Skip to main content

TR Memescape

  • Talk Rational: We didn't ban coberst.

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 - socrates1

1
Quote
Worth repeating that it has already been established that there are very few differences between neanderthal and human.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/nuccore/253947345
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/nuccore/253947345
Consider the position values in the arch. The authors cannot say what value their fanciful RSRS has in those positions. So they cannot account for those positions in their fanciful AFRICAN RSRS.
It is clear that you folks do not have a clue about what the positions in the arch mean.
I suggest that mt-MRCA evolved from Neanderthals in the Middle East. This is the most parsimonious phylogeny.
I like to see uncool happy.
Now someone can take an ancestor from Africa and describe that. Show us how parsimonious that is.

Quote
According to the recent African origin of modern humans theory, modern humans evolved in Africa possibly from Homo heidelbergensis, Homo rhodesiensis or Homo antecessor
Anyone?
So nobody.
Can anyone give ANY evidence of any kind?
So no evidence. I understand.
So no evidence. Looks like people have given up even trying. I understand.
Quote
According to the recent African origin of modern humans theory, modern humans evolved in Africa possibly from Homo heidelbergensis, Homo rhodesiensis or Homo antecessor
2
Quote
Worth repeating that it has already been established that there are very few differences between neanderthal and human.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/nuccore/253947345
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/nuccore/253947345
Consider the position values in the arch. The authors cannot say what value their fanciful RSRS has in those positions. So they cannot account for those positions in their fanciful AFRICAN RSRS.
It is clear that you folks do not have a clue about what the positions in the arch mean.
I suggest that mt-MRCA evolved from Neanderthals in the Middle East. This is the most parsimonious phylogeny.
I like to see uncool happy.
Now someone can take an ancestor from Africa and describe that. Show us how parsimonious that is.

Quote
According to the recent African origin of modern humans theory, modern humans evolved in Africa possibly from Homo heidelbergensis, Homo rhodesiensis or Homo antecessor
Anyone?
So nobody.
Can anyone give ANY evidence of any kind?
So no evidence. I understand.
So no evidence. Looks like people have given up even trying. I understand.
3
Quote
Worth repeating that it has already been established that there are very few differences between neanderthal and human.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/nuccore/253947345
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/nuccore/253947345
Consider the position values in the arch. The authors cannot say what value their fanciful RSRS has in those positions. So they cannot account for those positions in their fanciful AFRICAN RSRS.
It is clear that you folks do not have a clue about what the positions in the arch mean.
I suggest that mt-MRCA evolved from Neanderthals in the Middle East. This is the most parsimonious phylogeny.
I like to see uncool happy.
Now someone can take an ancestor from Africa and describe that. Show us how parsimonious that is.

Quote
According to the recent African origin of modern humans theory, modern humans evolved in Africa possibly from Homo heidelbergensis, Homo rhodesiensis or Homo antecessor
Anyone?
So nobody.
Can anyone give ANY evidence of any kind?
So no evidence. I understand.
4
Quote
Worth repeating that it has already been established that there are very few differences between neanderthal and human.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/nuccore/253947345
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/nuccore/253947345
Consider the position values in the arch. The authors cannot say what value their fanciful RSRS has in those positions. So they cannot account for those positions in their fanciful AFRICAN RSRS.
It is clear that you folks do not have a clue about what the positions in the arch mean.
I suggest that mt-MRCA evolved from Neanderthals in the Middle East. This is the most parsimonious phylogeny.
I like to see uncool happy.
Now someone can take an ancestor from Africa and describe that. Show us how parsimonious that is.

