J.D. Hall
United States
Oklahoma
flag msg tools
Finally, someone older than me!

http://www.cnn.com/2017/06/07/health/oldest-homo-sapiens-fos...

Love this kind of stuff. I have been saving money for years, and some of it is going for a trip to Kenya after I retire. I want to go to where they found the bones of "Lucy," perhaps the earliest ancestor to modern Homo Sapiens was located. Even if I can't go there, I want to go home -- the home of Us, humanity.

And check out the African chicks at the same time. Multi-tasking, it's what's for dinner.
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Andre
United States
Connecticut
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Saw this, interesting in that it extends the timeline for us humans back about 100,000 years, than previously believed. Article does not address the confidence factor in the aging analysis of the fossils though. Laughs, what I found interesting is that the Sahara 300,000 years ago was greener than it is now. Hmmm, a solid indicator of global warming perhaps?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
James King
United States
North Central Louisiana / No Longer A Resident of the Shreveport/Bossier City Area
Louisiana
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb


abadolato01 wrote:
Saw this, interesting in that it extends the timeline for us humans back about 100,000 years, than previously believed. Article does not address the confidence factor in the aging analysis of the fossils though. Laughs, what I found interesting is that the Sahara 300,000 years ago was greener than it is now. Hmmm, a solid indicator of global warming perhaps?

At the end of the last Ice Age, the world was indeed thawing out, and the entire Middle East was for millenia afterwards a lot greener and more tropical then than it is today.






1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
David Dearlove
United Kingdom
Isleworth
Middx
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
This shows that human evolution was rapid and complex. Calling a snapshot Hom. Sap. is not helpful. This skeleton was not quite an anatomically modern human which is the term modern experts like to use.
The other thing is the confusing way African Paleontologists use Middle Stone Age to be a different thing to Mesolithic in Europe although the two terms mean the same. By other peoples's standards the humans who spread into America were much later than this and were Paleolithic (old stone age.)
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
David Dearlove
United Kingdom
Isleworth
Middx
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
ShreveportLAGamer wrote:


abadolato01 wrote:
Saw this, interesting in that it extends the timeline for us humans back about 100,000 years, than previously believed. Article does not address the confidence factor in the aging analysis of the fossils though. Laughs, what I found interesting is that the Sahara 300,000 years ago was greener than it is now. Hmmm, a solid indicator of global warming perhaps?

At the end of the last Ice Age, the world was indeed thawing out, and the entire Middle East was for millenia afterwards a lot greener and more tropical then than it is today.







This is all a quarter of a million years after the homonim fossil we are discussing. You can't use human settlement patterns to estimate climate then because we have only that one fossil!.
It's very hard to work out the climate that far back there as we have so little evidence.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Shawn Fox
United States
Richardson
Texas
flag msg tools
Question everything
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
It is all just fake nonsense, everybody knows the Earth is only 6000 years old. Clearly those fossils are just fakes planted by the devil. You guys are all so foolish to fall for his tricks.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
There was a wonderful National Geographic article on the the Green Sahara about 10-12 years ago. One of the most surprising ones I've ever read. It talked about how there a golden period for one city and that people prospered and ate well, as they were able to hunt easily. Not realizing the desert was actually expanding and that wildlife had to come closer to the city, to their oasis, for water. Easy hunting, more meat. Population grew taller. Then oops, realized that there were no more animals to hunt as the drought bore down.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
James King
United States
North Central Louisiana / No Longer A Resident of the Shreveport/Bossier City Area
Louisiana
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb


DavidDearlove wrote:
ShreveportLAGamer wrote:
abadolato01 wrote:
Saw this, interesting in that it extends the timeline for us humans back about 100,000 years, than previously believed. Article does not address the confidence factor in the aging analysis of the fossils though. Laughs, what I found interesting is that the Sahara 300,000 years ago was greener than it is now. Hmmm, a solid indicator of global warming perhaps?

At the end of the last Ice Age, the world was indeed thawing out, and the entire Middle East was for millenia afterwards a lot greener and more tropical then than it is today.



This is all a quarter of a million years after the homonim fossil we are discussing. You can't use human settlement patterns to estimate climate then because we have only that one fossil!.
It's very hard to work out the climate that far back there as we have so little evidence.

Nonsense! We have already learned more than enough about the climate of ancient times from ice cores taken at both the North & South Poles.

What's more, Inundation Science has also ascertained how sea levels rose and fell over the millenia as well.

All that landlocked ice of the great ice sheets covering North America, Europe, and Asia caused some regions of world (including parts of Africa) to undergo desertification.

















 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
G Rowls
msg tools
Mostly made up of spare parts and sarcasm! ... HTTP Error 418 I'm a Teapot!
Avatar
mbmb
well now we at least know where the people came from so that when god created adam some 6,000 years ago there was someone to be his first wife.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
David Dearlove
United Kingdom
Isleworth
Middx
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
ShreveportLAGamer wrote:


DavidDearlove wrote:
ShreveportLAGamer wrote:
abadolato01 wrote:
Saw this, interesting in that it extends the timeline for us humans back about 100,000 years, than previously believed. Article does not address the confidence factor in the aging analysis of the fossils though. Laughs, what I found interesting is that the Sahara 300,000 years ago was greener than it is now. Hmmm, a solid indicator of global warming perhaps?

At the end of the last Ice Age, the world was indeed thawing out, and the entire Middle East was for millenia afterwards a lot greener and more tropical then than it is today.



This is all a quarter of a million years after the homonim fossil we are discussing. You can't use human settlement patterns to estimate climate then because we have only that one fossil!.
It's very hard to work out the climate that far back there as we have so little evidence.

Nonsense! We have already learned more than enough about the climate of ancient times from ice cores taken at both the North & South Poles.

What's more, Inundation Science has also ascertained how sea levels rose and fell over the millenia as well.

All that landlocked ice of the great ice sheets covering North America, Europe, and Asia caused some regions of world (including parts of Africa) to undergo desertification.






