Skip to main content

TR Memescape

  • TalkRational: kill urself

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - Saunt Taunga

1
VoxRat has moved to the "yes but" stage. The rest of you folks can now stop pretending and move out of Stage 1.
Wouldn't you need a "yes" for a "yes, but" stage? How can you have a "yes, but" stage without a "yes"?
2
:facepalm:
Look dave. Since you like to pretend you understand all this better than us poor Darwin Club members, I'm gonna give you a chance to show it.

Let's say that Famous Partisan Hack Nunes is 100% correct. Let'say that the original electronic communication which started this whole Russia collusion investigation was "NOT AN OFFICIAL INTELLIGENCE PRODUCT".

What do you think the implications of that will be? For the research and those involved? Don't give me some "Obamerrs will totes end up behind bars" crap. Be detailed and specific.

Let's see if you really know what you're talking about.
Nah.

Just watch.
How long? When will there be something to see? Something unambiguous?
You seem to be high on enthusiasm but low on conviction.
4
I am in fact a scientist and understand evolution better than most folks here. But not worth arguing. Just another silly slur from you folks.
If only there was evidence that other people than yourself believe this. Why would anyone take your word for it?
5
For reference:
This is going nowhere. It is not possible to have a discussion with people who are pretending. I will be leaving this shortly.
I don't want this to get lost.
6
For reference:
This is going nowhere. It is not possible to have a discussion with people who are pretending. I will be leaving this shortly.
7
As a digression:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neanderthal
Quote
In April 2014, a first glimpse into the epigenetics of the Neanderthal was obtained with the publication of the full DNA methylation of the Neanderthal and the Denisovan.[178][182] The reconstructed DNA methylation map allowed researchers to assess gene activity levels throughout the Neanderthal genome and compare them to modern humans. One of the major findings focused on the limb morphology of Neanderthals. Gokhman et al. found that changes in the activity levels of the HOX cluster of genes were behind many of the morphological differences between Neanderthals and modern humans, including shorter limbs, curved bones and more.[182]
http://science.sciencemag.org/content/344/6183/523
http://www.eva.mpg.de/documents/AAAS/Gokhman_Reconstructing_Science_2014_2031123.pdf
Quote
Ancient DNA sequencing has recently provided high-coverage archaic human genomes. However, the evolution of epigenetic regulation along the human lineage remains largely unexplored. We reconstructed the full DNA methylation maps of the Neandertal and the Denisovan by harnessing the natural degradation processes of methylated and unmethylated cytosines. Comparing these ancient methylation maps to those of present-day humans, we identified ~2000 differentially methylated regions (DMRs). Particularly, we found substantial methylation changes in the HOXD cluster that may explain anatomical differences between archaic and present-day humans. Additionally, we found that DMRs are significantly more likely to be associated with diseases. This study provides insight into the epigenetic landscape of our closest evolutionary relatives and opens a window to explore the epigenomes of extinct species.
I take from this that not only were the Neanderthals and first humans almost identical but that also the change from Neanderthal to human may not have been that difficult to accomplish.
I'd say "difficult to accomplish" is biased vocabulary. Your teleological perspective is showing.
But if someone were to call it religious superstition I wouldn't argue.
8
As a digression:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neanderthal
Quote
In April 2014, a first glimpse into the epigenetics of the Neanderthal was obtained with the publication of the full DNA methylation of the Neanderthal and the Denisovan.[178][182] The reconstructed DNA methylation map allowed researchers to assess gene activity levels throughout the Neanderthal genome and compare them to modern humans. One of the major findings focused on the limb morphology of Neanderthals. Gokhman et al. found that changes in the activity levels of the HOX cluster of genes were behind many of the morphological differences between Neanderthals and modern humans, including shorter limbs, curved bones and more.[182]
http://science.sciencemag.org/content/344/6183/523
http://www.eva.mpg.de/documents/AAAS/Gokhman_Reconstructing_Science_2014_2031123.pdf
Quote
Ancient DNA sequencing has recently provided high-coverage archaic human genomes. However, the evolution of epigenetic regulation along the human lineage remains largely unexplored. We reconstructed the full DNA methylation maps of the Neandertal and the Denisovan by harnessing the natural degradation processes of methylated and unmethylated cytosines. Comparing these ancient methylation maps to those of present-day humans, we identified ~2000 differentially methylated regions (DMRs). Particularly, we found substantial methylation changes in the HOXD cluster that may explain anatomical differences between archaic and present-day humans. Additionally, we found that DMRs are significantly more likely to be associated with diseases. This study provides insight into the epigenetic landscape of our closest evolutionary relatives and opens a window to explore the epigenomes of extinct species.
I take from this that not only were the Neanderthals and first humans almost identical but that also the change from Neanderthal to human may not have been that difficult to accomplish.
I'd say "difficult to accomplish" is biased vocabulary. Your teleological perspective is showing.
9
Quote
Saunt Taunga seems to have reached the limit of his bravery. But he did move the discussion along with his one act of bravery.
Unfortunately we do not seem to have any other brave souls.

