h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

"What you have missed again though is that you are referring to a flawed dictionary definition (ie deliberately designed to include common inaccurate usages not strict single discipline ones) when what was asked for was the scientific view."

Actually, I am aware that I was referring to the dictionary (as opposed to the scientific) definition...but as it was brought up as a point for discussion, I thought it was worthy of discussion (that I personally thought the criteria of "belonging to a place" more preferential to the need of a scientific definition).

"It was not just you preferring to ignore the evidence for an African origin in favour of remaining nebulous (post 21) but the way that you turned into some sort of deranged loony and started misquoting me, taking things out of context and pretending I'd said things which I hadn't (eg post 19). On the whole, only the dishonest and/or prejudiced nutters of various sorts do that. The others who do are usually merely pretending to be one of the former types for their own amusement (hence the reference to spoofing)."


SEF: I suggest that you re-read the House Rules:
"Please, no flaming or trolling. On h2g2, flaming means posting something that's angry and mean-spirited - the online equivalent of flying off the handle. It's not a pretty sight, and we recommend constructive discussion as a far more satisfying pastime. Trolls say deliberately provocative things just to stir up trouble - it's not polite, so please don't do it. h2g2 is an incredibly friendly place, so please help to keep it that way."


Personally, I'd consider being called a "deranged looney" or a "prejudiced nutter" rather angry and mean-spirited if it were aimed at me. How about making your point without being intentionally rude? That would certainly make for a more interesting discussion.

I did make my point, clearly and succinctly, without being rude right back at post 18. That's where tanzen and then Starlea started being deliberately offensive (as well as either stupid or dishonest about their intentions re science). They broke the rules. I note you did not say anything about that at the time or now. So that marks you out as yet another of the many dishonest people round here who mob and/or falsely accuse the people who are in the right while ignoring or condoning the behaviour of those who are really in the wrong purely because of your own prejudices and friendships.

It is interesting to see you all having a go at each other. Since this is the science view I looked up 'indigenous' in the Biotech life science dictionary for you.

1. indigenous
Author: Mirrored from Dave Sutton's Aquatic Plant Glossary
Definition:
Native; originating or occurring naturally in the place specified.


2. non-indigenous species (introduced species, alien species)
Author:
Definition:

Non-indigenous species (NIS) are those plants and animals that have been transported through human activities from their native ranges into new ecosystems where they did not evolve.

Well, as might be expected from a slightly better (more relevant) dictionary, that fits AA's. You can't get much more "transported through human activities" than them taking themselves somewhere! They certainly haven't evolved since the migration as they are still demonstrably human (from viable interbreeding and genetic evidence).

Someone said something like "isn't 40,000 years enough". As well as it being demonstrably not enough because they are still human, there is the question of generations to consider. Human generations are usually counted as approx 20 to 25 years. So there are 4 or 5 per 100 years and 1600 to 2000 in the given time span. Bacteria reproduce every 15-20 minutes when they are "happy". That can be 3 or 4 generations per hour or approx 26,000 to 35,000 per year. The AA's didn't really stand a chance of becoming evolved to their new environment in comparison.

"I did make my point, clearly and succinctly, without being rude right back at post 18. That's where tanzen and then Starlea started being deliberately offensive (as well as either stupid or dishonest about their intentions re science). They broke the rules. I note you did not say anything about that at the time or now. So that marks you out as yet another of the many dishonest people round here who mob and/or falsely accuse the people who are in the right while ignoring or condoning the behaviour of those who are really in the wrong purely because of your own prejudices and friendships."

1) I have never spoken with Starlea.

2) I am, indeed, friends with Tanzen. That's not the point. A quote from her:
"Like I said earlier, if you can prove to me that the contrary is the case, please do...I have no qualms with losing an argument if I'm wrong..."
These are not the words of a person being deliberately offensive, to my mind. I haven't seen any post in here yet from Tanzen that broke House Rules.

3) "So that marks you out as yet another of the many dishonest people round here"
You don't know a thing about me. To my knowledge you and I have never spoken. All I did was make a polite request that you keep the debate civil, and you automatically label me dishonest and predjudiced? Doesn't make a lot of sense to me, I'm afraid.

You have made some interesting points on a topic I know very litle about, which is why I was lurking here in the first place. But your unwillingness, or inability, to focus on the topic without calling people "stupid", "dishonest", etc. makes it hard to bother wading through your posts.

You're obviously convinced that you're in the right, and not interested in hearing other opinions. Not much of a debate if the only voice you want to listen to is your own.

1) Not relevant. You could actually have read the thread instead of being prejudiced by speaking to (and being friends with) Tanzen. There's so much of that sort of thing about where people wade in without reading the backlog and then use the excuse that they were too busy (as Tanzen did). Well if you are too busy to do the thing properly you shouldn't think you have an opinion worth voicing at all.

2) Which just goes to prove you are not capable of reading the thread properly. That quote comes much later after she has failed to read an comprehend both mine and kea's posts and has responded offensively and with lies in post 19.

