Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   oh look - an observed gene duplication....
derwood
Member (Idle past 1876 days)
Posts: 1457
Joined: 12-27-2001


Message 16 of 43 (23473)
11-21-2002 8:16 AM
Reply to: Message 9 by Tranquility Base
11-20-2002 6:40 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
SLPx
I didn't check to see which category my answer comes under but I have spent a lotof time pointing out that we agree with everything you say on alellic copies and changes. We point out that that is not the primary differnce between genomes. It's the banks of new pathways which include new gene families - that's where we disagree with you!
That may be - for you, anyway - but that is irrelevant to this thread.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Tranquility Base, posted 11-20-2002 6:40 PM Tranquility Base has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by Tranquility Base, posted 11-21-2002 6:33 PM derwood has not replied

  
derwood
Member (Idle past 1876 days)
Posts: 1457
Joined: 12-27-2001


Message 17 of 43 (23474)
11-21-2002 8:19 AM
Reply to: Message 11 by peter borger
11-20-2002 11:22 PM


quote:
Originally posted by peter borger:
Dear Dr Page,
It was already recognised by Quetzal (although it neither falsifies nor verifies evolution), but thanks for your marvellous example demonstrating the MPG in action. blah blah blah....
Of course it appears that the MPG runs counter to the creationist information argument as well.
What to do now?
Creationists at direct odds with each other! Oh my! I cannot wait to see what happens now....

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by peter borger, posted 11-20-2002 11:22 PM peter borger has not replied

  
Mammuthus
Member (Idle past 6475 days)
Posts: 3085
From: Munich, Germany
Joined: 08-09-2002


Message 18 of 43 (23475)
11-21-2002 8:20 AM
Reply to: Message 15 by Mammuthus
11-21-2002 5:03 AM


quote:
Originally posted by Mammuthus:
quote:
Originally posted by SLPx:
Well, Fred used #2, and we forget this one:
8. Insult, insult, insult to try to divert attention.

forgot another one...
9. To busy to answer the question even though it is so easy to...
9b. Will post the obvious answer to the questions in a couple of months (since hopefully you will all have forgotten that I said I would)...when asked again I will say I will post the answer in a couple of months (since...etc etc etc.

**********************
Just thought of number 10 to round out the "ten creationist debating commandments"
10) When you realize that you are completely in error...deny that you ever made the claim or answer posts in complete gibberish (or make references to decks of cards and poodles). Option two, ignore posts exposing your errors.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by Mammuthus, posted 11-21-2002 5:03 AM Mammuthus has not replied

  
derwood
Member (Idle past 1876 days)
Posts: 1457
Joined: 12-27-2001


Message 19 of 43 (23476)
11-21-2002 8:22 AM
Reply to: Message 15 by Mammuthus
11-21-2002 5:03 AM


quote:
Originally posted by Mammuthus:
quote:
Originally posted by SLPx:
Well, Fred used #2, and we forget this one:
8. Insult, insult, insult to try to divert attention.

forgot another one...
9. To busy to answer the question even though it is so easy to...
9b. Will post the obvious answer to the questions in a couple of months (since hopefully you will all have forgotten that I said I would)...when asked again I will say I will post the answer in a couple of months (since...etc etc etc.

Also notice that Williams has yet to produce lab observations of the Hebrew tribal deity creating kinds ex nihilo.
Guess cretinism is just a fantasy...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by Mammuthus, posted 11-21-2002 5:03 AM Mammuthus has not replied

  
joz
Inactive Member


Message 20 of 43 (23502)
11-21-2002 12:32 PM


Decks of cards and poodles?
I missed that one but it sounds ammusing, what did he say that time?

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by Mammuthus, posted 11-22-2002 2:59 AM joz has replied

  
Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 21 of 43 (23546)
11-21-2002 6:33 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by derwood
11-21-2002 8:16 AM


OK SLPx, I'll celebrate with you.
Genes can duplicate - Horray!!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by derwood, posted 11-21-2002 8:16 AM derwood has not replied

  
Mammuthus
Member (Idle past 6475 days)
Posts: 3085
From: Munich, Germany
Joined: 08-09-2002


Message 22 of 43 (23645)
11-22-2002 2:59 AM
Reply to: Message 20 by joz
11-21-2002 12:32 PM


quote:
Originally posted by joz:
Decks of cards and poodles?
I missed that one but it sounds ammusing, what did he say that time?

