Skip to main content

TR Memescape

  • Talk Rational: Do you normally poke a hornet's nest with your dick?

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 - BenTheBiased

1
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.

Ok this has to be some kind of performance art.
I hope so. It's preferable to thinking this is what a person is actually like.
2
Can anyone explain what Faid means by "washing up"?
Anybody?
Considering it was a reference to something you wrote, it shouldn't be this hard for you to figure it out. You aren't demonstrating much scientific aptitude here for someone who claims to be a scientist.
3
I do realize that there are transitionals. Neanderthals are great transitionals. Particularly since they are 99.7% identical to humans. But again not worth arguing because you folks do not work on the basis of evidence.
Says the person who has provided no evidence for his assertions to the person who has.
4
I wonder if people realize that the Omo I and Omo II are ABOVE the Member I layer. The dating of Member I is irrelevant if Omo I and Omo II were washed into the position above Member I.
To repeat, this is an issue for the dating of Omo I because the primitive Omo II is at the same depth. But not worth arguing. People here seem unable to grasp this point.
Perhaps Socrates doesn't understand that populations with different features coexisted.
https://archive.unews.utah.edu/news_releases/the-oldest-homo-sapiens/
Quote
Fleagle says no scientist has been bold enough to suggest Omo II is anything other than Homo sapiens, and that "quite often at the time of major events in evolution, one finds an increase in morphological [anatomical] diversity." Now that the new study confirms Omo I and Omo II are the same age - living within a few hundred years of each other about 195,000 years ago - some anthropologist suggest "maybe it [Omo II] isn't so primitive after all," Brown says.
Socrates may be bold enough to suggest Omo II is something other than Homo sapiens, but he isn't a scientist, and doesn't understand much about evolution, and has no support for his baseless assertions, so his suggestions can safely be disregarded. Not worth arguing. Socrates seems unable to grasp this point.
5
Quote
Studies of the postcranial remains of Omo I indicate an overall modern human morphology with a number of primitive features.

Yup - a number of primitive features means it is not a human.
Nope. It means it's an early human.
Perhaps Socrates doesn't understand that evolution involves transitional forms, such as early humans with some archaic features. Perhaps he is under the misapprehension that it operates via "huge saltations" that somehow immediately transform one species into another overnight. This is how it would need to operate for his baseless assertions to be correct.
6
It is driving people crazy that I am not giving both reference link and copy and paste. I have put up with you folks giving neither for years.
But it is nice to see people starting to do it.
When everyone starts to do it I will start up again.
You actually present a stronger case by not doing it. When you don't provide references, perhaps some of the guests might wonder if there is any basis to your assertions. When you provide the references, they can plainly see that your assertions are baseless.
7
I wonder if people realize that the Omo I and Omo II are ABOVE the Member I layer. The dating of Member I is irrelevant if Omo I and Omo II were washed into the position above Member I.
I wonder if you realize your baseless speculation has been disproven many times already. Here's another...
https://archive.unews.utah.edu/news_releases/the-oldest-homo-sapiens/
Quote
Brown says potassium-argon dating shows that a layer of ash no more than 10 feet (3 meters) below Omo I's and Omo II's burial place is 196,000 years old, give or take 2,000 years. Another layer is 104,000 years old. It is almost 160 feet (50 meters) above the layer that yielded the Omo humans. The unconformities represent periods of time when rock was eroded, so the fossils must be much older than the 104,000-year-old layer and close in age to the 196,000-year-old layer, Brown says.
8
Quote
Studies of the postcranial remains of Omo I indicate an overall modern human morphology with a number of primitive features.

Yup - a number of primitive features means it is not a human.
Nope. It means it's an early human.
9
As a sidenote:
The Omo I date calculation is more suspect due to the presence of the primitive Omo II with it. This implies that both were washed in together from different places. That is why the reference I gave earlier suggests that the Omo I and II may be from some other places. In which case we do not know their dating.
Wrong.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0047248408000985?via%3Dihub
Quote
The papers in this volume provide a detailed stratigraphic analysis of the Kibish Formation and a series of new radiometric dates that indicate an age of 196 ± 2 ka for Member I and 104 ± 1 for Member III, confirming the antiquity of the lower parts of the Kibish Formation and, in turn, the fossils from Member I.
Other date calculations such as Misliya are not like that.
As a further point the Omo I fossil is not a human.
Wrong.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0047248408000985?via%3Dihub
Quote
Studies of the postcranial remains of Omo I indicate an overall modern human morphology with a number of primitive features.
And note that I provided reference links and copy/pastes, unlike your baseless, disproven assertions.
10
Ok whatever.
The classic Dave Hawkins response to any suggestion that he should engage in any kind of self-analysis.

