On ancestry
|
On Sun, Oct 10, 2021 at 04:41 AM, Gareth Morgan wrote:
Thanks Gareth, This is a useful page for children and adults. The Figure 1 (Evolutionary scheme) does not agree with the sentence: Ten to twelve million years ago, primates divided into two branches, one included species leading to modern (current) humans and the other branch to the great apes that include gorillas, chimpanzees, bonobos, and orangutans. I think the Evolutionary scheme of Figure 1 is more correct than that sentence. And the silly cartoon (with a skull lying above a ditch) is not really part of the article. It is a standard cartoon for this series: "Frontiers for Young Minds" -- AquaticApe.net |
||
|
|
||
|
Gareth Morgan
Maybe you should start with this one for primary school children.
https://kids.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/frym.2019.00022
From: AAT@groups.io <AAT@groups.io> on behalf of Allan Krill <krill@...>
Sent: Sunday, October 10, 2021 2:24 PM To: AAT@groups.io <AAT@groups.io> Subject: Re: [AAT] On ancestry On Sat, Oct 9, 2021 at 12:40 PM, alandarwinvanarsdale wrote:
Garbage in garbage out is what computer programmers like to sayIf you have a collection of books in a foreign language that you can’t read, it might as well be garbage. But if you give it to the right person, it can be very valuable. The page Far Forbears by Boed Marres is amazing, and should not be considered garbage. -- AquaticApe.net |
||
|
|
||
|
On Sat, Oct 9, 2021 at 12:40 PM, alandarwinvanarsdale wrote:
Garbage in garbage out is what computer programmers like to sayIf you have a collection of books in a foreign language that you can’t read, it might as well be garbage. But if you give it to the right person, it can be very valuable. The page Far Forebears by Boed Marres is amazing, and should not be considered garbage. -- AquaticApe.net |
||
|
|
||
|
Gareth Morgan
often
15 even 20 percent as to what regions their ancestry is from.
Genetics is in its infancy -- about as predictive as phrenology in its heyday.
G. From: AAT@groups.io <AAT@groups.io> on behalf of alandarwinvanarsdale <alandarwinvanarsdale@...>
Sent: Saturday, October 9, 2021 10:45 PM To: AAT@groups.io <AAT@groups.io> Subject: Re: [AAT] On ancestry Identical triplets vary a lot, often 15 even 20 percent as to what regions their ancestry is from.
Sent from Mail for Windows
From: Gareth Morgan
How often is DNA evidence wrong?
Last year, the bureau admitted that it had reviewed testimony by its microscopic-hair-comparison analysts and found errors in at least 90 percent of the cases.
In ancestry DNA testing, different companies give different results. Even the same company gives different results at different times for the same person. They fail to tell the difference between male and female. There is zero consensus. Here's just one example: - https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2016/06/a-reasonable-doubt/480747/
Anyone treating DNA evidence as the 100% accurate gospel truth about things that happened millions of years ago are just deluding themselves.
From: AAT@groups.io <AAT@groups.io> on behalf of Allan Krill <krill@...>
On Thu, Oct 7, 2021 at 08:29 PM, alandarwinvanarsdale wrote:
Reading DNA code of living animals is not like interpreting Australopithecus or Homo erectus.
Paleoanthropologists never find a complete skeleton that was respectfully buried and preserved, and never find a fire-pit with the charred bones of animals that had been roasted and eaten. Geneticists are not making this stuff up about Out of Africa.
DNA is like reading a book, where the text is actually legible. Anyone able to read, reads the same thing. In paleoanthropology, they have to guess all the time, based on the meager fossil evidence and the models in their heads. Their work can also be compared
to reading a book, but they only have a few scraps of text to work with, and they won't let you test whether their text scraps are authentic.
|
||
|
|
||
|
alandarwinvanarsdale
Identical triplets vary a lot, often 15 even 20 percent as to what regions their ancestry is from.
