Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
7 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,814 Year: 3,071/9,624 Month: 916/1,588 Week: 99/223 Day: 10/17 Hour: 6/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   molecular genetic evidence for a multipurpose genome
Mammuthus
Member (Idle past 6475 days)
Posts: 3085
From: Munich, Germany
Joined: 08-09-2002


Message 76 of 317 (21278)
11-01-2002 2:59 PM
Reply to: Message 73 by peter borger
10-31-2002 9:44 PM


quote:
Originally posted by peter borger:
dear Dr Page,
Everyone can see now that discussions with you do not lead anywhere, since you are unable to answer, or you distort my words and answer to that. Why, I wonder? To keep the hype alive? Of course! However, I know --and I demonstrated it several times and I can do it over and over again-- that the hype has fallen en will never stand again. Molecular biology is not in accord with the hype. Conclusion, there is no evolution and there has never been evolution. Get used to this new worldview, it will help you survive.
Best wishes,
Peter

++++++++++++++++
Evolution is still standing, you have not addressed SLPx's criticisms of your skewed and misdefined ZFX reference, you have not supported your own hypothesis, you are not even answering posts regarding your own hypothesis! So please don't pull the Wordswordsman tactic of claiming that it is a "sin" to argue with people who disagree with you as a way of dodging substantive questions that arise no matter how hostile you and SLPx are to each other. Quetzal and I have had most of our posts left unanswered by you recently....if I used your standard as you have just applied it to SLPx I could say..
"Everyone can see now that discussions with you do not lead anywhere, since you are unable to answer, or you distort my words and answer to that. Why, I wonder? To keep the hype alive? Of course! However, I know --and I demonstrated it several times and I can do it over and over again-- that the hype has fallen en will never stand again. Molecular biology is not in accord with the hype. Conclusion, there is no ALTERNATIVE TO EVOLUTION and there has never been A VIABLE ALTERNATIVE. Get used to this OLD worldview, it will help you survive. "
Oh wait, I can already say this

This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by peter borger, posted 10-31-2002 9:44 PM peter borger has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 87 by peter borger, posted 11-02-2002 12:16 AM Mammuthus has replied

  
derwood
Member (Idle past 1875 days)
Posts: 1457
Joined: 12-27-2001


Message 77 of 317 (21285)
11-01-2002 5:10 PM
Reply to: Message 73 by peter borger
10-31-2002 9:44 PM


quote:
Originally posted by peter borger:
dear Dr Page,
Everyone can see now that discussions with you do not lead anywhere,
"Everyone"? Don't you mean just you?
quote:
since you are unable to answer, or you distort my words and answer to that.
Please demosntrate that I have done so. Creationist religious nutrs like to lie about their opponants all the time. Thius is what you are doing here. Have you NOT repeatedly referred to the "ZFX/ZFY GENES"? And claimed that THE GENES have remained stable in hominoids for 20 millions years, thus falsifying NDT?
When in reality the very papers you cited indicated that only part of one exon had been sequenced?
That is not distortion at all. It is your own words coming back to bite you in the ass.
Did you not claim that the papers I cited refuting 'directed mutations' were in fact proof of them?
quote:
Why, I wonder? To keep the hype alive? Of course! However, I know --and I demonstrated it several times and I can do it over and over again-- that the hype has fallen en will never stand again. Molecular biology is not in accord with the hype. Conclusion, there is no evolution and there has never been evolution. Get used to this new worldview, it will help you survive.
Best wishes,
Peter
: J Pers Soc Psychol 1999 Dec;77(6):1121-34
Unskilled and unaware of it: how difficulties in recognizing one's own incompetence lead to inflated self-assessments.
Kruger J, Dunning D.
Department of Psychology, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York 14853-7601, USA. jkruger@s.psych.uiuc.edu
People tend to hold overly favorable views of their abilities in many social and intellectual domains. The authors suggest that this overestimation occurs, in part, because people who are unskilled in these domains suffer a dual burden: Not only do these people reach erroneous conclusions and make unfortunate choices, but their incompetence robs them of the metacognitive ability to realize it. Across 4 studies, the authors found that participants scoring in the bottom quartile on tests of humor, grammar, and logic grossly overestimated their test performance and ability. Although their test scores put them in the 12th percentile, they estimated themselves to be in the 62nd. Several analyses linked this miscalibration to deficits in metacognitive skill, or the capacity to distinguish accuracy from error. Paradoxically, improving the skills of participants, and thus increasing their metacognitive competence, helped them recognize the limitations of their abilities.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by peter borger, posted 10-31-2002 9:44 PM peter borger has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 82 by Fred Williams, posted 11-01-2002 7:30 PM derwood has replied
 Message 85 by peter borger, posted 11-01-2002 11:55 PM derwood has not replied

  
derwood
Member (Idle past 1875 days)
Posts: 1457
Joined: 12-27-2001


Message 78 of 317 (21286)
11-01-2002 5:14 PM
Reply to: Message 74 by peter borger
10-31-2002 10:24 PM


quote:
Originally posted by peter borger:
Dear Dr Page:
Your definition of a gene:
"Eukaryotic gene: a sequence of DNA that encodes one (or more) protein produts. consists of intronic (non-protein encoding) and exonic (protein encoding) portions. exons and introns are of variable lengths and number."
My comments:
No regulatory sequences included for expression?
Regulatory sequence is not expressed.
quote:
What is a gene that cannot be expressed? A junk gene?
A pseudogene is a gene that has suffered a debilitating mutation in its promoter. You asked for my definition of gene because apparentrly you do not knoiw that exons are only a part of a gene. You di dnot ask for expanded discussion of eukaryotic genes and their flanking regions.
If you even know what those are...
quote:
Sounds to me as a very oldfashioned definition.
Best Wishes
Peter
Well, I guess you must be Johnny on the spot with the definitons.
I wonder - does the new-fangled definiton that you apparently prefer indicate that the terms "gene" and "exon" are synonymous, as you have been using them?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by peter borger, posted 10-31-2002 10:24 PM peter borger has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 123 by peter borger, posted 11-05-2002 6:40 PM derwood has replied

  
derwood
Member (Idle past 1875 days)
Posts: 1457
Joined: 12-27-2001


Message 79 of 317 (21287)
11-01-2002 5:17 PM
Reply to: Message 71 by derwood
10-31-2002 1:06 PM


quote:
Originally posted by SLPx:
quote:
Originally posted by Fred Williams:
quote:
Mammuthus: They [cheetahs] have niether poor genetic content nor have they lost genetic information. They have reduced allelic variation in the population i.e. cheetah's almost monomorphic.
LOL! This is utter nonsense. Your two sentences are a contradiction. Maybe a citation you used earlier the same day will help:
An empirical genetic assessment of the severity of the northern elephant seal population bottleneck.
Weber DS, Stewart BS, Garza JC, Lehman N.
Department of Biological Sciences, University at Albany, State University of New York, 12222, USA.
A bottleneck in population size of a species is often correlated with a sharp reduction in genetic variation.
Do you believe no genetic information is lost after a bottleneck occurs? Why in the world would there be less genetic variation? Perhaps you deny the cheetah is the result of a bottleneck? If so, why are they almost monomorphic?
I really hope you admit your silly observation was flat wrong and move on.

Ahh - the semantics queen strikes!
Here's a poser for an information theory expert.
What impact on 'information' occurs in the following scenarios:
1) An insertion (mutation) ina gene results in an increase in gene exppression. The product is not altered, there is just more of it. This increase in product confers pesticide resistence.
2) A gene duplication results in a modified phenotype.
Is the 'information' in the above situations increased, decreased, or the same?
If the information remains the same or decreases, how does one explain the acquired phenotypic changes?
In any event, what is the relationship between "information" and phenotype?
A precise definition of information will be necessary to address these issues. The definiiton will need to be legitimate, applicable to biological systems (genomes), and accepted by those in the field.
Lacking such a definition of 'information' will be indicative that the presenter is simply engaging in just-so story telling.

