It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The human skull that challenges the Out of Africa theory

page: 5
31
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 23 2016 @ 02:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: peter vlar

Mr. Vlar..

Thank you for the debate. I appreciate every minute of it.


Like I said earlier, I'm happy to agree to disagree when there's a civil dialogue.


The early fossils and reference I made were from this article.
m.livescience.com...


Ahhh... Qesem Cave. I'm quite familiar with this site actually. It's actually quite a bit older than 125 KA as the cave had been closed off for roughly 200 KA and all of the evidence from this site falls between 200 and 400 KA BP. Because the human remains are relegated to a mere 8 teeth, there is no conclusive identification of which member of our genus they belonged to. Because of the geographic location and the time frame, the teeth could be from H. Erectus, Neanderthal, or less likely, Heidelbergensis hold overs or possibly archaic H. Sapiens. Because of the small sample size, the team involved in the site are understandably leery of cutting into the teeth to extract DNA. With that said, there is still a lot of data to be gleaned. Even from such a small sample size. Dental plaque on the teeth shows us that not only had these people been well enough organized to maintain a cooking hearth inside the cave for prolonged periods of time, but that they used this hearth for cooking meat and additionally, it can be determined that living or working within a confined space such as a cave with a continuously maintained hearth led to detrimental effects from constantly breathing in the smoke and likely shortening their potential life spans. The most important thing learned here was the level of organization and cooperation required to cut and collect firewood, maintain the hearth continuously and hunt for meat to cook is beyond what a lot of people expected for this period in human history. It takes a lot of organization and planning as well as a sizeable community to allocate the requisite resources for such a venture. Unless they decide to extract DNA samples for testing, we aren't going to know exactly who these people were. We can determine however that they were utilizing complex communication, organizational skills and tactics to maintain this site for up to 200 KA. That in and of itself is impressive as they were demonstrating skill sets typically associated with more "modern" behaviors and people.


I am not sure how you don't understand what logic is. If you want to debate such a thing we should do so in a philosophy forum but I would ask you first read Kant's critique of pure reason. This is a subject I do have a degree in. I guarantee you your being obtuse for the sake of arguement.


I understand it quite well. I also understand that the way one applies logic to a philosophical debate as opposed to an inductive scientific investigation aren't quite the same thing. It's completely off topic and not worth deviating from such in a drawn out dialogue though. And no... I am not being purposefully obtuse.



In my experience however, when a scientist only goes by facts and does not consider possibilities their insight can be stifled. It seems you disagree but I wanted to explain why I believe you can't just go by data alone and that it is well within the bounds of science to consider possibilities of what the data could mean or not mean.



When I said that I will only report the facts, it doesn't mean I don't consider all possibilities or leave my mind open to other possibilities. At the end of the day though, if I'm writing a paper or article, I can't wander off on a tangent, I have to stick with the facts alone. Whether they support my initial hypothesis or not. I've said this dozens of times... one of my favorite parts of science is testing a hypothesis because even when I'm wrong, the errors show me where I was off track and more often than not have pointed me in the correct direction and in other cases, a totally new direction I hadn't considered. At the end of the day though, the research isn't about what if's. It's about what we can learn and then determine with a high degree of veracity to be correct.


I 100 percent stand by my statement that anthropology is poorly funded. I think it's too close to you to see this. There are very few human genome projects competing and testing each others theory. This is a problem when considering the amount of time spent on the projects collectively and the amount of research time 10' s of thousands of scientists can do. Most anthropology majors will not end up in the field. In fact I clearly remember my anthro professor saying you will have better luck getting 2 year technical training on equipment to get a job.



I'm not saying that Anthropology couldn't be more well funded, I was simply pointing out that your comparison to a for profit, private enterprise wasn't really fair. I still stand by what I said too. The vast majority of Anthropological finds and all of the important ones, have been by professionals. One or members of the Leakey family have lived in E. Africa for over 75 years now and are contently doing field work. They are one of the more prominent examples but not at all isolated.


