Nucleotide sequence variation in ancient human mtDNA

dear All,Since Dr Page wanna play a tough game, I post here the published mtDNA sequences of ancient humans.Just a moment...(Maybe somebody can fit in the figure)I claimed that the mtDNA sequences:1) demonstrate NRM,2) that according to the presented sequences human and chimp have a common ancestor 150 ky BP.Now, I invite you to take an objective look at the sequences. The presented sequences are taken from ancient homo sapiens as excavated in Australia near Lake Mungo (abbreviated LM), and from Kow Swamp (abbreviated KS).In my opinion these date demonstrate clear NRM at postion 184, 223, 278, 301, 311, and 387. In addition there are less obvious NRM present in the sequences, namely 93 and 230.Furthermore, a careful look at the ancient human (LM3) and modern human (CRV) demonstrate 9 nucleotides differences. LM3 has been dated at 62 Ky BP. Counting the differences between modern human and chimp demonstrates 24 differences, and that would make a common ancestor around 150 Ky before present. Easy as that, you don't even require a calculator for such analysis.
Similarly, the presented bonobo demonstrates 29 differences compared to human, and the Neandertahler (Feldhofer) demonstrates 27 differences. So, they all have a common ancestor around 150 kY before present, according to these data.Or NOT Dr PAge?best wishes,
Peter

Being the masochist I am....

quote:

---

I post here the published mtDNA sequences of ancient humans.

​

Just a moment...

---

You supply a link to several ~350 bp fragments of the mtDNA from several primate species, including ancient humans.

quote:

---

I claimed that the mtDNA sequences:

​

1) demonstrate NRM,

​

2) that according to the presented sequences human and chimp have a common ancestor 150 ky BP.

​

Now, I invite you to take an objective look at the sequences. The presented sequences are taken from ancient homo sapiens as excavated in Australia near Lake Mungo (abbreviated LM), and from Kow Swamp (abbreviated KS).

​

In my opinion these date demonstrate clear NRM at postion 184, 223, 278, 301, 311, and 387. In addition there are less obvious NRM present in the sequences, namely 93 and 230.

---

Lets look at position 184.The only discernible pattern at that position is that there is no pattern. Most of the sequences have a "T" at that position. Bonobo has a "C", common chimp has an "A". Feldhofer has a "C", insert has an "A".What about this distribution demonstrates non-randomness?At 223, We see an assortment of Ts and Cs.What of it?Seems NRM's evidence is as arbitrary as its definition .

quote:

---

Furthermore, a careful look at the ancient human (LM3) and modern human (CRV) demonstrate 9 nucleotides differences. LM3 has been dated at 62 Ky BP. Counting the differences between modern human and chimp demonstrates 24 differences, and that would make a common ancestor around 150 Ky before present. Easy as that, you don't even require a calculator for such analysis.
Similarly, the presented bonobo demonstrates 29 differences compared to human, and the Neandertahler (Feldhofer) demonstrates 27 differences. So, they all have a common ancestor around 150 kY before present, according to these data.

​

Or NOT Dr PAge?

---

According to your simplistic 'analysis' of a ~350 bp fragment of mtDNA, sure.Let us ask these questions:1. How big is the mitochondrial genome?(ans: ~ 16,000 bp)2. How big is the human genome?(ans. ~ 3,200,000,000 bp)3. How much of the mtGenome has been used in phylogenetic analyses of primates?(ans.: all of it. I just did it this afternoon).4. How much of the nuclear genome has been used in such studies?(ans.: all of the single-copy genome(DNA-DNA hybridization); individual loci, on the order of 60-70 kp or more. I personally have done about ~14,000 bp)5. What happens when much more extensive datasets are used?See, for one example:Mol Phylogenet Evol 2001 Jan;18(1):14-25Catarrhine phylogeny: noncoding DNA evidence for a diphyletic origin of the mangabeys and for a human-chimpanzee clade.Page SL, Goodman M.Maximum-parsimony and maximum-likelihood analyses of two of the serum albumin gene's intron sequences from 24 catarrhines (17 cercopithecid and 7 hominid) and 3 platyrrhines (an outgroup to the catarrhines) yielded results on catarrhine phylogeny that are congruent with those obtained with noncoding sequences of the gamma(1)-gamma(2) globin gene genomic region, using only those flanking and intergenic gamma sequences that in their history were not involved in gene conversion. A data set that combined in a tandem alignment these two sets of noncoding DNA orthologues from the two unlinked nuclear genomic loci yielded the following confirmatory results both on the course of cladistic branchings (the divisions in a cladistic classification of higher ranking taxa into subordinate taxa) and on the ages of the taxa (each taxon representing a clade). The cercopithecid branch of catarrhines, at approximately 14 Ma (mega annum) divided into Colobini (the leaf-eating Old World monkeys) and Cercopithecini (the cheek-pouched Old World monkeys). At approximately 10-9 Ma, Colobini divided into an African clade, Colobina, and an Asian clade, Presbytina; similarly at this time level, Cercopithecini divided into Cercopithecina (the guenons, patas, and green monkeys) and Papionina. At approximately 7 Ma, Papionina divided into Macaca, Cercocebus, and Papio. At approximately 5 Ma, Cercocebus divided subgenerically into C. (Cercocebus) for terrestrial mangabeys and C. (Mandrillus) for drills and mandrills, while at approximately 4 Ma Papio divided subgenerically into P. (Locophocebus) for arboreal mangabeys, P. (Theropithecus) for gelada baboons, and P. (Papio) for hamadryas baboons. In turn, the hominid branch of catarrhines at approximately 18 Ma divided into Hylobatini (gibbons and siamangs) and Hominini; at approximately 14 Ma, Hominini divided into Pongina (orangutans) and Hominina; at approximately 7 Ma, Hominina divided into Gorilla and Homo; and at approximately 6-5 Ma, Homo divided subgenerically into H. (Homo) for humans and H. (Pan) for common and bonobo chimpanzees. Rates of noncoding DNA evolution were assessed using a data set of noncoding gamma sequence orthologues that represented 18 catarrhines, 16 platyrrhines, 3 non-anthropoid primates (2 tarsiers and 1 strepsirhine), and rabbit (as outgroup to the primates). Results obtained with this data set revealed a faster rate of nucleotide substitutions in the early primate lineage to the anthropoid (platyrrhine/catarrhine) ancestor than from that ancestor to