One will notice that Fred Williams the young earth creationist electrician focuses on what he thinks are 'math erros' by evolutionists iunstead of addressing issues that he portrays himself as being an 'expert' in....
: J Pers Soc Psychol 1999 Dec;77(6):1121-34 Related Articles, Links
Unskilled and unaware of it: how difficulties in recognizing one's own incompetence lead to inflated self-assessments.
Kruger J, Dunning D.
Department of Psychology, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York 14853-7601, USA. jkruger@s.psych.uiuc.edu
People tend to hold overly favorable views of their abilities in many social and intellectual domains. The authors suggest that this overestimation occurs, in part, because people who are unskilled in these domains suffer a dual burden: Not only do these people reach erroneous conclusions and make unfortunate choices, but their incompetence robs them of the metacognitive ability to realize it. Across 4 studies, the authors found that participants scoring in the bottom quartile on tests of humor, grammar, and logic grossly overestimated their test performance and ability. Although their test scores put them in the 12th percentile, they estimated themselves to be in the 62nd. Several analyses linked this miscalibration to deficits in metacognitive skill, or the capacity to distinguish accuracy from error. Paradoxically, improving the skills of participants, and thus increasing their metacognitive competence, helped them recognize the limitations of their abilities.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by derwood, posted 10-31-2002 1:06 PM derwood has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 80 by peter borger, posted 11-01-2002 6:08 PM derwood has replied
 Message 100 by derwood, posted 11-04-2002 10:42 AM derwood has not replied

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


Message 80 of 317 (21295)
11-01-2002 6:08 PM
Reply to: Message 79 by derwood
11-01-2002 5:17 PM


Dear Dr Page,
That you are a really sad guy is once more demonstrated by:
"One will notice that Fred Williams the young earth creationist electrician focuses on what he thinks are 'math erros' by evolutionists iunstead of addressing issues that he portrays himself as being an 'expert' in...."
I feel sorry for you. Instead of follying on irrelevant stuff, demonstrate that you have a PhD. Till now you weren't able to show it.
Even if Fred is an electrician, his maths abilities are far superior to what you demonstrated till now. Proof that you deserve your PhD. Now you have the opportunity. Proof it!!!!
I also recommend: take a debating course.
Best wishes,
Peter

This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by derwood, posted 11-01-2002 5:17 PM derwood has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 97 by derwood, posted 11-04-2002 10:07 AM peter borger has not replied

  
Fred Williams
Member (Idle past 4855 days)
Posts: 310
From: Broomfield
Joined: 12-17-2001


Message 81 of 317 (21298)
11-01-2002 6:54 PM
Reply to: Message 75 by Mammuthus
11-01-2002 2:46 PM


quote:
M: I will gladly admit that you have absolutely no idea about you are talking about. Do you believe genes are lost from a species after a bottleneck or alleles?
All you can do is answer with a strawman? I never said genes were lost. Ever. It never ceases to amaze me the desperation of PhD evolutionists to avoid admitting a blatant mistake to preserve their pride (I think I read some time ago you have a PhD, I apologize if I’m wrong). I know full well the difference between a gene and an allele. Try to be less puffed up on yourself. I’m truly sorry a layman such as myself has to point out such an obvious fact to you.
quote:
What they have is a reduction in variants of the genes (hint they are diploid organisms) thus they do not have poor genetic content and they maintained the genes that make them cheetahs...they are monomorphic i.e. the gene copies are identical due the death of the individuals carrying the other variants and the population growing from the extremely small remaining (bottleneck) population.
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. But anyone with half a brain knows we can’t. We even get to cheat and use truncation selection, something that does not occur in nature, and we *still* will not be able to produce a St. Bernard. Now if you object to this analogy, explain why the poodle has suffered loss of genetic information and the cheetah hasn’t.
quote:
Learn some population genetics and stop wasting my time with your posts based on your incredible ignorance.
Learn to think outside your fantasy box and stop posting pure nonsense. Are you prepared to defend this ludicrous position, even if I find a PhD evolutionist to refute your nonsense? Hey Scott, I’m curious. Do you buy this nonsense? Tough spot you are in, eh? Do you reluctantly agree with your idol, or defend your colleague. Do you think the cheetah has not lost ANY genetic information from its pre-bottleneck parent population? This really ought to be fun to watch your reaction.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by Mammuthus, posted 11-01-2002 2:46 PM Mammuthus has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 89 by Quetzal, posted 11-02-2002 4:09 AM Fred Williams has replied
 Message 90 by Mammuthus, posted 11-04-2002 3:13 AM Fred Williams has not replied

