or your posts.
Now that we see that the Out of Africa does not stand up it is time to look into some of the details of the Out of the Middle East theory.Well that is that. The Out of Africa theory does not stand up. You folks can continue your "yes but" excuses and insults.The researchers in this field have never come to terms with the Levant fossils and sites. They just wave their hands and say something like:It is hard for folks to acknowledge these simple facts. You begin immediately with the "yes but" excuses. It is hard for you to admit facts that are staring you in the face.If they did give details they would document that the Nile sites were closer to today than the sites in the Levant. That would contradict the idea of an Out of Africa migration.The Out of Africa gives no details about the migration into the Levant. Though it does say this:It may be that people did not understand this.We saw earlier that the Nile sites are younger (closer to today) than the sites in the Levant.There are sites along the Nile. Is there anything published that proposes that the line from Omo 1 went northward to those sites?I have seen nothing published on this subject.
Mind you, there is this:QuoteThere is some evidence for the argument that modern humans left Africa at least 125,000 years ago using two different routes: through the Nile Valley heading to the Middle East, at least into modern Israel (Qafzeh: 120,000-100,000 years ago)QuoteNorthern route
Some of the earliest remains of AMH anywhere outside of Africa, the Skhul and Qafzeh hominins, were found in the Levant (present-day Israel) and dated to 120 and 100-90 kya, respectively (Fig. 1).56,57 It has been suggested that these fossils represent an early exit of modern humans approximately 120 kya, traveling across the Sinai Peninsula to the Levant.58 The next human remains found in the region include the Manot1 cranium, which was dated to around 55 kya,59 demonstrating a considerable gap in the fossil record of AMH occupation in the Levant. This, in conjunction with climatic records, indicating a global glacial period 90 kya,60 has led some authors to suggest that if the first humans did exit early via the Levant they did not survive, and that the Skhul and Qafzeh hominins are the remnants of this failed exodus.58 Other authors emphasize the possibility that this group could have already left the Levant before the glacial period 90 kya.61 That said, the recent presentation of archeological material, primarily stone tools and assemblages dated to 100-80 kya, from an empty corner of the Arabian Peninsula suggests early settlements may have been widely distributed and that even if Skhul and Qafzeh do represent a failed exodus, it was broader and more complex than previously thought.62
In addition to the evidence from the archeological and climatic record, genetic studies have also suggested some support for a Northern route. A study of Y chromosome haplogroup distributions together with 10 microsatellite loci and 45 binary markers in different African and Near Eastern populations found that the Levant was the most supported route for the primary migratory movements between Africa and Eurasia.63 In a more recent paper, Pagani et al sequenced the genomes of 100 Egyptians and 125 individuals from five Ethiopian ethnic groups (Amhara, Oromo, Ethiopian Somali, Wolayta, and Gumuz).64 After attempting to mask West Eurasian genetic components inherited via recent non-African admixture within the last 4 kya, they showed that modern non-African haplotypes were more similar to Egyptian haplotypes than to Ethiopian haplotypes, thus suggesting that Egypt was the more likely route in the exodus out of Africa migration, assuming the efficacy of their masking procedure. However, as noted earlier, one limitation of such studies that analyze modern DNA is that extant populations may not be good representatives of past populations due to factors such as population replacement, migrations, admixture, and drift.
So if the line led from Omo 1 to the Nile sites and then to the Levant it was by means of a time travel machine.QuoteThere is some evidence for the argument that modern humans left Africa at least 125,000 years ago using two different routes: through the Nile Valley heading to the Middle East, at least into modern Israel (Qafzeh: 120,000-100,000 years ago)QuoteThere is some evidence for the argument that modern humans left Africa at least 125,000 years ago using two different routes: through the Nile Valley heading to the Middle East, at least into modern Israel (Qafzeh: 120,000-100,000 years ago)They never deal with how humans actually made it out of Africa to the Levant. They just say that it happened. But as we have seen from the dating of the Nile sites, that does not stand up.
KJU will meet with Trump. And he will denuclearize. Why? Certainly not because Trump told him to. Why then? But because Xi told him to. Why did Xi tell him to? Because Trump was the first president in decades to be smart enough to know the Leverage that we have against China economically. Trump used that leverage and Xi did his bidding. Notice how Trump forced Xi's hand but let him save face. Very few will know the full details of how Trump pulled this off and that's a good thing.In what planet did all these things happen?
Brilliantly played, Mr. Trump.