the present. Rates were slower in catarrhines than in platyrrhines, slower in the cheek-pouched than in the leaf-eating cercopithecids, and slower yet in the hominids. On relating these results to data on brain sizes and life spans, it was suggested that life-history strategies that favor intelligence and longer life spans also select for decreases in de novo mutation rates.Germane to this discussion, I took Borger’s simplistic pseudo-analysis and used his results to see if they had merit when applied to larger datasets.One thing that can be done to test a method is to use a known, then use the same method on an unknown; or if the unknown had been tested first, use the method on a ‘known’ and see if the results have merit.In Borger’s world, a simple proportion of nucleotide substitutions in a small fragment of mtDNA is sufficient ‘evidence’ that an entire framework is falsified.Borger explains:ancient human (LM3) and modern human (CRV) demonstrate 9 nucleotides differences. LM3 has been dated at 62 Ky BP. Counting the differences between modern human and chimp demonstrates 24 differences, and that would make a common ancestor around 150 Ky before presentSounds reasonable, right?Lets set up a simple ratio that we can use to extrapolate this method’s results to other issues.9 nucleotide changes = 62,000 years (9/62,000)
so 9/62,000 = 24/xSolving for x, we get roughly 165,000 years (maybe Borger should have used that calculator after all?).So, I decided to take Borger’s results and apply to two other datasets.First, I went to Pubmed and downloaded several mtDNA sequences from the D-loop hypervariable region I. These included human samples, chimp, baboon, and Neanderthal.This dataset was similar in length to the dataset used in the Adcock paper that Borger cites.Comparing one of the human with one of the chimp sequences, I discovered a difference of 48 nucleotides (it was, afterall, the hypervariable region).This gives us the following proportion:48 (nucleotide changes) in 150,000 years, ala Borger.We can then set up a simple equation to see if there is equivalence.Borger:9/62,000=24/150,000 truedoes 9/62,000 (or 24/150,000) = 48/150,000?9/62,000 = 48/xx= 330,666;24/150,000 = 48/xx = 300,000False.Gee — what could be going on?Localized fluctuations in mutation rate maybe?Ridiculously simplistic "analysis" and unwarranted extrapolation?Demonstration of the shortcomings of pontificating in areas that you have limited knowledge in?All of the above?Well, then I went ahead and downloaded the entire mtGenome for human, chimp, mouse.Using the same proportion (ala Borger), I tested it against the entire mitochondrial genome differences.The human and chimp genomes differed by 1351 bp in this alignment.
Human and mouse by 4,436.The overall lengths were not the same, so I truncated the alignment to 14, 789 bp.So, what is the date inferred using the Borger method using the entire mtGenome?24/150,000 = 1351/xx = 8,443,7508,443,750 does not equal 150,000There is not equivalence, Borger’s method is flawed.Just for fun, let’s see where Borger’s method places the split between mouse and human:24/150,000 = 4436/xx = 27,725,000 mya.Fossil evidence indicates a split between Galagos and other primates at 63 million years ago.I guess all that will need changing, too.Right Pete?Adios, Scheisskopf.And this time, I really hope for good.

SLPx writes:
...Adios, Scheisskopf.And this time, I really hope for good.-------------------------------------Politeness is obviously not your strongpoint....does Admin allow people to call other people "shithead"??? I hope not!------------------
"You can no more alter God than a pebble can alter the rhythm of the Pacific."

Dear Dr Page,I quickly skimmed down your analysis. For a layman it looks like science, that's true. However, I will show the board what tricks you apply and why they are highy questionable. As promissed, my dear friend, I will beat your nonsense.You've just found a friend who will join you in all the boards you participate in See you soon, Panomo pagensis Now I go for a morning swim,Best wishes,
Peter"I like it when the objecter of Truth gets mad"

Dr Page,Just out of curiousity, will you also try to use Dr Borger's calculation to measure the split between humans and Drosophila?That would be interesting ^^

Dear Page,Borger explains:ancient human (LM3) and modern human (CRV) demonstrate 9 nucleotides differences. LM3 has been dated at 62 Ky BP. Counting the differences between modern human and chimp demonstrates 24 differences, and that would make a common ancestor around 150 Ky before presentPage: Sounds reasonable, right? Lets set up a simple ratio that we can use to extrapolate this method’s results to other issues.PB: Here we already start to understand how much understanding Page has about genomes. He must be still under the (ancient) impression that all positions in a genome are equivalent. Well, --as is known in the 21st century-- they are not. Although, Page doesn't seem to be aware of this he is able to show some maths tricks.Page: 9 nucleotide changes = 62,000 years (9/62,000)
so 9/62,000 = 24/x
Solving for x, we get roughly 165,000 years (maybe Borger should have used that calculator after all?).PB: That was my claim isn't it? If you had read the article you would have known that the age was dated 62 +/- 6 Ky BP, meaning 150-170 Ky BP. You are nitpicking.Page: So, I decided to take Borger’s results and apply to two other datasets.PB: So YOU decided? Based on what assumptions? That all mtDNA regions are equivalent in (ancient) human, chimp, and Neanderthaler.Page: First, I went to Pubmed and downloaded several mtDNA sequences from the D-loop hypervariable region I. These included human samples, chimp, baboon, and Neanderthal.This dataset was similar in length to the dataset used in the Adcock paper that Borger cites.PB: Similar in lenght? So that is what DNA is about: LENGTH. Probably in your mind DNA is only lenght, Dr Page, but in my opinion DNA is not at all about length. It is about a coded function. FUNCTION.Page: Comparing one of the human with one of the chimp sequences, I discovered a difference of 48 nucleotides (it was, afterall, the hypervariable region).PB: So, this is the region that supposed to change with the highest rate, I presume. Than it would be the best region to compare, since according to your paradigm it changes so fast since there is NO constraint on this region I presume.Page: This gives us the following proportion: 48 (nucleotide changes) in 150,000 years, ala Borger. We can then set up a simple equation to see if there is equivalence.9/62,000=24/150,000 truedoes 9/62,000 (or 24/150,000) = 48/150,000?9/62,000 = 48/xx= 330,666;24/150,000 = 48/xx = 300,000False.PB: And here we see Dr Page simple assumption that all regions of the mtDNA are equivalent are completely, entirely wrong. He demonstrates that the distinct mtDNA regions are not equivalent so you can not interchange them. If you wanna say somthing on this region you also have to demonstrate this region in ancient human LM3, Dr PAge, since now all you do is comapring apples and oranges. (I know that is allowed in evolutionism, but not in maths. It is first thing you learn in maths class)Page: Gee — what could be going on?Localized fluctuations in mutation rate maybe?PB: NRM?Page: Ridiculously simplistic "analysis" and unwarranted extrapolation?PB: The only one that introduced ridiculous oversimplification assumptions on DNA is Dr Page himself. He thinks that DNA is length. Well, Dr Page, DNA is NOT about length. For you: DNA is coded information. Welcome to the 21st century.Page: Demonstration of the shortcomings of pontificating in areas that you have limited knowledge in? All of the above?PB: Shortcomings? You demonstrated again that your discipline is completely, entirely outdated. Based on completely false assumptions.Page: Well, then I went ahead and downloaded the entire mtGenome for human, chimp, mouse.PB: And here we see LIVE the biggest trick present in the evolutionary toolkit. And Page doesn't even try to obscure it. Simply assume that human, chimp and mouse have a common ancestor.DEAR PAGE, from here your analysis is completely IRRELEVANT to our discussion. I know you want to compare apples and oranges, but I think it is not allowed. Here our paradigms clash. I’ve already demonstrated that before. I demonstrated that according to the known sequences in ancient human, chimp must have a common ancestor around 150 Ky before present. You CONFIRMED that.
For the rest your analysis is based upon assumption I do not agree with, since they are not present in my paradigm.Page: Well, then I went ahead and downloaded the entire mtGenome for human, chimp, mouse.
Using the same proportion (ala Borger), I tested it against the entire mitochondrial genome differences.
The human and chimp genomes differed by 1351 bp in this alignment.
Human and mouse by 4,436.
The overall lengths were not the same, so I truncated the alignment to 14, 789 bp.
So, what is the date inferred using the Borger method using the entire mtGenome?
24/150,000 = 1351/x
x = 8,443,750
8,443,750 does not equal 150,000
There is not equivalence, Borger’s method is flawed.PB: No, Borger demonstrated your oversimplification on DNA. DNA=lenght: don't let me laugh, Page. You demonstrate that DNA regions are not equivalent and therefor cannot simply be put on a pile.Page: Just for fun, let’s see where Borger’s method places the split between mouse and human:
24/150,000 = 4436/x
x = 27,725,000 mya.
Fossil evidence indicates a split between Galagos and other primates at 63 million years ago.PB: Evidence? The usual evo-gibberish you mean.Page: I guess all that will need changing, too.Right Pete?Adios, Scheisskopf.PB: If you wanna continue in German, I don’t mind, I speak and write German, too. Page: And this time, I really hope for good.PB: We will meet again, since I will beat your nonsense on all fronts.Best wishes,
Peter

Dear Sonnike,I think Page tries to get expelled from the board, since he is loosing all discussions.
But what would the board be without Page?
If Page leaves the board, they'd better change their site into 'Creation versus evolutionism'. Best wishes,
Peter

quote:

---

Sonn:
Politeness is obviously not your strongpoint....does Admin allow people to call other people "shithead"??? I hope not!

