I found another gem...

: Lee Olsen (etc):
:

: > But Nova reported the other night that 25% of mtDNA among the
Ojibwa
: > was Soulutrian.
:
: http://www.***.com/
:
: Did NOVA forget to tell you how many ancient Solutreans skeletons
have
: tested positive for Hap X? (hint:zero).

Oddly, the cite says no such thing. In fact, Lee/etc's cite doesn't
say anything that could be construed as supporting or challenging
any idea expressed by the person he's responding to.

Oops, there's that total lack of reading comprehension, AGAIN...

: Assuming (and probably wrongly) the same % of X existed
: in Europe 20,000 years ago as today, that means about 96%
: of Europe then was something else besides X. This means
: the odds of X being in the group getting to America, if such a
: group did get here, would be slim.

The group is more rare in Asia. You're claiming that it couldn't
have come from Europe because it's so rare, AND that it came
from Asia where it is even rarer.

Yeah, you're THAT {*filter*}ed up... a genuine moron...

Idiot.

http://www.***.com/

Lie No.1 "This cite places the absolute oldest human remains
 at around 6,700 years of age:"
http://www.jstor.org/pss/281063

Rebuttal:
Page 11  (Hicks et al. 2004):
"Subsequent radiocarbon dating placed the age of these remains
at about 10,000 B.P. (Fryxell et al. 1968a,b: Gustafson and Gibson
1984:4: Sheppard et al. 1987)."

Lie No. 2  "Like I said, you've sometimes even quoted it... exactly.
You know for a fact that it says 6,700 years."

Rebuttal:
Of course the Mazama ash was thought to be 6,700 in 1987,
but Sheppard said the oldest remains were "beneath" the ash.
Beneath means older in the stratigraphy of an archaeological site.

Lie No.3 "Which means the two had to be roughly
the same age.
And I know for a fact also, you can't back up your claim
with numbers:"

Rebuttal:
See Hicks 2004 above:  "beneath" is "about 10,000".

Lie No. 4:
"Now if the remains were two or three layers beneath
(which they weren't), you'd have a point."

Rebuttal:
Sheppard 1987 (table 2.1 from Hicks 2004):
" Mazama ash Stratum IV 6,700"
"Stratum II/I 8,700 to 9,540" (inside shelter dates)
On the floodplain 10,130 "minimum" Sheppard 1984.
Here you admitted I was correct (along with WSU, Hicks,
 Rice, Breschini, and Krantz) because Layer IV is
"two or three layers beneath".

You lied when you said "(which they weren't)"
Sorry, but layers II/I are two to three layers beneath
layer IV and 6 feet "beneath".

You are one stupid virus.

Still incapable of admitting error, the Lee/etc instead
retreats to a world of Make-Believe...

It's also a strawman that you invented. It has nothing to
do with me or what I was arguing. In our exchange you
were claiming that the Marmes Rockshelter offers Clovis
DNA and morphology, and I was pointing out that you're
bat shit crazy.

You're a psycho. HINT:  No matter ho many DIFFERENT
cites you post, they are never going to effect what the
original cite said. Ever.

P.S.  Has anyone explained to you what "Race" or
"ethnicity" means, or are you still clueless?

 "This cite places the absolute oldest human remains
 at around 6,700 years of age:
http://www.jstor.org/pss/281063

Why do people keep  lying after getting caught?

Page 11  (Hicks et al. 2004):
"Subsequent radiocarbon dating placed the age of these remains
at about 10,000 B.P. (Fryxell et al. 1968a,b: Gustafson and Gibson
1984:4: Sheppard et al. 1987)."

JTEM: "Which means the two had to be roughly
the same age."

ROFL, just like the rest of your lies, quote free, content free,
and completely delusional.

If you think about it, it's pretty sad the way this Lee/etc
has given up on himself, totally written off the possibility
of ever conducting a rational discussion...

It's also a strawman that you invented. It has nothing to
do with me or what I was arguing. In our exchange you
were claiming that the Marmes Rockshelter offers Clovis
DNA and morphology, and I was pointing out that you're
bat shit crazy.

You're a psycho. HINT:  No matter ho many DIFFERENT
cites you post, they are never going to effect what the
original cite said. Ever.

P.S.  Has anyone explained to you what "Late Pleistocene"
means, or are you still clueless?

 "This cite places the absolute oldest human remains
 at around 6,700 years of age:
http://www.jstor.org/pss/281063

Why do people keep  lying after getting caught?

Page 11  (Hicks et al. 2004):
"Subsequent radiocarbon dating placed the age of these remains
at about 10,000 B.P. (Fryxell et al. 1968a,b: Gustafson and Gibson
1984:4: Sheppard et al. 1987)."

JTEM: "Which means the two had to be roughly
the same age."

ROFL, just like the rest of your lies... quote free, content free,
and completely delusional.

*Yawn*

I'm not saying that Lee/etc is a boring retard who
thinks he's special because he can cut & paste
articles he doesn't understand. Nope. He is, but
I'm not saying that....

It's also a strawman that you invented. It has nothing to
do with me or what I was arguing. In our exchange you
were claiming that the Marmes Rockshelter offers Clovis
DNA and morphology, and I was pointing out that you're
bat shit crazy.

You're a psycho. HINT:  No matter ho many DIFFERENT
cites you post, they are never going to effect what the
original cite said. Ever.

P.S.  "Molecular Clock."  Are you still clueless?

Seth Dwight: NNTP-Posting-Host: 71.232.83.153
In His Glory: NNTP-Posting-Host: 71.232.83.153

Incapable of contributing to a thread, Lee/etc
has to prove how insane he is....

     ...but it does prove that you're an idiot.