, you fraud: Evolution.
> So, again: I say 3.7 million years ago.
>
> I agree with the good Doctor that the Chimp ancestor did not look like
> Chimps. It looked more like Homo.
>
> I have noticed, and I remember going back to a time when there were
> actual humans here, that as the evidence pushed the LCA more & more
> recent, the media has been moving in the opposite direction.
>
> Here. You're pretending to be various long-time posters:
>
> https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/lCJUZc7EFqs/m/90DfETjfWd4J
>

Nope, I did not participate in that thread, sorry. I do not even see point
in changing handles. I started to post to this group about decade ago
but that looks older.

> That's 2009. The piece in Nature was claiming 6.3 million years AT THE
> EARLIEST, with interbreeding continuing for more than another million
> years.
>
> which in itself is stupid. There is no solid line dividing closely related
> populations into separate species. There is no definitive "Test" to see
> if two populations are the same or different species. But, the single
> BEST and most definitive test is interbreeding. And they are saying that
> was going on...
>
> Read the post. Click the cite. You clearly missed the last 16 years of
> evidence in your need to contradict...
>
> And yes there were other studies, other conclusions, based on the DNA.
> They generally pushed everything MORE recent.
>

Note that from difference in mitochondria we can figure distance to last
common mother (A), from difference in y chromosome we can figure
time distance to last common father (B) and from difference in other
genes we can figure how long ago the species started to diverge (C).
These estimates can differ by millions of years with (C) being longest.

> I didn't make up the 3.7 million year date. I never sequenced any DNA,
> certainly never studied it. I'm taking it from actual published works and
> marrying it to other information -- like the retrovirus.
>

And only you (and maybe your mirror) have some idea on what that
estimate is based and why it has two unusually accurate digits. We
can only read that "molecular clock" it is not plus obscenities.

[JTEM is my hero]

SEVERELY mentally ill, jillery trolled:

> JTEM truthed:

> >The LCA lived approximately 3.7 million years ago. THIS is a
> >close match to numerous data points, and not dependent upon
> >non-existing fossils.

> You *still* haven't identified these "numerous data points".

: The piece in Nature was claiming 6.3 million years AT THE

: EARLIEST, with interbreeding continuing for more than another
: million years.

Hmm...

: I didn't make up the 3.7 million year date. I never sequenced any DNA,

: certainly never studied it. I'm taking it from actual published works and
: marrying it to other information -- like the retrovirus.

What retrovirus?

:> This actually alines well with estimates on the retrovirus evidence,
:> where African apes carry the evidence for it's spread b[ut] Asian apes

:> and humans do not.
:>
:> That is usually placed at 3 to 4 million years.

Hmm. So two data points in this very thread, which you have read and
reacted towards...

Interesting. I'm guessing you say these incredibly retarded things on
purpose, so you can pretend that you're only playing stupid.

You're not. You're not playing at it. You really are fucking stupid. So
stupid, in fact, that you think you have to sink this low in order to look
stupid.

No, honey, you hit that bucket a *long* time ago...




-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/715909500760113152

[JTEM is my hero]

Öö Tiib wrote:

> JTEM is my hero wrote:
> > So, again, I posit a 3.7 million year date of divergence.

> To my knowledge groundlessly.

That's a lie. You have no knowledge, only faith and it's the furthest
thing from groundless.

> These species started to diverge about
> 10M years ago

So now you're missing about 9.5 million years of Chimp fossils.

AND, not only is your claim baseless, but I've already provided a cite
that establishes it could not be any earlier than 6.3 million years. It
doesn't claim 6.3 million years, it merely places that as the upward
limit AND EVEN THEN claims interbreeding for more than a million
years afterwards...

> Chimp lives in environments where good fossils are rare

That's not the problem.

Chimps live in environments with rivers. Chimps live in environments
which have experienced flooding. Chimps live in environments which
have seen volcanic activity. The issue isn't environment, it's existence.

So Pan & Homo split 3.7 million years ago...

> > This actually alines well with estimates on the retrovirus evidence,
> > where African apes carry the evidence for it's spread by Asian apes
> > and humans do not.
> >
> > That is usually placed at 3 to 4 million years.
> >
> > Wow. And I said 3.7 million years...

> So humans do not have retrovirus of apes dated 3 to 4 millions years?
> Perhaps then the divergence was earlier than 3 to 4 millions years?

Wow. Nothing gets past you... astonishing!

I said 3.7 million years, the claims surrounding the retrovirus say 3 to 4
million years... my 3.7 million years is between 3 and 4 million years...

AND YOU FIGURED THIS OUT ON YOUR OWN!

> > Yeah. I explained it in the very first post in this thread: Molecular dating
> > sucks. It's not real. There is no molecular clock.

> That I also addressed.

Yeah. In the very first post. This thread started with me addressing the fact
that the "Molecular clock" nonsense is made up. It's bullshit.

> > I agree with the good Doctor that the Chimp ancestor did not look like
> > Chimps. It looked more like Homo.

Absolutely. The LCA was bipedal and probably had a hand that looked like
ours.

> > Here. You're pretending to be various long-time posters:
> >
> > https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/lCJUZc7EFqs/m/90DfETjfWd4J

> Nope

I made no claims regarding this specific sock puppet you're using right at
this moment.

> > And yes there were other studies, other conclusions, based on the DNA.
> > They generally pushed everything MORE recent.
> >
> Note that from difference in mitochondria we can figure distance to last
> common mother (A)

No we can't.

The nuclear insert does not show this amazing "Molecular Clock."

There's this thing called "Evolution."

DNA falls under selective pressure, as I explained, and this includes mtDNA.
The "dating" assumes that no such selective pressures exist.





-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/715909500760113152