Sent from Mail for Windows
From: Gareth Morgan
Sent: Friday, October 8, 2021 3:16 AM To: AAT@groups.io Subject: Re: [AAT] On ancestry
How often is DNA evidence wrong? Last year, the bureau admitted that it had reviewed testimony by its microscopic-hair-comparison analysts and found errors in at least 90 percent of the cases.
In ancestry DNA testing, different companies give different results. Even the same company gives different results at different times for the same person. They fail to tell the difference between male and female. There is zero consensus. Here's just one example: - https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2016/06/a-reasonable-doubt/480747/
Anyone treating DNA evidence as the 100% accurate gospel truth about things that happened millions of years ago are just deluding themselves. From: AAT@groups.io <AAT@groups.io> on behalf of Allan Krill <krill@...>
On Thu, Oct 7, 2021 at 08:29 PM, alandarwinvanarsdale wrote:
Reading DNA code of living animals is not like interpreting Australopithecus or Homo erectus. Paleoanthropologists never find a complete skeleton that was respectfully buried and preserved, and never find a fire-pit with the charred bones of animals that had been roasted and eaten. Geneticists are not making this stuff up about Out of Africa. DNA is like reading a book, where the text is actually legible. Anyone able to read, reads the same thing. In paleoanthropology, they have to guess all the time, based on the meager fossil evidence and the models in their heads. Their work can also be compared to reading a book, but they only have a few scraps of text to work with, and they won't let you test whether their text scraps are authentic.
|
||
|
|
||
|
alandarwinvanarsdale
It is not known where A00 originated. As the Bangwa show a lot more Herto / Sahulian morphology than other Africans do, I am guessing it originated some place from Sahul to North of the Sahara. They will not say, though they have had plenty of time to get the answer, which is more distant from the usual human Y today. Bangwa subject people A00 from West Africa, or Neanderthal Y. I suspect it is the A00 that is more distant. _______________________________________________________________________________________________The A00 could be as old of s split as Homo erectus, but not so far back as habilines. The A00 should have split in archaic humans or Homo erectus from the usual Y of today.
Sent from Mail for Windows
From: Gareth Morgan
Sent: Friday, October 8, 2021 6:34 AM To: AAT@groups.io Subject: Re: [AAT] On ancestry
This is not a DNA-problem.
No. Nothing is a problem for people who don't read the information past the first paragraph..
But the A00 gene has nothing to do with the human/chimp split. Again, not a problem if you pretend Homo erectus didn't exist. Or Kenyapithecus, Samburupithecus, several species of robust and gracile Australopith, Paranthropus boisei, Homo habilis, Homo ergaster, Homo habilis or Homo heidelbergensis. Just chimps. Then in 3 weeks, before they starved, they suddenly became aquatic humans on a volcanic rock. Not a DNA problem? Some scientists believe that insanity does have a genetic component. From: AAT@groups.io <AAT@groups.io> on behalf of Allan Krill <krill@...>
On Fri, Oct 8, 2021 at 02:16 AM, Gareth Morgan wrote:
In your example, Texas police misread the DNA evidence to convict two black men of a crime they did not commit. This is not a DNA-problem.
|
||
|
|
||
|
alandarwinvanarsdale
There is too much for anyone to read except small parts. They use computers to go over it. Garbage in garbage out is what computer programmers like to say. The results you get depends a lot on your axioms and what you think you are looking for.
Sent from Mail for Windows
From: Allan Krill
Sent: Saturday, October 9, 2021 9:46 AM To: AAT@groups.io Subject: Re: [AAT] On ancestry
Of course I can't read DNA code. But I have no doubt that others can, and I am trying to learn about it, as genetics is something I am very weak on.
|
||
|
|
||
|
Of course I can't read DNA code. But I have no doubt that others can, and I am trying to learn about it, as genetics is something I am very weak on.
