On Wednesday, 10 May 2023 at 19:44:31 UTC+3, JTEM wrote:
> Peter Nyikos wrote:
>
> > Öö Tiib is an Estonian, and he grew up under a Communist system, where he never heard
> > of this "antelope" hypothesis.
> So a know-nothing that was raised to believe evolution was a western,
> capitalist, colonialist ruse used to justify the exploitation of people
> along class & racial lines.
>
> Big whoop.

You are still incapable of giving cites to your textbooks claiming
that "antelope" hypothesis. Nothing to talk of scientific papers. Perhaps these do not
exist outside of straw-man arguments of yours.

> > You are lucky that John Harshman hasn't touched this claim in his arguments
> Well then. Switch sock puppets & touch it! What are you waiting for?
>
> > Have you ever
>
> You're wetting your pants, screaming about how other people aren't making an
> argument for you.
>
Don't mirror, don't scream here pointlessly, and if your pants are wet, exchange
your pants, then discuss. John Harshman and Peter Nyikos are sock puppets
of each other? Yet one is actual doctor of evolutionary biology and other is
actual mathematics professor. Or are you accusing them of identity theft?
That is crime in lot of jurisdictions.

oot...@hot.ee wrote:

> You are still incapable of giving cites to your textbooks claiming
> that "antelope" hypothesis. Nothing

I haven't offered any cites establishing that the sun rises in the east
and sets in the west.

Of course I haven't.

savanna idiocy, "Endurance running" was spoon fed to the public for
decades.

Of course you're ignorant. You're so goddamn stupid that you are
literally "arguing" that nobody supports the idea and that the good
Doctor is wrong for saying that it's a dumb.

You're pretending to agree with him. Right now. Here. In this thread.
You have REPEATEDLY "argued" that you agree with him, that the
savanna idiocy is idiocy.

AND you are pretending to not be a massively disordered narcissist
trying to obfuscate...

Don't have a nice day.

-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/716920321643593728

On Wednesday, 10 May 2023 at 20:28:26 UTC+3, JTEM wrote:
> oot...@hot.ee wrote:
>
> > You are still incapable of giving cites to your textbooks claiming
> > that "antelope" hypothesis. Nothing
> I haven't offered any cites establishing that the sun rises in the east
> and sets in the west.
>
> Of course I haven't.
>
> savanna idiocy, "Endurance running" was spoon fed to the public for
> decades.
>
I do not believe you. I look from Wikipedia:
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endurance_running_hypothesis>
Where are links to textbooks and decades of spoon-feeding?
Nowhere. Whole article seems as skeptical as I am. So you
can't provide what does not exist. How is it sun raising from east?

> Of course you're ignorant. You're so goddamn stupid that you are
> literally "arguing" that nobody supports the idea and that the good
> Doctor is wrong for saying that it's a dumb.
>
Misrepresentation. I am saying that he brings up that clearly
unpopular hypothesis as false dichotomy of his even worse
"swamp ape" hypothesis.

> You're pretending to agree with him. Right now. Here. In this thread.
> You have REPEATEDLY "argued" that you agree with him, that the
> savanna idiocy is idiocy.
>
Of course running around in heat does not look like clever thing to do.
Our ancestors were supposed to be clever animals. So if our ancestors
actually hunted some grazers or browsers (where is evidence?) then
probably by trapping or ambushing, not by chasing like idiots. Only thing
that feels even more dumb idea is diving into some tropical swamp
(why? where is evidence of that?). And no one can imagine why you think
that those were the only two choices available for upright walking ape.
Can you explain?

oot...@hot.ee wrote:

> I do not believe you. I look from Wikipedia:

Wiki isn't a cite. It's controlled by nimrods, including a number of
usenet trolls.

> > Of course you're ignorant. You're so goddamn stupid that you are
> > literally "arguing" that nobody supports the idea and that the good
> > Doctor is wrong for saying that it's a dumb.

> Misrepresentation.

No. You're "arguing" that savanna idiocy is so stupid nobody believes
in it, or ever believed in it, and that the good Doctor is wrong for
saying that it's idiocy.

> Of course running around in heat does not look like clever thing to do.

Stop it. If you want to pretend you're not obfuscating, make a counter
proposal.