But Neanderthals also had those genes. Right? Why attribute only 1-4% to Neanderthals?


What percentage of human DNA corresponds one to one with Neanderthal DNA? Just 1-4%? That is all they are attributing to Neanderthal. Right?

Any other similarity they do not attribute to Neanderthal.
Why do they not attribute any of the other similarity to Neanderthal?
Is it because it is from the common ancestor that they do not attribute that to Neanderthal?
There is something not right here. I am not sure if people realize it and are trying to hide it or not.
Nobody has given a serious answer to the question.
Also
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neanderthal
Quote
The Neanderthal genome is almost the same size as the human genome and is identical to ours to a level of 99.7% by comparing the accurate order of the nitrogenous bases in the double nucleotide chain.[155]
They are almost exactly the same and yet they are only attributing 1-4% to Neanderthal.
Hard to tell if people do not see the problem or do see it and are hiding it. I know the problem because I was  able to figure this out only after email correspondence with the researchers. That was years ago.
They are almost exactly the same yet they are only attributing 1-4% to Neanderthal. They only attribute to the Neanderthal what evolved on the Neanderthal line after the Neanderthal branched from the common ancestor. Is that clear?
So Neanderthals and humans are 99.7% identical* and some of that is unique to Neanderthals and nothing else. Does everyone understand that?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neanderthal
Quote
The Neanderthal genome is almost the same size as the human genome and is identical to ours to a level of 99.7% by comparing the accurate order of the nitrogenous bases in the double nucleotide chain.[155]
So, some of what is identical between humans and Neanderthals is unique to Neanderthals.
I don't think you grasped it quite yet.
10
The point of my recent posts of course is that ...

IMPERIALIST CIVILIZATION (I CALL IT "MYSTERY BABYLON") WILL DESTROY ALL GOOD LAND AS THEY HAVE THROUGHOUT HISTORY

Unless people with brass balls like me rise up and stop it.

I myself have begun reversing centuries of degradation on my own little 10 Acres.

And I'm in the "Thinking Phase" of helping to keep the Industrialists out of Wai Wai lands.
Didn't we establish that hyperbole is counterproductive?
It is hyperbole, right?
No, this is not hyperbole.
Shouting about Babylon as if it is something you think still exists does not come across as sane.
11
The guest whisperer tells me the guests think socrates is very confused.
12
Once again...

I see you as people who like to talk about science on the internet.
Then start talking science, and stop with the constant preaching. Stop the constant self-aggrandizement and the constant insulting, and try reading and respondinng to what others are writing.

For someone so fond of metaphors, you sure are dense when they come your way.
I AM talking about science but some don't recognize it because they have such a f****** narrow view of science.
Would it perhaps help if you could describe this "f****** narrow view of science" in a way that people recognize as their own view? Otherwise they are not going to think your criticisms apply to them.
Whenever you try, you reassure people you don't know what their view actually is. That's not very convincing.
13
Quote
Saunt Taunga seems to have reached the limit of his bravery. But he did move the discussion along with his one act of bravery.
Unfortunately we do not seem to have any other brave souls.

But Neanderthals also had those genes. Right? Why attribute only 1-4% to Neanderthals?


What percentage of human DNA corresponds one to one with Neanderthal DNA? Just 1-4%? That is all they are attributing to Neanderthal. Right?