  
Fred Williams
Member (Idle past 4855 days)
Posts: 310
From: Broomfield
Joined: 12-17-2001


Message 82 of 317 (21303)
11-01-2002 7:30 PM
Reply to: Message 77 by derwood
11-01-2002 5:10 PM


quote:
Everyone can see now that discussions with you do not lead anywhere,
"Everyone"? Don't you mean just you?
quote:
No Scott, EVERYONE I KNOW who encounters you. Your misrepresentations really get old, and it makes one wonder why anyone ever engages you in debate after a few exchanges with you. Maybe it’s a morbid curiosity with me or something.
Your hairsplit exon/gene thing with Peter Borger is simply a bald-faced misrepresentation. Nobody here appreciates it, I suspect even the evolutionists grow tired of your pure nonsense. Here is an abstract from PubMed, found it on the first search and I’m sure there are PLENTY more. Are you going to write these authors and ask them if they know the difference between a gene and an exon? Please consider some time in your life the option of not misrepresenting your opponent. It's becoming real hard to take you serious when you resort to such blatant nonsense.
Mol Cells 2000 Oct 31;10(5):512-8 Related Articles, Links
Evolution of the X-linked zinc finger gene and the Y-linked zinc finger gene in primates.
Kim HS, Takenaka O.
Division of Biological Sciences, College of Natural Sciences, Pusan National University, Korea. khs307@hyowon.cc.pusan.ac.kr
We have sequenced the partial exon of the zinc finger genes (ZFX and ZFY) in 5 hominoids, 2 Old World monkeys, 1 New World monkey, and 1 prosimian. Among these primate species, the percentage similarities of the nucleotide sequence of the ZFX gene were 96-100% and 91.2-99.7% for the ZFY gene. Of 397 sites in the ZFX and ZFY gene sequences, 20 for ZFX gene and 42 for ZFY gene were found to be variable. Substitution causes 1 amino acid change in ZFX, and 5 in ZFY, among 132 amino acids. The numbers of synonymous substitutions per site (Ks) between human and the chimpanzee, gorilla and orangutan for ZFY gene were 0.026, 0.033, and 0.085, respectively. In contrast, the Ks value between human and hominoid primates for the ZFX gene was 0.008 for each comparison. Comparison of the ZFX and ZFY genes revealed that the synonymous substitution levels were higher in hominoids than in other primates. The rates of synonymous substitution per site per year were higher in the ZFY exon than in the SRY exon, and higher in the ZFY exon than in the ZFY intron, in hominoid primates.
PMID: 11101141 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
(waiting to see if Page will email these authors about their horribly terrible, disgustingly improper use of the terms "ZFX gene" and "ZFY gene").

This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by derwood, posted 11-01-2002 5:10 PM derwood has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 98 by derwood, posted 11-04-2002 10:32 AM Fred Williams has not replied

