> NOVA tonight showed another episode of Neanderthal > research. A lot of > good new information, but overall it was a > disappointing update > because of the total lack of discussion of the > central and key gene > involved-- HACNS1. > > What do you call it in mathematics, or logic or > science when you > should talk about the key issue, but never talk about > the key issue?
It is neither, you worthless fucking baboon.
How do you call it when you repeatedly dump off-topic trash in sci.math?
> Is it irresponsible? Is it illogical? Is it being a > incompetent > scientist? > > In this episode, one of the lead researchers, Svante > Paabo is seen as > more irresponsible rather than a logical scientist, > for his constant > incessant focus on FOXP2 gene for language, when a > better scientist > would have said, "drop that gene" and focus on HACNS1 > gene as what > made humanity and extincted the Neanderthals. > > Perhaps the NOVA crew and Paabo realize that > rockthrowing extincted > the Neanderthals and are trying to soften that > horrible and ugly > extinction by painting the Neanderthal as having > interbred with the > Homo sapiens. > > There probably was some interbreeding, but the main > idea is that the > Neanderthals throwing abilities were so inferior to > Homo sapiens that > Homo neanderthals were extincted by the constant > throwing attacks upon > them. Some of the Neanderthal women were probably > carried away and > interbred, but the men, who could not throw as well > as the Homo > sapiens were all mercilessly stone thrown to death. > Maybe we never > want to admit our horrible and grisly past even when > the facts come in > as such. But that is not responsible science. Science > must always tell > the truth and full truth. > > Instead of focusing on the genes of language and > speech or the genes > of immunology, the HLA immune system genes, it is > irresponsible of > Svante Paabo to discuss Neanderthal and neglect the > HACNS1 gene. > > When your ideas turn out to be false in science, you > should have at > least the grace to indicate where the major > difference is between the > Neanderthal and the Homo sapiens-- and that > difference is in throwing. > So forget about the FOXP2 gene and talk about the > HACNS1 gene. > > I recommend that Paabo never again have a spot in > NOVA on Neanderthal > and instead interview Noonan as to the latest > information on HACNS1 > gene. > > The last time I wrote on this textbook was March of > 2011 > and now it is January of 2013. Looks like I need to > do a new edition > of this book Rockthrowing for it consolidates and > unifies the entire > science of Anthropology. > > Newsgroups: sci.anthropology.paleo, sci.anthropology, > sci.math, > sci.physics > From: Archimedes Plutonium > <plutonium.archime...@gmail.com> > Date: Mon, 7 Mar 2011 13:24:33 -0800 (PST) > Local: Mon, Mar 7 2011 3:24 pm > Subject: Homo sapiens has 16-13 = 3 mutations on > HACNS1 that > Neanderthal does not have #183 Rockthrowing theory > book > (snipped) > > Newsgroups: sci.math, sci.physics > From: Archimedes Plutonium > <plutonium.archime...@gmail.com> > Date: Wed, 9 Mar 2011 13:29:32 -0800 (PST) > Local: Wed, Mar 9 2011 3:29 pm > Subject: Physics and Math completes the science of > Anthropology with > its HACNS1 ; book #184 Rockthrowing theory (sic) > Reply | Reply to author | Forward | Print | > Individual message | Show > original | Remove | Report this message | Find > messages by this author > Newsgroups: sci.anthropology.paleo, sci.anthropology, > sci.math, > sci.physics > From: Archimedes Plutonium > <plutonium.archime...@gmail.com> > Date: Mon, 7 Mar 2011 13:24:33 -0800 (PST) > Local: Mon, Mar 7 2011 3:24 pm > Subject: Homo sapiens has 16-13 = 3 mutations on > HACNS1 that > Neanderthal does not have #183 Rockthrowing theory > book > Reply | Reply to author | Forward | Print | > Individual message | Show > original | Remove | Report this message | Find > messages by this > author > Now my math and physics counting abilities offers me > the fact that 16 > subtract 13 is 3, for ?3 mutations or alterations. > Now maybe Messr > Noonan and Paabo have ?some ?different sort ?of > mathematics when they > are doing anthropology? ?Last time I spoke on this > subject was 2010, > Aug 4, 1:27 am to this ?book of Rockthrowing ?as the > central theory > for evolving the human ?species out of the ape > ?ancestors. I spoke of > how the science of ?Anthropology was a science in > closure or the last > phases of finding ?out ?its history, where the main > parts are solved > and only details ?remain ?to tell the story. The main > parts being, of > course that some 8 ?to 10 ?million years ago some ape > had a > proclivity ?of picking up ?rocks and throwing them > for his advantage. > Advantage in ?gaining more ?food and mates and thus > more children who > had the same ?proclivity of ?throwing stones and > rocks. ?As these > rockthrowers increased in numbers ?there genetic > mutations ?favoring > even better ?abilities of throwing ?caused them to > become bipedal and > more focused ?on even better ?throwing. ?In the end, > these > rockthrowers extincted all other human ?type species > ?such as the > Neanderthals who although were able to ?throw, just > failed ?to have > enough throwing abilities ?of Cro Magnon ?that would > become Homo > sapiens. Neanderthal genetics ?were inferior to ?the > ?throwing > genetics of CroMagnon. ?It was a long time in coming > for ?the > Neanderthal Genome was reported: ?