That or "LOL."

Or if it's a woman suggesting it, accusations of manipulative bitchery.
11
Quote
We generated 225 whole-genome sequences (225 at 8× depth, of which 8 were increased to 30×; Illumina HiSeq 2000) from six modern Northeast African populations (100 Egyptians and five Ethiopian populations each represented by 25 individuals). West Eurasian components were masked out, and the remaining African haplotypes were compared with a panel of sub-Saharan African and non-African genomes. We showed that masked Northeast African haplotypes overall were more similar to non-African haplotypes and more frequently present outside Africa than were any sets of haplotypes derived from a West African population. Furthermore, the masked Egyptian haplotypes showed these properties more markedly than the masked Ethiopian haplotypes, pointing to Egypt as the more likely gateway in the exodus to the rest of the world. Using five Ethiopian and three Egyptian high-coverage masked genomes and the multiple sequentially Markovian coalescent (MSMC) approach, we estimated the genetic split times of Egyptians and Ethiopians from non-African populations at 55,000 and 65,000 years ago, respectively, whereas that of West Africans was estimated to be 75,000 years ago. Both the haplotype and MSMC analyses thus suggest a predominant northern route out of Africa via Egypt.

The bolded part supports a migration from the Levant
Notice the next bolded part. Again this supports a migration from the Levant.
Note that as with all the articles the researchers are working within an Out of Africa theory. I am interested in the actual evidence and not their interpretations.
What the bolded part shows, is that the Egyptians were more similar to non-African haplotypes and more frequently present outside Africa than were the Ethiopians.
The evidence indicates that humans first appeared in the Levant. From there one branch went across the Sinai and established the Nile sites. Another branch expanded throughout Arabia and some of those migrated across the Red Sea and entered Ethiopia.
Other branches expanded into Europe and Asia.
The evidence you just quoted shows that's not true....
Quote
Using five Ethiopian and three Egyptian high-coverage masked genomes and the multiple sequentially Markovian coalescent (MSMC) approach, we estimated the genetic split times of Egyptians and Ethiopians from non-African populations at 55,000 and 65,000 years ago, respectively, whereas that of West Africans was estimated to be 75,000 years ago.
The evidence shows the earliest split occurred within the African population. Once again, you post evidence that clearly supports out-of-Africa and claim, based on no reasoning whatsoever, that it instead supports your own baseless beliefs. Do you not understand why the evidence supports out-of-Africa, or are you simply lying about it?
12
Okay well thanks, but I'm going to go right ahead and try to be more like Jesus and Gandhi. If you want to come on to this forum and badmouth me and tell me all the ways that I'm not like either of those guys, well, that's your business. But if I were you, I think I would find better ways to spend my time.
If you ever manage to grow some humility you'll end up thanking us.

ETA: I mean in a non-sarcastic way.
Ben, your moralistic preaching isn't going anywhere. Why don't you read up on some of the details of my plans if you're interested and give me some constructive feedback?

If you're not interested in those details, maybe you should consider posting somewhere else.
I'm giving you constructive moral feedback. It's your choice to dismiss it.
13
Quote
We generated 225 whole-genome sequences (225 at 8× depth, of which 8 were increased to 30×; Illumina HiSeq 2000) from six modern Northeast African populations (100 Egyptians and five Ethiopian populations each represented by 25 individuals). West Eurasian components were masked out, and the remaining African haplotypes were compared with a panel of sub-Saharan African and non-African genomes. We showed that masked Northeast African haplotypes overall were more similar to non-African haplotypes and more frequently present outside Africa than were any sets of haplotypes derived from a West African population. Furthermore, the masked Egyptian haplotypes showed these properties more markedly than the masked Ethiopian haplotypes, pointing to Egypt as the more likely gateway in the exodus to the rest of the world. Using five Ethiopian and three Egyptian high-coverage masked genomes and the multiple sequentially Markovian coalescent (MSMC) approach, we estimated the genetic split times of Egyptians and Ethiopians from non-African populations at 55,000 and 65,000 years ago, respectively, whereas that of West Africans was estimated to be 75,000 years ago. Both the haplotype and MSMC analyses thus suggest a predominant northern route out of Africa via Egypt.

