|FROM ||Ruben Safir
|SUBJECT ||Subject: [Hangout - NYLXS] (fwd) Re: Human & ape evolution
|-- forwarded message --
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 13 May 2023 04:24:51 +0000
Date: Fri, 12 May 2023 21:24:51 -0700
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:102.0)
From: John Harshman
Subject: Re: Human & ape evolution
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:77307
On 5/12/23 7:16 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> On Thursday, May 11, 2023 at 12:17:53???AM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
>> On 5/10/23 8:31 PM, JTEM wrote:
>>> John Harshman wrote:
>>>> The obvious
>>>> question, which you ask, is whether any African primates, in addition to
>>>> humans, also lack this particular sort of insertion.
>>> Not really.
>>> Obviously the further you get away from humans, the less they matter.
>> That's in no way obvious.
> It most certainly is. The retrovirus HIV-1, for instance, came to us via chimps,
> and they are the only primates besides ourselves where it occurs naturally.
One datum results in a conclusion?
>> I would ask you to explain your reasoning, but
>> you won't whether I ask or not.
> You might have learned the same things I told you, had you asked,
> and shown some willingness to contribute to the discussion.
> For instance, you could have elaborated on why on earth you think it is "in no way obvious"
> even though it is the default assumption to anyone who is not a creationist.
> I suspect that you gratuitously, and baselessly, taunted JTEM to get him
> NOT to explain it, hoping to get him mad enough to deprive you of his reasoning.
You should know by now that your suspicions about other people's motives
are so unreliable as to be useless. And you waste much effort away from
>>>> There's no
>>>> particular reason why every African species should have experienced the
>>>> exact same set of infections.
> Was it the exact same set? Did the PTERV1 retrovirus lodge in the same locus
> of the genome in both chimps and gorillas?
No, quite the contrary. But that isn't what I meant. I mean the same set
of viruses inserting in the species's genomes.
>>> It's also obfuscation, because it has nothing to do with the question here,
>>> which has to do with why there is one specific species, the one that gave
>>> rise to us which does not show any evidence for it.
>> Is there one specific species only? Or are there other African primates
>> that don't?
>>>> In particular, if chimps and gorillas both
>>>> experienced a wave of independent PTERV1 insertions
> How could you tell they were independent? and what do you
> mean by "independent," anyway?
I mean that they were separate events.
>>>> while humans did
>>>> not, this is not good evidence that humans originated in Asia
>>> That's a lie. It *Is* evidence. Your value judgments are worthless.
>>> Evidence is evidence. Period.
>> Not true. Evidence can have many degrees of quality. I would rate this
>> particular bit of evidence at the "crap" level.
> That's a reckless use of "crap." How do you justify it?
It's not very good evidence for humans not being in Africa because there
are many other possible explanations for the failure of humans to pick
up this virus.
>>> 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 or even reasoning.
> So is "crap" level. And the irony is, HIV-1 is pretty good grounds for
> reasoning, as above.
>> Note that chimps and gorillas gained their virus families independently,
> What article allowed you to "note" this? You don't say.
It's the clear conclusion from the insertion sites being different. The
phylogeny of the virus doesn't show that chimps got it from gorillas or
vice versa. They both got it from another source, likely a monkey.
>> so the closeness of chimps and humans is not very relevant.
> I see no strong connection between the "Note..." and the part after "so."
The point is that there is no reason to suppose that humans, if they got
this virus, would have got it from chimps, just as chimps and gorillas
didn't get it from each other.
>>> There is every reason to assume that our ancestors would be just as
>>> vulnerable to this retrovirus as Chimps.
>>> Again: They place the 3 to 4 million years closer to the LCA than we
>>> are, and we can and do exchange viruses...
>> We do, sometimes. But not every time.
> That is a "crap" reply. You are no more logical in this whole
> post than JTEM. No wonder you didn't want to ask a natural
> question, but pretended superiority.
Another poor attribution of motive, another abandonment of the subject
in favor of gratuitous insult. Stop.
Again, this virus was not, that we can tell, exchanged among closest
relatives, so the fact that chimps are our closest relatives is not
>>>> unless one
>>> 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. It would be strong evidence only if we
>> knew that being absent from Africa is the only credible reason for
>> failing to have the virus.
> Get real. You confuse "strong evidence" with "proof beyond a reasonable doubt."
This is of course a continuum. You have, apparently, a different
estimate of the place of this evidence along that continuum. It isn't
clear why, because you don't say.
> What you write below is a little better, but not worth dwelling on tonight.
> I'm starting my weekend posting break as of now.
So basically, you wasted most of your time by attacking my motives and
had no time to get to the actual meat of the matter. This is not
productive use of your time.
>> You could support that by showing that all
>> African primates got the virus. Since you have disclaimed that as
>> relevant, I don't see a way for you to support the claim.
>> It's not that there's a default assumption; it's that there are two
>> hypotheses that need to be differentiated. The current evidence doesn't
>> do much to differentiate them.
>>> It's not "Six of one, half dozen of the other."
>>> This retrovirus evidence is evidence, and you literally have no counter.
>> It's evidence, true. Just not very good evidence. You could try to
>> improve it in the way I suggested. You could, I suppose, also try to
>> find additional retrovirus families showing the same pattern.
>> Still, this is the best response you have ever to my knowledge provided
>> to any argument. It would be good if you kept that up.
-- end of forwarded message --
Hangout mailing list