We know in general terms the average temperature of the planet from ice cores. We therefore know in general terms what the biome in Morocco was likely to have been. For instance at the moment we tend to have tropical rainforest at the equator but there are are exceptions. The tree cover affects the climate in a very real way. Desertification contains positive feed back as trees are lost then soil and and the loss of transpiration causes more dryness etc. etc. However things like tree cover are actually very difficult to judge. 250000 years ago is too far back for palynology (pollen analysis) and you are unlikely to find a lake bed or swamp anyway. Fossil animals tell you something about climate, but are quite rare. Plants seldom fossilise. Coprolites (fossilised poo) are sometimes informative. Surprisingly snails are your best bet, but don't survive 250000 years.
There is a lot of debate on this sort of thing. I actually did a couple of courses on Environmental archaeology with Professor Michael Bell who is an expert on palaeo-climate and it is surprising what isn't known. The end of the Holocene in Britain is interesting for example. It used to be thought that the scrub birch tundra was replaced rapidly by broad-leafed forest in Britain as the ice-age melted. We now believe that deer kept a quite open landscape and then humans arrived and burnt forest extensively to aid hunting so a climax broad-leafed tree community never formed in parts of England such as the downs. And that is only 12000 years ago.
So dismissing what I said as Nonsense! is not helpful. This is an area where I suspect I am rather more knowledgeable than you.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
James King
United States
North Central Louisiana / No Longer A Resident of the Shreveport/Bossier City Area
Louisiana
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb


DavidDearlove wrote:
ShreveportLAGamer wrote:
DavidDearlove wrote:
ShreveportLAGamer wrote:
abadolato01 wrote:
Saw this, interesting in that it extends the timeline for us humans back about 100,000 years, than previously believed. Article does not address the confidence factor in the aging analysis of the fossils though. Laughs, what I found interesting is that the Sahara 300,000 years ago was greener than it is now. Hmmm, a solid indicator of global warming perhaps?

At the end of the last Ice Age, the world was indeed thawing out, and the entire Middle East was for millenia afterwards a lot greener and more tropical then than it is today.



This is all a quarter of a million years after the homonim fossil we are discussing. You can't use human settlement patterns to estimate climate then because we have only that one fossil!.
It's very hard to work out the climate that far back there as we have so little evidence.

Nonsense! We have already learned more than enough about the climate of ancient times from ice cores taken at both the North & South Poles.

What's more, Inundation Science has also ascertained how sea levels rose and fell over the millenia as well.

All that landlocked ice of the great ice sheets covering North America, Europe, and Asia caused some regions of world (including parts of Africa) to undergo desertification.

We know in general terms the average temperature of the planet from ice cores.

No, we learned a lot more than just temperatures from ancient ice cores.


DavidDearlove wrote:
We therefore know in general terms what the biome in Morocco was likely to have been. For instance at the moment we tend to have tropical rainforest at the equator but there are are exceptions. The tree cover affects the climate in a very real way. Desertification contains positive feed back as trees are lost then soil and and the loss of transpiration causes more dryness etc. etc. However things like tree cover are actually very difficult to judge. 250000 years ago is too far back for palynology (pollen analysis) and you are unlikely to find a lake bed or swamp anyway. Fossil animals tell you something about climate, but are quite rare. Plants seldom fossilise. Coprolites (fossilised poo) are sometimes informative. Surprisingly snails are your best bet, but don't survive 250000 years.

There is a lot of debate on this sort of thing. I actually did a couple of courses on Environmental archaeology with Professor Michael Bell who is an expert on palaeo-climate and it is surprising what isn't known. The end of the Holocene in Britain is interesting for example. It used to be thought that the scrub birch tundra was replaced rapidly by broad-leafed forest in Britain as the ice-age melted. We now believe that deer kept a quite open landscape and then humans arrived and burnt forest extensively to aid hunting so a climax broad-leafed tree community never formed in parts of England such as the downs. And that is only 12000 years ago.
So dismissing what I said as Nonsense! is not helpful. This is an area where I suspect I am rather more knowledgeable than you.

Ha! That you deleted the following videos from my response to you shows you apparently know a lot less than I suspected.


















 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
David Dearlove
United Kingdom
Isleworth
Middx
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
ShreveportLAGamer wrote:


DavidDearlove wrote:
ShreveportLAGamer wrote:
DavidDearlove wrote:
ShreveportLAGamer wrote:
abadolato01 wrote:
Saw this, interesting in that it extends the timeline for us humans back about 100,000 years, than previously believed. Article does not address the confidence factor in the aging analysis of the fossils though. Laughs, what I found interesting is that the Sahara 300,000 years ago was greener than it is now. Hmmm, a solid indicator of global warming perhaps?

At the end of the last Ice Age, the world was indeed thawing out, and the entire Middle East was for millenia afterwards a lot greener and more tropical then than it is today.



This is all a quarter of a million years after the homonim fossil we are discussing. You can't use human settlement patterns to estimate climate then because we have only that one fossil!.
It's very hard to work out the climate that far back there as we have so little evidence.

Nonsense! We have already learned more than enough about the climate of ancient times from ice cores taken at both the North & South Poles.

What's more, Inundation Science has also ascertained how sea levels rose and fell over the millenia as well.

All that landlocked ice of the great ice sheets covering North America, Europe, and Asia caused some regions of world (including parts of Africa) to undergo desertification.

We know in general terms the average temperature of the planet from ice cores.

No, we learned a lot more than just temperatures from ancient ice cores.


DavidDearlove wrote:
We therefore know in general terms what the biome in Morocco was likely to have been. For instance at the moment we tend to have tropical rainforest at the equator but there are are exceptions. The tree cover affects the climate in a very real way. Desertification contains positive feed back as trees are lost then soil and and the loss of transpiration causes more dryness etc. etc. However things like tree cover are actually very difficult to judge. 250000 years ago is too far back for palynology (pollen analysis) and you are unlikely to find a lake bed or swamp anyway. Fossil animals tell you something about climate, but are quite rare. Plants seldom fossilise. Coprolites (fossilised poo) are sometimes informative. Surprisingly snails are your best bet, but don't survive 250000 years.

There is a lot of debate on this sort of thing. I actually did a couple of courses on Environmental archaeology with Professor Michael Bell who is an expert on palaeo-climate and it is surprising what isn't known. The end of the Holocene in Britain is interesting for example. It used to be thought that the scrub birch tundra was replaced rapidly by broad-leafed forest in Britain as the ice-age melted. We now believe that deer kept a quite open landscape and then humans arrived and burnt forest extensively to aid hunting so a climax broad-leafed tree community never formed in parts of England such as the downs. And that is only 12000 years ago.
So dismissing what I said as Nonsense! is not helpful. This is an area where I suspect I am rather more knowledgeable than you.

Ha! That you deleted the following videos from my response to you shows you apparently know a lot less than I suspected.



