Quote
According to the recent African origin of modern humans theory, modern humans evolved in Africa possibly from Homo heidelbergensis, Homo rhodesiensis or Homo antecessor
Anyone?
So nobody.
Can anyone give ANY evidence of any kind?
5
Quote
Worth repeating that it has already been established that there are very few differences between neanderthal and human.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/nuccore/253947345
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/nuccore/253947345
Consider the position values in the arch. The authors cannot say what value their fanciful RSRS has in those positions. So they cannot account for those positions in their fanciful AFRICAN RSRS.
It is clear that you folks do not have a clue about what the positions in the arch mean.
I suggest that mt-MRCA evolved from Neanderthals in the Middle East. This is the most parsimonious phylogeny.
I like to see uncool happy.
Now someone can take an ancestor from Africa and describe that. Show us how parsimonious that is.

Quote
According to the recent African origin of modern humans theory, modern humans evolved in Africa possibly from Homo heidelbergensis, Homo rhodesiensis or Homo antecessor
Anyone?
So nobody.
6
Quote
Worth repeating that it has already been established that there are very few differences between neanderthal and human.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/nuccore/253947345
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/nuccore/253947345
Consider the position values in the arch. The authors cannot say what value their fanciful RSRS has in those positions. So they cannot account for those positions in their fanciful AFRICAN RSRS.
It is clear that you folks do not have a clue about what the positions in the arch mean.
I suggest that mt-MRCA evolved from Neanderthals in the Middle East. This is the most parsimonious phylogeny.
I like to see uncool happy.
Now someone can take an ancestor from Africa and describe that. Show us how parsimonious that is.

Quote
According to the recent African origin of modern humans theory, modern humans evolved in Africa possibly from Homo heidelbergensis, Homo rhodesiensis or Homo antecessor
Anyone?
7
Quote
Worth repeating that it has already been established that there are very few differences between neanderthal and human.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/nuccore/253947345
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/nuccore/253947345
Consider the position values in the arch. The authors cannot say what value their fanciful RSRS has in those positions. So they cannot account for those positions in their fanciful AFRICAN RSRS.
It is clear that you folks do not have a clue about what the positions in the arch mean.
I suggest that mt-MRCA evolved from Neanderthals in the Middle East. This is the most parsimonious phylogeny.
I like to see uncool happy.
Now someone can take an ancestor from Africa and describe that. Show us how parsimonious that is.

Quote
According to the recent African origin of modern humans theory, modern humans evolved in Africa possibly from Homo heidelbergensis, Homo rhodesiensis or Homo antecessor
8
Quote
Worth repeating that it has already been established that there are very few differences between neanderthal and human.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/nuccore/253947345
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/nuccore/253947345
Consider the position values in the arch. The authors cannot say what value their fanciful RSRS has in those positions. So they cannot account for those positions in their fanciful AFRICAN RSRS.
It is clear that you folks do not have a clue about what the positions in the arch mean.
I suggest that mt-MRCA evolved from Neanderthals in the Middle East. This is the most parsimonious phylogeny.
I like to see uncool happy.
9
Quote
Worth repeating that it has already been established that there are very few differences between neanderthal and human.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/nuccore/253947345
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/nuccore/253947345
Consider the position values in the arch. The authors cannot say what value their fanciful RSRS has in those positions. So they cannot account for those positions in their fanciful AFRICAN RSRS.
It is clear that you folks do not have a clue about what the positions in the arch mean.
I suggest that mt-MRCA evolved from Neanderthals in the Middle East. This is the most parsimonious phylogeny.
10
What would be good would be to take the actual evidence of the study and relate it to the idea of humans having evolved in the Middle East from a branch of Middle Eastern Neanderthals. I do not expect that you folks would be able to do that. I understand.
One of the issues is to understand the meaning of the position values listed in the arch when related to the idea of humans having evolved in the Middle East from a branch of Middle Eastern Neanderthals. 

