16 Apr 17
Originally posted by divegeesterLook, you have repeatedly claimed I said something I didn't, then pretended to be confused about what I supposedly said that you made up. Now you act like I am being unreasonable for pointing that out.
Whatever, it's always the other guy isn't it.
You are being a dick.
Originally posted by twhiteheadI'm sometimes a bit of a dick in the forums, I admit it, it's part of the fun in coming here. You however are a seasoned professional; you must have taken a course in Irritating Pedantry or something.
Look, you have repeatedly claimed I said something I didn't, then pretended to be confused about what I supposedly said that you made up. Now you act like I am being unreasonable for pointing that out.
You are being a dick.
Arguing with you is just no fun at all as you devolve into petty sematinic nuances about what word was said by whom in what post. I could have done a twhitehead on you with your claim that you said "bottleneck" when quite clearly you said no such thing, but I didn't. I hoped that the exchange would develop into something profitable and I might even learn something.
It's just all got a bit boring.
- Joined
- 14 Mar 15
- Moves
- 29602
16 Apr 17
Originally posted by divegeester'Bottleneck' was in the link he provided (page 5)
I'm sometimes a bit of a dick in the forums, I admit it, it's part of the fun in coming here. You however are a seasoned professional; you must have taken a course in Irritating Pedantry or something.
Arguing with you is just no fun at all as you devolve into petty sematinic nuances about what word was said by whom in what post. I could have done a ...[text shortened]... nto something profitable and I might even learn something.
It's just all a got a bit boring.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_bottleneck
16 Apr 17
Originally posted by divegeesterWell given that you know you were being a dick, its kind of stupid of you to make the 'its always the other guy' comment. It was the other guy.
I'm sometimes a bit of a dick in the forums, I admit it, it's part of the fun in coming here.
Arguing with you is just no fun at all as you devolve into petty sematinic nuances about what word was said by whom in what post.
For the last few pages you have been acting utterly confused and wasting both our times because you supposedly couldn't be bothered to actually read my posts. You repeatedly - even after multiple corrections, claimed I said something I didn't then proceeded on that premise to ask nonsensical questions, all the while claiming I was not making sense. Its not about 'semantic nuances', its about simple communication. If you deliberately misconstrue what I say, how are we to communicate?
You did exactly the same thing in the other recent thread where you repeatedly tried to ridicule me based on something you made up, and utterly refused to actually discuss it.
I hoped that the exchange would develop into something profitable and I might even learn something.
I simply don't believe you. I think you deliberately wanted to start an argument because the alternative was to admit you were wrong, something you never do.
It's just all a got a bit boring.
Your usual MO.
If you ever do want an interesting actual conversation, try being less of a dick and try actually reading my posts.
Originally posted by twhiteheadI read all your posts, carefully. I don't read links, hardly ever. And you are the biggest cock in this forum in my opinion, I don't expect you to ever admit you're wrong but about a year ago were being a total knob like this with me and virtually poster in the thread told you so, so I know it's not just me. However if you consistently find me to be the same then why do you repeatedly engage with me. Please feel free to ignore me and my wittering.
Well given that you know you were being a dick, its kind of stupid of you to make the 'its always the other guy' comment. It was the other guy.
[b]Arguing with you is just no fun at all as you devolve into petty sematinic nuances about what word was said by whom in what post.
For the last few pages you have been acting utterly confused and wastin ...[text shortened]... an interesting actual conversation, try being less of a dick and try actually reading my posts.[/b]
16 Apr 17
Originally posted by divegeesterThen you proceeded to lie about them. Either you read them carefully then lied, or you didn't read them carefully. You can't have it both ways.
I read all your posts, carefully.
And you are the biggest cock in this forum in my opinion,
So its back to insults is it?
However if you consistently find me to be the same then why do you repeatedly engage with me. Please feel free to ignore me and my wittering.
Its odd that you call me the biggest cock on this forum while engaging with me, then wonder why I engage with you. I strongly disagree with almost everyone I engage with on this forum, and many of them are rather unsavoury characters. I am used to people behaving as you do, but that wont stop me pointing it out when you do.
Originally posted by divegeester
I read all your posts, carefully.
Originally posted by twhitehead
Figures vary, but Wikipedia says that genetic evidence puts the smallest population ever at about 10,000–30,000
Originally posted by divegeester
You just said that the initial population was 2,000 or 10,000+
Originally posted by twhitehead
No, I did not.
Originally posted by vivify
How many "humans" were around from that first population that appeared 200,000 years ago? No one knows.
Originally posted by divegeester
Twhitehead knows.
Originally posted by divegeester
Q. Where did the 10-30k minimal human population come from?
A. Other humans
Originally posted by divegeester
How many humans were there when the species first evolved?
You cited something from wiki saying 2,000 or 10-30k
I asked where did these come from.
You said from other humans?
Originally posted by twhitehead
Once again, I did NOT say that the 10-30k humans were the FIRST population. I said that was the smallest population. The bottleneck.
Originally posted by divegeester
My point is that as home sapien emerged there would have been a very small population - you cite 2000 or 10,000-30000. Not me.
-----------
As you can see above, you did NOT read all my posts carefully, or you were just being a dick by deliberately ignoring their contents.
There is no requirement that any species ever have a small population.
There is genetic evidence that humans at one point went through a bottleneck, although when and how small that bottleneck was is disputed. Nevertheless, the population was never small enough that incest would have been necessary.
You are wrong to claim otherwise. Live with it.
16 Apr 17
Originally posted by twhiteheadGood grief.
Then you proceeded to lie about them. Either you read them carefully then lied, or you didn't read them carefully. You can't have it both ways.
[b]And you are the biggest cock in this forum in my opinion,
So its back to insults is it?
However if you consistently find me to be the same then why do you repeatedly engage with me. Please feel fr ...[text shortened]... l enough that incest would have been necessary.
You are wrong to claim otherwise. Live with it.
Originally posted by divegeesterWhich is it going to be:
Who's on 1st?
1. You read my posts carefully and then lied about them.
2. You didn't read my posts carefully then lied about doing so.
And I suppose admitting that incest was never a requirement and you got that wrong is simply not going to happen.
16 Apr 17
Originally posted by twhiteheadAre you still talking to me?
Which is it going to be:
1. You read my posts carefully and then lied about them.
2. You didn't read my posts carefully then lied about doing so.
And I suppose admitting that incest was never a requirement and you got that wrong is simply not going to happen.