|FROM ||Ruben Safir
|SUBJECT ||Subject: [Hangout - NYLXS] (fwd) Re: Human & ape evolution
|-- forwarded message --
NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 11 May 2023 13:10:46 +0000
Date: Thu, 11 May 2023 06:10:46 -0700
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:102.0)
Subject: Re: Human & ape evolution
From: John Harshman
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly
Xref: panix sci.bio.paleontology:77287
On 5/10/23 10:07 PM, JTEM wrote:
> John Harshman wrote:
>>> Obviously the further you get away from humans, the less they matter.
>> That's in no way obvious.
> That is a lie.
>> Is there one specific species only?
> That gave rise to humans? In this context, yes. absolutely.
>>> That's a lie. It *Is* evidence. Your value judgments are worthless.
>>> Evidence is evidence. Period.
>> Not true.
> No. You're lying. We have evidence for an Asian origins of Homo:
> The retrovirus evidence.
> It exists. It's real. You have no counter.
>> Evidence can have many degrees of quality.
> You have nothing to counter it. Nothing.
>>> Humans are extremely close to Chimps RIGHT NOW, this retrovirus would
>>> have burned through africa when our ancestors were three or four million
>>> years CLOSER to Chimps than the present.
>> That's an assertion without supporting evidence
> No it's not. It's the furthest thing from unsupported. The retrovirus
> event is currently placed back 3 to 4 million years ago. So erase the
> last 3 to 4 million years of divergence. We were THAT much closer to
> Chimps back then.
>> that chimps and gorillas gained their virus families independently, so
>> the closeness of chimps and humans is not very relevant.
> Chimps and humans are closer than are Chimps and Gorillas.
> Again, this is NOT a "Six of one, half dozen of the other" situation.
>>> It doesn't work that way. There is no default assumption that Africa had
>>> to be the point of origin. The retrovirus evidence points to Asia and
>>> quite frankly you have absolutely no counter. Instead, you bluster, demand
>>> that other people provide you with different evidence. But this is the
>>> evidence and there is no counter evidence.
>> It's extremely weak evidence.
> "Extremely weak" is a pathetic attempt at you to attach a value to the
> evidence. It's SUBJECTIVE. What is objectively true, on the other hand,
> is that it is evidence.
>> It would be strong evidence only if we
> It's strong evidence with no counter.
>> It's not that there's a default assumption; it's that there are two
>> hypotheses that need to be differentiated.
> We have supporting evidence for Out of Asia in the retrovirus.
>>> This retrovirus evidence is evidence, and you literally have no counter.
>> It's evidence, true.
> It's objectively true. Your value judgments are not.
> You have no counter.
I see you're back to snipping out relevant text and hurling feces. Well,
it was encouraging while it lasted.
-- end of forwarded message --
Hangout mailing list