---

Intellect and common sense are obviously not yours.All humans are animals, so all animals are human!Brilliant!Go back to your hole, Son.

PB:
I think Page tries to get expelled from the board, since he is loosing all discussions.
But what would the board be without Page?
If Page leaves the board, they'd better change their site
into 'Creation versus evolutionism'It would appear that Borgers lithium is out again....

quote:

---

Borger explains:

​

ancient human (LM3) and modern human (CRV) demonstrate 9 nucleotides differences. LM3 has been dated at 62 Ky BP. Counting the differences between modern human and chimp demonstrates 24 differences, and that would make a common ancestor around 150 Ky before present

​

Page: Sounds reasonable, right? Lets set up a simple ratio that we can use to extrapolate this method’s results to other issues.

​

PB: Here we already start to understand how much understanding Page has about genomes. He must be still under the (ancient) impression that all positions in a genome are equivalent. Well, --as is known in the 21st century-- they are not. Although, Page doesn't seem to be aware of this he is able to show some maths tricks.

---

You start off with a lie. This shold be good.By the way, Petey - if what you write is so true, why on earth did you insist that that one ~350 bp locus in the Adcock paper is somehow superior to all others? Why is the results form that locus more 'right' than any other? Do tell...

quote:

---

Page: 9 nucleotide changes = 62,000 years (9/62,000)
so 9/62,000 = 24/x
Solving for x, we get roughly 165,000 years (maybe Borger should have used that calculator after all?).

​

PB: That was my claim isn't it? If you had read the article you would have known that the age was dated 62 +/- 6 Ky BP, meaning 150-170 Ky BP. You are nitpicking.

---

No, I am just trying to follow your.. "logic"...

quote:

---

Page: So, I decided to take Borger’s results and apply to two other datasets.

​

PB: So YOU decided? Based on what assumptions? That all mtDNA regions are equivalent in (ancient) human, chimp, and Neanderthaler.

---

No, I decided to use the same "logic" you did - that the numbers of base substitutions in a locus can be used to infer divergence times. If the ratio in one locus can be used in that way, as you did, it stands to reason that the same ratio should be applicable to the entire mt genome and with some tweaking, the nuclear genome as well. If not, then your "analysis" was worthless from the word go.

quote:

---

Page: First, I went to Pubmed and downloaded several mtDNA sequences from the D-loop hypervariable region I. These included human samples, chimp, baboon, and Neanderthal.

​

This dataset was similar in length to the dataset used in the Adcock paper that Borger cites.

​

PB: Similar in lenght? So that is what DNA is about: LENGTH. Probably in your mind DNA is only lenght, Dr Page, but in my opinion DNA is not at all about length. It is about a coded function. FUNCTION.

---

You really are beligerant and acting quite bizarre. If you are so concerned with function, why on earth did you make such a big deal about the nucleotide differences in the Adcock paper's locus? Can you not even remain consistent in your argument for one post?

quote:

---

Page: Comparing one of the human with one of the chimp sequences, I discovered a difference of 48 nucleotides (it was, afterall, the hypervariable region).

​

PB: So, this is the region that supposed to change with the highest rate, I presume. Than it would be the best region to compare, since according to your paradigm it changes so fast since there is NO constraint on this region I presume.

---

Gee, surely a genetics expert like you knows all about the HV regions?
The problem with hypervariability, as I am sure an expert like you must know, is that it is subject to back mutation. So it is only useful for certain timeframes.
However, since you made no mention of any of this in your brilliant analysis, I did not either. I assumed you knew all about it. Guess I was wrong.

quote:

---

Page: This gives us the following proportion: 48 (nucleotide changes) in 150,000 years, ala Borger. We can then set up a simple equation to see if there is equivalence.