I deleted the videos to avoid the multicoloured zigurats that you like so much! No comment intended. I can recommend a couple of books on paleoclimate if you like. TV shows/You tube videos tend to be simplistic to say the least.
Human evolution study is changing fast with DNA so I am likely to be out of date in details but the tree at the front of the last video is rather simplistic. It is the result of sampling a mesh with a few data points. Some modern humans have DNA from at least two other homonims. There is no reason to doubt that that was so in the past. Clearly some groups speciated away, but others were reabsorbed into other gene pools. It is easier to think about inter-fertile populations with different genomes that spread around Africa and then into nearby areas before we settled on calling them all Homo Sapiens. Similar inter-fertile groups such as Denisovans and Neanderthals didn't make it. (Though some of their DNA did.)
Remember that modern human evolution is breathtakingly fast by usual standards.
Back to ice cores.
Yes we can measure CO2 from ice cores. We can attempt to recover climate from CO2 concentrations. It's rather hard to calibrate 250000 years ago but it gives you an idea. Trying to estimate weather patterns such as the monsoons in your example that were only 12000 years ago at such a huge time in the past as 250000 years is very difficult. The amount of guesses in the models would probably dominate the results.
So the idea that we can tell with much precision what the weather was like in Morocco 250000 years ago is a bit hopeful.
I would recommend that if you are really interested in a topic you start reading books. Videos have tiny amounts of information in them and seldom cite sources.
I am really trying not to get into a pissing match about who knows what, but you did dismiss my comments here rather rudely.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls

Pennsylvania
msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
but da earf iz only 10,000 years old!!!

I have cave drawrings of dino-saurs and humarnz playing together.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
James King
United States
North Central Louisiana / No Longer A Resident of the Shreveport/Bossier City Area
Louisiana
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb


DavidDearlove wrote:
ShreveportLAGamer wrote:
DavidDearlove wrote:
ShreveportLAGamer wrote:
DavidDearlove wrote:
ShreveportLAGamer wrote:
abadolato01 wrote:
Saw this, interesting in that it extends the timeline for us humans back about 100,000 years, than previously believed. Article does not address the confidence factor in the aging analysis of the fossils though. Laughs, what I found interesting is that the Sahara 300,000 years ago was greener than it is now. Hmmm, a solid indicator of global warming perhaps?

At the end of the last Ice Age, the world was indeed thawing out, and the entire Middle East was for millenia afterwards a lot greener and more tropical then than it is today.



This is all a quarter of a million years after the homonim fossil we are discussing. You can't use human settlement patterns to estimate climate then because we have only that one fossil!.
It's very hard to work out the climate that far back there as we have so little evidence.

Nonsense! We have already learned more than enough about the climate of ancient times from ice cores taken at both the North & South Poles.

What's more, Inundation Science has also ascertained how sea levels rose and fell over the millenia as well.

All that landlocked ice of the great ice sheets covering North America, Europe, and Asia caused some regions of world (including parts of Africa) to undergo desertification.

We know in general terms the average temperature of the planet from ice cores.

No, we learned a lot more than just temperatures from ancient ice cores.


DavidDearlove wrote:
We therefore know in general terms what the biome in Morocco was likely to have been. For instance at the moment we tend to have tropical rainforest at the equator but there are are exceptions. The tree cover affects the climate in a very real way. Desertification contains positive feed back as trees are lost then soil and and the loss of transpiration causes more dryness etc. etc. However things like tree cover are actually very difficult to judge. 250000 years ago is too far back for palynology (pollen analysis) and you are unlikely to find a lake bed or swamp anyway. Fossil animals tell you something about climate, but are quite rare. Plants seldom fossilise. Coprolites (fossilised poo) are sometimes informative. Surprisingly snails are your best bet, but don't survive 250000 years.

There is a lot of debate on this sort of thing. I actually did a couple of courses on Environmental archaeology with Professor Michael Bell who is an expert on palaeo-climate and it is surprising what isn't known. The end of the Holocene in Britain is interesting for example. It used to be thought that the scrub birch tundra was replaced rapidly by broad-leafed forest in Britain as the ice-age melted. We now believe that deer kept a quite open landscape and then humans arrived and burnt forest extensively to aid hunting so a climax broad-leafed tree community never formed in parts of England such as the downs. And that is only 12000 years ago.
So dismissing what I said as Nonsense! is not helpful. This is an area where I suspect I am rather more knowledgeable than you.

Ha! That you deleted the following videos from my response to you shows you apparently know a lot less than I suspected.















I deleted the videos to avoid the multicoloured zigurats that you like so much! No comment intended.

Uh-huh... Yeah... Right....




By the way, since ziggurats have done a lot for modern Euro/strategy gaming, you'd best not dismiss them.


DavidDearlove wrote:
I can recommend a couple of books on paleoclimate if you like. TV shows/You tube videos tend to be simplistic to say the least.

Since shorter presentations merely give an overview of paleoclimatology, that goes without saying.


DavidDearlove wrote:
Human evolution study is changing fast with DNA so I am likely to be out of date in details but the tree at the front of the last video is rather simplistic. It is the result of sampling a mesh with a few data points. Some modern humans have DNA from at least two other homonims. There is no reason to doubt that that was so in the past.

Clearly some groups speciated away, but others were reabsorbed into other gene pools. It is easier to think about inter-fertile populations with different genomes that spread around Africa and then into nearby areas before we settled on calling them all Homo Sapiens. Similar inter-fertile groups such as Denisovans and Neanderthals didn't make it. (Though some of their DNA did.)

Remember that modern human evolution is breathtakingly fast by usual standards.

Yes, it is, but not for the most conventional scientific of reasons though.


DavidDearlove wrote:
Back to ice cores.

Yes we can measure CO2 from ice cores. We can attempt to recover climate from CO2 concentrations. It's rather hard to calibrate 250000 years ago but it gives you an idea. Trying to estimate weather patterns such as the monsoons in your example that were only 12000 years ago at such a huge time in the past as 250000 years is very difficult. The amount of guesses in the models would probably dominate the results.

Aren't you overlooking other things found in the ice cores, like pollen, spores, evidence of volcanic dust, meterorite material, etc?


DavidDearlove wrote:
So the idea that we can tell with much precision what the weather was like in Morocco 250000 years ago is a bit hopeful.
I would recommend that if you are really interested in a topic you start reading books. Videos have tiny amounts of information in them and seldom cite sources.

