Evolution controversy erupts

PostmodernProphet said:
one contradiction that you have yet to address......you believe that modern humans evolved in multiple locations around the world.....yet, whether it be 115k or 65k years ago, science tells us that all of modern humanity dispersed out of Africa.....why did they all travel to Africa before dispersing back to these multiple locations you believe they evolved in?..........
Click to expand...

If you ever learned to write you could probably think clearer. Your comment represents but one theory, it is the current theory of choice, but it is not the only theory and even if it is widely accepted it could still be wrong. There have long been two theories: Monogenesis and Polygenesis. I suggest you should review them. This has been a rather huge debate within the scientific community since the 1800s. But I wouldn't expect someone who doesn't know how to write a complete sentence or even understands in what a sentence consists to know much about most other things. Here's a clue imbecile, if you have to connect all your idiotic nonsense with a series of dots (I won't call them ellipsis because that would imply a structure and configuration that your idiotic run-on mush lacks) maybe you have literacy issues. And should spend some time resolving them before you attempt to engage in discussions.
 
Dantès said:
If you ever learned to write you could probably think clearer. Your comment represents but one theory, it is the current theory of choice, but it is not the only theory and even if it is widely accepted it could still be wrong. There have long been two theories: Monogenesis and Polygenesis. I suggest you should review them. This has been a rather huge debate within the scientific community since the 1800s. But I wouldn't expect someone who doesn't know how to write a complete sentence or even understands in what a sentence consists to know much about most other things. Here's a clue imbecile, if you have to connect all your idiotic nonsense with a series of dots (I won't call them ellipsis because that would imply a structure and configuration that your idiotic run-on mush lacks) maybe you have literacy issues. And should spend some time resolving them before you attempt to engage in discussions.
Click to expand...

lol.....Bijou, English is evolving.....adapt or become extinct.....
 
PostmodernProphet said:
of course they are....the problem for your argument is that there are other creatures which evolved from those older forms which are not pandas.......if homo sapiens are the grizzlies, where are our polar bears.....where are our black bears and brown bears?......
Click to expand...

No, I am talking about the fact that they have evolved since their divergence from other bears and even into distinct subspecies of pandas. Every species has continued to evolve from archaic forms as a group.
 
PostmodernProphet said:
no dodge whatsoever.....it is scientifically unavoidable that it begins with an individual....whether that individual change is ultimately passed on to a larger group depends on whether the larger group is sufficiently isolated that the trait is carried on rather than being diluted out of existence among the larger population....


you said that homo sapiens evolved in multiple locations around the world......you cannot deny that.....



lol.....you even told me how to change it.....my response was, since you already know what I'm asking, just answer it.......you're still dodging it.....


did rodents evolve into that species in multiple locations simultaneously or were they transported around the world in the bilges of ships?.....

can you come up with an example that MUST be simultaneous multi-regional evolution?.....
Click to expand...

You have to chop everything up and drop context because you are a lying idiot.

The survival of a particular genetic variation has little to do with the size of the group or its isolation. It has to do with whether the variation is beneficial.

Again, I did not say that homo sapiens had evolved in multiple regions. I said it was possible and it is. I have already provided you with my initial post on the topic showing that I immediately noted that it was not a settled matter. You are a liar.

I told you how to change your stupid question about hybrids. That is after I answered and you moved the goalpost. But, okay... I have answered it. What is your complaint now?

The rats and every other example of species I have noted are evolving now, you idiot, and have since being spread across multiple regions. It does not stop.
 
Last edited:
PostmodernProphet said:
neither claim is true....first of all I told you that speciation occurs when a variation within the species is isolated from the general population. You have made several comments that demonstrates you are not only aware of what I have said, but agree. You claim this is multi-regional. There is no where on earth where this is demonstrated. Pandas did not evolve both in China and Sweden. Water buffalo did not evolve in both Southeast Asia and Argentina. Kangaroos did not evolve in both Australia and Arizona. Grizzly bears did not evolve in both North America and Africa. Yet you believe human beings evolved on every continent simultaneously. You ridicule the thought that all bears would have evolved into polar bears but you take it for granted that all humans would have evolved into homo sapiens.

as for you "already giving several examples" all you've ever claimed were domesticated animals.....you've already admitted you knew this didn't answer my question......you've only dodged it by saying that since I haven't asked the question in the way you like you aren't going to give it a direct answer.........its obvious to everyone you know the answer will prove you wrong and that's why you won't answer.......the answer to my question is that there aren't any other examples.....

the burning question is this.....since we all know it has never happened anywhere else with any other species, why do you persist in believing that human beings evolved in multiple locations simultaneously?.......
Click to expand...

I.....don't.........think.......so!
 
Postmodernturd wrote: lol.....Bijou, English is evolving.....adapt or become extinct.....
Click to expand...

You're certainly not evolving, you're devolving! So I don't think you are in any position to know a damn thing about it!
 