Any other similarity they do not attribute to Neanderthal.
Why do they not attribute any of the other similarity to Neanderthal?
Is it because it is from the common ancestor that they do not attribute that to Neanderthal?
Should the 60% similarity with bananas be attributed to bananas? Or should the similarity in bananas be attributed to humans?
14
Quote
Saunt Taunga seems to have reached the limit of his bravery. But he did move the discussion along with his one act of bravery.
Unfortunately we do not seem to have any other brave souls.

But Neanderthals also had those genes. Right? Why attribute only 1-4% to Neanderthals?


What percentage of human DNA corresponds one to one with Neanderthal DNA? Just 1-4%? That is all they are attributing to Neanderthal. Right?

Any other similarity they do not attribute to Neanderthal.
Nor do they attribute similarities shared with chimps, bananas or kelp to chimps, bananas or kelp.
15
Moving to another aspect of this. It is constantly suggested that some percentage (for example 1-4%) of human DNA is Neanderthal. This sort of implies that the rest of the DNA is not Neanderthal. But that is not a correct conclusion.
When the ancestor of Neanderthals left Africa (or wherever they came from) they evolved particular changes to become Neanderthals.
You can think of the resulting Neanderthal to have the set of changes on the base of what they inherited from the ancestor.
So some Neanderthal characteristics are inherited from the ancestor and some have evolved in the evolution to Neanderthal. If anyone sees it differently please let us know.
So when they say that humans have some percentage (eg 1-4%) of Neanderthal what are they saying? 
I am certainly interested in what people have to say about this. But we may never get anyone here to take a stand as to what they mean.
Let me be more precise. They say that some percentage (eg 1-4%) of human DNA is attributed to Neanderthal.
What do they mean by that? I am certainly interested in what people have to say about this. But we may never get anyone here to take a stand as to what they mean.
For reference:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archaic_human_admixture_with_modern_humans
Quote
Green et al. (2010) estimated the proportion of Neanderthal-derived ancestry to be 1-4% of the Eurasian genome.[2] The proportion was estimated to be 1.5-2.1% in Prüfer et al. (2013),[3] but it was later revised to a higher 1.8-2.6% and it was noted that East Asians carry more Neandertal DNA (2.3-2.6%) than Western Eurasians (1.8-2.4%) in Prüfer et al. (2017).[4] Lohse and Frantz (2014) infer an even higher rate of 3.4-7.3%.[5]
Apparently, the numbers in the linked article are for alleles.
So, the 1-4% would mean that 1 to 4% of the alleles in the Eurasian genome are Neanderthal alleles.
Quote
Through whole-genome sequencing of three Vindija Neanderthals, a draft sequence of the Neanderthal genome was presented and revealed that Neanderthals shared more alleles with Eurasian populations
And what are the rest?
The rest of the alleles are human alleles.

What did they inherit those from?
Their parents.
16
The point of my recent posts of course is that ...

IMPERIALIST CIVILIZATION (I CALL IT "MYSTERY BABYLON") WILL DESTROY ALL GOOD LAND AS THEY HAVE THROUGHOUT HISTORY

Unless people with brass balls like me rise up and stop it.

I myself have begun reversing centuries of degradation on my own little 10 Acres.