Could you possibly be less disingenuous? I've been a lifelong paleo buff.

Indeed, the Dawn of Man sequence in Stanley Kubrick's "2001: A Space Odessey" posited that an early human hominid was on the verge of extinction somewhere in southeast Africa because of both the aridification of the region (which apparently was one of the most compelling theories at that time of the mid-1960s) and because the early human hominid hadn't yet developed abstract thinking.






And that reminds me: During the monolith scene, Stanley Kubrick had originally intended to show some extraterrestrials surreptitiously watching the proceedings. (The extraterrestrials were responsible for the monolith there.) Although Kubrick had developed quite a number of visual design concepts for the extraterrestrials, it was none other than Dr. Carl Sagan who impressed Kubrick not to ever show them.

In one working draft of the story that Arthur C. Clarke had written, he'd depicted an interaction between the extraterrestrials and those early human hominids that was somewhat evocative of that between the Annunaki/Nefilim and humans of ancient Sumer.


DavidDearlove wrote:
I am really trying not to get into a pissing match about who knows what, but you did dismiss my comments here rather rudely.

No, I dismissed your rude dismissal of my own comments with all due frankness intended.

It's apparent that you simply couldn't handle it.


 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
David Dearlove
United Kingdom
Isleworth
Middx
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
ShreveportLAGamer wrote:


DavidDearlove wrote:
ShreveportLAGamer wrote:
DavidDearlove wrote:
ShreveportLAGamer wrote:
DavidDearlove wrote:
ShreveportLAGamer wrote:
abadolato01 wrote:
Saw this, interesting in that it extends the timeline for us humans back about 100,000 years, than previously believed. Article does not address the confidence factor in the aging analysis of the fossils though. Laughs, what I found interesting is that the Sahara 300,000 years ago was greener than it is now. Hmmm, a solid indicator of global warming perhaps?

At the end of the last Ice Age, the world was indeed thawing out, and the entire Middle East was for millenia afterwards a lot greener and more tropical then than it is today.



This is all a quarter of a million years after the homonim fossil we are discussing. You can't use human settlement patterns to estimate climate then because we have only that one fossil!.
It's very hard to work out the climate that far back there as we have so little evidence.

Nonsense! We have already learned more than enough about the climate of ancient times from ice cores taken at both the North & South Poles.

What's more, Inundation Science has also ascertained how sea levels rose and fell over the millenia as well.

All that landlocked ice of the great ice sheets covering North America, Europe, and Asia caused some regions of world (including parts of Africa) to undergo desertification.

We know in general terms the average temperature of the planet from ice cores.

No, we learned a lot more than just temperatures from ancient ice cores.


DavidDearlove wrote:
We therefore know in general terms what the biome in Morocco was likely to have been. For instance at the moment we tend to have tropical rainforest at the equator but there are are exceptions. The tree cover affects the climate in a very real way. Desertification contains positive feed back as trees are lost then soil and and the loss of transpiration causes more dryness etc. etc. However things like tree cover are actually very difficult to judge. 250000 years ago is too far back for palynology (pollen analysis) and you are unlikely to find a lake bed or swamp anyway. Fossil animals tell you something about climate, but are quite rare. Plants seldom fossilise. Coprolites (fossilised poo) are sometimes informative. Surprisingly snails are your best bet, but don't survive 250000 years.

There is a lot of debate on this sort of thing. I actually did a couple of courses on Environmental archaeology with Professor Michael Bell who is an expert on palaeo-climate and it is surprising what isn't known. The end of the Holocene in Britain is interesting for example. It used to be thought that the scrub birch tundra was replaced rapidly by broad-leafed forest in Britain as the ice-age melted. We now believe that deer kept a quite open landscape and then humans arrived and burnt forest extensively to aid hunting so a climax broad-leafed tree community never formed in parts of England such as the downs. And that is only 12000 years ago.
So dismissing what I said as Nonsense! is not helpful. This is an area where I suspect I am rather more knowledgeable than you.

Ha! That you deleted the following videos from my response to you shows you apparently know a lot less than I suspected.















I deleted the videos to avoid the multicoloured zigurats that you like so much! No comment intended.

Uh-huh... Yeah... Right....




By the way, since ziggurats have done a lot for modern Euro/strategy gaming, you'd best not dismiss them.


DavidDearlove wrote:
I can recommend a couple of books on paleoclimate if you like. TV shows/You tube videos tend to be simplistic to say the least.

Since shorter presentations merely give an overview of paleoclimatology, that goes without saying.


DavidDearlove wrote:
Human evolution study is changing fast with DNA so I am likely to be out of date in details but the tree at the front of the last video is rather simplistic. It is the result of sampling a mesh with a few data points. Some modern humans have DNA from at least two other homonims. There is no reason to doubt that that was so in the past.

Clearly some groups speciated away, but others were reabsorbed into other gene pools. It is easier to think about inter-fertile populations with different genomes that spread around Africa and then into nearby areas before we settled on calling them all Homo Sapiens. Similar inter-fertile groups such as Denisovans and Neanderthals didn't make it. (Though some of their DNA did.)

Remember that modern human evolution is breathtakingly fast by usual standards.

Yes, it is, but not for the most conventional scientific of reasons though.


DavidDearlove wrote:
Back to ice cores.

Yes we can measure CO2 from ice cores. We can attempt to recover climate from CO2 concentrations. It's rather hard to calibrate 250000 years ago but it gives you an idea. Trying to estimate weather patterns such as the monsoons in your example that were only 12000 years ago at such a huge time in the past as 250000 years is very difficult. The amount of guesses in the models would probably dominate the results.

Aren't you overlooking other things found in the ice cores, like pollen, spores, evidence of volcanic dust, meterorite material, etc?


DavidDearlove wrote:
So the idea that we can tell with much precision what the weather was like in Morocco 250000 years ago is a bit hopeful.
I would recommend that if you are really interested in a topic you start reading books. Videos have tiny amounts of information in them and seldom cite sources.

Could you possibly be less disingenuous? I've been a lifelong paleo buff.

Indeed, the Dawn of Man sequence in Stanley Kubrick's "2001: A Space Odessey" posited that an early human hominid was on the verge of extinction somewhere in southeast Africa because of both the aridification of the region (which apparently was one of the most compelling theories at that time of the mid-1960s) and because the early human hominid hadn't yet developed abstract thinking.






