|FROM ||Ruben Safir
|SUBJECT ||Subject: [Hangout - NYLXS] (fwd) Re: Human & ape evolution
|-- forwarded message --
X-Received: by 2002:a05:622a:408:b0:3f3:8459:956c with SMTP id n8-20020a05622a040800b003f38459956cmr6422110qtx.3.1683781678688;
Wed, 10 May 2023 22:07:58 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by 2002:aca:3dd4:0:b0:390:8389:833e with SMTP id
k203-20020aca3dd4000000b003908389833emr2222550oia.3.1683781678384; Wed, 10
May 2023 22:07:58 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Wed, 10 May 2023 22:07:58 -0700 (PDT)
Injection-Info: google-groups.googlegroups.com; posting-host=2601:192:4c7f:4ba0:981a:6b6:c2ca:b78a;
Subject: Re: Human & ape evolution
Injection-Date: Thu, 11 May 2023 05:07:58 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Xref: panix sci.bio.paleontology:77284
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.
-- end of forwarded message --
Hangout mailing list