​

9/62,000=24/150,000 true

​

does 9/62,000 (or 24/150,000) = 48/150,000?

​

9/62,000 = 48/x

​

x= 330,666;

​

24/150,000 = 48/x

​

x = 300,000

​

False.

​

PB: And here we see Dr Page simple assumption that all regions of the mtDNA are equivalent are completely, entirely wrong. He demonstrates that the distinct mtDNA regions are not equivalent so you can not interchange them. If you wanna say somthing on this region you also have to demonstrate this region in ancient human LM3, Dr PAge, since now all you do is comapring apples and oranges. (I know that is allowed in evolutionism, but not in maths. It is first thing you learn in maths class)

---

I don't know what "maths" are. But I was proving a point. I see such subtle things are lost on you.
If there are such differences WITHIN the mt Genome, why on earth would you insist that one ~350 bp locus trumps analysis of other regions of the mt Genome or the nuclear genome as well?Someone else, Peter I think, mentioned that you seem to have this tunnel vision when discussing things.How right he is.

quote:

---

Page: Gee — what could be going on?

​

Localized fluctuations in mutation rate maybe?

​

PB: NRM?

---

So it is NRM that causes the hypervariability in the HVRs? Intriguing... Funny - I have seen nothing about that in the literature...

quote:

---

Page: Ridiculously simplistic "analysis" and unwarranted extrapolation?

​

PB: The only one that introduced ridiculous oversimplification assumptions on DNA is Dr Page himself. He thinks that DNA is length. Well, Dr Page, DNA is NOT about length. For you: DNA is coded information. Welcome to the 21st century.

---

DNA is length? What are you talking about? Do you even know?I mentioned the length of the locus I used to show that it was about the same size as the Adcock locus. Is that so terribly hard for you to get? Or are you just tossing out Red Herrings to cover your failed "analysis"?
Your bizarre - and quite misplaced, not to mention totally irrelevant - strawman is duly noted.

quote:

---

Page: Demonstration of the shortcomings of pontificating in areas that you have limited knowledge in? All of the above?

​

PB: Shortcomings? You demonstrated again that your discipline is completely, entirely outdated. Based on completely false assumptions.

---

My, you sure can extrapolate things that ARE NOT THERE. Must be like those mythical creatons. You just make stuff up as you see fit.
What assumptions are you talking about? I extrapolated YOUR numbers and methods.I guess you are too deluded ot see even that. It is funny - you are not the first creationist to be wholly unable to see their own arguments thrown back in their face, nor are you the first to argue against it.

quote:

---

Page: Well, then I went ahead and downloaded the entire mtGenome for human, chimp, mouse.

​

PB: And here we see LIVE the biggest trick present in the evolutionary toolkit. And Page doesn't even try to obscure it. Simply assume that human, chimp and mouse have a common ancestor.

---

How else am I to test your methods? Are you trying to pull a switcheroo now?
Yet another demonstration of your ignorance - the "assumption" of human - ape shared ancestry is warranted by many lines of evidence.
Your true colors are getting brighter and brighter.Whats next? Are you going to explain to us all that only 16,000 Kinds were on the ark?

quote:

---

DEAR PAGE, from here your analysis is completely IRRELEVANT to our discussion. I know you want to compare apples and oranges, but I think it is not allowed. Here our paradigms clash. I’ve already demonstrated that before. I demonstrated that according to the known sequences in ancient human, chimp must have a common ancestor around 150 Ky before present. You CONFIRMED that.