And that reminds me: During the monolith scene, Stanley Kubrick had originally intended to show some extraterrestrials surreptitiously watching the proceedings. (The extraterrestrials were responsible for the monolith there.) Although Kubrick had developed quite a number of visual design concepts for the extraterrestrials, it was none other than Dr. Carl Sagan who impressed Kubrick not to ever show them.

In one working draft of the story that Arthur C. Clarke had written, he'd depicted an interaction between the extraterrestrials and those early human hominids that was somewhat evocative of that between the Annunaki/Nefilim and humans of ancient Sumer.


DavidDearlove wrote:
I am really trying not to get into a pissing match about who knows what, but you did dismiss my comments here rather rudely.

No, I dismissed your rude dismissal of my own comments with all due frankness intended.

It's apparent that you simply couldn't handle it.



I am not in mood for this. I did not intend to be rude.
I merely pointed politely out that your posting was almost irrelevant.
You were just plain rude.
Palynology works for stable recent ice cores in mountain glaciers to identify flowering plant genus for example. It has no relevancy for deep Arctic/ Antarctic ice core such as would be used to study 250000 years ago.
Then of course you blow all pretence in being interested in science by bringing up your alien shit again.
You therefore have no credibility and I will not be fooled into replying to you again as happened with the previous idiot and his 9/11 Fantasies.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
James King
United States
North Central Louisiana / No Longer A Resident of the Shreveport/Bossier City Area
Louisiana
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb


DavidDearlove wrote:
ShreveportLAGamer wrote:
DavidDearlove wrote:
ShreveportLAGamer wrote:
DavidDearlove wrote:
ShreveportLAGamer wrote:
DavidDearlove wrote:
ShreveportLAGamer wrote:
abadolato01 wrote:
Saw this, interesting in that it extends the timeline for us humans back about 100,000 years, than previously believed. Article does not address the confidence factor in the aging analysis of the fossils though. Laughs, what I found interesting is that the Sahara 300,000 years ago was greener than it is now. Hmmm, a solid indicator of global warming perhaps?

At the end of the last Ice Age, the world was indeed thawing out, and the entire Middle East was for millenia afterwards a lot greener and more tropical then than it is today.



This is all a quarter of a million years after the homonim fossil we are discussing. You can't use human settlement patterns to estimate climate then because we have only that one fossil!.
It's very hard to work out the climate that far back there as we have so little evidence.

Nonsense! We have already learned more than enough about the climate of ancient times from ice cores taken at both the North & South Poles.

What's more, Inundation Science has also ascertained how sea levels rose and fell over the millenia as well.

All that landlocked ice of the great ice sheets covering North America, Europe, and Asia caused some regions of world (including parts of Africa) to undergo desertification.

We know in general terms the average temperature of the planet from ice cores.

No, we learned a lot more than just temperatures from ancient ice cores.


DavidDearlove wrote:
We therefore know in general terms what the biome in Morocco was likely to have been. For instance at the moment we tend to have tropical rainforest at the equator but there are are exceptions. The tree cover affects the climate in a very real way. Desertification contains positive feed back as trees are lost then soil and and the loss of transpiration causes more dryness etc. etc. However things like tree cover are actually very difficult to judge. 250000 years ago is too far back for palynology (pollen analysis) and you are unlikely to find a lake bed or swamp anyway. Fossil animals tell you something about climate, but are quite rare. Plants seldom fossilise. Coprolites (fossilised poo) are sometimes informative. Surprisingly snails are your best bet, but don't survive 250000 years.

There is a lot of debate on this sort of thing. I actually did a couple of courses on Environmental archaeology with Professor Michael Bell who is an expert on palaeo-climate and it is surprising what isn't known. The end of the Holocene in Britain is interesting for example. It used to be thought that the scrub birch tundra was replaced rapidly by broad-leafed forest in Britain as the ice-age melted. We now believe that deer kept a quite open landscape and then humans arrived and burnt forest extensively to aid hunting so a climax broad-leafed tree community never formed in parts of England such as the downs. And that is only 12000 years ago.
So dismissing what I said as Nonsense! is not helpful. This is an area where I suspect I am rather more knowledgeable than you.

Ha! That you deleted the following videos from my response to you shows you apparently know a lot less than I suspected.















I deleted the videos to avoid the multicoloured zigurats that you like so much! No comment intended.

Uh-huh... Yeah... Right....




By the way, since ziggurats have done a lot for modern Euro/strategy gaming, you'd best not dismiss them.


DavidDearlove wrote:
I can recommend a couple of books on paleoclimate if you like. TV shows/You tube videos tend to be simplistic to say the least.

Since shorter presentations merely give an overview of paleoclimatology, that goes without saying.


DavidDearlove wrote:
Human evolution study is changing fast with DNA so I am likely to be out of date in details but the tree at the front of the last video is rather simplistic. It is the result of sampling a mesh with a few data points. Some modern humans have DNA from at least two other homonims. There is no reason to doubt that that was so in the past.

Clearly some groups speciated away, but others were reabsorbed into other gene pools. It is easier to think about inter-fertile populations with different genomes that spread around Africa and then into nearby areas before we settled on calling them all Homo Sapiens. Similar inter-fertile groups such as Denisovans and Neanderthals didn't make it. (Though some of their DNA did.)

Remember that modern human evolution is breathtakingly fast by usual standards.

Yes, it is, but not for the most conventional scientific of reasons though.


DavidDearlove wrote:
Back to ice cores.

Yes we can measure CO2 from ice cores. We can attempt to recover climate from CO2 concentrations. It's rather hard to calibrate 250000 years ago but it gives you an idea. Trying to estimate weather patterns such as the monsoons in your example that were only 12000 years ago at such a huge time in the past as 250000 years is very difficult. The amount of guesses in the models would probably dominate the results.

Aren't you overlooking other things found in the ice cores, like pollen, spores, evidence of volcanic dust, meterorite material, etc?


DavidDearlove wrote:
So the idea that we can tell with much precision what the weather was like in Morocco 250000 years ago is a bit hopeful.
I would recommend that if you are really interested in a topic you start reading books. Videos have tiny amounts of information in them and seldom cite sources.

Could you possibly be less disingenuous? I've been a lifelong paleo buff.

Indeed, the Dawn of Man sequence in Stanley Kubrick's "2001: A Space Odessey" posited that an early human hominid was on the verge of extinction somewhere in southeast Africa because of both the aridification of the region (which apparently was one of the most compelling theories at that time of the mid-1960s) and because the early human hominid hadn't yet developed abstract thinking.






