Skip to main content

TR Memescape

  • Nobody is egging PM on. He has his own engine.

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 - VoxRat

1
I wonder if the Play Pretend Professor understands that different mutation rates apply to nuclear vs. mitochondrial DNA.
Quote
       <       clip unattributed quote about nuclear mutation rates       >      

...
Consequently we still have the Levant sites before (older than) the Nile sites and the first humans in the Levant. And they seem to be L3.

well I won that bet
2
I wonder if the Play Pretend Professor understands that different mutation rates apply to nuclear vs. mitochondrial DNA.
3
And as we know there are few different ways to do date estimates.
So naturally "Socrates" - not having a clue as to how the estimates are arrived at - simply picks whichever one he thinks best fits his "theory".

Science, Baby!
4
Apparently "Socrates" doesn't grasp what "upper bound time estimate for an exodus out of Africa" means.

Oh well.

Not worth arguing.
5
Back to square one:

Quote

    <       clip unattributed quote      >  

... I will ignore anything of yours that is not accompanied with a reference link
6
So far "Socrates" has quoted (without attribution) one source that says estimates have been 1.6-fold too old*, and another source (without attribution) that says they are "arguably" 2-fold too young.

Mutation rates calibrated by "securely dated archaeological samples as calibration points" for long-range estimates of divergence times are certainly more reliable than single-generation measurements in modern humans.  For obvious reasons.

* Though "Socrates" misrepresents them as saying the opposite.

7
more unattributed quotes.

... I will ignore anything of yours that is not accompanied with a reference link
8
"Socrates" keeps alluding to adjustments in estimates of mutation rates without giving the source of those adjustments. No reference, no link.
The mutation rate applicable to the question of prehistoric migrations is still very much an open question.

The mined quote that "Socrates" keeps repeating without attribution:

Quote
We arrive at a rate of 1.57×10−8 substitutions per site per year for the coding region and 2.67×10−8 substitutions per site per year for the whole molecule, which is approximately 1.6-fold higher than the fossil calibrated rate[7].
... is from Fu et al. A revised timescale for human evolution based on ancient mitochondrial genomes

Here's the quote in a little more context:
Quote
Using ancient mtDNA sequences from securely dated archaeological samples as calibration points has allowed us to obtain an estimate of the mtDNA substitution rate that is more reliable than the existing estimates based on calibration from the fossil and archaeological records. We arrive at a rate of 1.57×10−8 substitutions per site per year for the coding region and 2.67×10−8 substitutions per site per year for the whole molecule, which is approximately 1.6-fold higher than the fossil calibrated rate[7].
Note that what the authors consider the "more reliable" rate is the higher rate, meaning that for a given amount of DNA change, less time has passed. The exact opposite of what "Socrates" is trying to claim.

Also from that same paper:
Quote
Conclusion
Though single loci like mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) can only provide biased estimates of population split times, they can provide valid upper bounds; our results exclude most of the older dates for African and non-African split times recently suggested by de novo mutation rate estimates in the nuclear genome.

So the question is:
Does "Socrates" realize he is misrepresenting his unattributed source?
Or is "Socrates" c&p-ing stuff he thinks somehow supports his foray against credible science, without realizing it says exactly the opposite?

iow... is "Socrates" that dishonest or that stupid?
(Though my money is on "both" )
9
Hawkins's

ZOMG!!! NOT AN OFFICIAL INTELLIGENCE PRODUCT!!!1!
 :hair:    :hair:   :hair:  

post isn't coherent enough to merit a response.

I will just note, though, that the "whole Russia collusion investigation" is the Mueller investigation.
It was started, IIUC, by Trump appointee, Rod Rosenstein.
Not by McCabe, Comey, Clinton or Obama.

It was started by Comey I'm pretty sure.
Oh, right.
Good point.
Which, of course, is a big part of why obstruction of justice was added to the investigation's assignment.

Anyway, the current "Russia collusion investigation" is the Mueller investigation, and was initiated by Trump appointee, Rod Rosenstein. Hawkins has already demonstrated his cluelessness on wtf

ZOMG!!! NOT AN OFFICIAL INTELLIGENCE PRODUCT!!!1!
 :hair:    :hair:   :hair:  

... has to do with anything.
He's just dutifully parroting words Team Trump wants parroted.

