Re: The taxonomy of Sahelanthropus tchadensis from a craniometric perspective

On 8/4/24 10:22 PM, JTEM wrote:

  John Harshman wrote:
 

Your memory hasn't been subjected to the rules/interpretations as you supposedly apply to other evidence. Very little of what you remember is true.

 The only thing I got wrong, actually, is I said 2007 with a question
mark. So THAT isn't even wrong. I'm making it clear that I'm
questioning the date... which turns out to have been 2003.
 Not 2007 but 2003. Here's a post from one of the threads:
 https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/6THXu66Nn0g/m/j1xFyF4e6gsJ
 :  No, actually, it failed to address the question. That is the
:  inescapable fact that you have repeatedly managed to escape.
:  The "evidence" does not apply to the question. It is "evidence,"
:  yes, but not evidence for or against interbreeding. As Wilson
:  & Cann demonstrated (and the entire frigging scientific community
:  appears to have validated), the results of the testing are not
:  inconsistent with interbreeding. They are not. In fact, they
:  pretty much mirror the assumptions of the competing Out-Of
:  Africa/Replacement fans.
 That was 21 years ago, arguing with some shit stain faker going
by the name Don Hardmen or Jon Hapmlin or something retarded.

No, that was Chris Ho-Stuart, as you could easily have seen. Still, I agree with what he said. Can we agree (he said, dubiously) that the question of whether Neandertals and modern humans interbred is separate from the question of whether they were different species? Different species hybridize all the time, and if they don't hybridize very much, so that there's no joining of populations and not much introgression, we still call them separate. The mtDNA data, as well as almost all the nuclear genomic data, show a separation of over 700,000 years. Most of us have a little bit of Neandertal DNA, but only a little bit. Doesn't take much hybridization for that.

The moron literally "Argued" against reality. Like so many fakers,
you couldn't even deconstruct the problem!
 But just open talk.origins in the old Google archive and search
on JTEM wilson & cann

Let's try for a coherent discussion. Start with a complete reference: year, title, journal, volume, pages. Then an argument about what the reference shows.

A worthless piece of shit like you should even be able to handle
it... properly medicated, of course.

The personal insults just get in the way of any argument you might be trying to make, and of course so do all the snips.