And that reminds me: During the monolith scene, Stanley Kubrick had originally intended to show some extraterrestrials surreptitiously watching the proceedings. (The extraterrestrials were responsible for the monolith there.) Although Kubrick had developed quite a number of visual design concepts for the extraterrestrials, it was none other than Dr. Carl Sagan who impressed Kubrick not to ever show them.

In one working draft of the story that Arthur C. Clarke had written, he'd depicted an interaction between the extraterrestrials and those early human hominids that was somewhat evocative of that between the Annunaki/Nefilim and humans of ancient Sumer.


DavidDearlove wrote:
I am really trying not to get into a pissing match about who knows what, but you did dismiss my comments here rather rudely.

No, I dismissed your rude dismissal of my own comments with all due frankness intended.

It's apparent that you simply couldn't handle it.

I am not in mood for this. I did not intend to be rude.

And yet, you were Neanderthalitically rude just the same.


DavidDearlove wrote:
I merely pointed politely out that your posting was almost irrelevant.

"Merely", my patoot! You just wanted to out-professor the professors in those videos I posted.


DavidDearlove wrote:
You were just plain rude.

I at least aspired to be Cromagnon about it anyway.


DavidDearlove wrote:
Then of course you blow all pretence in being interested in science by bringing up your alien shit again.

No, I brought up Arthur C. Clarke, Stanley Kubrick, and Dr. Carl Sagan's "alien shit" again.

(You do recall that Dr. Carl Sagan later wrote "Contact" upon which the 1995 movie is based, don't you?)


DavidDearlove wrote:
You therefore have no credibility and I will not be fooled into replying to you again as happened with the previous idiot and his 9/11 Fantasies.

Well, unlike yourself, I don't believe that the 9/11 plot was hatched during the Stone Age, even though some modern humans today do at times act like genetic throwbacks to those times.


So, what's your excuse? laugh


 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
David Dearlove
United Kingdom
Isleworth
Middx
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
ShreveportLAGamer wrote:


DavidDearlove wrote:
ShreveportLAGamer wrote:
DavidDearlove wrote:
ShreveportLAGamer wrote:
DavidDearlove wrote:
ShreveportLAGamer wrote:
DavidDearlove wrote:
ShreveportLAGamer wrote:
abadolato01 wrote:
Saw this, interesting in that it extends the timeline for us humans back about 100,000 years, than previously believed. Article does not address the confidence factor in the aging analysis of the fossils though. Laughs, what I found interesting is that the Sahara 300,000 years ago was greener than it is now. Hmmm, a solid indicator of global warming perhaps?

At the end of the last Ice Age, the world was indeed thawing out, and the entire Middle East was for millenia afterwards a lot greener and more tropical then than it is today.



This is all a quarter of a million years after the homonim fossil we are discussing. You can't use human settlement patterns to estimate climate then because we have only that one fossil!.
It's very hard to work out the climate that far back there as we have so little evidence.

Nonsense! We have already learned more than enough about the climate of ancient times from ice cores taken at both the North & South Poles.

What's more, Inundation Science has also ascertained how sea levels rose and fell over the millenia as well.

All that landlocked ice of the great ice sheets covering North America, Europe, and Asia caused some regions of world (including parts of Africa) to undergo desertification.

We know in general terms the average temperature of the planet from ice cores.

No, we learned a lot more than just temperatures from ancient ice cores.


DavidDearlove wrote:
We therefore know in general terms what the biome in Morocco was likely to have been. For instance at the moment we tend to have tropical rainforest at the equator but there are are exceptions. The tree cover affects the climate in a very real way. Desertification contains positive feed back as trees are lost then soil and and the loss of transpiration causes more dryness etc. etc. However things like tree cover are actually very difficult to judge. 250000 years ago is too far back for palynology (pollen analysis) and you are unlikely to find a lake bed or swamp anyway. Fossil animals tell you something about climate, but are quite rare. Plants seldom fossilise. Coprolites (fossilised poo) are sometimes informative. Surprisingly snails are your best bet, but don't survive 250000 years.

There is a lot of debate on this sort of thing. I actually did a couple of courses on Environmental archaeology with Professor Michael Bell who is an expert on palaeo-climate and it is surprising what isn't known. The end of the Holocene in Britain is interesting for example. It used to be thought that the scrub birch tundra was replaced rapidly by broad-leafed forest in Britain as the ice-age melted. We now believe that deer kept a quite open landscape and then humans arrived and burnt forest extensively to aid hunting so a climax broad-leafed tree community never formed in parts of England such as the downs. And that is only 12000 years ago.
So dismissing what I said as Nonsense! is not helpful. This is an area where I suspect I am rather more knowledgeable than you.

Ha! That you deleted the following videos from my response to you shows you apparently know a lot less than I suspected.















I deleted the videos to avoid the multicoloured zigurats that you like so much! No comment intended.

Uh-huh... Yeah... Right....




By the way, since ziggurats have done a lot for modern Euro/strategy gaming, you'd best not dismiss them.


DavidDearlove wrote:
I can recommend a couple of books on paleoclimate if you like. TV shows/You tube videos tend to be simplistic to say the least.

Since shorter presentations merely give an overview of paleoclimatology, that goes without saying.


DavidDearlove wrote:
Human evolution study is changing fast with DNA so I am likely to be out of date in details but the tree at the front of the last video is rather simplistic. It is the result of sampling a mesh with a few data points. Some modern humans have DNA from at least two other homonims. There is no reason to doubt that that was so in the past.

Clearly some groups speciated away, but others were reabsorbed into other gene pools. It is easier to think about inter-fertile populations with different genomes that spread around Africa and then into nearby areas before we settled on calling them all Homo Sapiens. Similar inter-fertile groups such as Denisovans and Neanderthals didn't make it. (Though some of their DNA did.)

Remember that modern human evolution is breathtakingly fast by usual standards.

Yes, it is, but not for the most conventional scientific of reasons though.


DavidDearlove wrote:
Back to ice cores.

Yes we can measure CO2 from ice cores. We can attempt to recover climate from CO2 concentrations. It's rather hard to calibrate 250000 years ago but it gives you an idea. Trying to estimate weather patterns such as the monsoons in your example that were only 12000 years ago at such a huge time in the past as 250000 years is very difficult. The amount of guesses in the models would probably dominate the results.

