From Newsgroup: sci.bio.paleontology

John Harshman wrote:

Back to snipping

You never had anything for me to snip, stubby.

out everything? Sorry, simple common descent doesn't
explain the distribution of sequences, some of which have diverged much
more recently than others.

There's no molecular clock.

In the main, neandertal DNA diverged around
700,000 years ago from H. sapiens DNA.

There's no molecular clock.

There's this thing called "Evolution" or even "Selective pressure."
So when this "Selective pressure" is strong you can expect
rapid changes. When it's not you really can't expect more than
a snail's pace. But if you then compare two populations -- one
under a lot of "Selective pressure," the other not -- and assume
that they both evolved at the same imaginary clock like pace,
it's going to look like they diverged *Way* earlier than they did.

You can pretend that it averages out, and being a raging jackass
you probably will, but there is literally no real world models to
go by. We haven't observed & tested even a hundred thousand
years worth of evolution in a species. You just imagine that we
"Know" this shit.




-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/739392150398287872
--- Synchronet 3.21d-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.bio.paleontology

On 1/16/24 11:31 PM, JTEM wrote:

John Harshman wrote:

Back to snipping

You never had anything for me to snip, stubby.

out everything? Sorry, simple common descent doesn't
explain the distribution of sequences, some of which have diverged much
more recently than others.

There's no molecular clock.

In the main, neandertal DNA diverged around
700,000 years ago from H. sapiens DNA.

There's no molecular clock.

Not relevant. This is a comparison between homologous sequences in
different individuals in the same population vs. neandertal sequences. Selection does not explain that, and you can't just wave your hands
vaguely in its direction.

And in fact there is a molecular clock for neutrally evolving sequences,
but that doesn't matter now. And you resort here to the common
creationist poser, "Were you there?".

There's this thing called "Evolution" or even "Selective pressure."
So when this "Selective pressure" is strong you can expect
rapid changes. When it's not you really can't expect more than
a snail's pace. But if you then compare two populations -- one
under a lot of "Selective pressure," the other not -- and assume
that they both evolved at the same imaginary clock like pace,
it's going to look like they diverged *Way* earlier than they did.

You can pretend that it averages out, and being a raging jackass
you probably will, but there is literally no real world models to
go by. We haven't observed & tested even a hundred thousand
years worth of evolution in a species. You just imagine that we
"Know" this shit.

-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/739392150398287872

--- Synchronet 3.21d-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.bio.paleontology

John Harshman wrote:

Selection does not explain that

Well. I guess you could argue aliens. Or God. Other than that, there
is only selection.





-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/739767165105897472
--- Synchronet 3.21d-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.bio.paleontology

On 1/19/24 9:26 PM, JTEM wrote:

John Harshman wrote:

Selection does not explain that

Well. I guess you could argue aliens. Or God. Other than that, there
is only selection.

You persist in snipping out the content and responding with non sequitur one-liners. Does this give you some kind of personal gratification?
Perhaps it's easier than trying to understand my point.

Anyway, what explains the observations isn't selection, it isn't aliens.
It's introgression. Just like Paabo says.

--- Synchronet 3.21d-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.bio.paleontology

John Harshman wrote:

You persist in snipping

Don't blame me for your castration issues.

You're a raging idiot arguing intelligent design -- so stupid
you don't even know it.

You lost any expectation of respect in this thread when you
doubled down on you moronic views.




-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/741355563147984896
--- Synchronet 3.21d-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.bio.paleontology

JTEM <jtem01@gmail.com> wrote:

John Harshman wrote:

You persist in snipping

Don't blame me for your castration issues.

You're a raging idiot arguing intelligent design -- so stupid
you don't even know it.

You lost any expectation of respect in this thread when you
doubled down on you moronic views.

Feb 22nd!

--- Synchronet 3.21d-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.bio.paleontology

On 2/5/24 4:35 PM, *Hemidactylus* wrote:

JTEM <jtem01@gmail.com> wrote:

John Harshman wrote:

You persist in snipping

Don't blame me for your castration issues.

You're a raging idiot arguing intelligent design -- so stupid
you don't even know it.

You lost any expectation of respect in this thread when you
doubled down on you moronic views.

Feb 22nd!

Death of Lawrence Ferlinghetti?
--- Synchronet 3.21d-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.bio.paleontology

*Hemidactylus* wrote:

Feb 22nd!

That's Google, honey drops, not usenet.

I've been on usenet since... I dunno. 1993? But I've only
been going by my initials (J.T.E.M.) since 1994. I think.

I don't remember.

When did Google absorb Deja News?



-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/741355563147984896
--- Synchronet 3.21d-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.bio.paleontology

erik simpson <eastside.erik@gmail.com> wrote:

On 2/5/24 4:35 PM, *Hemidactylus* wrote:

JTEM <jtem01@gmail.com> wrote:

John Harshman wrote:

You persist in snipping

Don't blame me for your castration issues.

You're a raging idiot arguing intelligent design -- so stupid
you don't even know it.

You lost any expectation of respect in this thread when you
doubled down on you moronic views.

Feb 22nd!

Death of Lawrence Ferlinghetti?

And end of something but not that.

--- Synchronet 3.21e-Linux NewsLink 1.2