3) I do know something about you - from your posts here. You have demonstrated a similar lack of willingness or inability to read and comprehend the thread. You are ignoring the offensive things said by Tanzen and Starlea to me before I said anything to them. That proves you are several of lazy, prejudiced and dishonest. Take your pick.

The point about Tanzen (and Starlea) is that they didn't respond to the interesting points at all. Instead they made up stuff of their own and demonstrated that they neither knew nor cared about the evidence as opposed to the emotional view and fairy-tales. Valid opinions can only be formed from looking at the evidence, not from ignoring it - and even stating that you prefer to ignore it in favour of the beliefs (ie opinions of equally ignorant people). If you are going down that route then you will continue to know very little about the topic whatever you decide to believe.

OK, SEF. You obviously have no intention of considering any viewpoint other than your own here, so it's pointless to discuss this further. I surrender.

By all means, you go right on thinking you are the sole source of enlightenment in the world. If you say it, and post a link you believe in, it *must* be the absolute truth. Anyone who disagrees with you, for any reason whatsoever, is obviously a just a stupid, prejudiced, dishonest nutter.


Next time I won't bother trying to appeal to any sense of common courtesy in you, as you apparently don't have one. I'll just yikes the offending post and let the Moderators decide who's being abusive.

Good day!

"You obviously have no intention of considering any viewpoint other than your own here"

I think that applies rather to the other side who say that despite the evidence they prefer to hold opinions which go against it. That's what makes any discussion pointless.

"Anyone who disagrees with you, for any reason whatsoever"

It is *not* for *any* reason though. It is when they are dishonest about their motives, misrepresent or even lie about what I've said and demonstrate a clear prejudice (as you did for selectively accusing me of things instead of looking at the attacks made by tanzen and Starlea in their posts before I had said anything to them at all).

"sense of common courtesy"

Where is yours or theirs? In what way is it courteous to ignore, misrepresent or lie about what someone has said?

>>>OK, SEF. You obviously have no intention of considering any viewpoint other than your own here, so it's pointless to discuss this further. I surrender.
By all means, you go right on thinking you are the sole source of enlightenment in the world. If you say it, and post a link you believe in, it *must* be the absolute truth. Anyone who disagrees with you, for any reason whatsoever, is obviously a just a stupid, prejudiced, dishonest nutter.<<<


Nicely put, Warrior. The first time I got into a conversation of any length with SEF, I had the same experience as you, and I was agreeing with him! An older, wiser researcher came along and told me not to take it personally, as SEF is like that with everyone. Hence I've stayed out of this conversation since SEF arrived even though I started the thread.

Thanks for attempting to get the thread back into some kind of meaningful communication . It's a shame its gone this way, because it's an interesting topic.


kea.

You know, SEF, all I expected (and hoped for) from you was an even break...

You seem to think that offering an opinion (with a supporting link) is proof that you are *right*, and any "sensible" person should agree with you.

Sorry. "Scientific" opinion varies. You can believe it, that's fine, but that doesn't make it Gospel Truth. Others may disbelieve it, for reasons just as valid as your own. Researchers have the right to choose their own truth. Saying, "THIS IS HOW IT IS!" doesn't make it The One Reality.

Offer opinions; present your case. But don't expect everyone to agree with you. And if you proceed to call everyone who disagrees "dishonest", "prejudiced" or a "nutter", you're not going to prove yourself "right". You say Starlea and Tanzen broke the House Rules, but where? All I saw was that they disagreed with your opinion! As far as I can tell, that's not a punishable offense. You do not set policy on H2G2.

Make your case, SEF: show the links that support your suppositions. If the case is strong enough, people will agree. But assuming that people are personally attacking you because they disagree with your point is laughable...in the extreme! Posting a link and saying "this is the truth" doesn't cut it.

Maybe you're right...maybe all life originated in Africa. Then again, maybe not. Do you have some Divine Link that gives you information the rest of us are not privy to? If you do, by all means, please share!

I re-read this thread. Starlea and Tanzen disagreed with you. They didn't call you "stupid", "dishonest", "prejudiced", or a
"nutter", as YOU brought up. They just did not agree with your opinion, and the links you cite as evidence. YOU were the one slurring anyone who disagreed with you, not Starlea or Tanzen.

OK... I'm done feeding the troll now. I've said my piece. Agree, disagree, cuss me, do what you've gotta do. No matter how self-assured you are, know that your opinion is not the standard the rest of Hootoo bases their opinion on.

Good day!

I still find it incredible that you can regard the total miscomprehension, false reporting, false accusations and insults in post 19 as an acceptable response to post 18. There is even the equivalent of the creationist cries of "it's just a theory" and "science is a belief" in there.

The evidence of post 19 shows that Tanzen came prepared with a set of prejudices - not just about the AAs but about what my post had to be saying. Then because of that she fabricated stuff which wasn't there and then blamed me for it. For some reason you regard that sort of laziness and nastiness as acceptable. That post and the continuation of the same is the standard set by Tanzen on which I judge Tanzen.