Here is a great web site that I am studying today. https://www.marres.education/far-forbears.htm see especially Joordens' coastal refuge hypothesis. https://www.marres.education/what_is_genetic_genealogy.htm Simple and good explanations here. https://www.marres.education/haplogroups.htm Y-DNA and Mt-DNA. See especially A0000 (Denisovan), A000 (Neanderthal), A00 (Sapiens) -- AquaticApe.net |
||
|
|
||
|
Gareth Morgan
This
is not a DNA-problem.
No. Nothing is a problem for people who don't read the information past the first paragraph..
But the A00 gene has
nothing to do with the human/chimp split.
Again, not a problem if you
pretend Homo erectus didn't exist. Or Kenyapithecus, Samburupithecus, several species of robust and gracile Australopith, Paranthropus boisei, Homo habilis, Homo ergaster, Homo habilis or Homo heidelbergensis.
Just chimps.
Then in 3 weeks, before they
starved, they suddenly became aquatic humans on a volcanic rock.
Not a DNA problem?
Some scientists believe that
insanity does have a genetic component. From: AAT@groups.io <AAT@groups.io> on behalf of Allan Krill <krill@...>
Sent: Friday, October 8, 2021 2:22 PM To: AAT@groups.io <AAT@groups.io> Subject: Re: [AAT] On ancestry On Fri, Oct 8, 2021 at 02:16 AM, Gareth Morgan wrote:
Here's just one example: - https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2016/06/a-reasonable-doubt/480747/In your example, Texas police misread the DNA evidence to convict two black men of a crime they did not commit. This is not a DNA-problem. If a DNA-testing company can't tell the difference between male and female in a sample, they are swindling their customers by selling a worthless product. This is not a DNA-problem. In your next message to this group, you write: Genetics proves (via A00 gene) that the human/chimp split happened 200,000 year ago. But the A00 gene has nothing to do with the human/chimp split. Other types of DNA show that the human/chimp split was millions of years ago, not a few hundred thousand years ago. No DNA-problem here either. |
||
|
|
||
|
On Fri, Oct 8, 2021 at 02:16 AM, Gareth Morgan wrote:
Here's just one example: - https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2016/06/a-reasonable-doubt/480747/In your example, Texas police misread the DNA evidence to convict two black men of a crime they did not commit. This is not a DNA-problem. If a DNA-testing company can't tell the difference between male and female in a sample, they are swindling their customers by selling a worthless product. This is not a DNA-problem. In your next message to this group, you write: Genetics proves (via A00 gene) that the human/chimp split happened 200,000 year ago. But the A00 gene has nothing to do with the human/chimp split. Other types of DNA show that the human/chimp split was millions of years ago, not a few hundred thousand years ago. No DNA-problem here either. |
||
|
|
||
|
Gareth Morgan
How often is DNA evidence wrong?
Last year, the bureau admitted that
it had reviewed testimony by its microscopic-hair-comparison analysts and found errors in at least 90 percent of the cases.
In ancestry DNA testing, different companies give different results. Even the same company gives different results at different times for the same person. They fail to tell the difference between male and female. There is zero consensus. Here's just one example:
- https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2016/06/a-reasonable-doubt/480747/
Anyone treating DNA evidence as the 100% accurate gospel truth about things that happened millions of years ago are just deluding themselves. From: AAT@groups.io <AAT@groups.io> on behalf of Allan Krill <krill@...>
Sent: Friday, October 8, 2021 11:22 AM To: AAT@groups.io <AAT@groups.io> Subject: Re: [AAT] On ancestry On Thu, Oct 7, 2021 at 08:29 PM, alandarwinvanarsdale wrote:
Human geneticists learned about Out of Africa and made their data fit the Recent Out of Africa hypothesis by elevating the hypothesis to axiomatic status.Reading DNA code of living animals is not like interpreting Australopithecus or Homo erectus. Paleoanthropologists never find a complete skeleton that was respectfully buried and preserved, and never find a fire-pit with the charred bones of animals that had been roasted and eaten. Geneticists are not making this stuff up about Out of Africa. DNA is like reading a book, where the text is actually legible. Anyone able to read, reads the same thing. In paleoanthropology, they have to guess all the time, based on the meager fossil evidence and the models in their heads. Their work can also be compared to reading a book, but they only have a few scraps of text to work with, and they won't let you test whether their text scraps are authentic. -- AquaticApe.net |
||
|
|
||
|
Gareth Morgan
DNA
is like reading a book, where the text is actually legible. Anyone able to read, reads the same thing.
