https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/164752659498

Actually, the early Chimp fossils were never missing.
We've always had them. We just never knew that they
were Chimps, or their ancestors, because they don't
look the way we thought Chimp ancestors should
look.

-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/162940642662

On Thursday, October 13, 2022 at 1:34:53 AM UTC-4, JTEM wrote:
> https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/164752659498
>
> Actually, the early Chimp fossils were never missing.
> We've always had them. We just never knew that they
> were Chimps, or their ancestors, because they don't
> look the way we thought Chimp ancestors should
> look.

What you linked to in "tumblr" is a bare quotation with no source identified.
And you give no support for what you are writing here either.

Try again.

Peter Nyikos

peter2...@gmail.com wrote:

> JTEM wrote:
> > https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/164752659498
> >
> > Actually, the early Chimp fossils were never missing.
> > We've always had them. We just never knew that they
> > were Chimps, or their ancestors, because they don't
> > look the way we thought Chimp ancestors should
> > look.

> What you linked to in "tumblr" is a bare quotation with no source identified.

The source is rather prominent.

The point is, we're not missing those early "Chimp" fossils. They just weren't
yet what we call "Chimps," not a couple of million years ago.

-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/tagged/Boston

On Thursday, October 13, 2022 at 8:03:14 PM UTC-4, JTEM wrote:
> peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > JTEM wrote:
> > > https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/164752659498
> > >
> > > Actually, the early Chimp fossils were never missing.
> > > We've always had them. We just never knew that they
> > > were Chimps, or their ancestors, because they don't
> > > look the way we thought Chimp ancestors should
> > > look.
>
> > What you linked to in "tumblr" is a bare quotation with no source identified.

> The source is rather prominent.

I guess you want us to decide that the source is you, judging from the extra information you gave:

==================== excerpt at end ======================
JTEM (paleoanthropology is NOT a real science)

1 note 0 Comments
Tags: paleontology anthropology evolution human origins science tool use stone tools atheist atheism neanderthals homo erectus homo habilis pan biology stupidity fake science

+++++++++++++++++++ end of excerpts ++++++++++++++++++++++

However, the body of the article seems to show you talking to someone:

============================= repost =================== ..................................................aug 29 '17
"So we have something that isn’t a tool, it can’t be used the way they state rocks are used by chimps AND it’s associated with a species of plant known to be exploited by man… but you definitively state that these are chimp “Tools” AND that despite them being YOUNGER than the temples of Malta, YOUNGER than Otzi the ice man found in the Alps, YOUNGER than the pyramids and roughly the same age or younger than Stonehenge it somehow manages to fill in your claimed 6,000,000 year gap of missing chimp tools. Wow, “Science.”"
++++++++++++++++ end of repost ++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Is this from a personal email exchange with someone whose identity
you don't want to divulge? If it was in a public blog, that's what I meant by "source."

Anyway, back to what looks like the main theme of this thread:

> The point is, we're not missing those early "Chimp" fossils. They just weren't
> yet what we call "Chimps," not a couple of million years ago.

Which fossils are those? are they commonly called Australopithecus, or
Ardipithecus, or Sahelanthropus?

I'm open-minded enough to consider the idea that one or more of
these are ancestral to chimps (including bonobos). But is that what you
really had in mind?

Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
University of South Carolina
http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos

peter2...@gmail.com wrote:

> However, the body of the article seems to show you talking to someone:

Here. Consume heartedly:

https://groups.google.com/g/sci.anthropology.paleo/c/7mY1XyllRlM/m/Wq7xISueBgAJ

> Is this from a personal email exchange

Oh, Holy christ on toast points!

The oldest so called "Chimp" remains are 500,000 years old, yet the oldest so called
chimp "Tools" are on the order of 4,000 years old? And they actually have to bullshit
us in order to make the case that they were left behind by Chimps?

"Well rocks don't last, you know. It's remarkable for them to have lasted for all of 4
thousand years. It's unreasonable to be asking for half a million year old tools, much
less 5 million years old..."

> Anyway, back to what looks like the main theme of this thread:

Or only theme.

> > The point is, we're not missing those early "Chimp" fossils. They just weren't
> > yet what we call "Chimps," not a couple of million years ago.

> Which fossils are those? are they commonly called Australopithecus, or
> Ardipithecus, or Sahelanthropus?

In a court of law, one needn't prove who the murderer is in order to prove the
innocence of a defendant. As a matter of fact you'd weaken your position by
attempting to do so...

"Well you say that your client didn't do it and this other guy did. But I believe
this other guy is innocent so that means your client is guilty!"

So let's just concentrate on what everyone has to accept: The oldest so called
"Chimp" tools are only maybe 4k years old. They are NOT clearly Chimp
tools, so it may be a huge leap claiming that they are. However, if Chimps split
from humans millions of years ago and Chimps use tools, there should be
millions of years worth of such archaeology... and there isn't even 10k years
worth?

All the assumptions are clearly wrong.