*************
His analogies for genetic bottlenecks (which were back assward by the way) used decks of cards "realizing" their diversity and poodles magically turning into St. Bernards

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by joz, posted 11-21-2002 12:32 PM joz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by Fred Williams, posted 11-23-2002 1:31 AM Mammuthus has replied
 Message 29 by joz, posted 11-24-2002 1:51 AM Mammuthus has replied

  
peter borger
Member (Idle past 7665 days)
Posts: 965
From: australia
Joined: 07-05-2002


Message 23 of 43 (23823)
11-22-2002 8:36 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by Mammuthus
11-21-2002 3:14 AM


Dear Mammuthus,
In reponse to the multipurpose genome (MPG):
M: Already wrong.....define the "purpose of the genome"...or by MPG do you mean miles per gallon
PB: No I meant 'Mammuthus Powered Gobbledegook'
1) DNA sequences within species —-although plastic-- are stable throughout time,
M: Which says absolutely nothing....and ignores hypervariable sequences
PB: Hypervariable sites can of course be explained by protein driven mechanisms. This is non-random mutations (NRM). As mentioned, the Grand Unifying Theory of Biology includes the MPG and NRM. Together they can explain all biological observations.
2) organisms demonstrate genetic redundancies that reside in the genome without selective constraint,
M: neutral evolution does to....duh
PB: I am not going into genetic redundancies, again. You can ask almost everybody on this site how they falsify evolutionism, since I at least explained it a dozen times.
3) adaptive phenotypes are due to duplication and/or shuffling of preexisting DNA elements —either genes or other non-coding elements-- that affect gene expression, or due to loss of (redundant) genes [=degeneration theory],
M: Falsified by point and small and large scale deletion event mutations that also alter phenotype.
PB: No, deletions are part of degeneration theory. That should have been obvious.
4) the function of natural selection is to remove degenerate organisms, and
M: Then why is Williams still around? ...define degenerate
PB: William is apparently not selected against. Degenerate organisms have negative fitness.
5) there is/has been creation (=creaton interactions with matter in a morphogenetic field giving rise to genes and genetic programs in preexisting genetic programs).
M: So much for your proving anything...without having a loaded crack pipe in your mouth and deeply inhaling...where can the rest of us see morphogenetic fields or creatons?
PB: As long as biological phenomena are in accord with the MPG hypothesis it is correct, otherwise I will adapt it. The result of creaton-interactions in a morphogenetic field can be observed every day. Open your eyes and look around you.
BTW where can the rest of us see gravitons?
Predictions of the MPG hypothesis:
1) predicts that within species we do not see abundant variation with respect to genes, and usually such genetic alterations are neutral or degenerate (although distinct alleles can be expected through the principle of degeneration, which is in effect the action of entropy).
It also predicts that all organism --even the simplest-- have an elaborate and accurate mechanism to counteract mutations.
M: This hardly follows from anything in the above tenets you posted...in addition, you have previously claimed that all identity by descent is an illusion so there can be no species...each genome has to be an entity in iteself indepenedent of all others...which falsifies you miles per gallon theory.
PB: It follows from point 1-4.
2) predicts that a considerable part of the genes of any organism can be knocked out without being lethal.
M: And when you put them back in the wild, do thay do better, worse, the same as organisms with the genes?
PB: Knockouts can be oberved in the wild to. The human alpha actinin is knocked out in 18% of caucasians, without any effect on reproductive succes (reference is somewhere on this site).
3) predicts that adaptive phenotypes of organism do never demonstrate new genes.
Falsified..even in primates...syscytin...you are the weakest link..goodbye
PB: No, you say that the syncytin gene has been tranferred by a virus into primates and adopted a new function. I say, the virus arose from the primate genome and captured the protein and uses it in the capsid. My vision is probably correct, since viruses have their origin in the genome. Viruses do not drop out of the sky, that's for sure. In fact your syncytin is an example of a new gene in primates that doesn't have an origin. I take it as evidence for creaton interactions in a morphogenetic field. Thanks for the example.
4) predicts that organism lacking vital DNA elements are selected against.
M: What is a "vital" element? Or do you mean that when an organism has disruption of say the developmental pathway that leads to heart development this is selected against? Wow..what a novel discovery...
PB: An element that negatively affects reproductivity.
5) predicts that there should be organisms that have not undergone genetic changes (yet).
M: I have not changed genetically in 34 years...wow!
PB: So, you will live for ever? Dear Mammuthus, in 34 years you have lost a lot of sensible DNA sequences already. Ever cell division will at least change these sequences at certain spots (due to entropy) and will decrease the length of telomeres. So, your assertion is non-sense.
Falsification of the MPG hypothesis:
The concept will be falsified by the observation of the evolution of new genes unrelated to preexisting genes.
M: And by all the rest of the data against almost every one of the hypothesis put forward..
PB: Like what? Till know it hasn't been falsified.
PB:
It will take a while before you will recognise that what you call evolution is 'differential gene expression', usually due to involvement of regulatory mechanism. I already recognised it, since I am in the field of gene regulation, and tried to share this discovery with you. You still are a bit reluctant, but here Dr PAge provides more clearcut evidence that GENE EXPRESSION DOES THE TRICK. Ever expected that? I didn't, till recently.
M: I knew that drugs were freely available in the Netherlands but really Peter..you need to cut back.
PB: I almost laugh my pants off!! Seriously. Now and then, you really are a comediant. You could perform and make money out of it. Did, you know that The Netherlands have a lot of German Drugs Tourists? I am sure you know.
PB:
I think Mammuthus will also like this example, since he likes to have proof for the MPG.
M: Then the other half of your post where you actually provide this "proof" must have been cut off from your message..care to re-post it?
PB: Reread all my 500 -or so- mails. Including at least 10 falsifications of evolutionism and the introduction of a new theory that explains all biology. Frankly, your questioning and scepticism contributed to the improvement of the initial hypothesis. Thanks for the discussions.
BTW, you were the one that stressed I had to introduce such theory and now you are still not contents. What's the matter with you?
Best wishes,
Peter