Ha
ha ha ha ha!...
Go
on then. Enlighten us. What does this say?
 From: AAT@groups.io <AAT@groups.io> on behalf of Allan Krill <krill@...>
Sent: Friday, October 8, 2021 11:22 AM To: AAT@groups.io <AAT@groups.io> Subject: Re: [AAT] On ancestry On Thu, Oct 7, 2021 at 08:29 PM, alandarwinvanarsdale wrote:
Human geneticists learned about Out of Africa and made their data fit the Recent Out of Africa hypothesis by elevating the hypothesis to axiomatic status.Reading DNA code of living animals is not like interpreting Australopithecus or Homo erectus. Paleoanthropologists never find a complete skeleton that was respectfully buried and preserved, and never find a fire-pit with the charred bones of animals that had been roasted and eaten. Geneticists are not making this stuff up about Out of Africa. DNA is like reading a book, where the text is actually legible. Anyone able to read, reads the same thing. In paleoanthropology, they have to guess all the time, based on the meager fossil evidence and the models in their heads. Their work can also be compared to reading a book, but they only have a few scraps of text to work with, and they won't let you test whether their text scraps are authentic. -- AquaticApe.net |
||
|
|
||
|
On Thu, Oct 7, 2021 at 08:29 PM, alandarwinvanarsdale wrote:
Human geneticists learned about Out of Africa and made their data fit the Recent Out of Africa hypothesis by elevating the hypothesis to axiomatic status.Reading DNA code of living animals is not like interpreting Australopithecus or Homo erectus. Paleoanthropologists never find a complete skeleton that was respectfully buried and preserved, and never find a fire-pit with the charred bones of animals that had been roasted and eaten. Geneticists are not making this stuff up about Out of Africa. DNA is like reading a book, where the text is actually legible. Anyone able to read, reads the same thing. In paleoanthropology, they have to guess all the time, based on the meager fossil evidence and the models in their heads. Their work can also be compared to reading a book, but they only have a few scraps of text to work with, and they won't let you test whether their text scraps are authentic. -- AquaticApe.net |
||
|
|
||
|
alandarwinvanarsdale
No fossil or genetic evidence for such fantasies. There is no fossil sequence of Aftrican people evolving into Eurasians, not even one step in the chain. Human geneticists learned about Out of Africa and made their data fit the Recent Out of Africa hypothesis by elevating the hypothesis to axiomatic status. _________________________________________________________________________________________________They do not understand many of the causes for genetic diversity and have been consistently wrong in their predictions. They predicted Neanderthals and our main ancestry were genetically isolated from each other, wrong. They predicted the transition from hunter gatherer to agriculture would increase genetic diversity, again wrong in the several cases known. _________________________________________________________________________________________________They predicted gene flow as out of Africa and not back in. The oldest known African genome at 14kya has been within the last couple of years shown to have considerable ancestry in Eurasia. They predicted the Khoi-San have been genetically isolated from non Sub-Saharans. Not only demonstrating remarkable ignorance of history, but again shown to be wrong (such as the strong Basque inflow of genes around 5kya). ______________________________________________________________________________________________Of course their beliefs are magical, and they even use phrases like Y Adam and mitochondrial Eve. They predicted the Neanderthal Y was very distant from extant Y, again within the last year, wrong. Because of good press, being wrong makes them some how reliable with people who do not understand how they operate or generate what is incorrectly presented by the press as “facts”. ________________________________________________________________________________________________They present Africa as a magical origin place of all of humanity, where evolution takes place while all other places it either does not take place or is some how erased by local extinctions or near extinctions. Creationism is not the same magical belief system as Out of Africa. Though both schools have similar origins. _____________________________________________________________________________________________________Read “Tarzan at the Center of the Earth” to better understand where Out of Africa was between Darwin and when it came back in paleoanthropology. In the period (decades) when no paleoanthropologist accepted Out of Africa (they were all Out of Asia or multiregionalists after 1948_. Weidenreich 1948 proposes all human populations at all times have had gene flow with each other. The Out of Africa school rejected that, as did the Nazi (the Nazi were considered the best paleoanthropologists in the World by their American and British peers until WW II broke out, and openly and greatly by them). ___________________________________________________________________________________________________Out of Africa is linear evolution, with blacks the lowest and whites the highest. So naturally where the most primitive humans are, is where humans originated. In Tarzan aquiline nose Native Americans and European aristocrats were the highest forms of humanity. Of course post WW II there has been a lot of white washing, which does not conceal the racism in Out of Africa for those familiar with the fantasy and it’s history. _____________________________________________________________________________________________________Most of my adult life the Khoi-San were some how living fossils, which the San have published is offensive to them through their political representation. Romanticism aside, a fundamentally racist dogma.