Here is one of the leading proponents of the Recent Out of Africa, or replacement model, hypothesis talking about how new information has changed his views. He is now arguing a sort of Recent out of Africa plus acknowledging the genetic contributions of neanderthals and denisovans to modern homo sapiens. Scroll to the bottom of the page and the diagram gives a representation of the lineages as he imagines them over time and space. It would be very easy to connect those other erectus branches.

I wonder what how the new find will affect his views.

http://www.edge.org/conversation/rethinking-out-of-africa

In this link Wolpoff, the leading proponent of the mutli regional hypothesis, explains, as have I, that multi regional does not have to mean multiple origins as pmp has idiotically argued.

http://www-personal.umich.edu/~wolpoff/Papers/Multiregional.PDF

Multiregional evolution is a model to account for the pattern of human evolution in the Pleistocene. The underlying hypothesis is that a worldwide network of genic exchanges, between evolving human populations that continually divide and reticulate, provides a frame of population interconnections that allows both species-wide evolutionary change and local distinctions and differentiation. “Multiregional” does not mean independent multiple origins, ancient divergence of modern populations, simultaneous appearance of adaptive characters in different regions, or parallel evolution. A valid understanding of multiregional evolution would go a long way toward reducing the modern human origins controversy.
 
Professor Baxter said:
You have to chop everything up and drop context because you are a lying idiot.

The survival of a particular genetic variation has little to do with the size of the group or its isolation. It has to do with whether the variation is beneficial.

Again, I did not say that homo sapiens had evolved in multiple regions. I said it was possible and it is. I have already provided you with my initial post on the topic showing that I immediately noted that it was not a settled matter. You are a liar.

I told you how to change your stupid question about hybrids. That is after I answered and you moved the goalpost. But, okay... I have answered it. What is your complaint now?

The rats and every other example of species I have noted are evolving now, you idiot, and have since being spread across multiple regions. It does not stop.
Click to expand...

give an example of multi-regional evolution.....
 
Professor Baxter said:
The underlying hypothesis is that a worldwide network of genic exchanges, between evolving human populations that continually divide and reticulate, provides a frame of population interconnections that allows both species-wide evolutionary change and local distinctions and differentiation.
Click to expand...

yet no such network is visible for any other species of anything anywhere........is this "hypothesis" supported by the scientific method?.......
 
No response on the points about and from Stringer?

PostmodernProphet said:
yet no such network is visible for any other species of anything anywhere........is this "hypothesis" supported by the scientific method?.......
Click to expand...

Visible??? The network of genic exchanges exists for all species everywhere. Few are worldwide, but I have mentioned several. Modern humans are a perfect example. Gene flow is very high now and so we are not likely to see new local distinctions and old ones are declining but the network of genic exchanges certainly exists.
 
PostmodernProphet said:
within the entire population as you claimed?.....obviously not....otherwise there would only be one species of everything.....
Click to expand...

I did not claim that. I have stated several times and without the equivocation you insist on, that it happens within a genetically separated group. The multi regional hypothesis suggests that there was only only one human species, idiot.

Are you going to answer or not? Does it happen with a group or to an individual member of the species?
 
PostmodernProphet said:
of course they are....the problem for your argument is that there are other creatures which evolved from those older forms which are not pandas.......if homo sapiens are the grizzlies, where are our polar bears.....where are our black bears and brown bears?......
Click to expand...

Not mention the marsupials; where are our marsupials?
 
Professor Baxter said:
Modern humans are a perfect example.
Click to expand...

again, circular reasoning.....when I raise the point that there are no other situations where your claimed "multi-regional" evolution occurred its obvious that it is invalid to use the species you are trying to prove as the example of it happening (and the same goes for the domesticated animals they took with them and the pests that followed them).......
 
PostmodernProphet said:
again, circular reasoning.....when I raise the point that there are no other situations where your claimed "multi-regional" evolution occurred its obvious that it is invalid to use the species you are trying to prove as the example of it happening (and the same goes for the domesticated animals they took with them and the pests that followed them).......
Click to expand...

It is not circular reasoning, dumbfuck. I was not responding to your insignificant arguments against the multi regional hypothesis in general. You claimed that there was no genic network for any species anywhere. There is for every species every where. Humans have it now and it should be familiar to you.

It's as if you are arguing birds from 200,000 ya could not possibly have been able to fly because the ability has never been seen anywhere. I say, well, they can fly now and you idiotically respond with claiming that is circular reasoning.

You are D-U-M-B. Incredibly stupid. You disagree with the simplest and most obvious points based on your own confusion and vast ignorance. STFU and go read a book.
 
Professor Baxter said:
It's as if you are arguing birds from 200,000 ya could not possibly have been able to fly because the ability has never been seen anywhere.
Click to expand...

uh, no.....I am contesting your position, which would be that all birds evolved into ducks because evolution effects the entire population of a species.....
 
PostmodernProphet said:
"A" proves "A"......
Click to expand...

No, liar. I was not making a point about the multi regional hypothesis. I was pointing out how stupid your claim is that "no such (genic) network is visible for any other species of anything anywhere." It exists for every sexually reproducing species that has ever existed. This does not prove the multi regional hypothesis and I did not claim it did. You are fucking D-U-M-B dumb.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top