Aren't you overlooking other things found in the ice cores, like pollen, spores, evidence of volcanic dust, meterorite material, etc?


DavidDearlove wrote:
So the idea that we can tell with much precision what the weather was like in Morocco 250000 years ago is a bit hopeful.
I would recommend that if you are really interested in a topic you start reading books. Videos have tiny amounts of information in them and seldom cite sources.

Could you possibly be less disingenuous? I've been a lifelong paleo buff.

Indeed, the Dawn of Man sequence in Stanley Kubrick's "2001: A Space Odessey" posited that an early human hominid was on the verge of extinction somewhere in southeast Africa because of both the aridification of the region (which apparently was one of the most compelling theories at that time of the mid-1960s) and because the early human hominid hadn't yet developed abstract thinking.






And that reminds me: During the monolith scene, Stanley Kubrick had originally intended to show some extraterrestrials surreptitiously watching the proceedings. (The extraterrestrials were responsible for the monolith there.) Although Kubrick had developed quite a number of visual design concepts for the extraterrestrials, it was none other than Dr. Carl Sagan who impressed Kubrick not to ever show them.

In one working draft of the story that Arthur C. Clarke had written, he'd depicted an interaction between the extraterrestrials and those early human hominids that was somewhat evocative of that between the Annunaki/Nefilim and humans of ancient Sumer.


DavidDearlove wrote:
I am really trying not to get into a pissing match about who knows what, but you did dismiss my comments here rather rudely.

No, I dismissed your rude dismissal of my own comments with all due frankness intended.

It's apparent that you simply couldn't handle it.

I am not in mood for this. I did not intend to be rude.

And yet, you were Neanderthalitically rude just the same.


DavidDearlove wrote:
I merely pointed politely out that your posting was almost irrelevant.

"Merely", my patoot! You just wanted to out-professor the professors in those videos I posted.


DavidDearlove wrote:
You were just plain rude.

I at least aspired to be Cromagnon about it anyway.


DavidDearlove wrote:
Then of course you blow all pretence in being interested in science by bringing up your alien shit again.

No, I brought up Arthur C. Clarke, Stanley Kubrick, and Dr. Carl Sagan's "alien shit" again.

(You do recall that Dr. Carl Sagan later wrote "Contact" upon which the 1995 movie is based, don't you?)


DavidDearlove wrote:
You therefore have no credibility and I will not be fooled into replying to you again as happened with the previous idiot and his 9/11 Fantasies.

Well, unlike yourself, I don't believe that the 9/11 plot was hatched during the Stone Age, even though some modern humans today do at times act like genetic throwbacks to those times.


So, what's your excuse? laugh



One last reply.
When replying at least be honest. Rudeness and lying is not an attractive combination.
1) The comment you were so dismissive about (without understanding my point I fear) was before you you had posted a single video, so I was not out-professoring your professors in those videos. I do know quite a lot on the subject however and my copmments were always addressed to your comments.
2) The alien shit that disqualifies you as a commenter is your comment on human evolution being affected by your mythical Annunaki/Nefilim. This makes you approach this from a religious based approach rather than science as previous debate has shown you believe this stuff based on no real evidence whatsoever.
It is therefore not worth debating with you. As I said I spent too much time arguing with the last idiot, LightRider. Goodbye
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
James King
United States
North Central Louisiana / No Longer A Resident of the Shreveport/Bossier City Area
Louisiana
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb


DavidDearlove wrote:
ShreveportLAGamer wrote:
DavidDearlove wrote:
ShreveportLAGamer wrote:
DavidDearlove wrote:
ShreveportLAGamer wrote:
DavidDearlove wrote:
ShreveportLAGamer wrote:
DavidDearlove wrote:
ShreveportLAGamer wrote:
abadolato01 wrote:
Saw this, interesting in that it extends the timeline for us humans back about 100,000 years, than previously believed. Article does not address the confidence factor in the aging analysis of the fossils though. Laughs, what I found interesting is that the Sahara 300,000 years ago was greener than it is now. Hmmm, a solid indicator of global warming perhaps?

At the end of the last Ice Age, the world was indeed thawing out, and the entire Middle East was for millenia afterwards a lot greener and more tropical then than it is today.



This is all a quarter of a million years after the homonim fossil we are discussing. You can't use human settlement patterns to estimate climate then because we have only that one fossil!.
It's very hard to work out the climate that far back there as we have so little evidence.

Nonsense! We have already learned more than enough about the climate of ancient times from ice cores taken at both the North & South Poles.

What's more, Inundation Science has also ascertained how sea levels rose and fell over the millenia as well.

All that landlocked ice of the great ice sheets covering North America, Europe, and Asia caused some regions of world (including parts of Africa) to undergo desertification.

We know in general terms the average temperature of the planet from ice cores.

No, we learned a lot more than just temperatures from ancient ice cores.


DavidDearlove wrote:
We therefore know in general terms what the biome in Morocco was likely to have been. For instance at the moment we tend to have tropical rainforest at the equator but there are are exceptions. The tree cover affects the climate in a very real way. Desertification contains positive feed back as trees are lost then soil and and the loss of transpiration causes more dryness etc. etc. However things like tree cover are actually very difficult to judge. 250000 years ago is too far back for palynology (pollen analysis) and you are unlikely to find a lake bed or swamp anyway. Fossil animals tell you something about climate, but are quite rare. Plants seldom fossilise. Coprolites (fossilised poo) are sometimes informative. Surprisingly snails are your best bet, but don't survive 250000 years.

There is a lot of debate on this sort of thing. I actually did a couple of courses on Environmental archaeology with Professor Michael Bell who is an expert on palaeo-climate and it is surprising what isn't known. The end of the Holocene in Britain is interesting for example. It used to be thought that the scrub birch tundra was replaced rapidly by broad-leafed forest in Britain as the ice-age melted. We now believe that deer kept a quite open landscape and then humans arrived and burnt forest extensively to aid hunting so a climax broad-leafed tree community never formed in parts of England such as the downs. And that is only 12000 years ago.
So dismissing what I said as Nonsense! is not helpful. This is an area where I suspect I am rather more knowledgeable than you.

Ha! That you deleted the following videos from my response to you shows you apparently know a lot less than I suspected.















I deleted the videos to avoid the multicoloured zigurats that you like so much! No comment intended.

Uh-huh... Yeah... Right....




By the way, since ziggurats have done a lot for modern Euro/strategy gaming, you'd best not dismiss them.