Sent from Mail for Windows
From: Allan Krill
Sent: Thursday, October 7, 2021 7:51 AM To: AAT@groups.io Subject: Re: [AAT] On ancestry
On Wed, Oct 6, 2021 at 06:07 PM, alandarwinvanarsdale wrote:
Thanks for explaining your views. Here are my thoughts on this: Only a few creationists still think there was some sort of Garden of Eden (in Africa or elsewhere) where humans originated. And only a few racists still think that black Africans are somehow closer to apes than Eurasians are. Those old beliefs don't have any influence on modern thinking by evolutionists (including geneticists.)
Geneticists are not influenced by religion or racism. They are simply reading and interpreting the genomes of living Homo sapiens. They read the genomes to say that all living humans descended from a population of fully evolved Homo sapiens that lived in Africa. It seems clear that there was a population bottleneck in Africa (more like Noah's Ark than the Garden of Eden) about 200,000 years ago and humans who came through that bottleneck then populated the entire planet. The most significant wave of those fully evolved people came out of Africa to Eurasia very recently, only about 70,000- 50,000 years ago https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recent_African_origin_of_modern_humans. Genetics can't tell us where people evolved, or where in Africa this wave of people came from, or why there are so few fossils of humans or their stone tools or fireplaces before about 200,000 years ago.
But genetics do tell us that the human-chimp LCA was about 6 million years ago. So humans and chimps had about 6 million years to evolve (between 6,000,000 - 200,000 years), during which time there are no mammal fossils of any kind in the areas where chimps live. And genetics tell us that the chimp-gorilla LCA was about 10 million years ago. Since the gorilla and chimp are so morphologically similar and well suited to their diets and habitats, it is reasonable to think that the chimp-gorilla LCA was similar to them, and not similar to humans. The humans must have had some sort of alternative diets and habitats that made them so morphologically different. And humans must have evolved in an isolated place, with gene flow and without predators. Prehumans without large brains, tools, and weapons could not have survived early stages of their evolution if there were predators.
|
||
|
|
||
|
alandarwinvanarsdale
As Homo became more and more dominant great apes became more and more limited on what environments they usually lived in. Aquatic environments are often desirable and great apes were pushed out of them, or assimilated by Homo in more favorable environments for Homo. With gene flow being restricted to the point of Homo being a species different from great apes in Africa around 4-7 million years ago.