And I'm in the "Thinking Phase" of helping to keep the Industrialists out of Wai Wai lands.
Didn't we establish that hyperbole is counterproductive?
It is hyperbole, right?
17
Moving to another aspect of this. It is constantly suggested that some percentage (for example 1-4%) of human DNA is Neanderthal. This sort of implies that the rest of the DNA is not Neanderthal. But that is not a correct conclusion.
When the ancestor of Neanderthals left Africa (or wherever they came from) they evolved particular changes to become Neanderthals.
You can think of the resulting Neanderthal to have the set of changes on the base of what they inherited from the ancestor.
So some Neanderthal characteristics are inherited from the ancestor and some have evolved in the evolution to Neanderthal. If anyone sees it differently please let us know.
So when they say that humans have some percentage (eg 1-4%) of Neanderthal what are they saying? 
I am certainly interested in what people have to say about this. But we may never get anyone here to take a stand as to what they mean.
Let me be more precise. They say that some percentage (eg 1-4%) of human DNA is attributed to Neanderthal.
What do they mean by that? I am certainly interested in what people have to say about this. But we may never get anyone here to take a stand as to what they mean.
For reference:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archaic_human_admixture_with_modern_humans
Quote
Green et al. (2010) estimated the proportion of Neanderthal-derived ancestry to be 1-4% of the Eurasian genome.[2] The proportion was estimated to be 1.5-2.1% in Prüfer et al. (2013),[3] but it was later revised to a higher 1.8-2.6% and it was noted that East Asians carry more Neandertal DNA (2.3-2.6%) than Western Eurasians (1.8-2.4%) in Prüfer et al. (2017).[4] Lohse and Frantz (2014) infer an even higher rate of 3.4-7.3%.[5]
Apparently, the numbers in the linked article are for alleles.
So, the 1-4% would mean that 1 to 4% of the alleles in the Eurasian genome are Neanderthal alleles.
Quote
Through whole-genome sequencing of three Vindija Neanderthals, a draft sequence of the Neanderthal genome was presented and revealed that Neanderthals shared more alleles with Eurasian populations
And what are the rest?
The rest of the alleles are human alleles.
18
Moving to another aspect of this. It is constantly suggested that some percentage (for example 1-4%) of human DNA is Neanderthal. This sort of implies that the rest of the DNA is not Neanderthal. But that is not a correct conclusion.
When the ancestor of Neanderthals left Africa (or wherever they came from) they evolved particular changes to become Neanderthals.
You can think of the resulting Neanderthal to have the set of changes on the base of what they inherited from the ancestor.
So some Neanderthal characteristics are inherited from the ancestor and some have evolved in the evolution to Neanderthal. If anyone sees it differently please let us know.
So when they say that humans have some percentage (eg 1-4%) of Neanderthal what are they saying? 
I am certainly interested in what people have to say about this. But we may never get anyone here to take a stand as to what they mean.
Let me be more precise. They say that some percentage (eg 1-4%) of human DNA is attributed to Neanderthal.
What do they mean by that? I am certainly interested in what people have to say about this. But we may never get anyone here to take a stand as to what they mean.
For reference:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archaic_human_admixture_with_modern_humans
Quote
Green et al. (2010) estimated the proportion of Neanderthal-derived ancestry to be 1-4% of the Eurasian genome.[2] The proportion was estimated to be 1.5-2.1% in Prüfer et al. (2013),[3] but it was later revised to a higher 1.8-2.6% and it was noted that East Asians carry more Neandertal DNA (2.3-2.6%) than Western Eurasians (1.8-2.4%) in Prüfer et al. (2017).[4] Lohse and Frantz (2014) infer an even higher rate of 3.4-7.3%.[5]
Apparently, the numbers in the linked article are for alleles.
So, the 1-4% would mean that 1 to 4% of the alleles in the Eurasian genome are Neanderthal alleles.
Quote
Through whole-genome sequencing of three Vindija Neanderthals, a draft sequence of the Neanderthal genome was presented and revealed that Neanderthals shared more alleles with Eurasian populations
If Neanderthal were ancestors this would be much higher.
19
Moving to another aspect of this. It is constantly suggested that some percentage (for example 1-4%) of human DNA is Neanderthal. This sort of implies that the rest of the DNA is not Neanderthal. But that is not a correct conclusion.
When the ancestor of Neanderthals left Africa (or wherever they came from) they evolved particular changes to become Neanderthals.
You can think of the resulting Neanderthal to have the set of changes on the base of what they inherited from the ancestor.
So some Neanderthal characteristics are inherited from the ancestor and some have evolved in the evolution to Neanderthal. If anyone sees it differently please let us know.
So when they say that humans have some percentage (eg 1-4%) of Neanderthal what are they saying? 
I am certainly interested in what people have to say about this. But we may never get anyone here to take a stand as to what they mean.
Let me be more precise. They say that some percentage (eg 1-4%) of human DNA is attributed to Neanderthal.
What do they mean by that? I am certainly interested in what people have to say about this. But we may never get anyone here to take a stand as to what they mean.
For reference:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archaic_human_admixture_with_modern_humans
Quote
Green et al. (2010) estimated the proportion of Neanderthal-derived ancestry to be 1-4% of the Eurasian genome.[2] The proportion was estimated to be 1.5-2.1% in Prüfer et al. (2013),[3] but it was later revised to a higher 1.8-2.6% and it was noted that East Asians carry more Neandertal DNA (2.3-2.6%) than Western Eurasians (1.8-2.4%) in Prüfer et al. (2017).[4] Lohse and Frantz (2014) infer an even higher rate of 3.4-7.3%.[5]
Apparently, the numbers in the linked article are for alleles.
So, the 1-4% would mean that 1 to 4% of the alleles in the Eurasian genome are Neanderthal alleles.
Quote
Through whole-genome sequencing of three Vindija Neanderthals, a draft sequence of the Neanderthal genome was presented and revealed that Neanderthals shared more alleles with Eurasian populations
20
Moving to another aspect of this. It is constantly suggested that some percentage (for example 1-4%) of human DNA is Neanderthal. This sort of implies that the rest of the DNA is not Neanderthal. But that is not a correct conclusion.
When the ancestor of Neanderthals left Africa (or wherever they came from) they evolved particular changes to become Neanderthals.
You can think of the resulting Neanderthal to have the set of changes on the base of what they inherited from the ancestor.
So some Neanderthal characteristics are inherited from the ancestor and some have evolved in the evolution to Neanderthal. If anyone sees it differently please let us know.
So when they say that humans have some percentage (eg 1-4%) of Neanderthal what are they saying? 
I am certainly interested in what people have to say about this. But we may never get anyone here to take a stand as to what they mean.
Let me be more precise. They say that some percentage (eg 1-4%) of human DNA is attributed to Neanderthal.
What do they mean by that? I am certainly interested in what people have to say about this. But we may never get anyone here to take a stand as to what they mean.
You are the one that keeps repeating these numbers as support of your ideas. Why do you do that if you don't know what they mean?
21
"Trump is pretty dumb"