The bolded part supports a migration from the Levant
Notice the next bolded part. Again this supports a migration from the Levant.
You mean the part that says the evidence points to Egypt as a "gateway in the exodus to the rest of the world"? The part that explicitly says the evidence favors migration from Africa? You think that supports a migration from the Levant?
Note that as with all the articles the researchers are working within an Out of Africa theory. I am interested in the actual evidence and not their interpretations.
If you were, you'd understand why their interpretations are what they are. The fact that you don't shows you're not.
14
Okay well thanks, but I'm going to go right ahead and try to be more like Jesus and Gandhi. If you want to come on to this forum and badmouth me and tell me all the ways that I'm not like either of those guys, well, that's your business. But if I were you, I think I would find better ways to spend my time.
If you ever manage to grow some humility you'll end up thanking us.

ETA: I mean in a non-sarcastic way.
15
"You know what virtually guarantees that you won't become a true hero like those guys? Comparing yourself to those guys."

Nope.

Comparing ourselves to people like this is good because it makes us realize how far short of their standard we fall. I am not even close to the level of self-sacrifice and love for others that I see in the life of Jesus and the life of Gandhi, but I do see progress in my life. I certainly am closer to being like them in these ways than I was say 10 years ago.
The problem is in the fact that your goal is to be the hero "those guys" were. More to the point, the problem is that you compare yourself to "those guys," but you don't compare yourself to :yuck: normal people. :yuck: You're up there comparing yourself to Gandhi and Jesus, thinking you're above everyone else, so you don't empathize with them. Which means you'll never be able to really identify their problems. Which means you'll never be able to solve their problems. Which means you'll never be anything like Jesus or Gandhi, who did all of those things that your narcissism doesn't allow you to do.

(And goddamn it uncool I wasn't finished writing this yet.)
16
Quote
We generated 225 whole-genome sequences (225 at 8× depth, of which 8 were increased to 30×; Illumina HiSeq 2000) from six modern Northeast African populations (100 Egyptians and five Ethiopian populations each represented by 25 individuals). West Eurasian components were masked out, and the remaining African haplotypes were compared with a panel of sub-Saharan African and non-African genomes. We showed that masked Northeast African haplotypes overall were more similar to non-African haplotypes and more frequently present outside Africa than were any sets of haplotypes derived from a West African population. Furthermore, the masked Egyptian haplotypes showed these properties more markedly than the masked Ethiopian haplotypes, pointing to Egypt as the more likely gateway in the exodus to the rest of the world. Using five Ethiopian and three Egyptian high-coverage masked genomes and the multiple sequentially Markovian coalescent (MSMC) approach, we estimated the genetic split times of Egyptians and Ethiopians from non-African populations at 55,000 and 65,000 years ago, respectively, whereas that of West Africans was estimated to be 75,000 years ago. Both the haplotype and MSMC analyses thus suggest a predominant northern route out of Africa via Egypt.
17
Yes, I do in fact want to be the hero that saves the world.
LOL. How do you say "Great White Dope" in Waiwai?
And why not? The world needs more heroes like Jesus and Gandhi,  does it not? So I don't apologize for wanting to be a hero like one of those guys. Now I do realize that the odds are heavily stacked against me becoming a true hero like one of these guys because it's not an easy thing to achieve.
You know what virtually guarantees that you won't become a true hero like those guys? Comparing yourself to those guys.
And if I came on here and brashly proclaimed that my plans were definitely going to succeed and I definitely am going to be the hero that saves the world, then yes, that would be objectionable. But that's not what I'm doing, at least if I am I certainly don't see it.
You're the only one who doesn't.
18
I wonder why Socrates considers the idea that Omo was dated incorrectly as a possibility but doesn't consider the idea that Misliya was dated incorrectly as a possibility.  :hmm:

I'm kidding of course. I don't wonder that at all, any more than I wonder why he doesn't consider the idea that these fossils represent a very small sample of the history of humanity as a possibility even though it's glaringly obvious to anyone who understands even a tiny bit about fossils. Or why he latches onto Neanderthals as direct ancestors, despite the lack of any evidence for this proposition, but doesn't consider the obviously transitional fossils found in Africa as ancestor candidates. Or why he insists on simply reversing the arrows in both migration patterns and genetic analyses, based on no evidence whatsoever, to fit his own beliefs, without considering the evidence that led to those arrows pointing the way they do. He is anti-knowledge, anti-learning, and anti-evidence.
19
Only if you willfully blind yourself to all the evidence that they did.