Kind of why I have two degrees. Philosophy pretty much only led to teaching. Recording peoples music led to jobs. On a lesser scale making guitars as well.



It would appear we aren't so different in this regard. I don't build instruments but I did stop pursuing my doctorate to focus on playing, performing and recording music. These days I have one of a handful of 2" 24 track tape machines within a couple hundred miles and specialize in doing analogue to digital transfers ( mostly because nobody wants to spend the money to record to tape ).




posted on Feb, 23 2016 @ 03:07 PM
link   
a reply to: peter vlar

How cool. Guess we are not so different after all... I would love to have an analogue set up but they are just so expensive to maintain. Most everything I do is on protools though I can say I have a pretty nice collection of vintage mics. I just moved from Austin Texas so I am really feeling major culture shock in South Carolina. At least there is jazz here. I am trying to work with highschool kids in band doimg some fela kuti and other more interesting horn pieces than your standard band repertoire.

The part of the article I was referring to was:
"The best match for these teeth are those from the Skhul and Qafzeh caves in northern Israel, which date later [to between 80,000 and 120,000 years ago] and which are generally thought to be modern humans of sorts."


Again I guess I am only a casual observer through reading these type of publications. So I have to admit a lot of what I know formally was from nearly 25 years ago. Since then I have been more a cultural and ethnomusicology guy.



posted on Feb, 23 2016 @ 03:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: peter vlar

How cool. Guess we are not so different after all... I would love to have an analogue set up but they are just so expensive to maintain. Most everything I do is on protools though I can say I have a pretty nice collection of vintage mics. I just moved from Austin Texas so I am really feeling major culture shock in South Carolina. At least there is jazz here. I am trying to work with highschool kids in band doimg some fela kuti and other more interesting horn pieces than your standard band repertoire.



I can only imagine the degree of culture shock going from Austin to anywhere else in the South lol. Austin is almost like its own isolated oasis compared to the rest of Texas. You're right about the cost of maintaining the machines I have. It's a pain in the ass but I'm still not confident enough to do the work myself so I was really lucky to find a local guy who specializes in early 80's Otari machines. In addition to the 2" I also have a 1/4" for mastering. The sad thing is that I always do 2 masters for people, one on the analogue and one in protools. People are so desensitized to actual fidelity from listening to mp3's that they actually prefer the protools masters.


The part of the article I was referring to was:
"The best match for these teeth are those from the Skhul and Qafzeh caves in northern Israel, which date later [to between 80,000 and 120,000 years ago] and which are generally thought to be modern humans of sorts."


Ok, I think I'm following you here. Your actual point of reference was Skuhl and Qafzeh. If I'm correct in my assumption(see I'm not sticking to the facts!), then the danger here is that those 2 sites are also sites of not just potential admixture, but also prolonged cohabitation between HSS and Neanderthal. As it is though, even the oldest end of the spectrum doesn't have an impact on OOA(which you stated as well). I think it's important to note that the cranial morphology found at these sites has a mixture of modern and archaic features such as a pronounced supraorbital ridge and a protruding face, much like we would see in Heidelbergensis and Neanderthal. My personal view is that these are not HSS but part of an earlier migration or a possible admixture event. It's hard to be definitive with the sample size but based on morphological traits I'm rather confident in stating that these are not representative examples of Homo Sapiens.



posted on Feb, 23 2016 @ 04:10 PM
link   
a reply to: peter vlar

How sad that you would go through the effort of recording on analogue then move to mp3. I mean there are much better quality forms of digital even than mp3 but why bother recording on tape then mix digital and convert to digital. Let me guess hipsters.....sadly I go digital out of convienance and cost. Some studios I have worked in have complete analogue mixing equipment. The studio i trained in at Berklee was a Sony studio and pretty much all digital. I definitely miss Austin. I lived there for nearly 14 years. I don't miss the traffic. It got to the point of insanity.

I guess at some point one needs to ask if being a modern human is cultural or physical. I know the answer scientifically is physical but philosophically may be cultural. It is interesting to wonder what led to these discoveries like controlling fire.

I am also a passionate cook and am always amazed at the complexity and understanding of agriculture and basic chemistry involved in food preparation. I often wish I knew a good food anthropology book that explores the history of the practices condensed in one book. Maybe you know of one? If you haven't read the musical version David Reck Music of the Whole Earth was a good one. I used to audit his class when I was learning Veena from him.

Why wouldn't they extract DNA from the teeth? Is it too damaged, ownership issues, or something else?
edit on 23-2-2016 by luthier because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 23 2016 @ 04:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: Barcs

A strawman is argueing against something that was not the actual arguement.

That is exactly what you did .


www.nizkor.org...

Try again. You can't just keep making up your own definitions for things. I was defending the science behind OOA. Nothing I brought up was a distorted version of the theory or falsely constructed to make your position sound weak.

Again, the fallacy you are looking for is red herring.

www.nizkor.org...

My purpose of calling out the faulty logic was not to distract from anything. It was to demonstrate that OOA is still the go to theory and is based on sound logic due to the evidence. You are the one making up fake definitions of words and concepts, without backing anything up, so you are committing the straw man fallacy, if anything.

I'm not going to go back and forth anymore. Your version of "logic" is completely different than the standard. We are debating different things so conversing on this topic is pointless. I was just defending OOA, I apologize if I offended you, I may be too blunt at times. This will be my last post to you in the thread. Good luck, I hope you find what you are searching for.

edit on 2 23 16 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 23 2016 @ 04:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: peter vlar

How sad that you would go through the effort of recording on analogue then move to mp3. I mean there are much better quality forms of digital even than mp3 but why bother recording on tape then mix digital and convert to digital. Let me guess hipsters.....sadly I go digital out of convienance and cost. Some studios I have worked in have complete analogue mixing equipment. The studio i trained in at Berklee was a Sony studio and pretty much all digital. I definitely miss Austin. I lived there for nearly 14 years. I don't miss the traffic. It got to the point of insanity.


Oh I agree. It's not so much hipsters that prefer the digital output. It seems like a lot of younger musicians who have grown up on illegal downloading and want the cheapest possible outcome because in their heads if they spend a couple hundred on apps and plugins, they can do just as good of a recording on their ipad. We use protools as well and have an HD setup at the studio as well as a portable HD rig to record live performances at venues. Not many people want to record to tape because on top of my normal fee they've got to pay 300 for each reel of tape used. Honestly, most of the money comes in from older guys who have reels they recorded on in the 70's and 80's or early 90's and they want to dump all of the tracks down to protools for easier manipulation. I do that with ,my own band. It's a bit of a cheat I'll admit but I get all of the tones and sounds I want out of the analogue and then dump it down to PT and then edit everything from there. I cana void any costly mistakes made when cutting and splicing tape thus preserving the integrity of that reel.


I guess at some point one needs to ask if being a modern human is cultural or physical. I know the answer scientifically is physical but philosophically may be cultural. It is interesting to wonder what led to these discoveries like controlling fire.



In my opinion, "modern human" is a slightly arbitrary term based solely on morphology. Culturally I've found that in some cases, more archaic populations had better lithic technologies or other cultural advancements not yet achieved by the "modern" cousins in Africa. This is evidence at several Levantine sites where we find AMH and HN meeting up for the first time. The HN had better quality tool kits than the recently arrived AMH and the AMH actually learned from the HN. This led, and this is where we get into more speculative territory as this is my own perspective but I feel the data lends itself towards the hypothesis, but this led to periods of both "species" cohabitating the same sites, living and working with each other. I'll be the first to admit that its difficult to discern things of this nature by looking solely at the strata in which remains and artifacts are found. With that said, there does appear to be clear overlap and what makes it tenable for me is that there are graves from both AMH and HN located in the same strata and very close to one another. You don't bury your dead next to strangers or at least unrelated groups of people. You bury them near members of the community within which one lives. This leads me to believe there were at least close working ties if not familial ties amongst the 2 groups. Again, it's all hypothetical and I've been out of this field for some time now so there may very well be new data I'm not aware of to contradict this as I was researching this in the mid/late 90's and though I try like hell to keep up, I don't subscribe to as many journals as I used to so I miss things. Luckily, on ATS there are several people who post things of related nature so I'm not always totally out of the loop.