--- quoting from > http://genome.cshlp.org/content/20/5/547.full > ?Neanderthal genomics > and the evolution of modern humans ?James P. Noonan > ?(B) Value of > Neanderthal genome sequence for dating functionally > ?relevant human- > specific substitutions, using the HACNS1 enhancer as > ?an ?example. > (Top) HACNS1 is located in an intron of AGAP1 and > downstream ?of GBX2 > on human chromosome 2. (Bottom) The 13 human-specific > ?substitutions > implicated in the human-specific gain of function in > ?this element. > --- end quoting of Noonan --- ?Now maybe I am not > understanding the > report, but from what I gather ?from these reports > ?of 16 mutations > of ?Homo sapiens compared to only 13 mutations on > ?Neanderthal for > the ?HACNS1: ? 1. Comment on > "Human-Specific Gain of > Function ?in a ?Developmental ...by L Duret - 2009 - > Cited by 13 - > Related ?articles ? 2. Feb 6, 2009 ... > Second, among the > 16 ?substitutions in ?HACNS1 there ?are 14 AT ? GC > substitutions , 2 > GC ? ?CG substitutions, but not a ?single GC ? AT ... > ? 3. > www.sciencemag.org/lookup/resid/323/5915/714c?view=fu > ll&uritype... > ? 4. Human-Specific Gain of Function in a > Developmental > Enhancer ...by ?S Prabhakar - 2008 - Cited by 52 - > Related articles > ? 5. Sep 5, 2008 ... Although the 16 > human-specific > substitutions ?within the 546 ... ? 6. > www.sciencemag.org/ > ?content/321/5894/1346.full??Show ?more results > from sciencemag.org ? ? 7. > HACNS1Human-specific gain of > function in the HACNS1 ?enhancer ... ?it has > experienced 16 human- > specific nucleotide changes ?in the ~6 ?million years > since humans > and ... The cluster of 13 human- ?specific > ?substitutions in 81 bp is > also indicated. ... ? 8. ? > www.yale.edu/noonanlab/ > Noonan_Lab/HACNS1.html - Cached ?- Similar ? > 9. [PDF] DOI: > 10.1126/science.1165848 , 714c (2009); 323 ?Science > et ?al ...File > Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat - Quick View ? ?10. > by L Duret - > 2009 - Cited by 13 - Related articles ? ?11. > Feb 6, > 2009 ... Second, among the 16 substitutions in > ?HACNS1 ?there are 14 > AT ? GC substitu- tions, 2 GC ? CG substitutions, but > ?not ?a > sin- ... ? 12. > pbil.univ-lyon1.fr/members/duret/.../ ?PDF/ > 2009- ?DuretGaltier.Science.pdf ? 13. > Brief ?communication: > Population data support the ?adaptive ?nature ...by T > ?Hünemeier - > Related articles ? 14. Aug 17, 2010 ... > ?Thirteen of these > 16 mutations are ?found within ?an 81-bp ?functional > .... 2010) shows > that 8 of the 13 human specific ?HACNS1 > ?substitutions ... ? > 15. onlinelibrary.wiley.com ? ... ? ?Journal Home > ? Vol 143 ?Issue > 3 ? ?Abstract ?--- end quoting Google ?hits talking > about 16 > mutations, whereas ?Neanderthal had only ?13 > ?mutations --- ?The > conclusion I draw, which maybe wrong, and someone > ?should correct ?me > if wrong, is that ?Homo sapiens had 16 total > ?alterations in the > HACNS1 gene whereas ?Neanderthal had only ?13 > ?alterations, meaning > that Neanderthal was a different species than ?Homo > sapiens because of > those 3 alterations, but that the alterations > ?missing in Neanderthal > implies CroMagnon was superior in Throwing ?whether > throwing rocks or > stones or spears. And that ?superiority of ?throwing > is the likely > cause of extinction of ?Neanderthal. ?It is ?likely > that the last > places on Earth for Neanderthal were the ?caves ?in > Spain of high > ground, so the higher ground could have ?sheltered > ?them longer from > the superior throwing ?of the encroaching CroMagnon. > ?To throw down > from higher ground tends ?to equalize a superior > ?throwing opponent. > Now I think that Mr. Paabo and Mr. Noonan should > ?have made more > fanfare over the differences of the Neanderthal > ?(Neandertal) HACNS1 > variation and spoken out more on that ?difference. > Perhaps they were > silent about HACNS1 because they seemed ?to have > favored ?the FOXP2 > gene which deals with speech and language. ?So why > the silence over > the fact that Neanderthal had 3 mutations ?different > from CroMagnon > with the HACNS1 gene? Why the silence in the > ?Anthropology community? > One would think ?they should by happy and ?dancing > and celebrating > that their science ?is ?nearly closed and the ?first > major science to > be closed. I guess some ?people just do not ?like to > close their > science. > > -- > Google's archives are top-heavy in hate-spew from > search-engine- > bombing. Only Drexel's Math Forum has done a > excellent, simple and > fair archiving of AP posts for the past 15 years as > seen here: > > http://mathforum.org/kb/profile.jspa?userID=499986 > > Archimedes Plutonium > http://www.iw.net/~a_plutonium > whole entire Universe is just one big atom > where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies >