Divergent Evolution Of New Species Is Not Genetically Expensive

Here is the post where I first mentioned it liar.

Professor Baxter said:
This is nothing but strawman bullshit.

The multiregional hypothesis proposed that Homo genus contained only a single interconnected population as it does today (not separate species), and that its evolution took place worldwide continuously over the last couple million years.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_evolution

It seems to me these bones which lead to the conclusion that there may not have been so many branches within the homo clade tend to add some support for the multiregional hypothesis. But it does not settle it. The debate continues and dishonest fools like you will not add anything to it.
Click to expand...

What is funny is in the very next post I am correcting where you claimed I argued the other position....

PostmodernProphet said:
we recently had a thread in which it was shared that science indicates a dispersal of modern humans from Africa around 65,000 years ago......you now claim that it happened nearly twice as long ago......how is it that science had erred by a factor of two?......
Click to expand...

You are an ignorant blowhard. I have explained to you the different theories. That's all I have done. I don't know the exact details of when descendants of our line left Africa. I don't know whether the multi regional or recent out of Africa hypothesis is correct. I don't fucking need to take a position on it. I don't have any desperate need to try to retrofit it into some bullshit story about a flood and a boat with the basal feline that birthed house cats and lions. I keep an open mind to both because I don't see conclusive proof for either. I lean towards the recent out of Africa. I have only been telling you that your beliefs do not fit the available science in any credible way.

You don't understand how evolution works. You have repeatedly indicated that you think speciation or divergent evolution occurs in a single member of the species. Shit happening. I have told you that is not possible. Again, it is due to changes within a subpopulation and the primary population building up over time. A group becomes genetically isolated in some way and both groups are evolving. The changes within the separated populations make interbreeding more and more less likely so that variations can't be easily shared.

Archaic forms of a species are dead and static. They no longer are subject to the genetic variations of the living and do not evolve. They are, in a very real sense, genetically isolated. It is possible that changes within the living population become so great that the population can be said to become a new species distinct from the archaic forms. It is certainly POSSIBLE that that is what happened to homo erectus as it evolved into homo sapien. I have repeated this quite patiently for you several times now and all you have done is try to desperately twist my words into something else.
 
PostmodernProphet said:
and I pointed out why it was unrealistic and you've been defending it ever since........even though you don't like it?.......
Click to expand...

You have not. The argument against the multi regional hypothesis is primarily about the DNA evidence. Your conceptual problems are just a sign of your own stupidity and ignorance of how evolution works.
 
PostmodernProphet said:
so, when DNA studies tell us that we all had a common ancestor in Africa within the last 200,000 years you are saying that ancestor was NOT a homo sapien?.....

why is it that the person examining the DNA was not aware of that?.....
Click to expand...

Pretty sure the out of Africa ancestor was Homo Sapien. Also, I don't think that you'd was decided through direct DNA examination, I don't think DNA lasts that long. Probably ancestors from around that time period were instead classified via morphological evidence. There are a lot I thinks in this, I am of course not an expert on the subject, if you want to be more certain you'll have to study the subject yourself.
 
PostmodernProphet said:
so, when DNA studies tell us that we all had a common ancestor in Africa within the last 200,000 years you are saying that ancestor was NOT a homo sapien?.....

why is it that the person examining the DNA was not aware of that?.....
Click to expand...

What does this have to do with anything? Regardless, it was our common ancestor.

The recent out of Africa theory would argue it was likely an archaic homo sapien. Nothing in the Dna study shows that. The timing supports it.
 
PostmodernProphet said:
uh, its the source of our argument, remember?.......if homo sapiens evolved everywhere on earth simultaneously, why did they all go back to Africa a couple hundred thousand years ago to be dispersed from there.....
Click to expand...

No, it is not the source of our argument. You don't understand what the most recent common ancestor indicates. You are having problems with "common ancestor" and "recent." You are a barely literate imbecile.

The mtMRCA does not imply anything about them all going back to Africa. I provided you with a source clearly showing that a major proponent of the Out of Africa hypothesis acknowledges the dna of denisovans and neanderthal in modern humans and there interactions outside of Africa. It does not disprove his primary hypothesis or mtMRCA.

This is way over your head. Go learn what a hybrid is. Learn what recent, earliest and latest mean in reference to past events. Try to wrap your head around the idea that mtMRCA does not mean she was the only woman alive as you previously claimed.
 
PostmodernProphet said:
post #25, this thread.....
Click to expand...

A post from yesterday.

You made no mention of dna evidence in that post. You showed you don't understand what common ancestor means and seemed to think it implied a different species of human. But the mitochondrial dna evidence you are now arguing suggests a most recent common ancestor.

Your previous arguments were not about DNA. You don't understand evolution. First, you claimed it had to be one individual diverging which fits in with your idiotic "shit happening" argument. You seem to have come to some sort of realization that that is stupid but your refusal to answer the question I have posed makes me think you are likely to return to that point of confusion. You then went off into some nonsense about how it cannot occur among a group or the entire population because the variations must be bred out. Clearly indicates you don't understand that beneficial variations are propagated and are likely to push out those that are not. Again, my question that you will not answer is instructive. If you understand that speciation happens within a group then there is no reason why you should not understand that the entire population might evolve in ways that make it distinct from ancient forms. It is a known and uncontroversial fact, even among those proposing a recent out of Africa hypothesis, that homo sapiens have evolved in significant ways since our divergence/appearance.

You want there to be some bright red line of distinction distinction between homo sapiens and other members of the homo genus so you can fits in with your fairy tales. You don't seem to realize that the taxonomy is somewhat arbitrary. The recent find in Georgia proves that and the many species of homo are going to be reconsidered. The dna evidence still gives some heft to the recent out of Africa hypothesis or some variant of it, but that is based on assumptions in the existing genetic variations and the rate of variation. It's not absolute proof and it needs to be considered in association with the fossil record.
 
PostmodernProphet said:
well that would explain why you've been having so much trouble winning the argument......you didn't know what it was.....
Click to expand...

You are full of shit. By your own account you just mentioned this yesterday. The argument has been about your inability to understand that evolution continues within a species whether the species diverges into separate groups or not and your ignorant belief that divergence somehow happens to one single member.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top