I am also a passionate cook and am always amazed at the complexity and understanding of agriculture and basic chemistry involved in food preparation. I often wish I knew a good food anthropology book that explores the history of the practices condensed in one book. Maybe you know of one? If you haven't read the musical version David Reck Music of the Whole Earth was a good one. I used to audit his class when I was learning Veena from him.


You might want to check out "Cooked A Natural History of Transformation" by Michael Pollan or "Catching Fire: How cooking made us Human" by Richard Wrangham


Why wouldn't they extract DNA from the teeth? Is it too damaged, ownership issues, or something else?


According to Avi Gopher who worked the site-

Teeth contain a lot of information. At this point we've gone as far as we can on the level of basic analysis [looking at the shape and wear patterns of the teeth]. Because we wanted to preserve the teeth, we haven't yet tried to extract DNA or, for example, to dissect the teeth to get information about diet.



posted on Feb, 23 2016 @ 05:24 PM
link   
a reply to: Barcs
It's not that it's offensive it's that you aren't convincing.

The definition of strawman you provided is simply a lengthier version of what I said. Your being trite now on top of everything.

You misrepresented my arguements and attacked a strawman several times.





edit on 23-2-2016 by luthier because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 24 2016 @ 09:25 AM
link   
a reply to: luthier

Sorry, I know I said I was done, but that is a blatant lie and needs to be addressed. You can't just keep repeating the same argument over and over when it has already been addressed.

1. I backed up everything I said with citations to the actual definitions and you chose to ignore it. You did not back up anything to support your argument or your claimed definitions. Just like you did with your "definition" of logic. You just made statements and expect us to take your word for it. Sorry, but it doesn't work like that here.

2. Strawman has nothing to do with attacking an off topic argument. It's about distorting an argument and using a false or made up definition in order to easily refute your side or make your position look weaker than it is. That's not even close to what you claimed. I did not do that, I explained the evidence behind OOA and why it is accepted by scientists. Please demonstrate exactly where I constructed a false version or definition of OOA or any alternative hypothesis. Why would I distract people away from a winning argument? This debate is already over. OOA was clearly shown to be a viable and logical explanation to human and homo sapien orgins.

I didn't misrepresent anything. I'm not the one making up false definitions of terms and concepts. I'm not the one who has posted numerous incorrect things since page 1 of the thread.

For somebody that claims to be a huge philosophy and reasoning guy that has read most of Kant, you sure don't know your fallacies, or understand basic logic 101 and your spelling is atrocious. Sorry, but I'm not buying your claims about your degrees or reading Kant. By bringing all that stuff up, YOU drove this off topic, not me.

Why would I need to distract from the topic, when Peter and myself have conclusively demonstrated that OOA is based on numerous pieces of tangible verifiable evidence, while the idea that it's wrong has been backed up by absolutely nothing?

The argument has been over since 2 pages back, but you keep searching for that round hole to put the square peg into. Like I said, keep searching, maybe one day you'll find your answers. Thus far your contributions to this thread have been 90% backtracking.

Peter is a saint. He has way more patience than I do. I admit it, sometimes I can come off like a dick, but when I do that I'm usually trying to push folks for answers and to get them to think outside of their comfort zone. Maybe I overdo it at times, but it's the norm that people emotionally invested in some type of faith or a certain worldview, are more likely to deny science for illogical reasons.

Hopefully we can be done with this now.
edit on 2 24 16 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 24 2016 @ 09:35 AM
link   
a reply to: Barcs

You seriously need to learn how to read.

You misrepresented my arguements and what I said. I have already multiple times given you these examples.

Your so angry and prone to arguement for the sake of argueing you don't actually read the constructed arguements. Your assuming I am talking about how you are representing the ooa 2 theory that you don't read what I am writing.