-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/164752659498

On Tuesday, October 18, 2022 at 12:45:19 PM UTC-4, JTEM wrote:
> peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > However, the body of the article seems to show you talking to someone:
> Here. Consume heartedly:
>
> https://groups.google.com/g/sci.anthropology.paleo/c/7mY1XyllRlM/m/Wq7xISueBgAJ

It starts right in the middle of the conversation. Fortunately, Google Groups search
was working again after malfunctioning yesterday. I first tried to use the line,
"Show me 500,000 year old chimp tools." in sbp. but it only took me back to
the thread whose url you gave.

But then I realized that Burkhard was MOST unlikely to be posting to s.b.p.
So I tried the same search in talk.origins and it took me to a big long thread
where you often gave as good as you got, or better. In particular,
you sized up Burkhard perfectly with:

"It's shocking, actually *Shocking* how far away
from a science-based, empirical human being you
truly are..."
https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/lBxZHt-2M60/m/xd8EtoPFAAAJ
Re: Did you morons ever consider evidence?
Aug 27, 2017, 4:05:05 PM

Burkhard loves to talk about matters relating to the law, but
even there, he misinterprets things because he doesn't understand
things like the USA taking freedom of speech far more seriously
than Canada, or his own native Germany, or indeed more than all
but a handful of countries.

But he is a total nonentity when it comes to understanding science.

> > Is this from a personal email exchange
> Oh, Holy christ on toast points!
>
> The oldest so called "Chimp" remains are 500,000 years old, yet the oldest so called
> chimp "Tools" are on the order of 4,000 years old? And they actually have to bullshit
> us in order to make the case that they were left behind by Chimps?
>
> "Well rocks don't last, you know. It's remarkable for them to have lasted for all of 4
> thousand years. It's unreasonable to be asking for half a million year old tools, much
> less 5 million years old..."
> > Anyway, back to what looks like the main theme of this thread:

> Or only theme.

But it isn't what comes next:

> > > The point is, we're not missing those early "Chimp" fossils. They just weren't
> > > yet what we call "Chimps," not a couple of million years ago.

Instead, you go way off on a tangent in reply to my next question,
and when you're done with that, you go off on another tangent.

> > Which fossils are those? are they commonly called Australopithecus, or
> > Ardipithecus, or Sahelanthropus?

> In a court of law, one needn't prove who the murderer is in order to prove the
> innocence of a defendant. As a matter of fact you'd weaken your position by
> attempting to do so...
>
What relevance does this attempted analogy have with your flat out claim
that we aren't missing those early chimp fossils?

> "Well you say that your client didn't do it and this other guy did. But I believe
> this other guy is innocent so that means your client is guilty!"

A real analogy would go: "Well, you say that we are missing the murderer.
But in reality, the murderer is right there in your line-up;
you just didn't recognize him as a suspect, because you were
thinking the suspect was someone else in your line-up."

> So let's just concentrate on what everyone has to accept: The oldest so called
> "Chimp" tools are only maybe 4k years old. They are NOT clearly Chimp
> tools, so it may be a huge leap claiming that they are. However, if Chimps split
> from humans millions of years ago and Chimps use tools, there should be
> millions of years worth of such archaeology... and there isn't even 10k years
> worth?
>
> All the assumptions are clearly wrong.

Especially the assumption that you are somehow defending your claim,

"The point is, we're not missing those early "Chimp" fossils."

Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics
Univ. of South Carolina -- standard disclaimer--
http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos

peter2...@gmail.com wrote:

> It starts right

You have a lot of issues. You seem incapable of addressing what is being
said, seeking to distract with meaningless "Investigations" into the manner
it was stated...

> > The oldest so called "Chimp" remains are 500,000 years old, yet the oldest so called
> > chimp "Tools" are on the order of 4,000 years old? And they actually have to bullshit
> > us in order to make the case that they were left behind by Chimps?
> >
> > "Well rocks don't last, you know. It's remarkable for them to have lasted for all of 4
> > thousand years. It's unreasonable to be asking for half a million year old tools, much
> > less 5 million years old..."
> > > Anyway, back to what looks like the main theme of this thread:
>
> > Or only theme.

> But it isn't what comes next:

Of course it is...

> > > > The point is, we're not missing those early "Chimp" fossils. They just weren't
> > > > yet what we call "Chimps," not a couple of million years ago.

> Instead, you go way off on a tangent in reply to my next question

It's not a tangent. It's a refusal to go on a tangent.

We have the missing "Chimps." They simply do not look like what we want them
to look like, i.e. chimps.

> > In a court of law, one needn't prove who the murderer is in order to prove the
> > innocence of a defendant. As a matter of fact you'd weaken your position by
> > attempting to do so...

> What relevance does

Lol! You keep trying to steer things off topic.

The point is to show people that their assumptions are wrong, both about so
called Chimp "Tool use" and the Chimps themselves. The fact that we are missing
MILLIONS of years worth of Chimp fossils is usually passed off as an artifact
of preservation: Lack there of. But these imaginary "Tools" wouldn't face that
problem. Rocks would survive. Yet there are none.

I don't have to detail "The right answer" in order to point out the wrong one. Your
insistence on racing off into random, irrelevant directions highlights the error in
that approach.

"Stick to the point."