---

You are an incompetent zealot, frankly.
You have decide dto totally IGNORE my solid refutation of your quackery - AGAIN. Do you really want us - well, Sonnike, at least - to believe that your extrapolation from a ~350 bp mt DNA locus is more informative, all encompassing, and trumps an analysis of the ENTIRE mitochondrial genome? Are you for real? Are you sane?
I confirmed that your analysis was flawed and overly simplistic. Now, you are simply handwaving away a much, much larger analysis that cements the flaws in yours.You are a crank and a charaltan, I have little doubt of that.

quote:

---

For the rest your analysis is based upon assumption I do not agree with, since they are not present in my paradigm.

---

Then how was it that you did your analysis in the first place? Creationists always like to pullout that gem when their back is against the wall.
I'm eagerly awaiting the bible verses...

quote:

---

Page: Well, then I went ahead and downloaded the entire mtGenome for human, chimp, mouse.
Using the same proportion (ala Borger), I tested it against the entire mitochondrial genome differences.
The human and chimp genomes differed by 1351 bp in this alignment.
Human and mouse by 4,436.
The overall lengths were not the same, so I truncated the alignment to 14, 789 bp.
So, what is the date inferred using the Borger method using the entire mtGenome?
24/150,000 = 1351/x
x = 8,443,750
8,443,750 does not equal 150,000
There is not equivalence, Borger’s method is flawed.

​

PB: No, Borger demonstrated your oversimplification on DNA. DNA=lenght: don't let me laugh, Page. You demonstrate that DNA regions are not equivalent and therefor cannot simply be put on a pile.

---

You have a strange tendency to basically make stuff up.
What on earth are you talking about with this "DNA=length" crap? Do you even know? Or are you consciously making diversions?
If you are so concerned about function, what is the function of the locus from the Adcock paper? And why didn't you mention it?

quote:

---

Page: Just for fun, let’s see where Borger’s method places the split between mouse and human:
24/150,000 = 4436/x
x = 27,725,000 mya.
Fossil evidence indicates a split between Galagos and other primates at 63 million years ago.

​

PB: Evidence? The usual evo-gibberish you mean.

---

Wow, Petey. You is so smart....You have come full circle. YOu started out sounding like a semi-rational, semi-literate 'professional' with a legitimate skepticism, now you are little more than a common gutter-cretin.
Pathetic.Predictable and pathetic.

quote:

---

Page: I guess all that will need changing, too.Right Pete?

​

Adios, Scheisskopf.

​

PB: If you wanna continue in German, I don’t mind, I speak and write German, too.

---

I should hope so.
Maybe that would be better, as you clearly cannot converse in the language of science.But, for that umpteenth time, I am done with you.This really took the cake. You display in this thread nearly every underhanded, sleazy, cretin trick (with the exception of out of context quoting!).What a waste of sperm.[This message has been edited by SLPx, 01-27-2003]

If I did my math correctly, according to borger, Anya,
human and drosophila split some time last week....

Please. I'm serious. I was expecting some time at the Jurassic...

slpx: "Intellect and common sense are obviously not yours.All humans are animals, so all animals are human!Brilliant!Go back to your hole, Son."
-----------------------------------You either don't understand english, or you are simply so deceitful that you keep mis-representing the truth. No further comment on that.perception of reality is usually not actual reality.S.------------------
"You can no more alter God than a pebble can alter the rhythm of the Pacific."

quote:

---

slpx: "Intellect and common sense are obviously not yours.
All humans are animals, so all animals are human!

​

Brilliant!

​

Go back to your hole, Son."
-----------------------------------

​

You either don't understand english, or you are simply so deceitful that you keep mis-representing the truth. No further comment on that.

​

perception of reality is usually not actual reality.

---

What is deceitful or misrepresntative about my quote of your "logic"?

slpx: "What is deceitful or misrepresntative about my quote of your logic?"
----------------That's not my logic, it was a caricature to show how ridiculous it is to think that we are just another animal. I know I know ...certain ambiguous dictionary definitions can easily apply to both humans and animals, but digging deeper, it is glaringly obvious to most people that humans are vastly different from animals.Regards,
S------------------
"You can no more alter God than a pebble can alter the rhythm of the Pacific."