You are purposely simplifying, and misrepresenting my arguements even times argueing against things I never said.

There is a big reason I differenciate your arguements vs Peter Vlar.

One he actually has a deep understanding of the subject and backs everything up with accuracy and two he never distorted my arguements and followed along with the conversation taking time to understand my arguement before he deconstructed it.

You can add adhominem attacks now to your list of fallacy.



posted on Feb, 24 2016 @ 09:53 AM
link   
a reply to: BarcsLogic (from the Ancient Greek: λογική, logike)[1] is the branch of philosophy concerned with the use and study of valid reasoning.[2][3] The study of logic also features prominently in mathematics and computer science.

Logic was studied in several ancient civilizations, including Greece, India,[4] and China.[5] In the West, logic was established as a formal discipline by Aristotle, who gave it a fundamental place in philosophy. The study of logic was part of the classical trivium, which also included grammar and rhetoric. Logic was further extended by Al-Farabi who categorized it into two separate groups (idea and proof). Later, Avicenna revived the study of logic and developed relationship between temporalis and the implication. In the East, logic was developed by Hindus, Buddhists and Jains.

Logic is often divided into three parts: inductive reasoning, abductive reasoning, and deductive reasoning.

A straw man is a common form of argument and is an informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while actually refuting an argument that was not advanced by that opponent.[1]

The so-called typical "attacking a straw man" argument creates the illusion of having completely refuted or defeated an opponent's proposition by covertly replacing it with a different proposition (i.e. "stand up a straw man") and then to refute or defeat that false argument ("knock down a straw man") instead of the original proposition.[2][3]
An ad hominem (Latin for "to the man" or "to the person"[1]), short for argumentum ad hominem, is an attack on an argument made by attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument, rather than attacking the argument directly. When used inappropriately, it is a logical fallacy in which a claim or argument is dismissed on the basis of some irrelevant fact or supposition about the author or the person being criticized.[2] Ad hominem reasoning is not always fallacious, for example, when it relates to the credibility of statements of fact or when used in certain kinds of moral and practical reasoning.[3]


You are Guilty of the last two.
edit on 24-2-2016 by luthier because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 24 2016 @ 09:59 AM
link   
Sorry meant to edit this one. Double post
edit on 2 24 16 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 24 2016 @ 10:24 AM
link   
Out of Africa always was a myth as there is genetic divide between Africans and other races
a reply to: Triton1128



posted on Feb, 24 2016 @ 10:34 AM
link   

originally posted by: luthier

Logic (from the Ancient Greek: λογική, logike)[1] is the branch of philosophy concerned with the use and study of valid reasoning.[2][3] The study of logic also features prominently in mathematics and computer science.


Thank you for proving my point. Please notice the word "valid". Logic is about VALID reasoning, not just any ol' reasoning. I don't really care about the history. I'm talking about the way logic is used today in debates and in science, but your definition right there proves my claim that logic is about correct reasoning.


Logic is often divided into three parts: inductive reasoning, abductive reasoning, and deductive reasoning.


I'm well aware of this. In fact I have already stated that I have been talking about primarily inductive reasoning.

Can you please tell me which type of reasoning the following argument shows and why:

"I think OOA is wrong because science might not have the complete picture and new evidence could turn up"

Where is the logical connection between OOA being wrong and a complete hypothetical future fossil find that may not even happen? This is what I mean when I say there is no logic. There has to be a connection in order to claim a statement is logical. A logical statement would be, "IF a new hominid fossil is found outside of Africa and is dated to be earlier than all the previous members of the species or genus, then OOA could be wrong" The big difference is the IF.


A straw man is a common form of argument and is an informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while actually refuting an argument that was not advanced by that opponent.[1]


Thanks for proving my point again. I did not give the impression that your position was refuted because of your faulty understanding of logic. It was refuted because there is no evidence. Why is this so hard to understand?