Sent from Mail for Windows
From: Marc Verhaegen
Sent: Thursday, October 7, 2021 1:25 PM To: AAT@groups.io Subject: Re: [AAT] On ancestry
"... Since the gorilla and chimp are so morphologically similar and well the anatomical details & the embryology of P & G knuckle-walking are very different. longer ilia, much longer arms, longer canines etc.,
______
|
||
|
|
||
|
"... Since the gorilla and chimp are so morphologically similar and well suited to their diets and habitats, it is reasonable to think that the chimp-gorilla LCA was similar to them, ..." No: P & G evolved largely in // from our LCA: the anatomical details & the embryology of P & G knuckle-walking are very different. longer ilia, much longer arms, longer canines etc., ______
|
||
|
|
||
|
On Wed, Oct 6, 2021 at 06:07 PM, alandarwinvanarsdale wrote:
All the others start with the false axiom Africa is the Garden of Eden (or before in Out of Africa Africans were obviously the lowest extant form of human life so had to be basal in a linear evolution sense with other humans). Thanks for explaining your views. Here are my thoughts on this: Only a few creationists still think there was some sort of Garden of Eden (in Africa or elsewhere) where humans originated. And only a few racists still think that black Africans are somehow closer to apes than Eurasians are. Those old beliefs don't have any influence on modern thinking by evolutionists (including geneticists.)
Geneticists are not influenced by religion or racism. They are simply reading and interpreting the genomes of living Homo sapiens. They read the genomes to say that all living humans descended from a population of fully evolved Homo sapiens that lived in Africa. It seems clear that there was a population bottleneck in Africa (more like Noah's Ark than the Garden of Eden) about 200,000 years ago and humans who came through that bottleneck then populated the entire planet. The most significant wave of those fully evolved people came out of Africa to Eurasia very recently, only about 70,000- 50,000 years ago https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recent_African_origin_of_modern_humans. Genetics can't tell us where people evolved, or where in Africa this wave of people came from, or why there are so few fossils of humans or their stone tools or fireplaces before about 200,000 years ago.
But genetics do tell us that the human-chimp LCA was about 6 million years ago. So humans and chimps had about 6 million years to evolve (between 6,000,000 - 200,000 years), during which time there are no mammal fossils of any kind in the areas where chimps live. And genetics tell us that the chimp-gorilla LCA was about 10 million years ago. Since the gorilla and chimp are so morphologically similar and well suited to their diets and habitats, it is reasonable to think that the chimp-gorilla LCA was similar to them, and not similar to humans. The humans must have had some sort of alternative diets and habitats that made them so morphologically different. And humans must have evolved in an isolated place, with gene flow and without predators. Prehumans without large brains, tools, and weapons could not have survived early stages of their evolution if there were predators. -- AquaticApe.net |
||
|
|
||
|
alandarwinvanarsdale
Many measurements which are not very useful have been used to create highly inaccurate phylogenetic trees. In the past for example for humans, skin color, prognathy, brain size, body size, morphological closeness to Africans (Africans and Sahulians in the recent past being considered the most “primitive” humans and some how ancestral to all other humans). +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++Whole genomic distances are just one more in a long series of blunders in human phylogeny. For those who understand modern evolutionary biology and natural selection, they know whole genomic distances can be like convergent evolution, and indicate similar niches, and not always accurately predict phylogeny. _____________________________________________________________________________________________________Linear evolution is widely thought to be a false concept in evolutionary biology now, and some paleoanthropologists have modern enough education to know this (Fuentes for example). We do not know which extant great ape humans are closest to (had their initial divergence from most recently). Morphologically, we are closest to orangutans (Schwartz et al, who have done the most detailed cladistic studies on this matter). _________________________________________________________________________________________________That we are closer to chimps than other extant great apes is yet another questionable artifact of the failed Out of Africa series of hypothesis (which assume some how Africa is the evolutionary Garden of Eden). The only Out of Africa hypothesis supported by real evidence is at 2.1,mya. All the others start with the false axiom Africa is the Garden of Eden (or before in Out of Africa Africans were obviously the lowest extant form of human life so had to be basal in a linear evolution sense with other humans). And establish themselves only on the assumption of a both false and magical premise which is to an axiom, and usually not even an hypothesis in all but one case. _____________________________________________________________________________________________________If we diverged from Pan before orangs, and last had strong gene flow with Pan, that does mot mean Pan is our closest relative. What this would suggest is that main human ancestry some how at some time became more geographically in contact with Pan than orangs (which supports OoA at 2.1 million years ago, with a hominin extinction or near extinction in Eurasian some time before 2.1mya). And ‘ or it suggests that of all the derived exotic great apes genes in humans, Pan genes were more favored than others. __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________It has been known for about five years all great apes today have derived genes from all other great apes, humans being a type of great ape. That means we had gene flow which survived until today, from every type of great ape’s ancestors alive today after they diverged from humans. No way to know why Pan genes are more common, it could be because of a later divergence (which is not supported either by the fossil record or extant morphology). Or it could just mean humans and Pan screwed around more with each other than they did with other great apes, and preferred similar niches favoring each others genes more as exotic genes.