-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/716920321643593728

On 5/10/23 8:48 AM, Peter Nyikos wrote:

> > we'll (should) know that our Pliocene ancestors weren't even in Africa:
>
> Aren't lots of African monkeys free from the viral genes?
> IIRC baboons do carry them. Am I remembering wrong?

>> - "Evolution of type C viral genes: evidence for an Asian Origin of Man" RE Benveniste & GJ Todaro 1976 Nature 261:101-8 org/10.1038/261101a0
>> - "Lineage-specific expansions of retroviral insertions within the genomes of African great apes, but not humans and orangutans" CT Yohn cs 2005 PLoS Biol.3:e110 10.1371/journal.pbio.0030110
>
>
> You are lucky that John Harshman hasn't touched this claim in his arguments
> with JTEM so far, and that JTEM has not provided him with references.
> Instead he has just stated conclusions.
>
> I will remedy that problem today, by showing John these references.

No need. I see them. I can see only the abstracts, though. The obvious
question, which you ask, is whether any African primates, in addition to
humans, also lack this particular sort of insertion. There's no
particular reason why every African species should have experienced the
exact same set of infections. In particular, if chimps and gorillas both
experienced a wave of independent PTERV1 insertions while humans did
not, this is not good evidence that humans originated in Asia unless one
shows that such infections had a very high probability of happening to
any primate living in Africa. What we have there is only two data points
out of three examined. How likely would that be if all three had been
African? Nobody considers the question.

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.

> There's no
> particular reason why every African species should have experienced the
> exact same set of infections.

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.

> In particular, if chimps and gorillas both
> experienced a wave of independent PTERV1 insertions 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.

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.

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...

> unless one
> shows

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 not "Six of one, half dozen of the other."

This retrovirus evidence is evidence, and you literally have no counter.

-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/716920321643593728

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. I would ask you to explain your reasoning, but
you won't whether I ask or not.

>> There's no
>> particular reason why every African species should have experienced the
>> exact same set of infections.
>
> 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 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.

> 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. Note
that chimps and gorillas gained their virus families independently, so
the closeness of chimps and humans is not very relevant.

> 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.

>> unless one
>> shows
>
> 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. 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.

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.

> Note
> 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.

-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/716920321643593728

On Thursday, 11 May 2023 at 01:53:28 UTC+3, JTEM wrote:
> oot...@hot.ee wrote:
>
> > I do not believe you. I look from Wikipedia:
> Wiki isn't a cite. It's controlled by nimrods, including a number of
> usenet trolls.

Wiki is source of reliable references to actual scientific literature
not troll spam to his own name and own-invented terminology
of marc.

> > > Of course you're ignorant. You're so goddamn stupid that you are
> > > literally "arguing" that nobody supports the idea and that the good
> > > Doctor is wrong for saying that it's a dumb.
>
> > Misrepresentation.
>
> No. You're "arguing" that savanna idiocy is so stupid nobody believes
> in it, or ever believed in it, and that the good Doctor is wrong for
> saying that it's idiocy.
>
Misrepresentation. I'm arguing that majority of people, (me included) being
very sceptical about the savanna hypothesis does not make that swamp
ape hypothesis anyhow better. It is anyway even worse. But marc verhaegen
discusses nothing else but solely bashes that unpopular savanna hypothesis.
This clear false dichotomy is therefore his main "evidence".

> > Of course running around in heat does not look like clever thing to do.
> Stop it. If you want to pretend you're not obfuscating, make a counter
> proposal.
>
What is the point? You anyway snip it, misrepresent and run away with
insults. You do not discuss.
Lot of animals and birds use tools and construct buildings. Apes have learned to
also use inanimate objects as weapons. Most animals and apes ignored a tool
or weapon after what they planned to do with it was done. Some apes learned
to improve those tools and weapons. So these had lasting value and were worth
to carry with starting around 3.5 mya. But that is inconvenient to when walking
on four feet or climbing from tree to tree. So 3.5 - 2.2 mya that was the most
likely pressure for walking on two feet and to climb tree only when needed. Marc
talks about h.erectus on Java 1.8 mya while by that time all evidence
shows that tool and weapon-using (and possibly also making clothes and controlling
fire) pack animals had already spread all over the place.
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_erectus#/media/File:Carte_hachereaux.jpg>
But marc does not discuss that picture nor provide any evidence about his
aquatic apes ... instead runs away with insults, misrepresentation and denial
like JTEM.