  
monkenstick
Inactive Member


Message 83 of 317 (21304)
11-01-2002 7:39 PM


quote:
Mol Cells 2000 Oct 31;10(5):512-8 Related Articles, Links
Evolution of the X-linked zinc finger gene and the Y-linked zinc finger gene in primates.
Kim HS, Takenaka O.
Division of Biological Sciences, College of Natural Sciences, Pusan National University, Korea. khs307@hyowon.cc.pusan.ac.kr
We have sequenced the partial exon of the zinc finger genes (ZFX and ZFY) in 5 hominoids, 2 Old World monkeys, 1 New World monkey, and 1 prosimian. Among these primate species, the percentage similarities of the nucleotide sequence of the ZFX gene were 96-100% and 91.2-99.7% for the ZFY gene. Of 397 sites in the ZFX and ZFY gene sequences, 20 for ZFX gene and 42 for ZFY gene were found to be variable. Substitution causes 1 amino acid change in ZFX, and 5 in ZFY, among 132 amino acids. The numbers of synonymous substitutions per site (Ks) between human and the chimpanzee, gorilla and orangutan for ZFY gene were 0.026, 0.033, and 0.085, respectively. In contrast, the Ks value between human and hominoid primates for the ZFX gene was 0.008 for each comparison. Comparison of the ZFX and ZFY genes revealed that the synonymous substitution levels were higher in hominoids than in other primates. The rates of synonymous substitution per site per year were higher in the ZFY exon than in the SRY exon, and higher in the ZFY exon than in the ZFY intron, in hominoid primates.
(emphasis changed)
in this case, because borger is discussing the amount of change in a sequence, its actually rather important to know whether its the entire gene or a single exo

Replies to this message:
 Message 84 by peter borger, posted 11-01-2002 11:49 PM monkenstick has not replied

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


Message 84 of 317 (21313)
11-01-2002 11:49 PM
Reply to: Message 83 by monkenstick
11-01-2002 7:39 PM


Dear Monkenstick,
This is the article we are discussing and the focus is on the ZFX exon, not the ZFY as you highlighted. However, I have a copy of this article from dr Kim since I wanted to have a look at the exon sequences the authors compared, since the 0.008% doesn't say anything to about the molecular mechanism. I wanted to see which nucleotide was affected. Unfortunately, these data are not shown in the paper, only the percentages.
Best wishes,
Peter

This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by monkenstick, posted 11-01-2002 7:39 PM monkenstick has not replied

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


Message 85 of 317 (21314)
11-01-2002 11:55 PM
Reply to: Message 77 by derwood
11-01-2002 5:10 PM


Dear dr Page,
You never responded to my comments on the ZFY region. The only response I've had was Percipient's and it was meaningless. So, if you wanna discuss this topic in detail, I have no problems with that. For me it is just another little exercise in contemporary biology. And that's my job, I can do it on the side.
Talking about unskilled. It was you who told me that you were an anatomist by education, so give me a good reason why you are allowed to write on evolutionary topics. At least I am a biologist by educations and so I am allowed to write on evolutionary topics. It was also you who wasn't up to date with contemporary biology (remember the histon code?). And your current actions......speak for themselves.
Best wishes,
Peter
[This message has been edited by peter borger, 11-02-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by derwood, posted 11-01-2002 5:10 PM derwood has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 92 by Mammuthus, posted 11-04-2002 3:26 AM peter borger has replied

  
monkenstick
Inactive Member


Message 86 of 317 (21315)
11-02-2002 12:06 AM


my mistake

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


Message 87 of 317 (21316)
11-02-2002 12:16 AM
Reply to: Message 76 by Mammuthus
11-01-2002 2:59 PM


Et tu, mammuthus?
You say:
Conclusion, there is no ALTERNATIVE TO EVOLUTION and there has never been A VIABLE ALTERNATIVE. Get used to this OLD worldview, it will help you survive.
I say:
You are wrong, there is an alternative, but you don't want this alternative since it doesn't correspond with your personal worldview. Therefore, nobody else outside the field of evolutionism is allowed to say something about evolutionism and that is how it is kept alive and propagated. It is nothing but a meme. But you know that it has fallen, Mammuthus, I've shown you how to falsify it. Of course, you can always claim that space-aliens are involved (as Dr Page likes it).
Best wishes,
peter

This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by Mammuthus, posted 11-01-2002 2:59 PM Mammuthus has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 91 by Mammuthus, posted 11-04-2002 3:22 AM peter borger has not replied

  
monkenstick
Inactive Member


Message 88 of 317 (21325)
11-02-2002 2:38 AM


quote:
Of course, you can always claim that space-aliens are involved
or magical invisible particles called creatons

  
Quetzal
Member (Idle past 5872 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 89 of 317 (21326)
11-02-2002 4:09 AM
Reply to: Message 81 by Fred Williams
11-01-2002 6:54 PM


quote:
I never said genes were lost.
Are you sure you never implied this? I invite your attention to this bit:
quote:
Do you believe no genetic information is lost after a bottleneck occurs? Why in the world would there be less genetic variation?
Perhaps the problem is you haven't defined your terms. What is, in your definition, "genetic information"? How do you detect/quantify its "loss" (or gain, for that matter)? How is it lost without loss of genes? Is there some other way of losing information? If so, what?
Mammuthus, however, never said genes were lost - he asked if you believe so, since your entire point rests on "loss of information" whatever that is.
quote:
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.
Now this is an amazing departure. Please show specifically where Mammuthus even mentioned dogs. Let alone discussed the derivation of a St. Bernard from a poodle. Are you capable of rational discussion, or just killing strawmen? It's actually quite easy to "claim" that a genetic bottleneck doesn't cause "loss of information" since no one has defined what that means... And I'd be willing to bet Mammuthus has a WHOLE lot more understanding of pop gen than you do - at least going by what you've shown so far.
Spare us the infantile ad hominems. Evcforum isn't whatever childish creationist board you apparently usually frequent.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by Fred Williams, posted 11-01-2002 6:54 PM Fred Williams has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 101 by Fred Williams, posted 11-04-2002 11:01 AM Quetzal has replied

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


Message 90 of 317 (21485)
11-04-2002 3:13 AM
Reply to: Message 81 by Fred Williams
11-01-2002 6:54 PM


All you can do is answer with a strawman? I never said genes were lost. Ever. It never ceases to amaze me the desperation of PhD evolutionists to avoid admitting a blatant mistake to preserve their pride (I think I read some time ago you have a PhD, I apologize if I’m wrong). I know full well the difference between a gene and an allele. Try to be less puffed up on yourself. I’m truly sorry a layman such as myself has to point out such an obvious fact to you.
M: LOL!!! I am puffed up? Considering you complete ignorance about the subject you are debating it is you who should deflate your ego. Your personal attacks and claims that all questios to you are strawmen demonstrate the paucity of you knowledge and your inability to support your stupid claims.
FW:
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.
M: Oh so you "Dr." Williams are in a position to evaluate Ph.D's in genetics although you are completely ignorant of the subject...perhaps you could use a spell back in kindergarten.
FW:
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. But anyone with half a brain knows we can’t. We even get to cheat and use truncation selection, something that does not occur in nature, and we *still* will not be able to produce a St. Bernard. Now if you object to this analogy, explain why the poodle has suffered loss of genetic information and the cheetah hasn’t.
M: Poor Freddy Fred boy Since you cannot answer my questions you have to make up statements that I never made. LOL!!!
Since you would rather trade insults with me as opposed to anwering the question posed to you I am not surprised that you pulled the last paragraph out of your fantasy world. Do you think that cheetah's have more or less genes than before the bottleneck? Define allelic variation. If you cannot you should keep your mouth shut regarding the accuracy of my statements.
FW:
Learn to think outside your fantasy box and stop posting pure nonsense. Are you prepared to defend this ludicrous position, even if I find a PhD evolutionist to refute your nonsense? Hey Scott, I’m curious. Do you buy this nonsense? Tough spot you are in, eh? Do you reluctantly agree with your idol, or defend your colleague. Do you think the cheetah has not lost ANY genetic information from its pre-bottleneck parent population? This really ought to be fun to watch your reaction.
M: Learn to think Fred. You obviously cannot get beyond your religios zealotry to actually form logical thought in your brain. Scott if free to agree or disagree with me.....my guess is he will also get a laugh out of your silly posts.
Have a nice day and stay off the drugs..or at least lower the dosage

This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by Fred Williams, posted 11-01-2002 6:54 PM Fred Williams 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