The first thing to note is that those position values are based on the speculative RNRS and the speculative RSRS. So it is impossible to know what they actually mean. People here will disagree with that of course but you do realize that RNRS and RSRS are both speculative.
In fact RSRS is completely speculative. I suggest that the mt-MRCA evolved in the Middle East and gave rise to L3. This is of course more consistent with the evidence than the consensus view.
There seems to be a difference of opinion between you folks about how many changes would be required if the mt-MRCA evolved in the Middle East and gave rise to L3.
Since humans are different than Neanderthals (but not much as we know) we would expect there to be some changes in transitioning from Neanderthal to human.
We probably need to go back to RNRS. Presumably this is meant to represent the first Neanderthal. Interesting to think where that was and how long ago in their opinion. 
Keep in mind that would be before the branches into Asia and into the Middle East. So there would be some number of changes that occurred as the Neanderthals spread across Asia and the Middle East. 
So some of the changes in the arch could have accumulated in that period.
Worth repeating that is has already been established that there are very few differences between neanderthal and human.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/nuccore/253947345
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/nuccore/253947345
Consider the position values in the arch. The authors cannot say what value their fanciful RSRS has in those positions. So they cannot account for those positions in their fanciful AFRICAN RSRS.
It is clear that you folks do not have a clue about what the positions in the arch mean.
11
What would be good would be to take the actual evidence of the study and relate it to the idea of humans having evolved in the Middle East from a branch of Middle Eastern Neanderthals. I do not expect that you folks would be able to do that. I understand.
One of the issues is to understand the meaning of the position values listed in the arch when related to the idea of humans having evolved in the Middle East from a branch of Middle Eastern Neanderthals. 

The first thing to note is that those position values are based on the speculative RNRS and the speculative RSRS. So it is impossible to know what they actually mean. People here will disagree with that of course but you do realize that RNRS and RSRS are both speculative.
In fact RSRS is completely speculative. I suggest that the mt-MRCA evolved in the Middle East and gave rise to L3. This is of course more consistent with the evidence than the consensus view.
There seems to be a difference of opinion between you folks about how many changes would be required if the mt-MRCA evolved in the Middle East and gave rise to L3.
Since humans are different than Neanderthals (but not much as we know) we would expect there to be some changes in transitioning from Neanderthal to human.
We probably need to go back to RNRS. Presumably this is meant to represent the first Neanderthal. Interesting to think where that was and how long ago in their opinion. 
Keep in mind that would be before the branches into Asia and into the Middle East. So there would be some number of changes that occurred as the Neanderthals spread across Asia and the Middle East. 
So some of the changes in the arch could have accumulated in that period.
Worth repeating that is has already been established that there are very few differences between neanderthal and human.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/nuccore/253947345
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/nuccore/253947345
Consider the positions in the arch. The authors cannot say what value their fanciful RSRS has in those positions. So they cannot account for those positions in their fanciful AFRICAN RSRS.
12
What would be good would be to take the actual evidence of the study and relate it to the idea of humans having evolved in the Middle East from a branch of Middle Eastern Neanderthals. I do not expect that you folks would be able to do that. I understand.
One of the issues is to understand the meaning of the position values listed in the arch when related to the idea of humans having evolved in the Middle East from a branch of Middle Eastern Neanderthals. 

The first thing to note is that those position values are based on the speculative RNRS and the speculative RSRS. So it is impossible to know what they actually mean. People here will disagree with that of course but you do realize that RNRS and RSRS are both speculative.
In fact RSRS is completely speculative. I suggest that the mt-MRCA evolved in the Middle East and gave rise to L3. This is of course more consistent with the evidence than the consensus view.
There seems to be a difference of opinion between you folks about how many changes would be required if the mt-MRCA evolved in the Middle East and gave rise to L3.
Since humans are different than Neanderthals (but not much as we know) we would expect there to be some changes in transitioning from Neanderthal to human.
We probably need to go back to RNRS. Presumably this is meant to represent the first Neanderthal. Interesting to think where that was and how long ago in their opinion. 
Keep in mind that would be before the branches into Asia and into the Middle East. So there would be some number of changes that occurred as the Neanderthals spread across Asia and the Middle East. 
So some of the changes in the arch could have accumulated in that period.
Worth repeating that is has already been established that there are very few differences between neanderthal and human.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/nuccore/253947345
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/nuccore/253947345
Consider the position values in the arch. The authors cannot say what value their fanciful RSRS has in those positions. So they cannot account for those positions in their fanciful AFRICAN RSRS.
13
What would be good would be to take the actual evidence of the study and relate it to the idea of humans having evolved in the Middle East from a branch of Middle Eastern Neanderthals. I do not expect that you folks would be able to do that. I understand.
One of the issues is to understand the meaning of the position values listed in the arch when related to the idea of humans having evolved in the Middle East from a branch of Middle Eastern Neanderthals. 