And if you think they are going to happen, remember: Xi was already supposed to have gone that way last year, with the "beautiful cake" and all. What happened, dave?
Exactly.OMG. You are completely clueless about how Trump pulled that off.Trump hasn't pulled anything off.
He has acceded to Kim's play to be elevated from "Little Rocket Man" to Serious World Leader To Be Accorded Respect.
Dave, it would help if you read agancies allowing you to see this whole thing the way the rest of the fucking planet sees it. Or is it that the Fake News conspiracy extends to the whole world?
To stop a bad guy with a gun you have to wait til you know he's a bad guy by the fact that he opens fire on innocent civilians.
Last post by Testy Calibrate -
KJU will meet with Trump. And he will denuclearize. Why? Certainly not because Trump told him to. Why then? But because Xi told him to. Why did Xi tell him to? Because Trump was the first president in decades to be smart enough to know the Leverage that we have against China economically. Trump used that leverage and Xi did his bidding. Notice how Trump forced Xi's hand but let him save face. Very few will know the full details of how Trump pulled this off and that's a good thing.One aspect of you sucking at science is you believe stories.
Brilliantly played, Mr. Trump.
Last post by Testy Calibrate -
At first I worried that having you explain my post would spoil some of the fun of having dave not understand my subtler criticism but then I remembered that dave is an idiot and won't understand even if it's explained.Oh, good, at least you have figured that out. But ...Of course it doesn't make mine true.That doesn't make yours true. This is why you suck at science.I cannot think of a better hypothesis. Can you?My assessment of Donald Trump is capable of allowing that he may not be a total failure in everything he touches. Particularly regarding Korea. That doesn't make him anything like a good thing. Also, all you've done is posted an infographic with a hypothesis.And this has ... what to do with ... whose "head rolling" ?This is "ever hopeful Dave" hoping that the Darwin debased Minds here will one day wake up and realize how stupid they have been in their assessment of Donald Trump.
Or is this now the official Dave Hawkins Mindlessly Rebroadcasts The Latest From The Conservative Play Pen thread?But it makes it the best hypothesis that either one of us can come up with, does it not?Um, no. I can't figure out how you managed to leap from your first statement to this. It appears your only argument in favor of this conclusion is that you "cannot think of a better hypothesis." which has little to do with the validity of anything. You can't think of a lot of things, it doesn't follow that simply because you can't think of them they do not exist or are not valid. It may come as a shock to you, but reality is not dependent upon your imagination, knowledge, or thoughts.And the only reason you keep saying I suck at science is because someone in whom you have placed misplaced trust says so. And the reason you trust her is because she is a very slick writer and persuader.Actually no. Assuming you are referring to Pingu or perhaps Borealis. You might want to review this and other threads wherein many other posters have noted this. Indeed, I'm pretty sure the phrase "you suck at science" may well have come from either Vox or Testy or maybe someone else. I do not believe it originated with either of the two ladies, though it's possible it did. Regardless of its origin, I'm pretty sure all of us in the Darwin Club, as you like to refer to us, pretty much independently share that opinion. You eschew measurements and record keeping. You blindly and doggedly seek out only that which you think supports you, using a technique that is fraught with potential misunderstanding and misapplication. You make no effort whatsoever to minimize your personal biases, indeed, you go to great lengths to amplify them. You blatantly ignore any questions regarding your assumptions, methodology and conclusions. And you hold strikingly idiotic beliefs along with apparently ascribing to the notion that the strength on one's beliefs are a reflection of their validity.
In other words, about as unscientific as could be. About as obviously sucking at science as could be. Obvious to virtually anyone with a working knowledge of science and the world.
No, you are not BRILLIANT and no, you do not possess a mind that runs circles around others. You are mired in the muck of beliefs that stem from ancient myths. As well as your own ego.
I got about a third of the way through Tideland before deciding Terry Gilliam was likely a pedophile and shutting that movie off.
Last post by Testy Calibrate -
And the only reason you keep saying I suck at science is because someone in whom you have placed misplaced trust says so. And the reason you trust her is because she is a very slick writer and persuader.
"Not sure why you are slobbering all over an NBC report which reports an outcome and has nothing to do with what lead to that outcome and hence nothing to do with what role Trump had to play, whether positive or negative."
Yes, I know you're not sure. In fact "not sure" doesn't do it justice. You are completely clueless about how Trump pulled that off.
But if you had been reading Sundance for the past year or so, you would have a clue.