"They just did not agree with your opinion"

You still lie about what they actually said. How honest is that? That you would lie repeatedly about the contents of posts which everyone can see is not something that is going to make me respect your opinion on anything (though I wouldn't respect you for lying even if you had hidden the evidence as that would make you even more dishonourable).

"all I expected (and hoped for) from you was an even break"

That's very ironic since it is exactly what I might have expected from you. Your ignoring of the unacceptable nature of post 19 and choosing to attack me instead demonstrates that you are not capable of giving me an even break - which is why I concluded that you had already given up any objectivity and right to an even break that an honest neutral person would have.

I note that you don't even object to kea's defamation of me in post 50: "SEF is like that with everyone". It doesn't really matter whether it is an original or a repeat of some other people's defamation. If you actually looked at the evidence round the site you would observe for yourself that it isn't true. However, you are not willing to do that nor are either of you honest enough to admit you haven't done that and give me the benefit of the doubt or "an even break". Instead you demonstrate that you are biased from the outset.

SEF, I'm pretty clear in myself that I will judge each thread I come into on its own merits, and I don't have a preformed opinion that you are like this in every thread you are on.

I have seen you in other threads where your communication style seems different to here. In those threads you strike me as someone who has interesting views on things, and I often see you making intelligent contributions to conversations.

I have also seen you in threads where you are more like you are in this one .

In terms of this thread, to me you are coming across as very set in your thinking, and your style of communication seems alternatively combative and defensive, and often intimidating. For me personally there is no point to such threads. I'm more interested in what two or more people can learn from each other and the common ground that they can find. But I undersand that this is not what everyone is wanting. I guess it's a personal style thing.


kea.

I'm sorry, I still can't see what this has to do with indigenous. Isn't there a different place people can go to discuss their different styles of discussion?

Kea, so you still don't see how "combative and defensive" Tanzen was being in post 18 about things I hadn't even said because she hadn't been bothered to read and comprehend properly before replying based on what she wanted to believe I had said (probably as a result of her other beliefs in the face of the evidence).

There is a difference between the threads where you see different things. In one set I am talking to (and even sometimes having disagreements of opinion with) honest and civilised people - whether intelligent and well-educated or not. In the other set I am being insulted and defamed by dishonest and nasty people (again regardless of their intelligence and education). It is really not that hard to see why there is a difference. It is their personal style (their choices of behaviour which may even be standard for them) which is the clue.

I contributed to this discussion early on, and have only just got back to it... interesting.

Posting/discussion style is *always* important because it affects how well people get their point across.

In this case, tanzen (post 19) failed to engage with what SEF said (post 18), and SEF (post 20) failed to step back enough to engage with what underlay that failure. Thus a flame war....

I think it's important to point out the normal (if not always rigidly adhered to) distinction between a hypothesis and a theory. A hypothesis is a proposed solution to a problem. When the implications of a hypothesis are tested against the available evidence/new evidence without being falsified it becomes a theory.

That humans originated in Africa is a theory - it fits with evidence from both biology/genetics and paleantology(sp?). tanzen seems to have confused theory with hypothesis and come to the conclusion that it's barely more than opinion. True, it's possible, if unlikely, that new evidence could change the theory. But that's how science works.

That AAs are human is a matter of definition. They interbreed with other humans, are genetically the same as other humans, etc. That's the definition of same species. And our understanding of evolution makes it as certain as anything can ever be certain (about on a par with gravity) that they did not evolve separately.

That said, they've been there a long time. Although not biologically indigenous they can certainly be regarded as "culturally" indigenous; a perfectly reasonable usage if stated clearly

Humans *always* alter their environment. That's what humans do. But they have to achieve some sort of balance, because ultimately if they destroy the ability of the environment to support them.

Noggin

Oops, another typo - try "in post 19 about post 18".

Noggin, that is a good explanation of hypothesis and theory. I think one of the things that happens is that the science view often mistakes theory for reality. Whereas I would see theory as a good working description of reality based on science's _current_ knowledge base. (I'm speaking in generalities here, not specific to this debate).

Are you able to answer my original query. Forgetting about the term 'indigenous' for a moment. Obviously humans are all one species. Equally obviously they have adapted differently to their local environments. What is considered a reasonable length of time for humans to adapt _biologically_ to their environment?

There's no really definitive answer to that one, Kea. The sort of *biological* adaptations that humans have made are fairly superficial in evolutionary terms, like skin colour, and could happen in relatively short time spans, but because skin isn't normally preserved it's impossible to say how long they actually took. And genetically speaking there's still much more variation within "races" than the average variation between them.

Hypothesis and theory are something of a continuum - but remember, it's the *Theory* of Gravity, and that's near enough reality for me. Out of Africa isn't as certain as that, of course, but it's passed the midpoint of the continuum.

Noggin