The first thing to note is that those position values are based on the speculative RNRS and the speculative RSRS. So it is impossible to know what they actually mean. People here will disagree with that of course but you do realize that RNRS and RSRS are both speculative.
In fact RSRS is completely speculative. I suggest that the mt-MRCA evolved in the Middle East and gave rise to L3. This is of course more consistent with the evidence than the consensus view.
There seems to be a difference of opinion between you folks about how many changes would be required if the mt-MRCA evolved in the Middle East and gave rise to L3.
Since humans are different than Neanderthals (but not much as we know) we would expect there to be some changes in transitioning from Neanderthal to human.
We probably need to go back to RNRS. Presumably this is meant to represent the first Neanderthal. Interesting to think where that was and how long ago in their opinion. 
Keep in mind that would be before the branches into Asia and into the Middle East. So there would be some number of changes that occurred as the Neanderthals spread across Asia and the Middle East. 
So some of the changes in the arch could have accumulated in that period.
Worth repeating that is has already been established that there are very few differences between neanderthal and human.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/nuccore/253947345
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/nuccore/253947345
14
What would be good would be to take the actual evidence of the study and relate it to the idea of humans having evolved in the Middle East from a branch of Middle Eastern Neanderthals. I do not expect that you folks would be able to do that. I understand.
One of the issues is to understand the meaning of the position values listed in the arch when related to the idea of humans having evolved in the Middle East from a branch of Middle Eastern Neanderthals. 

The first thing to note is that those position values are based on the speculative RNRS and the speculative RSRS. So it is impossible to know what they actually mean. People here will disagree with that of course but you do realize that RNRS and RSRS are both speculative.
In fact RSRS is completely speculative. I suggest that the mt-MRCA evolved in the Middle East and gave rise to L3. This is of course more consistent with the evidence than the consensus view.
There seems to be a difference of opinion between you folks about how many changes would be required if the mt-MRCA evolved in the Middle East and gave rise to L3.
Since humans are different than Neanderthals (but not much as we know) we would expect there to be some changes in transitioning from Neanderthal to human.
We probably need to go back to RNRS. Presumably this is meant to represent the first Neanderthal. Interesting to think where that was and how long ago in their opinion. 
Keep in mind that would be before the branches into Asia and into the Middle East. So there would be some number of changes that occurred as the Neanderthals spread across Asia and the Middle East. 
So some of the changes in the arch could have accumulated in that period.
15
What would be good would be to take the actual evidence of the study and relate it to the idea of humans having evolved in the Middle East from a branch of Middle Eastern Neanderthals. I do not expect that you folks would be able to do that. I understand.
One of the issues is to understand the meaning of the position values listed in the arch when related to the idea of humans having evolved in the Middle East from a branch of Middle Eastern Neanderthals. 