DavidDearlove wrote:
I can recommend a couple of books on paleoclimate if you like. TV shows/You tube videos tend to be simplistic to say the least.

Since shorter presentations merely give an overview of paleoclimatology, that goes without saying.


DavidDearlove wrote:
Human evolution study is changing fast with DNA so I am likely to be out of date in details but the tree at the front of the last video is rather simplistic. It is the result of sampling a mesh with a few data points. Some modern humans have DNA from at least two other homonims. There is no reason to doubt that that was so in the past.

Clearly some groups speciated away, but others were reabsorbed into other gene pools. It is easier to think about inter-fertile populations with different genomes that spread around Africa and then into nearby areas before we settled on calling them all Homo Sapiens. Similar inter-fertile groups such as Denisovans and Neanderthals didn't make it. (Though some of their DNA did.)

Remember that modern human evolution is breathtakingly fast by usual standards.

Yes, it is, but not for the most conventional scientific of reasons though.


DavidDearlove wrote:
Back to ice cores.

Yes we can measure CO2 from ice cores. We can attempt to recover climate from CO2 concentrations. It's rather hard to calibrate 250000 years ago but it gives you an idea. Trying to estimate weather patterns such as the monsoons in your example that were only 12000 years ago at such a huge time in the past as 250000 years is very difficult. The amount of guesses in the models would probably dominate the results.

Aren't you overlooking other things found in the ice cores, like pollen, spores, evidence of volcanic dust, meterorite material, etc?


DavidDearlove wrote:
So the idea that we can tell with much precision what the weather was like in Morocco 250000 years ago is a bit hopeful.
I would recommend that if you are really interested in a topic you start reading books. Videos have tiny amounts of information in them and seldom cite sources.

Could you possibly be less disingenuous? I've been a lifelong paleo buff.

Indeed, the Dawn of Man sequence in Stanley Kubrick's "2001: A Space Odessey" posited that an early human hominid was on the verge of extinction somewhere in southeast Africa because of both the aridification of the region (which apparently was one of the most compelling theories at that time of the mid-1960s) and because the early human hominid hadn't yet developed abstract thinking.






And that reminds me: During the monolith scene, Stanley Kubrick had originally intended to show some extraterrestrials surreptitiously watching the proceedings. (The extraterrestrials were responsible for the monolith there.) Although Kubrick had developed quite a number of visual design concepts for the extraterrestrials, it was none other than Dr. Carl Sagan who impressed Kubrick not to ever show them.

In one working draft of the story that Arthur C. Clarke had written, he'd depicted an interaction between the extraterrestrials and those early human hominids that was somewhat evocative of that between the Annunaki/Nefilim and humans of ancient Sumer.


DavidDearlove wrote:
I am really trying not to get into a pissing match about who knows what, but you did dismiss my comments here rather rudely.

No, I dismissed your rude dismissal of my own comments with all due frankness intended.

It's apparent that you simply couldn't handle it.

I am not in mood for this. I did not intend to be rude.

And yet, you were Neanderthalitically rude just the same.


DavidDearlove wrote:
I merely pointed politely out that your posting was almost irrelevant.

"Merely", my patoot! You just wanted to out-professor the professors in those videos I posted.


DavidDearlove wrote:
You were just plain rude.

I at least aspired to be Cromagnon about it anyway.


DavidDearlove wrote:
Then of course you blow all pretence in being interested in science by bringing up your alien shit again.

No, I brought up Arthur C. Clarke, Stanley Kubrick, and Dr. Carl Sagan's "alien shit" again.

(You do recall that Dr. Carl Sagan later wrote "Contact" upon which the 1995 movie is based, don't you?)


DavidDearlove wrote:
You therefore have no credibility and I will not be fooled into replying to you again as happened with the previous idiot and his 9/11 Fantasies.

Well, unlike yourself, I don't believe that the 9/11 plot was hatched during the Stone Age, even though some modern humans today do at times act like genetic throwbacks to those times.


So, what's your excuse? laugh

One last reply.

Ahhh, that's a good excuse -- for a Neanderthal! After all, how many "one last replies" does this make now?


DavidDearlove wrote:
When replying, at least be honest.

Oh, no, you don't! You're not going to get away the sort of disingenuous "I'm-Only-An-Honest,-Unsophisticated-Caveman" shenanigans that Keeroc, the Unfrozen Caveman Lawyer, gets away with.






DavidDearlove wrote:
Rudeness and lying is not an attractive combination.

Correction: That would be "Rudeness and lying are not an attractive combination."

(Come to think of it, neither is poor grammar skills when included in that mix. So, you'll need to work on that, too.)


DavidDearlove wrote:
1) The comment you were so dismissive about (without understanding my point I fear) was before you you had posted a single video, so I was not out-professoring your professors in those videos. I do know quite a lot on the subject however and my comments were always addressed to your comments.

Yes, but only with a hoity-toity professorish sort of snobbery about them.


DavidDearlove wrote:
2) The alien shit that disqualifies you as a commenter is your comment on human evolution being affected by your mythical Anunnaki/Nefilim.

The theory about the Annunaki/Nefilim is not of "my" own creation. Indeed, a decade before Zecharia Sitchin published his own book on the subject, in one of the drafts of the proposed storyline for "2001: A Space Odessey", Arthur C. Clarke had the extraterrestrials interacting with the early human hominids and in effect giving them an intellectual boost along the way (albeit without any direct genetic tampering).

And no, holding such beliefs about the Anunnaki/Nefilim doesn't "disqualify" me from commenting, O' Disingenuous One.


DavidDearlove wrote:
This makes you approach this from a religious-based approach rather than science as previous debate has shown you believe this stuff based on no real evidence whatsoever.

Bullshit! One does not have to subscribe to any religion whatsoever to believe Zecharia Sitchin's theory about the Anunnaki/Nefilim.


DavidDearlove wrote:
It is therefore not worth debating with you.

And yet, since you've done exactly that time and time and time again, go figure, huh?


DavidDearlove wrote:
As I said, I spent too much time arguing with the last idiot, LightRider. Goodbye

Somehow, your "Goodbye" has more the hollow ring of "Until next time" about it than "Adios!"


 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Front Page | Welcome | Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertise | Support BGG | Feeds RSS
Geekdo, BoardGameGeek, the Geekdo logo, and the BoardGameGeek logo are trademarks of BoardGameGeek, LLC.