ETA: Or, I suppose I should say "yourselves" to account all of the quoted Socrateses who are presumably the referent of the pronoun "we" in the most recent Socrates' post.
20
They are very similar ideas, in that they are both pulled out of your ass.
21
I guess the "line" going from the Levant to Africa made use of even more advanced time-travel technology...

https://www.theguardian.com/science/2017/jun/07/oldest-homo-sapiens-bones-ever-found-shake-foundations-of-the-human-story

Quote
Archaeologists unearthed the bones of at least five people at Jebel Irhoud, a former barite mine 100km west of Marrakesh, in excavations that lasted years. They knew the remains were old, but were stunned when dating tests revealed that a tooth and stone tools found with the bones were about 300,000 years old.
Quote
"It looks like our species was already present probably all over Africa by 300,000 years ago. If there was a Garden of Eden, it might have been the size of the continent."
Quote
The tools the people at Jebel Irhoud were making were based on a knapping technique called Levallois, a sophisticated way of shaping stone tools. The date of 300,000 years ago adds to a growing realisation that Levallois originates a lot earlier than we thought.

Or...possibly...it's idiotic to think of the migration of early humans in terms of single straight lines that lie exclusively along fossil/tool sites. Have you considered that at all?
23
What would it look like for someone to tell you "how the lineage goes"?
Maybe I can help!
The  lineage goes forward in time.
People closely related to those represented by the Omo I remains will have left descendants who, in turn, will have left descendants, etc. -  modern 21st century humans being the (currently) latest addition to that chain of descendants.

Though, as mentioned earlier, the "tree" metaphor for speciation is overly simplistic, and - at this level of detail - should be replaced with the "braided stream" metaphor. I.e. different clades diverging with time, but periodically contributing to one another via "introgressions". Hence the Neanderthal, Denisovan and unnamed (sub)species contributions identified by recent genetic analyses.
Socrates was quoting something from the "Human evolution" Wikipedia entry a while back (IIRC it was when he was talking about introgressions), and I was tempted to c&p the following graphic for him. Maybe it will help him now with his question about "the lineage" (though I suspect he's beyond help)...
24
Quote
A series of nine TL dates on burnt flints from Square L10 and N12 in the vicinity of the [Misliya Cave] human fossil (Fig. 1, A and B) provided a mean age of 179 ± 48 thousand years (ky) (2s)(range=212 to 140 ky) (11)

All these dates, except for the U-series dating of the dentine, which exclude the possibility of recent intrusion, fall within the time range for the Early Levantine Mousterian lithic industry ( Tabun D-type)observed at Tabun, Hayonim, and Misliya caves (i.e., ~250 to ~140 ky) (11-13) and are older than the upper range defined for the EMP sequence in Misliya Cave (>165 ky) (11). Collectively, the evidence suggests an early marine isotope stage 6(MIS 6) age for the Misliya-1 fossil. The age range for Misliya-1, based on dates directly connected with the fossil (U-Th on crust providing the minimum boundary and the maximum boundary of US-ESR on the enamel of I2), is between 177 and 194 ky [for details and calculation methods, see(9) and fig. S2

The Levant sites are older than the Nile site dates.


Those who want to claim that the Omo 1 site is earlier, could tell us how the lineage goes from the Omo 1 site. That would definitely be interesting.
I was hoping that someone might try to answer thls but it looks like that will not happen.
Maybe if the question was coherent. What do you mean by "the lineage"? What would it look like for someone to tell you "how the lineage goes"?
25
For reference:

The Earliest Modern Humans Outside of Africa

Quote
To date, the earliest modern human fossils found outside of Africa are dated to around 90,000 to 120,000 years ago at the Levantine sites of Skhul and Qafzeh. A maxilla and associated dentition recently discovered at Misliya Cave, Israel, was dated to 177,000 to 194,000 years ago, suggesting that members of the Homo sapiens clade left Africa earlier than previously thought. This finding changes our view on modern human dispersal and is consistent with recent genetic studies, which have posited the possibility of an earlier dispersal of Homo sapiens around 220,000 years ago. The Misliya maxilla is associated with full-fledged Levallois technology in the Levant, suggesting that the emergence of this technology is linked to the appearance of Homo sapiens in the region, as has been documented in Africa.

LOL, by the way, this was the article Socrates most recently quoted. The one he said was "enough to show us that the migration was FROM the Middle East and INTO Africa." These are the first three sentences after the abstract. The very first three sentences...

Quote
The timing and routes of modern human migration out of Africa are key issues for understanding the evolution of our own species. The fossil evidence suggests that the earliest members of the Homo sapiens clade (Jebel Irhoud, Omo, and Herto) appeared in Africa during the late Middle Pleistocene (1-4). Outside Africa, modern humans appeared much later, during the Late Pleistocene in the Levant (Qafzeh, Skhul) (5-7), and possibly in East Asia (Daoxian) (8).

I mean seriously, the "Socrates" character has to be some kind of performance art, right?