The first thing to note is that those position values are based on the speculative RNRS and the speculative RSRS. So it is impossible to know what they actually mean. People here will disagree with that of course but you do realize that RNRS and RSRS are both speculative.
In fact RSRS is completely speculative. I suggest that the mt-MRCA evolved in the Middle East and gave rise to L3. This is of course more consistent with the evidence than the consensus view.
There seems to be a difference of opinion between you folks about how many changes would be required if the mt-MRCA evolved in the Middle East and gave rise to L3.
Since humans are different than Neanderthals (but not much as we know) we would expect there to be some changes in transitioning from Neanderthal to human.
We probably need to go back to RNRS. Presumably this is meant to represent the first Neanderthal. Interesting to think where that was and how long ago in their opinion. 
Keep in mind that would be before the branches into Asia and into the Middle East. So there would be some number of changes that occurred as the Neanderthals spread across Asia and the Middle East. 
16
What would be good would be to take the actual evidence of the study and relate it to the idea of humans having evolved in the Middle East from a branch of Middle Eastern Neanderthals. I do not expect that you folks would be able to do that. I understand.
One of the issues is to understand the meaning of the position values listed in the arch when related to the idea of humans having evolved in the Middle East from a branch of Middle Eastern Neanderthals. 

The first thing to note is that those position values are based on the speculative RNRS and the speculative RSRS. So it is impossible to know what they actually mean. People here will disagree with that of course but you do realize that RNRS and RSRS are both speculative.
In fact RSRS is completely speculative. I suggest that the mt-MRCA evolved in the Middle East and gave rise to L3. This is of course more consistent with the evidence than the consensus view.
There seems to be a difference of opinion between you folks about how many changes would be required if the mt-MRCA evolved in the Middle East and gave rise to L3.
Since humans are different than Neanderthals (but not much as we know) we would expect there to be some changes in transitioning from Neanderthal to human.
We probably need to go back to RNRS. Presumably this is meant to represent the first Neanderthal. Interesting to think where that was and how long ago in their opinion. 
17
What would be good would be to take the actual evidence of the study and relate it to the idea of humans having evolved in the Middle East from a branch of Middle Eastern Neanderthals. I do not expect that you folks would be able to do that. I understand.
One of the issues is to understand the meaning of the position values listed in the arch when related to the idea of humans having evolved in the Middle East from a branch of Middle Eastern Neanderthals. 

The first thing to note is that those position values are based on the speculative RNRS and the speculative RSRS. So it is impossible to know what they actually mean. People here will disagree with that of course but you do realize that RNRS and RSRS are both speculative.
In fact RSRS is completely speculative. I suggest that the mt-MRCA evolved in the Middle East and gave rise to L3. This is of course more consistent with the evidence than the consensus view.
There seems to be a difference of opinion between you folks about how many changes would be required if the mt-MRCA evolved in the Middle East and gave rise to L3.
Since humans are different than Neanderthals (but not much as we know) we would expect there to be some changes in transitioning from Neanderthal to human.
18
What would be good would be to take the actual evidence of the study and relate it to the idea of humans having evolved in the Middle East from a branch of Middle Eastern Neanderthals. I do not expect that you folks would be able to do that. I understand.
One of the issues is to understand the meaning of the position values listed in the arch when related to the idea of humans having evolved in the Middle East from a branch of Middle Eastern Neanderthals. 

The first thing to note is that those position values are based on the speculative RNRS and the speculative RSRS. So it is impossible to know what they actually mean. People here will disagree with that of course but you do realize that RNRS and RSRS are both speculative.
In fact RSRS is completely speculative. I suggest that the mt-MRCA evolved in the Middle East and gave rise to L3. This is of course more consistent with the evidence than the consensus view.
There seems to be a difference of opinion between you folks about how many changes would be required if the mt-MRCA evolved in the Middle East and gave rise to L3.
19
What would be good would be to take the actual evidence of the study and relate it to the idea of humans having evolved in the Middle East from a branch of Middle Eastern Neanderthals. I do not expect that you folks would be able to do that. I understand.
One of the issues is to understand the meaning of the position values listed in the arch when related to the idea of humans having evolved in the Middle East from a branch of Middle Eastern Neanderthals. 