And I shouldn't even have to spell out THAT entirely! It should be enough to
eliminate the incorrect assumptions...

-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/698577848100896768

On Tuesday, October 25, 2022 at 5:14:15 AM UTC-4, JTEM wrote:
> peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > It starts right
>
> You have a lot of issues. You seem incapable of addressing what is being
> said, seeking to distract with meaningless "Investigations" into the manner
> it was stated...
> > > The oldest so called "Chimp" remains are 500,000 years old, yet the oldest so called
> > > chimp "Tools" are on the order of 4,000 years old? And they actually have to bullshit
> > > us in order to make the case that they were left behind by Chimps?
> > >
> > > "Well rocks don't last, you know. It's remarkable for them to have lasted for all of 4
> > > thousand years. It's unreasonable to be asking for half a million year old tools, much
> > > less 5 million years old..."
> > > > Anyway, back to what looks like the main theme of this thread:
> >
> > > Or only theme.
>
> > But it isn't what comes next:
> Of course it is...
> > > > > The point is, we're not missing those early "Chimp" fossils. They just weren't
> > > > > yet what we call "Chimps," not a couple of million years ago.
>
> > Instead, you go way off on a tangent in reply to my next question
> It's not a tangent. It's a refusal to go on a tangent.

You're right. I just didn't recognize your point.

> We have the missing "Chimps." They simply do not look like what we want them
> to look like, i.e. chimps.

> > > In a court of law, one needn't prove who the murderer is in order to prove the
> > > innocence of a defendant. As a matter of fact you'd weaken your position by
> > > attempting to do so...

Science doesn't work like a court of law. It is perfectly legitimate to say
things like the following:

I hypothesize about a 50-50 chance that Sahelanthopus is a Chimp ancestor,
and about the same for some species of Australopithecus and for some species of Ardipithecus.
And I hypothesize about an 80% chance that AT LEAST ONE of these is a chimp ancestor.
Does anyone have evidence that none of the three is ancestral to modern day chimps?

Remember, you DID claim that we have chimp fossils that we just don't recognize
as such, and AFAIK these are the only genera of which we have fossils that are
candidates for ancestors of Homo, and which are recent enough to conform to
the conventional wisdom that we split off from chimps no more than 8myo.

> > What relevance does
> Lol! You keep trying to steer things off topic.
>
> The point is to show people that their assumptions are wrong, both about so
> called Chimp "Tool use" and the Chimps themselves. The fact that we are missing
> MILLIONS of years worth of Chimp fossils is usually passed off as an artifact
> of preservation: Lack there of. But these imaginary "Tools" wouldn't face that
> problem. Rocks would survive. Yet there are none.

All granted, but *shaping* rocks into what are recognizable as tools
could be a relatively recent development, and confined to Homo.

> I don't have to detail "The right answer" in order to point out the wrong one. Your
> insistence on racing off into random, irrelevant directions highlights the error in
> that approach.

They were relevant to your assertion that we have chimp fossils.

> "Stick to the point."
>
> And I shouldn't even have to spell out THAT entirely! It should be enough to
> eliminate the incorrect assumptions...

One of which is that science works like a court of law.

Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
Univ. of South Carolina at Columbia
http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos

peter2...@gmail.com wrote:

> Science doesn't work like a court of law.

It does, actually. People don't. Which is why they often can't understand court
cases.

> It is perfectly legitimate to say
> things like the following:
>
> I hypothesize about a 50-50 chance that Sahelanthopus is a Chimp ancestor

That's not a hypothesis.

> and about the same for some species of Australopithecus and for some species of Ardipithecus.
> And I hypothesize about an 80% chance that AT LEAST ONE of these is a chimp ancestor.
> Does anyone have evidence that none of the three is ancestral to modern day chimps?

Lol!

A hypothesis is the basis for predictions, and these predictions in turn are testable. They
provide a means to test, to falsify the hypothesis. You present no testable prediction, you
explain nothing. It's not science.

> Remember, you DID claim that we have chimp fossils that we just don't recognize
> as such

It's not a claim. It's an inference, if you must, a logical conclusion but not a claim. If
it's not true than the evolutionary origins of chimps is flawed beyond usefulness.

, and AFAIK these are the only genera of which we have fossils that are
> candidates for ancestors of Homo, and which are recent enough to conform to
> the conventional wisdom that we split off from chimps no more than 8myo.

8 million years ago? Please tell me you're joking.

> > The point is to show people that their assumptions are wrong, both about so
> > called Chimp "Tool use" and the Chimps themselves. The fact that we are missing
> > MILLIONS of years worth of Chimp fossils is usually passed off as an artifact
> > of preservation: Lack there of. But these imaginary "Tools" wouldn't face that
> > problem. Rocks would survive. Yet there are none.

> All granted, but *shaping* rocks into what are recognizable as tools
> could be a relatively recent development, and confined to Homo.

We have what they are pretending as "Chimp tools." So we have a model, so to
speak, something to look for... something to make a match to.

And we can't.

They don't exist.

MILLIONS of years worth of such tools and the oldest of the old are only 4k old,
and identifying them as "Chimp" tools is quite the stretch.

-- --

https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/699416703013208064