I can sort of understand testy saying "Dave is dumb." But Trump is dumb?

Wow.
It's just an act then?
22
http://www.unknowncountry.com/news/study-evolution-saliva-uncovers-ghost-species-early-human
"This unknown human relative could be a species that has been discovered, such as a subspecies of Homo erectus, or an undiscovered hominin. We call it a 'ghost' species because we don't have the fossils."

This seems to be saying that some humans in Africa mated with Homo erectus or an undiscovered hominin.
I wonder if there is some alternate explanation that does not include the possibility that modern humans in Africa mated with Homo erectus.
Because this is the conclusion the authors come to after looking at alternatives. The alternatives they are considering are within the Out of Africa theory.
Personally I would prefer an explanation that does not include the possibility that modern humans in Africa mated with Homo erectus.
So, you prefer Homo flacidus?
For mating.
23
http://www.unknowncountry.com/news/study-evolution-saliva-uncovers-ghost-species-early-human
"This unknown human relative could be a species that has been discovered, such as a subspecies of Homo erectus, or an undiscovered hominin. We call it a 'ghost' species because we don't have the fossils."

This seems to be saying that some humans in Africa mated with Homo erectus or an undiscovered hominin.
I wonder if there is some alternate explanation that does not include the possibility that modern humans in Africa mated with Homo erectus.
Because this is the conclusion the authors come to after looking at alternatives. The alternatives they are considering are within the Out of Africa theory.
Personally I would prefer an explanation that does not include the possibility that modern humans in Africa mated with Homo erectus.
So, you prefer Homo flacidus?
24
Well then, "Socrates".
I guess you've done all you can.
You've convinced yourself, if nobody else.
Time to move on.
I am not convinced sucky has convinced himself. He seems seriously anxious about trying to get someone else to bite into his fantasy pie, if he were convinced, why does he need anyone else to bite.
It's all for the forum's ghost audience.
25
People now seem to understand the route from the Levant through a series of steps as they migrated across the world leading to us humans today.
That has been standard Out of Africa for a long time.
The disagreement is about where the people in the Levant came from.
On one hand we have "they walked there from Africa", on the other "Quantum Plenum Genetic Engineers modified Neanderthal in the Levant".
Not a tough choice.