10
One huge reason that you all have not been able to see your own flawed methodology is because of the massive amount of squid ink that has been dispensed over the past several years by one person... Pingu. I've never seen anybody so good at dispensing Squid Ink so effectively. She's really good.
Now that she is gone, maybe you will begin to see more clearly.
You really are a spineless coward, aren't you? Wow.
:sadyes:
11
Personally, it makes no difference at all to me if events estimated to have occurred X years ago turn out to have occurred 1.6X years ago.
12
Quote
  <  clip C&P lacking any reference or link  > 

... I will ignore anything of yours that is not accompanied with a reference link
13
I'm glad this shit came to light because Rauner was running some really obnoxious ads here in Illinois that featured friends Greitens among other shit governors. As soon as this story first broke, those ads disappeared.
Reminds me of my local congressperson when I was in Ohio - Deborah Price.
She ran advertisements touting her great teamwork with Mark Foley.
Until  . . .
Oops.
Then she left congress.
14
Nothing in that link and quote explains the existence of AMH in Africa 196,000 years ago, or the non-basal nature of L3.

Your "theory"  "theory"  cannot even stand yet.

Keep trying.
fyp
15
Hawkins's

ZOMG!!! NOT AN OFFICIAL INTELLIGENCE PRODUCT!!!1!
 :hair:    :hair:   :hair:  

post isn't coherent enough to merit a response.

I will just note, though, that the "whole Russia collusion investigation" is the Mueller investigation.
It was started, IIUC, by Trump appointee, Rod Rosenstein.
Not by McCabe, Comey, Clinton or Obama.
16
Either McCabe or Comey or both are definitely going to jail.  Probably Brennan as well. All the cooperating Witnesses like struck and page may not, or they might get light sentences, we'll see. The big fish of course will be Hillary and Obama and it will be interesting to see if they are convicted of anything jail worthy as well.
More predictions.
Bookmarked.
17
Hey dave!  :wave:

Why do you think Trump said, over and over during the campaign, that he would make public his tax returns (just as soon as this alleged audit was done) - that he was actually looking forward to it!   And then, come January 2017, when asked about it, he said no one was interested other than the Fake News*  - iow  admitting that he never intended to show them?

So, two questions really: 
(1) why won't he show his tax returns? ( like every other candidate and president since Nixon )
(2) why did he lie about his willingness to show them ( "hopefully before November [2016]" ) ?

To me these questions are central to the question "is he a 'successful businessman'?"
Or the more important question: is his "success" the same kind of "success" that John Gotti enjoyed.
You have no evidence one way or the other.
You don't know anything about his assets and liabilities.
You just buy the image he wants to project.
You are not an "evidence-based person".


*(polls show otherwise)
18
The Democrats don't have a prayer to get him removed from office. They are such blooming idiots. They're going to get trounced in November. Trump is going to kick their Collective asses even worse than he kicked Hillary's.
Pingu thinks there is enough evidence to convict  Trump of some crime because she reads fake news. She is not an evidence-based person contrary to what she would have you believe. She is ideology and agenda-driven and she only considers evidence which supports that ideology. She completely ignores or explains away contrary evidence.
Interesting juxtaposition of posts.
Bookmarked, so we can revisit this in November.  :popcorn:
19
Was John Gotti considered a successful business man?   :dunno:

I don't really know.
Or care, really.
20
Oh good, we have a factual dispute. Let's settle it the appropriate way: through facts.

Here's the "bet" post.
I'm willing to bet that Trump will not be president on January 1st 2019.

I'm willing to donate $120 to Planned Parenthood if I'm wrong.  If people accept my bet, they can donate $50 to a charity of their choice if I'm right.

Can either of you support your claims?
you'll notice if you go back to that post and those following it that I took her up on that bet.
21
It's also fun watching you guys's failed predictions. The most spectacular one is going to be the one about Trump not being in office in January of 2019. That was a howler.
who predicted that?  :dunno:
Pingu
Pingu is "you guys" ?
22
It's also fun watching you guys's failed predictions. The most spectacular one is going to be the one about Trump not being in office in January of 2019. That was a howler.
who predicted that?  :dunno:
23
"L3 originated ..."

From out of the blue?
From the Quantum Plenum?

You know, geneticists - people who actually know what they're talking about - have determined which haplogroup is ancestral to which. And, no, that determination does not depend on the Out of Africa model.
24
"Socrates" is intimating something again!