Summations Only

I've rarely seen such a pile of nonsense. I'm not even going to start trying to correct all the errors I see, and I see a lot as half my Ph.D. training was in the field of fossil man.Suffice it to say that you are just rearranging facts in an effort to support your prior beliefs with no regard to whether they actually do or not.(Also see signatures.)

You really should stop fooling around with fossils, as you have shown time and again that you know nothing about them, and beyond that, that you are delusional in your interpretations. You are going to such lengths to try and fit ancient tribal myths into paleontological findings that you demonstrate this with most every post.One such example: not all people today carry Neanderthal genes. There is one notable group which does not. A little research would have shown you that.

Well, duh! You realize this only after I pointed it out to you. Absolute nonsense. Early Homo erectus and late Homo erectus never interacted with each other because one species merged into the other over a long period of time. And there is no such thing as modern Homo erectus. Homo erectus went extinct some 300,000 years ago. You need to use correct terms if you wish to be taken seriously, and getting your facts straight helps also. Why? Both have been shown to be contrary to the facts. If I'm to do literary criticism I much prefer Shakespeare, as it exhibits a much finer writing style and far better composition. And if I want to see diagrams showing the pattern human evolution I'll go a long ways to avoid your butcher jobs. So your idea, for which there is no evidence, is being passed off as science, or as reality? You need to stick to religions apologetics or some other impracticable field of study. Then you wouldn't need to worry about evidence and facts, not that you do anyway. I have. Now its your turn to offer some facts. So far all you have been doing is making up simplistic (and patently erroneous) charts and expecting us to accept them as evidence. Sorry, it doesn't work that way.Please see, and take to heart, each of the following signature lines. They really do apply to you.

First, books are not normally subject to peer review. Certainly popularized books are not.Secondly, you are just attaching biblical names to 22 species without any factual reason for doing so, and while ignoring the relationships or lack of relationships among those species. It is more like you focused on the number 22 and said, "Aha! I'll just throw all these names out there, and because there are the right number of names where I put them must be true!" You are not using science. Science is based on the scientific method, and you seem to have no acquaintance with that.If you were using the scientific method, you would be testing of your ideas against the evidence. Rather, you seem to be forcing your ideas on the evidence with little concern as to how well they fit. Certainly your chart with the different species, ending with Negroid and the Mongoloid at a computer, has no relation to the evidence. It looks like your idea of race development is contrary to the evidence as well.If you want to play in the science threads, it would be good if you actually learned something about science. Cherry picking a fact here and a chart there is not even close.

Sorry for being late to respond to this, but I looked at it this morning and just walked away from the computer.So now I'm back from work and looking at it again and it is still a confused mess.Your non-standard use of terms is too much for me. "Modern Homo erectus?" In all my years of graduate school, and since, I've never seen that term in the literature.Unraveling your mess is just not worth the effort.

The more I read of your posts, the more I think Poe's Law might apply:Poe's law states:

Without a winking smiley or other blatant display of humor, it is impossible to create a parody of fundamentalism that someone won't mistake for the real thing.

Poe's law - WikipediaYour posts are so far detached from reality that it is difficult for me to believe that they are serious, rather than someone pulling our collective legs and just to see how we will react.

I'll let others deal with the bulk of your claims, but I'll deal with your very confused ideas about race.You claim that there are "three racial stocks that differentiated into the seven genetic races now here."You need to be careful, as there are not always clear associations between classical racial traits and genetics. (I.e., what you see is not always what you get.)Scientists aren't that enamored of racial classification anymore, as they were over 100 years ago. The problem is that specific traits form clines, and the clines do not always run in the same directions. For example, skin color generally starts dark near the equator and gets lighter going both north and south. It is an adaptation to sunlight. (I know there are exceptions.) At the same time other visible traits such as body form, nose shape, hair form, etc. also form clines but they are not necessarily the same as skin color.Also, this does not necessarily have anything to do with descent (genetics). Two groups which appear quite similar (Pygmies and Negritos) are not genetically related. The racial traits they share stem from living for tens of thousands of years in similar environments.A more recent approach to race is that of Stanley Garn. Per the Wiki article:

Garn considered racial classification based on physical traits to be imprecise. He considered physical traits to be independent of each other, making classification by the assumption that a population shares certain traits incorrect. Furthermore, he was critical about racial classifications based on physical type which seemingly elevated some physical traits to a racial status, but glossed over others. He concluded that racial classifications based on physical type can always be compartmentalized into smaller populations which share more physical traits in common. He used three gradations of racial classification which were increasingly more specific in scope: geographical, local and micro. He counted thirty-four local races in the world which were caused by genetic isolation. He believed the genetic isolation among Pacific Islanders made them form three separate races which were Micronesian, Polynesian and Melanesian.

In other words, you can come up with any number of races you want depending on which criteria you choose (including both visible traits and genetic traits), and none is any more accurate than the rest.And classifications of race based on visible traits have no necessary relationship to genetic "races" (probably more accurately called descent groups).In still other words, you are cherry picking once again without any actual knowledge of the subject. I suspect that race is a far more complex (and interesting) subject than you have ever imagined.Edited by Coyote, : TypoEdited by Coyote, : Speeeling

This thread was a total waste of time.It was a mix of old tribal legends distorted in an attempt to fit them onto modern scientific findings, with ample use of a sledge hammer to make things fit even where they didn't.And the proponent was impervious to logic, evidence, and reason when others tried to present why even the sledge hammer failed to make things fit.The proponent reminds me of the saying, "His mind was like a steel trap--rusted shut."(The following signature quotations apply in spades. Doubled and redoubled.)