The so-called typical "attacking a straw man" argument creates the illusion of having completely refuted or defeated an opponent's proposition by covertly replacing it with a different proposition (i.e. "stand up a straw man") and then to refute or defeat that false argument ("knock down a straw man") instead of the original proposition.[2][3]


Please give an exact reference to me covertly replacing your position with a different proposition in order to easily knock it down. Again, your "OOA may be wrong" idea has no evidence behind it. I did not claim your argument was wrong because you said "I am not sure how you don't understand what logic is." (direct quote) to Peter. I just didn't agree with the way you said that because it can be misconstrued as offensive. Obviously you meant something else, but it comes off like saying that Peter doesn't understand what logic is. Do you really not see how somebody could interpret it that way?


An ad hominem (Latin for "to the man" or "to the person"[1]), short for argumentum ad hominem, is an attack on an argument made by attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument, rather than attacking the argument directly. When used inappropriately, it is a logical fallacy in which a claim or argument is dismissed on the basis of some irrelevant fact or supposition about the author or the person being criticized.


I don't remember attacking you personally and claiming it proved you were wrong. Your argument was dismantled long before we even got to that point. I didn't dismiss your argument because your spelling has been bad and I don't think you have the degrees you claim. I dismissed it because there isn't any evidence.


[2] Ad hominem reasoning is not always fallacious, for example, when it relates to the credibility of statements of fact or when used in certain kinds of moral and practical reasoning.[3]


This is how I used it. It was related to your credibility and your claims of degrees and familiarity with Kant. I wasn't saying your argument was wrong because of that, but I had to point it out because of the way you were carrying on about it, claiming yourself as an authority on logic.

Anyways I appreciate you finally breaking it down with sources and taking the time to explain yourself. It goes a long way. Maybe we are just misunderstanding one another. Your fallacy accusations are dead wrong, however.

edit on 2 24 16 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 24 2016 @ 10:48 AM
link   

originally posted by: Nochzwei
Out of Africa always was a myth as there is genetic divide between Africans and other races
a reply to: Triton1128



No, the exact opposite is true. All genetic data indicates an African origin for our entire genus. There is no 'genetic divide'.



posted on Feb, 24 2016 @ 10:56 AM
link   
a reply to: Barcs


Here is an example of a strawman you are using.

"I think OOA is wrong because science might not have the complete picture and new evidence could turn up"

I wasn't aware you were the authority on how logic is used in debates today. As far as I know the three forms of reasoning are in fact all used in science today. I think you find Peter Vlar also made the recognition that there is a philosophical logic and a scientific logic.

I personally feel debate on a conspiracy forum falls into philosophy.

You will also see I had no problem conceding when I was wrong.

But yeah your using fallacies to argue. Like you just did in your last post again.



posted on Feb, 24 2016 @ 11:12 AM
link   
a reply to: Barcs

Let me also show some of your fallacy in arguement and then instead of saying you were wrong move the goal posts.

How do you reconcile the fact that sub Saharan African tribes do not have the Neanderthal mix?

Your direct quote.

Then you write this.

Again, I asked you to explain the ones that DO NOT have the Neanderthal DNA.

You never asked that question.


edit on 24-2-2016 by luthier because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 24 2016 @ 11:29 AM
link   

originally posted by: luthier
Here is an example of a strawman you are using.

"I think OOA is wrong because science might not have the complete picture and new evidence could turn up"


The funny thing is, I didn't say that YOU said that (even though you said something very similar to it). I was using that as an example of an illogical argument (in comparison with the logical statement I posted right above it). You responded to my example and said that there was nothing illogical about the statement. Here, I asked you what type of logic is used in that statement, since you claim it is logical. Still waiting for your answer on that.


I wasn't aware you were the authority on how logic is used in debates today. As far as I know the three forms of reasoning are in fact all used in science today. I think you find Peter Vlar also made the recognition that there is a philosophical logic and a scientific logic.


I never claimed to be an authority, hence why I quoted from philosophical sources to get my fallacy and logic definitions. I wasn't the one that claimed I had all kinds of degrees related to it. Yes, I have every right to question the credibility of your educational claims, when I see you using faulty logic as well as poor spelling and grammar in your statements. That isn't ad hom. It is skepticism.