On Wednesday, 3 May 2023 at 14:40:13 UTC+3, marc verhaegen wrote:
As example of non-discussion.

> Op dinsdag 25 april 2023 om 14:22:39 UTC+2 schreef oot...@hot.ee:

> > > 4 frequent paleo-anthropological prejudices, with 0 evidence:
> > > Many PAs still *assume* that human ancestors
> > > 1) became bipedal when we left the trees for the gound??
> > > 2) came Out-of-Africa (OoA)??
> > > 3) were savanna-dwellers???
>
> > That is not that popular hypothesis. You typically use it as straw man.
>
> It's only 1 of the many popular PA prejudices.
>
What is PA? One can improve obfuscation of TLA about 40 times by
"improving" it to "two letter abbreviation".
I do not see (despite searching) and you do not provide any evidence of
savanna hypothesis popularity. The lot simpler reasons of bipedality
is improved tool/weapon/armor carrying and usage convenience ... but
from obvious arguments you snip and run away.

> > Found remains show indications that our ancestors were still well
> > adapted to climbing trees, even after they had begun to walk upright.
> Of course: google "aquarboreal"!
>
That is self-referencing spam. Go dive into some tropic swamp then tell
us if it was good idea on case you manage to survive.

> > > 4) had australopithecine ancestors??
>
> > And also its bones demonstrate features consistent with tree climbing.
> Yes, of course:
> https://www.gondwanatalks.com/l/the-waterside-hypothesis-wading-led-to-upright-walking-in-early-humans/
>
There is point to wade only when carrying something. Otherwise swimming
is lot more energy efficient. But same is about bipedal movement in any
environment. Our ancestors possibly did wade as occasionally as humans
do now.

> > > These are only anthropo- & afro-centric just-so pre-assumptions:
> > > - Darwin thought "Out of Africa" (Pan & Gorilla were African),
> > > - Africa (apart from sahara) is mostly jungle or savanna,
> > > - apiths lived in Africa, were BP, and had some humanlike anatomical traits.
>
> > Typical lie that all the science is what some bearded guys thought
> > more than hundred years ago. That kind of lies are common among
> > people who do not read scientific publications. IOW flat earthers,
> > geocentrists and deep one worshipers.
>
> Worshipers?
>
Zero links to proof of popularity of savanna hypothesis. That is your
false dichotomy straw man argument. But limitless number of kooks can
be wrong about same thing, each in its own way and so there are no
such dichotomy.

> > > Therefore, many (most?) PAs still assume, without evidence, that
> > > 1) we became BP after we split from Pan, and left the forest,
>
> > Where you concluded that we left forests?
>
> I??
> Traditional PAers: I'm trying to understand how many PAers still reason.
>
Still no idea what is your PA, and still no evidence besides some
kind of hostile stance towards that PA. Whatever PA can not add
any evidence that you do not have to you. Something happened,
rest of limitless possibilities did not. What happened happened
anyway in past and past is outside of sphere of influence of kooks.

> > Why? Forest is full
> > of edible nuts, eggs, fruit, mushrooms and animals are easier to
> > trap or ambush. Is it because you live in country that has all
> > forest cut down? Do not mirror your tragedy to our ancestors.
> ??
> Lots of trees in my garden...
>
Attempt to dodge with joke ... agriculture is likely only about 30K years
old so references to it are irrelevant. Benefit of forest for hunter and
gatherer however was left undiscussed.

> > > 2) Homo & "hominins" originated in Africa (OoA),
> > > 3) we ran bipedally in savannas,
>
> > Depends what savannas. Heavily wooded? Or why they had
> > capability to climb?
>
> I wouldn't know: I'm trying to understand how many PAists still reason.
>
So you have no idea about that PA but still claim it. What is the point?