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by Mammuthus, posted 11-21-2002 3:14 AM Mammuthus has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by Mammuthus, posted 11-23-2002 3:24 PM peter borger has not replied

  
monkenstick
Inactive Member


Message 24 of 43 (23830)
11-22-2002 9:33 PM


heres a prediction for you borger:
the GUToB and MPG theories will never see the light of publication because they rely on invisible undetectable particles, processes which haven't been observed or described and they stem from a egomaniacal nutcase who formulated his theory because he "objects to the nihilism of NDT" rather than because he is in any way interested in the truth

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by peter borger, posted 11-24-2002 10:59 PM monkenstick has not replied

  
Fred Williams
Member (Idle past 4856 days)
Posts: 310
From: Broomfield
Joined: 12-17-2001


Message 25 of 43 (23858)
11-23-2002 1:31 AM
Reply to: Message 22 by Mammuthus
11-22-2002 2:59 AM


quote:
M: His analogies for genetic bottlenecks (which were back assward by the way) used decks of cards "realizing" their diversity and poodles magically turning into St. Bernards
Nowhere do I make even hint at such an idea. Please stop parading around with this strawman, now in multiple threads. It’s simply not true, and I do not appreciate you misrepresenting and twisting my words. I said dog breeds are essentially man-made genetic bottlenecks, and serve as one way that enables us to SEE some of the diversity inherent in the dog kind. Instead of addressing this point you went off on various wild tangents, including this poodle transformation to St Bernard nonsense. It’s become apparent you are not interested in serious debate.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by Mammuthus, posted 11-22-2002 2:59 AM Mammuthus has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by wj, posted 11-23-2002 5:14 AM Fred Williams has not replied
 Message 27 by Mammuthus, posted 11-23-2002 10:47 AM Fred Williams has not replied

  
wj
Inactive Member


Message 26 of 43 (23867)
11-23-2002 5:14 AM
Reply to: Message 25 by Fred Williams
11-23-2002 1:31 AM


Fred, you have a number of unanswered questions on another thread regarding the Australian fossil record. Are you going to respond? It seems like a very long weekend - more like a month.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by Fred Williams, posted 11-23-2002 1:31 AM Fred Williams has not replied

  
Mammuthus
Member (Idle past 6475 days)
Posts: 3085
From: Munich, Germany
Joined: 08-09-2002


Message 27 of 43 (23896)
11-23-2002 10:47 AM
Reply to: Message 25 by Fred Williams
11-23-2002 1:31 AM


[QUOTE]Originally posted by Fred Williams:
[B]
quote:
M: His analogies for genetic bottlenecks (which were back assward by the way) used decks of cards "realizing" their diversity and poodles magically turning into St. Bernards
Nowhere do I make even hint at such an idea.
M: Big hint:
FW: Post 81 mol genet evidence for a multipurpose genome
I truly hope you do not have a PhD, because there is simply no excuse for anyone, even an evolutionist, to claim that a bottlenecked animal such as the cheetah has not lost genetic information due to the isolation event and subsequent genetic drift. According to the dream world of Mammuthus, if we isolate the poodle completely, and let it breed only with other poodles, we can eventually get a St Bernard.
M:
This was YOUR attempt in that empty container you call a head of trying to attribute your ignorant incoherent views on population genetics to me. (Note...I NEVER mentioned poodles or dogs for that matter, in any of my discussions prior to this rant of yours. And this was only the first time you brought up dogs to both demonstrate you know nothing about the effect of selective breeding on genetic diversity or dogs for that matter i.e. the dogs "realizing" their potential.
FW:
Please stop parading around with this strawman, now in multiple threads. It’s simply not true, and I do not appreciate you misrepresenting and twisting my words.
M: Oh you mean by demonstratig how you tried and failed to shift the blame for your stupidity to me? Live with it yourself..it is all yours.
FW:
I said dog breeds are essentially man-made genetic bottlenecks, and serve as one way that enables us to SEE some of the diversity inherent in the dog kind.
M: You said no such thing....or do you mean your blatantly incorrect deck of card example? YOU said genetic variation is a result of bottlenecks...you then compounded your error with an equally ridiculous deck of card examples.
FW:Instead of addressing this point you went off on various wild tangents, including this poodle transformation to St Bernard nonsense.
M: The wild tangent was your own as YOU brought up the stupid example in the first place....I am being generous...you have said far more obtuse things than your dog or deck of card analogies.
FW:
It’s become apparent you are not interested in serious debate.
M: It was apparent from the start you were not interested in serious debate. You have 1) not supported any of your claims with any data 2) You almost never actually address any question put to you but wave them away i.e. demonstrating non-random mutations or anything related to the mythical flood/ark 3) when you are shown to be a fool (which is a highly reproducible phenomenon)...you rely on insults or "I am to busy to answer" 4) if you cannot answer a question (which is always) you claim your opposition has said something they have not.
The problem is all on your side Fred.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by Fred Williams, posted 11-23-2002 1:31 AM Fred Williams has not replied

  
Mammuthus
Member (Idle past 6475 days)
Posts: 3085
From: Munich, Germany
Joined: 08-09-2002


Message 28 of 43 (23948)
11-23-2002 3:24 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by peter borger
11-22-2002 8:36 PM


1) DNA sequences within species —-although plastic-- are stable throughout time,
M: Which says absolutely nothing....and ignores hypervariable sequences
PB: Hypervariable sites can of course be explained by protein driven mechanisms. This is non-random mutations (NRM). As mentioned, the Grand Unifying Theory of Biology includes the MPG and NRM. Together they can explain all biological observations.
M: Congratulations Peter...for providing absolutely no evidence for these protein driven mechanisms, and merely repeating your oft falsified MPG hypothesis for the 100th time you win the right to wear a hat saying "space for rent" on it.
2) organisms demonstrate genetic redundancies that reside in the genome without selective constraint,
M: neutral evolution does to....duh
PB: I am not going into genetic redundancies, again. You can ask almost everybody on this site how they falsify evolutionism, since I at least explained it a dozen times.
M: Um...you can ask anyone on this site and they will have just as hard a time finding any evidence for your assertions about genetic redundancies...but if they go through all the threads they will certainly find posts from me, Quetzal, SLPx and others that you have been unable to answer....you have not even begun to explain yourself.
3) adaptive phenotypes are due to duplication and/or shuffling of preexisting DNA elements —either genes or other non-coding elements-- that affect gene expression, or due to loss of (redundant) genes [=degeneration theory],
M: Falsified by point and small and large scale deletion event mutations that also alter phenotype.
PB: No, deletions are part of degeneration theory. That should have been obvious.
M: Hey, YOU put forth the prediction and now you are dancing like a hot potato trying to redefine your theory...there is nothing obvious about your theory Peter other than that it is wrong and not based on scientific principles or observations.
4) the function of natural selection is to remove degenerate organisms, and
M: Then why is Williams still around? ...define degenerate
PB: William is apparently not selected against. Degenerate organisms have negative fitness.
M: Good one Peter...and fitness is? You have shown repeatedly that you don't know what it means...so tell us....how can there be fitness by the way in a Lamarkian scenario like you propose?
5) there is/has been creation (=creaton interactions with matter in a morphogenetic field giving rise to genes and genetic programs in preexisting genetic programs).
M: So much for your proving anything...without having a loaded crack pipe in your mouth and deeply inhaling...where can the rest of us see morphogenetic fields or creatons?
PB: As long as biological phenomena are in accord with the MPG hypothesis it is correct, otherwise I will adapt it. The result of creaton-interactions in a morphogenetic field can be observed every day. Open your eyes and look around you.
BTW where can the rest of us see gravitons?
M: A non answer as I predicted...there is absolutely no evidence for your assertion so you are chickening out and not even debating it...and as you claimed quantum mechanics and the theory of gravity are undisputable facts...I guess now you are going to supply the evidence for both since you claim to have such knowledge..what is the exact mechanism by with gravity works Peter? What makes the theory of gravity and undisputed fact and evolution not..this ought to be a laugher
Predictions of the MPG hypothesis:
1) predicts that within species we do not see abundant variation with respect to genes, and usually such genetic alterations are neutral or degenerate (although distinct alleles can be expected through the principle of degeneration, which is in effect the action of entropy).
It also predicts that all organism --even the simplest-- have an elaborate and accurate mechanism to counteract mutations.
M: This hardly follows from anything in the above tenets you posted...in addition, you have previously claimed that all identity by descent is an illusion so there can be no species...each genome has to be an entity in iteself indepenedent of all others...which falsifies you miles per gallon theory.
PB: It follows from point 1-4.
M: Well since 1, 5, and 4 have already been falsified (1 with help from Fred Williams no less) and you refuse to even speculate at potential data for 5 nothing follows from anything you say.
2) predicts that a considerable part of the genes of any organism can be knocked out without being lethal.
M: And when you put them back in the wild, do thay do better, worse, the same as organisms with the genes?
PB: Knockouts can be oberved in the wild to. The human alpha actinin is knocked out in 18% of caucasians, without any effect on reproductive succes (reference is somewhere on this site).
M: Reference is somewhere..dog ate my homework..etc etc...you did not answer the question.
3) predicts that adaptive phenotypes of organism do never demonstrate new genes.
Falsified..even in primates...syscytin...you are the weakest link..goodbye
PB: No, you say that the syncytin gene has been tranferred by a virus into primates and adopted a new function. I say, the virus arose from the primate genome and captured the protein and uses it in the capsid. My vision is probably correct, since viruses have their origin in the genome. Viruses do not drop out of the sky, that's for sure. In fact your syncytin is an example of a new gene in primates that doesn't have an origin. I take it as evidence for creaton interactions in a morphogenetic field. Thanks for the example.
M: So if someone gets HIV infected they should say oh shit..that damn morphogenetic field? LOL! You have been watching too much teletubbies instead of reading...hint hint..the protein does not act as a capsid..falsified..it works as a sycytiotrophoblast fusion protein...oh yeah..when is the last time a virus "arose" from the primate genome? I guess you will stun us with reams of "evidence" like with all other assertions you make? And viruses don't drop out of the sky? You should believe that! As a creationist you guys all believe that stuff just drops out of the sky when you god takes a leak.
4) predicts that organism lacking vital DNA elements are selected against.
M: What is a "vital" element? Or do you mean that when an organism has disruption of say the developmental pathway that leads to heart development this is selected against? Wow..what a novel discovery...
PB: An element that negatively affects reproductivity.
M: Funny then that balancing selection MAINTAINS lots of lethal alleles in the population in a heterozygous state i.e. CFTR.
5) predicts that there should be organisms that have not undergone genetic changes (yet).
M: I have not changed genetically in 34 years...wow!
PB: So, you will live for ever? Dear Mammuthus, in 34 years you have lost a lot of sensible DNA sequences already. Ever cell division will at least change these sequences at certain spots (due to entropy) and will decrease the length of telomeres. So, your assertion is non-sense.
M: Prove it Peter. Your assertion is nonesense. You do understand the difference between somatic and germ cells being that you are such an expert? .
Falsification of the MPG hypothesis:
The concept will be falsified by the observation of the evolution of new genes unrelated to preexisting genes.
M: And by all the rest of the data against almost every one of the hypothesis put forward..
PB: Like what? Till know it hasn't been falsified.
M: I guess you don't actually read the posts on this forum...nothing you have posted has survived scrutiny.
M: I knew that drugs were freely available in the Netherlands but really Peter..you need to cut back.
PB: I almost laugh my pants off!!
M: Your pants came off? Go to the Is it Science? forum...there is a person posting called Lizard Lips who is really interested in undergarments
PB:
Seriously. Now and then, you really are a comediant. You could perform and make money out of it. Did, you know that The Netherlands have a lot of German Drugs Tourists? I am sure you know.
M: I am not German...but from my interactions with most of them (well except my wife) I think a lot of them must be on drugs
PB:
I think Mammuthus will also like this example, since he likes to have proof for the MPG.
M: Then the other half of your post where you actually provide this "proof" must have been cut off from your message..care to re-post it?
PB: Reread all my 500 -or so- mails.
M: No thanks...most jokes are only funny the first time...except for Revenge of the Pink Panther..I can watch that lots of times and still laugh. Or Monty Python.
PB:
Including at least 10 falsifications of evolutionism and the introduction of a new theory that explains all biology. Frankly, your questioning and scepticism contributed to the improvement of the initial hypothesis. Thanks for the discussions.
M: Honestly Peter, as hard as I have been on you lately I still enjoy the debate...and I end up reading articles on subjects outside what I am researching just to nail you with
PB:
BTW, you were the one that stressed I had to introduce such theory and now you are still not contents. What's the matter with you?
M: I am content that you introduced you hypothesis...I believe I even signalled my approval that you posted you hypothesis..but where did I claim I would agree with it?
Best wishes,
M

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by peter borger, posted 11-22-2002 8:36 PM peter borger has not replied

  
joz
Inactive Member


Message 29 of 43 (24006)
11-24-2002 1:51 AM
Reply to: Message 22 by Mammuthus
11-22-2002 2:59 AM


quote:
Originally posted by Mammuthus:
His analogies for genetic bottlenecks (which were back assward by the way) used decks of cards "realizing" their diversity and poodles magically turning into St. Bernards
Hey that last sounds testable....
*stomps off looks hard at his pet poodle*
*Comes back to keyboard*
I reckon hes wrong there bud Biscuit (aforementioned poodle) is still small white and fluffy....
(Oh and before anyone starts mocking my choice of dog they shouild know that poodles are the only sort of dog my wife is not allergic too, that I keep him close shorn rather than having one of those ridiculous show cuts and that teams of poodles (standards) have raced and completed the Iditarod before the injunction that the teams must be northern breeds exclusively.... Pretty tough for a critter that some regard as being at the shallow end of the gene pool).....

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by Mammuthus, posted 11-22-2002 2:59 AM Mammuthus has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by Mammuthus, posted 11-24-2002 7:35 AM joz has not replied

  
Mammuthus
Member (Idle past 6475 days)
Posts: 3085
From: Munich, Germany
Joined: 08-09-2002


Message 30 of 43 (24015)
11-24-2002 7:35 AM
Reply to: Message 29 by joz
11-24-2002 1:51 AM


quote:
Originally posted by joz:
quote:
Originally posted by Mammuthus:
His analogies for genetic bottlenecks (which were back assward by the way) used decks of cards "realizing" their diversity and poodles magically turning into St. Bernards
Hey that last sounds testable....
*stomps off looks hard at his pet poodle*
*Comes back to keyboard*
I reckon hes wrong there bud Biscuit (aforementioned poodle) is still small white and fluffy....
(Oh and before anyone starts mocking my choice of dog they shouild know that poodles are the only sort of dog my wife is not allergic too, that I keep him close shorn rather than having one of those ridiculous show cuts and that teams of poodles (standards) have raced and completed the Iditarod before the injunction that the teams must be northern breeds exclusively.... Pretty tough for a critter that some regard as being at the shallow end of the gene pool).....

+++++++++++++++++++
When you look at Biscuit next time, check to see if he has "realized" his genetic diversity as a dog kind since the ark bottleneck....this is another of Fred's pseudoscience Gilligans Island professor assertions....actually why not ask Biscuit if he has realized his genetic potential? A coherent substantive answer from Biscuit is infinitely more likely than from Fred.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by joz, posted 11-24-2002 1:51 AM joz has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024