MESSAGE
| DATE | 2023-05-14 |
| FROM | Ruben Safir
|
| SUBJECT | Subject: [Hangout - NYLXS] (fwd) Re: Human & ape evolution
|
-- forwarded message --
X-Received: by 2002:a05:622a:180f:b0:3f4:95b2:b0a4 with SMTP id t15-20020a05622a180f00b003f495b2b0a4mr3432443qtc.10.1683944186266;
Fri, 12 May 2023 19:16:26 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by 2002:aca:a88d:0:b0:390:8007:7be with SMTP id
r135-20020acaa88d000000b00390800707bemr3159729oie.0.1683944185995; Fri, 12
May 2023 19:16:25 -0700 (PDT)
Path: reader2.panix.com!panix!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!news.misty.com!border-2.nntp.ord.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!news-out.google.com!nntp.google.com!postnews.google.com!google-groups.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: sci.bio.paleontology
Date: Fri, 12 May 2023 19:16:25 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To:
Injection-Info: google-groups.googlegroups.com; posting-host=2600:1700:48c9:290:e812:b1c3:e159:fbcf;
posting-account=MmaSmwoAAABAWoWNw3B4MhJqLSp3_9Ze
NNTP-Posting-Host: 2600:1700:48c9:290:e812:b1c3:e159:fbcf
References:
<8e10d592-fd89-48be-846f-21bd43922082n-at-googlegroups.com> <7b2d4a90-bec8-41e5-8e10-fe6f25d1d150n-at-googlegroups.com>
<099e5d27-6abb-475c-aa3d-6bed2704d4afn-at-googlegroups.com>
<2e96b68b-3dac-4279-89cd-c9e0af0a84c5n-at-googlegroups.com>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <75c7ca17-7536-4b7d-8bc1-e3a435e2482an-at-googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: Human & ape evolution
From: Peter Nyikos
Injection-Date: Sat, 13 May 2023 02:16:26 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Lines: 161
Xref: panix sci.bio.paleontology:77306
On Thursday, May 11, 2023 at 12:17:53=E2=80=AFAM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote=
:
> On 5/10/23 8:31 PM, JTEM wrote:=20
> > John Harshman wrote:=20
> >=20
> >> The obvious=20
> >> question, which you ask, is whether any African primates, in addition =
to=20
> >> humans, also lack this particular sort of insertion.=20
> >=20
> > Not really.=20
> >=20
> > Obviously the further you get away from humans, the less they matter.
> That's in no way obvious.=20
It most certainly is. The retrovirus HIV-1, for instance, came to us via ch=
imps,
and they are the only primates besides ourselves where it occurs naturally.
https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/article/news-hiv-aids-monkeys-ch=
imps-origin
> I would ask you to explain your reasoning, but=20
> you won't whether I ask or not.
You might have learned the same things I told you, had you asked,
and shown some willingness to contribute to the discussion.
For instance, you could have elaborated on why on earth you think it is "in=
no way obvious"
even though it is the default assumption to anyone who is not a creationist=
.
I suspect that you gratuitously, and baselessly, taunted JTEM to get him
NOT to explain it, hoping to get him mad enough to deprive you of his reaso=
ning.
> >> There's no=20
> >> particular reason why every African species should have experienced th=
e=20
> >> exact same set of infections.=20
Was it the exact same set? Did the PTERV1 retrovirus lodge in the same loc=
us
of the genome in both chimps and gorillas?
> > It's also obfuscation, because it has nothing to do with the question h=
ere,=20
> > which has to do with why there is one specific species, the one that ga=
ve=20
> > rise to us which does not show any evidence for it.
> Is there one specific species only? Or are there other African primates=
=20
> that don't?
> >> In particular, if chimps and gorillas both=20
> >> experienced a wave of independent PTERV1 insertions=20
How could you tell they were independent? and what do you
mean by "independent," anyway?
> > > while humans did=20
> >> not, this is not good evidence that humans originated in Asia=20
> >=20
> > That's a lie. It *Is* evidence. Your value judgments are worthless.
=20
> > Evidence is evidence. Period.
> Not true. Evidence can have many degrees of quality. I would rate this=20
> particular bit of evidence at the "crap" level.
That's a reckless use of "crap." How do you justify it?
> > Humans are extremely close to Chimps RIGHT NOW, this retrovirus would=
=20
> > have burned through africa when our ancestors were three or four millio=
n=20
> > years CLOSER to Chimps than the present.
> That's an assertion without supporting evidence or even reasoning.=20
So is "crap" level. And the irony is, HIV-1 is pretty good grounds for=20
reasoning, as above.
> Note that chimps and gorillas gained their virus families independently,=
=20
What article allowed you to "note" this? You don't say.
> so the closeness of chimps and humans is not very relevant.
I see no strong connection between the "Note..." and the part after "so."
> > There is every reason to assume that our ancestors would be just as=20
> > vulnerable to this retrovirus as Chimps.=20
> >=20
> > Again: They place the 3 to 4 million years closer to the LCA than we=20
> > are, and we can and do exchange viruses...
> We do, sometimes. But not every time.
That is a "crap" reply. You are no more logical in this whole
post than JTEM. No wonder you didn't want to ask a natural=20
question, but pretended superiority.
> >> unless one=20
> >> shows=20
> >=20
> > It doesn't work that way. There is no default assumption that Africa ha=
d=20
> > to be the point of origin. The retrovirus evidence points to Asia and=
=20
> > quite frankly you have absolutely no counter. Instead, you bluster, dem=
and=20
> > that other people provide you with different evidence. But this is the=
=20
> > evidence and there is no counter evidence.
> It's extremely weak evidence. It would be strong evidence only if we=20
> knew that being absent from Africa is the only credible reason for=20
> failing to have the virus.=20
Get real. You confuse "strong evidence" with "proof beyond a reasonable dou=
bt."
What you write below is a little better, but not worth dwelling on tonight.=
=20
I'm starting my weekend posting break as of now.
Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
Univ. of South Carolina in Columbia
http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos
> You could support that by showing that all=20
> African primates got the virus. Since you have disclaimed that as=20
> relevant, I don't see a way for you to support the claim.=20
> It's not that there's a default assumption; it's that there are two=20
> hypotheses that need to be differentiated. The current evidence doesn't=
=20
> do much to differentiate them.
> > It's not "Six of one, half dozen of the other."=20
> >=20
> > This retrovirus evidence is evidence, and you literally have no counter=
.
> It's evidence, true. Just not very good evidence. You could try to=20
> improve it in the way I suggested. You could, I suppose, also try to=20
> find additional retrovirus families showing the same pattern.=20
>=20
> Still, this is the best response you have ever to my knowledge provided=
=20
> to any argument. It would be good if you kept that up.
-- end of forwarded message --
_______________________________________________
Hangout mailing list
Hangout-at-nylxs.com
http://lists.mrbrklyn.com/mailman/listinfo/hangout
|
|