> > > 4) BP fossils in Africa incl. apiths are “hominin” (anthropo-centric belief: Pan & Gorilla have no fossils…??).
> > > But
> > > 1) early-Miocene Hominoidea were already BP=vertical waders-climbers in swamp forests (humans & gibbons still are BP), google AQUARBOREAL,
>
> > Here is a word our sole deep one worshiper pushes. Note that
> > its sole evidence is few carved seashells found on Java. Place
> > where even crow can find seashells, but no one starts to tell
> > that crow did dive.
>
> You're still confusing
> - Mio-Pliocene aquarboreal Hominoidea,
> - early-Pleist. shallow-diving H.erectus.
>
Genetic evidence shows that we are farther from orangutans and
gibbons than from African apes. There are no fossils or tool findings of
your early Pliocene aquatic ape in Asia. There are enough fossils
and tool findings of non-aquatic ape in Africa from that time. By late
Pliocene however our tool using ancestors were all over the place.
So everybody conclude that these came out of Africa and spread
during late Pliocene. You never discuss that. What have few seashells
from early Pleistocene Java to do with any of it? Untold explanation
of yours. I repeat, even crow can find seashells there.

> > > 2) Mio-Pliocene Hominoidea came from N-Tethys coasts (hylobatids & pongids still live in SE.Asia),
> > > 3) human ancestors have always been waterside (cf. physiology, anatomy, diet+DHA, island colonizations, intercontin.dispersals etc.etc.),
> > > 4) E.Afr.apiths resemble Gorilla > Pan > Homo, S.Afr.apiths resemble Pan > Homo or Gorilla (e.g. my Hum.Evol.papers).
> > > https://www.gondwanatalks.com/l/the-waterside-hypothesis-wading-led-to-upright-walking-in-early-humans/
> > > Partial convergence? Nasalis monkeys (large & upright body, rel.long legs…) in mangrove forests also often wade bipedally & climb arms overhead.
> > > Likely scenario IMO: Plate Tectonics & Hominoid Splittings:
> > > c 30 Ma India approaching S-Asia formed island archipels = coastal forests++
> > > c 25 Ma Catarrhini reaching these islands became wading bipedally + climbing arms overhead = aquarboreal Hominoidea.
> > > c 20 Ma India further underneath Asia split hylobatids (E) & other=great apes (W), both following coastal forests along N-Tethys Ocean (E vs W).
> > > c 15 Ma Mesopotamian Seaway Closure split pongid-sivapith (E) & hominid-dryopith (W: Medit.Sea + hominids s.s. in incipient Red Sea swamp forests).
> > > c 8 Ma in Red Sea: N-Rift fm, followed by Gorilla -> Afar -> Praeanthropus afarensis -> boisei -> today G.gorilla & G.beringei.
> > > c 5 Ma the Red Sea opens into Gulf (Francesca Mansfield thinks caused by the Zanclean mega-flood 5.33 Ma):
> > > – Pan went right: E.Afr.coastal forests -> S-Rift -> Transvaal -> Australopith.africanus -> robustus (// Gorilla) -> today P.troglodytes & P.paniscus,
> > > – Homo went left: S.Asian coasts -> Java early-Pleist.H.erectus -> shallow-diving: pachy-osteo-sclerosis, DHA, brain+, stone tools, shell engravings...
> > > mid- -> late-Pleist.: diving -> wading -> walking H.sapiens.
> > > Early-Pleist. H.erectus' diet was probably mostly shellfish (engravings, stone tools, DHA & larger brain etc.),
> > > but what did Mio-Pliocene Hominoidea eat in coastal forests? fruits? mangrove oysters? sort of rice?? ...?
>
> > Yeah forests were more moist indeed before; stupid humans have dried
> > these out recently to gain access to wood with vehicles or for to turn those
> > into non-sustainable farmlands. Also there were floods sometimes so most
> > animals can swim fine, wolf, deer, bear, even PAN. But indeed ... go find
> > seashells in swamp. Good luck.
>
> You're still confusing
> - Mio-Pliocene aquarboreal Hominoidea,
> - early-Pleist. shallow-diving H.erectus.
>
> aqua=water, arbor=tree
>
Lot of animals can swim noticeable distances when needed and that does
not make them aquatic enough to be worth mentioning. We find lot of
h.erectus tools in non-coastal locations. Who carried those there and
why? So tell us story of your version of Pliocene that fits with evidence.
Do not run away with insults.
> > The savanna hypothesis did not become obsolete because your deep
> > divers found any ... counter-evidence is about climbing, not deep diving.
>
> ?? is the savanna hypothesis "obsolete"??
> ?? *deep*divers??
>
I do not know who is sponsoring that savanna hypothesis. You never identify
them. You only use it as false dichotomy with your swamp ape.

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.
>
>> Note
>> 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.