I personally feel debate on a conspiracy forum falls into philosophy.


I do not agree. I feel debates about conspiracies should be in the section that accommodates them. This is a conspiracy forum. Usually it's pretty black and white with the facts, it's not just philosophy, it's science, especially in the Origins and Creationism section.



But yeah your using fallacies to argue. Like you just did in your last post again.


Wrong again, and I already explained why. There is nothing fallacious about making statements about your credibility, unless I specifically use those arguments to suggest that you wrong, which I have not done. I have used facts and backed up citations from websites to do this. I am claiming that your belief that OOA could be wrong lacks logic and evidence, not that you are wrong because of spelling mistakes or not fully understanding logical fallacies. It's all about what you are trying to prove. I'm not using fallacious logic to prove you wrong. I was questioning your credibility.


edit on 2 24 16 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 24 2016 @ 11:38 AM
link   

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: Barcs

Let me also show some of your fallacy in arguement and then instead of saying you were wrong move the goal posts.

How do you reconcile the fact that sub Saharan African tribes do not have the Neanderthal mix?

Your direct quote.

Then you write this.

Again, I asked you to explain the ones that DO NOT have the Neanderthal DNA.

You never asked that question.



Now your reading comprehension is seriously falling into question here.

"How do you reconcile the fact that sub Saharan African tribe DO NOT have the Neanderthal mix?"

means the same EXACT thing as

"explain the ones that DO NOT have the Neanderthal DNA"

You are seriously grasping at straws here if you are actually claiming that those 2 statements are not the exact same question. You responded to my first statement talking about the tribes that DO have the Neanderthal DNA, which was a complete red herring because I asked you about the ones that DO NOT have the mix.

How are you not seeing this? Am I tripping out here or not reading it right? Clearly I said "DO NOT have" in both questions. Are you suggesting that Neanderthal mix and Neanderthal DNA mean something different?

There wasn't any moving of goalposts, it was asking a question again that you refused to answer.


edit on 2 24 16 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 24 2016 @ 12:29 PM
link   
That's what you have been led to believe but its not true. I at least do not hv any African genes nor would i like to.
a reply to: peter vlar



posted on Feb, 24 2016 @ 12:32 PM
link   
a reply to: Barcs

Why would sub Saharan Africa tribes need the neaderthal admixture? There are other archaic humans and they don't have to have mixed with neaderthal for anything I described. There is also the chance they do have admixture and it's very low and have been isolated in breeding for thousands of years.


I clearly never said the statement you used or anything like it.

You should go to science forums and not debate on a conspiracy forum if you don't want to get into philosophy.

No arguement you gave regarding emptomolgy disregards anything I have said. Your being rediculous and purely argumentative for the sake of argueing. You haven't proved anything regarding logic or any of the things you are stuck on now that you can't argue anything else I have already worked through with Peter Vlar. I would love to debate you with a moderator.

You have provided nothing but strawmans for the last several posts using arguements i was never even engaged in or posting. I clearly very clearly from the beginning state this is the best theory we have with the data we have. You keep keep trying to simplify my arguement without actually considering it. I also NEVER ONCE pit forth a theory to counter ooa I said I am waiting for more facts and gave examples of how I think the data is not large enough or possibly skewed because of where the focus of research is. Nothing is illogical about that. I was proven wrong several times and admitted this. That is how science and debate works.

Your definition of logic completely disregards philosophy which is fine for you. I don't care what you think of me or my degrees or how spelling has anything to do with that. All my replies are in a cell phone.

This is now a rediculous tangental thread I don't think (as I stated) belongs on this OP thread. You could have PM or made a new thread you could challenge me to a debate thread fine. But I don't see any need to continue this.

PS your two statements are not the same.

On claims no subsaharan tribes have neaderthal DNA the other says some. How do you not see that?
edit on 24-2-2016 by luthier because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
31
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join