Sorry Walter... (and Fred... and John Paul..)

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A few key changes in a single gene help explain why people can talk while mice and apes cannot, researchers said on Wednesday.The gene, called FOXP2, seems to be involved in the face and jaw movements necessary for speech, the researchers in Germany and Britain said.What is surprising is that the gene is so similar in animals ranging from mice to orangutans to chimpanzees, with a relatively small change having emerged--just as modern humans did--between 120,000 and 200,000 years ago, the researchers report in this week's online issue of the journal Nature...What was it Wally and Co. say - 500,000+ changes required?

Yawn....Yeah, Wally Kuckoo's baseless assertions are on 'solid' ground....yup... at least "500,000" changes required... yup... whatever...

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
So we just engineer those handful of changes into a chimp, easliy doable via mol biol today - and - walla - talking chimps! I know you don't believe that SLPx.

---

No, I don't. The article doesn't imply that, either.

quote:

---

Originally posted by John Paul:
Shrug, sigh. Nice misrepresentation SLP. That is your typical move.

---

Shrug.. sigh.. Gee - JAFC used to write similar hand waves at NAIG...
No misrepresentation at all, as usual. Just following cretin logic to its "logical" end.. I know that is frowned upon. Silly me.

quote:

---

For the record I was talking about Walter's assumptions pertaining to speech & language- ie that our alleged primitive ancestor from 10 million years ago didn't have those adaptations.

---

And? Did not Wally Kuckoo imply that such things required some huge number of adaptive changes to get the human condition? For the record, none of your links mentioned anything about it, and this article in fact indicates that some huge number in fact was probably not 'required.'

quote:

---

BTW you shouldn't do science by reading reports. The actual article on FOXP2 discusses speech impairments in humans....

---

LOl!Talk about projection!YOU should not 'do science' by:Linking to AiG articles
Linking to course syllabi
Linking to opinion pieces on other creationiswt sites
Conflating disparate notions
Talking about things you have no business talking about (e.g., phylogenetics)I am still waiting for your objective tests of your beliefs.And your evidence that Haldane's model applies to pre-human populations and how you know this and your objective tests of this.And so on...But that is a waste of time, isn't it? You just ignore the posts that blow your feeble grasp of science out of the water.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Peter:
What makes you think that animals other than humans don't
have a capacity for language just because they can't use
human languages ?

---

Good point.Carl Sagan asked in one of his books something like "Who among us speaks Dolphinese?"Human chauvenism shows up all over the palce.Chimps and other apes and, if I amnot mistaken, some monkeys show evidence of a developed Broca's area (motor speecch area), and fossil endocasts of Australopithecines indicate that they also had at least the beginnings of this area.I suspect that the gene in question may very well have some impact on this cortical area.

quote:

---

Originally posted by John Paul:
The fact that you misrepresented and almost always do, is obvious. Once again the links I provided were NOT about mutations.

---

I know that, have EXPLAINED that, and have indicated why I wrote what I did. That you have adopted the ReMine shuffle (cry 'Misrepresentation!' at every chance) does not surproise me.

quote:

---

They are about the fact that the alleged ancestor from 10 million years ago did NOT have those adaptations.

---

Maybe, maybe not. So where in those largely irrelevant links is it explained that some huge number of mutations is required to generate those traits - that is, afterall, why ReMine mentiones them. THAT is the crux of the issue.

quote:

---

The article did not indicate that some huge number was probably not required. It stated that there are more than that one gene that are responsible.

---

Oh, so it did not say that some huge number is not required, therefore, some huge number must BE required! Brilliant cretin logic!

quote:

---

The only waste of anything on this DB is you.

​

toodles scotty

---

Wow. That was a major zinger. You really got me with that one!I notice that you still have not provided any actual evidence that ReMine's bastardization of Haldane applies to ancestral primate populations.I notice that you have yet to provide any objective tests for any of your claims - implicit or explicit.I know why, of course.I also know why you abandoned the 'questions' thread...It must be tough to handle actually having your hat handed to you in such a public way.Or was it feeding you your lunch?[This message has been edited by SLPx, 08-21-2002]