The first thing to note is that those position values are based on the speculative RNRS and the speculative RSRS. So it is impossible to know what they actually mean. People here will disagree with that of course but you do realize that RNRS and RSRS are both speculative.
In fact RSRS is completely speculative. I suggest that the mt-MRCA evolved in the Middle East and gave rise to L3. This is of course more consistent with the evidence than the consensus view.
20
What would be good would be to take the actual evidence of the study and relate it to the idea of humans having evolved in the Middle East from a branch of Middle Eastern Neanderthals. I do not expect that you folks would be able to do that. I understand.
One of the issues is to understand the meaning of the position values listed in the arch when related to the idea of humans having evolved in the Middle East from a branch of Middle Eastern Neanderthals. 

The first thing to note is that those position values are based on the speculative RNRS and the speculative RSRS. So it is impossible to know what they actually mean. People here will disagree with that of course but you do realize that RNRS and RSRS are both speculative.
21
What would be good would be to take the actual evidence of the study and relate it to the idea of humans having evolved in the Middle East from a branch of Middle Eastern Neanderthals. I do not expect that you folks would be able to do that. I understand.
One of the issues is to understand the meaning of the position values listed in the arch when related to the idea of humans having evolved in the Middle East from a branch of Middle Eastern Neanderthals. 
22
What would be good would be to take the actual evidence of the study and relate it to the idea of humans having evolved in the Middle East from a branch of Middle Eastern Neanderthals. I do not expect that you folks would be able to do that. I understand.
23
Every post that people post here strengthens the idea that L3 evolved in the Middle East from a branch of Middle Eastern Neanderthals.
24
People continually point out how similar Neanderthal mtDNA is to human. But then claim that that is evidence that humans did not evolve from Neanderthals.
What other candidate ancestor is closer?
So no other candidate with ANY evidence for being closer than Neanderthal. In fact NO evidence for any particular ancestor candidate. Understood.
Does the chart we have been looking at give evidence that humans evolved from an ancestor in Africa?

It would seem that by looking at the mtDNA of Neanderthals, that were OUTSIDE of Africa, they conclude that the ancestor of humans was some unidentified group WITHIN Africa.

It seems to me that you would have to know the position values that were uniquely Neanderthal. In other words, the position values that evolved on the Neanderthal line outside of Africa.
Without this knowledge how can you tell what to attribute to Neanderthal?
Without that knowledge you do not know the position values that evolved on the Neanderthal line outside of Africa.
At least some people understand this point.
As a sidenote, when I say uniquely Neanderthal, I mean the position values that evolved on the Neanderthal line. I actually said that but people missed it.
I have said this before but worth repeating. If you have a branch you can attribute what you like to the branch to fit your theory OR attribute it to the line from which the branch came if that fits your theory.
And everyone can admire the emperor's wonderful clothes.
25
People continually point out how similar Neanderthal mtDNA is to human. But then claim that that is evidence that humans did not evolve from Neanderthals.
What other candidate ancestor is closer?
So no other candidate with ANY evidence for being closer than Neanderthal. In fact NO evidence for any particular ancestor candidate. Understood.
Does the chart we have been looking at give evidence that humans evolved from an ancestor in Africa?

It would seem that by looking at the mtDNA of Neanderthals, that were OUTSIDE of Africa, they conclude that the ancestor of humans was some unidentified group WITHIN Africa.

It seems to me that you would have to know the position values that were uniquely Neanderthal. In other words, the position values that evolved on the Neanderthal line outside of Africa.
Without this knowledge how can you tell what to attribute to Neanderthal?
Without that knowledge you do not know the position values that evolved on the Neanderthal line outside of Africa.
At least some people understand this point.
As a sidenote, when I say uniquely Neanderthal, I mean the position values that evolved on the Neanderthal line. I actually said that but people missed it.
I have said this before but worth repeating. If you have a branch you can attribute what you like to the branch to fit your theory OR attribute it to the line from which the branch came if that fits your theory.