Sent from Mail for Windows
From: Allan Krill
Sent: Wednesday, October 6, 2021 4:07 AM To: AAT@groups.io Subject: Re: [AAT] On ancestry
On Tue, Oct 5, 2021 at 06:32 AM, alandarwinvanarsdale wrote:
Alan, This and your next post about DNA make no sense to me. Do you think that humans are more closely related to orangutans than they are to chimpanzees or gorillas? Or maybe you think ‘closely related’ is not a meaningful concept in evolution or human evolution??
|
||
|
|
||
|
alandarwinvanarsdale
It is a fact human geneticists are not trained in evolutionary biology, evolutionary biology, paleoanthropology or paleontology. Their training is in genetics, not life science relative to human evolution. Being ignorant of this fact shows one to be ignorant of what training they do have (formally). The cult of infallibility of human genetics relies upon many things, ignorance of human genetics publications past and present, what their educations are, ignorance of the very high error rate of the field etc…
Sent from Mail for Windows
From: Gareth Morgan
Sent: Wednesday, October 6, 2021 4:18 AM To: AAT@groups.io Subject: Re: [AAT] On ancestry
You seem to think experts (paleontologists, evolutionists, ichnologists, geneticists) don’t understand the sciences they are said to be experts in.
So funny!
Another thing about stalkers is they always accuse others of the faults that they themselves exhibit. It's called 'projection'
" unconsciously taking traits you don't like about yourself and attributing them to someone else." "If they seem to whip out accusations whenever they are uncomfortable, they may be projecting. Another tell-tale sign is when you talk to someone about their behavior or thoughts, and they immediately re-direct the conversation to you or another person." Interesting topic, stalking. Don't know if there's a cure. From: AAT@groups.io <AAT@groups.io> on behalf of Allan Krill <krill@...>
On Tue, Oct 5, 2021 at 06:32 AM, alandarwinvanarsdale wrote:
Alan, This and your next post about DNA make no sense to me. Do you think that humans are more closely related to orangutans than they are to chimpanzees or gorillas? Or maybe you think ‘closely related’ is not a meaningful concept in evolution or human evolution??
|
||
|
|
||
|
Gareth Morgan
using the pseudonyms
'm3d' and 'Bill'.
So, "m3dodds" was Elaine and now "Bill" was Elaine as well!
I wonder who "Elaine" was. Probably Marc, graciously stepping aside.
The psychosis in stalkers typically makes them more and more detached from reality. It would be tragic if it wasn't so hilarious..
The great thing about stalkers is it doesn't matter how much abuse they get, they keep coming back for more. They just crave any kind of attention. It gives them some kind of validation and makes them feel important. It's the only thing that gives their life
any meaning. From: AAT@groups.io <AAT@groups.io> on behalf of Allan Krill <krill@...>
Sent: Wednesday, October 6, 2021 8:51 PM To: AAT@groups.io <AAT@groups.io> Subject: Re: [AAT] On ancestry I think that Elaine was graciously stepping aside by using the pseudonyms 'm3d' and 'Bill'. Now in her 80's, she was still mentally sharp and keeping up with her reading and writing, but didn't want to be the "Third
Father of the House" in this AAT-group.
-- AquaticApe.net |
||
|
|
