SIMPLE common anscestors had fewer but MORE COMPLEX systems: genomics

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fred Williams:

quote:

---

LOL!
No, Williams, there are over 900 species of bat.

---

​

ROTFL! Yet another Page hairsplit.

---

"Hairsplit"? You said - what was it - 32 species? There are ove 900. That you consider that a 'hairsplit' is indicative of your self-delusion.

quote:

---

I can just hear you going na na na na na, na.

---

No, I am going "That Williams, what an ignornat punk."Thats what I am 'going.'

quote:

---

Scott, you are showing your desperation again to latch on to such trivialness.

---

Yes, trivialness.I guess the fact that you have been ignoring my other posts is just a'trivial' oversight on your behalf.Though I must say that your blow-off of the latest in a long line of "directed mutation" debunkers was not only predicted, but was comically shallow, to boot.Trivial, indeed.

quote:

---

Not being a bat expert, I qualified my number with at least and over because it was based on what little I scrounged up on the internet. It didn’t matter how high the number was, the fact it was at least 32 served my point well. I am glad that Randy provided the right number. It aided my point even more, and by golly I lernt seomthin.

---

LOL!Damn, the equivocation and desperate face-saving attempt from the cretin is incredible.. Amazing...."At least"... Yes, the earth is "at least" 500 miles around.Whats that? it is 24,000 miles around?Oh, please stop the hairsplitting!What a friggin joke, the cretin intellect is.

quote:

---

What you refuse to acknowledge is the huge disparity between 23K and 5-50M. Quetzal’s argument was based on a flawed assumption that was several orders of magnitude off, yet you remain true to form and still defend it. You go guy! Loyalty to the cause at all costs![

---

Funny, I do not recall commenting on anything Quetzal wrote. Please show where I did.However, your numbers seem fairly arbitrary and, frankly, made up. Your link didn't help you any, since there is no evidene of an Ark of any sort to begin with; no evidence for 'original kinds'; none for 'original kinds' producing all sorts of new species in short time periods via losing information; no evidence for how all of the alleles that must have been present in these superkinds went unexprtessed; etc. etc.Your house of cards was blown down by a hurricane years ago, but you still keep claiming that it is an impenetrable fortress...Of course, the projection is again palpable:"Loyalty to the cause at all costs"Indeed -
"Here Peter, smoochie smoochie."
"Oh, your MPG is so keen, why it gives me an erection. I will ignore that it runs counter to YECism cult beliefs, because it is anti-evo..."Oh brother...Still waiting for the lab reports showing 'new information' being created ex nihilo via supernatural means.Still waiting for the lab observations of original kinds producing a multitude of species in short times.Still waiting ....[This message has been edited by SLPx, 11-22-2002]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fred Williams:

​

Oh please. Like I said, hairsplit... but I didn't expect this specific hairsplit from you. See my comments to Page, who appears to be a bad influence on some of you. Do you want provocative, reasonable debate, or silly nonsense?

---

Apparewntly, as we are replying to YOUR posts, we all want silly nonsense, which is all one gets from creationists pontificating on areas that they have no knowledge in, as demonstrated by their inability to substantively support their many dubious and often patently ridiculous claims.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fred Williams:

quote:

---

This is almost too silly for words. Okay, tell me again your rationale for excluding insects, plants, fresh-water fish, etc from your "kinds"?

---

​

This is your way of avoiding the fact you were orders of magnitude off? The Bible did not require insects, plants, fresh-water fish, etc.

---

As the veracity of the bible is in question, it would behoove you to supply some evidence that does not rely upon millenia old plagiarised fairy tales.So, if the bible does not 'require' these other creatures, please tell us where in the bible these other things are accounted for.If there is no biblical passage that states something like "The Lord God, being a malevolent but whimsical God, magically protected all creatures not on the ark from the turmoil and hardships that He had created for them."if there is nothing liek that, then you will have to do better than blabbering on about the bible "not requiring it" and dropping it as if it were irrelevant.

quote:

---

Your argument was based on what the Bible required on the ark. How these non-ark organisms survived outside the ark is another debate. Such is a fair question, and a good discussion, that has been discussed many times.

---

And no doubt hand-waved and ad hoc'd away...

quote:

---

The point is, it’s another topic. Your original claim requiring the ark to somehow accommodate the originators of 10 million species was a fallacious argument that needs to be put to rest.

---

As is the ark myth itself.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mammuthus:
Don't know what you are talking about Peter..the Nature Genetics paper with 359 chimps, all 3 sequenced neandertals and 5530 humans show NO overlap in sequence diversity between the neanderal-human clade and chimps.

​

Nat Genet 2000 Oct;26(2):144-6 Related Articles, Links
A view of Neandertal genetic diversity.
Krings M, Capelli C, Tschentscher F, Geisert H, Meyer S, von Haeseler A, Grossschmidt K, Possnert G, Paunovic M, Paabo S.

​

And even in Adcock, the pairwise sequence diversity figure (which also in large sample of chimps showed no overlap with humans) shows the relationships of the various sequences to one another....still don't see where you magically pulled the number out or got a human chimp split before neandertal.
...
So make up numbers, make false claims about the published literature, and then repeat it ad nauseum...it seems to be the only argument you can bring to the table.

---

[b]Indeed. It appears that El Retardo is applying some sort of molecular clock, which I believe he earlier had some big problems with.It is amazing how these imbeciles can so handily and almost boastfully apply and utilize such obvious double standards and simplistic 'science' when it suits their needs.I also find it funny that ElRetardo is actually trying to play the 'authority' game with me...Reading through Williams' and Borgers' posts, I am more convinced than ever that creationists suffer from a common mental defect. And I am not just writing that to be clever, I truly believe this. No rational, sane person could write such contradictory, simple-minded gibberish and actually think that they have 'scored' some sort of victory. It boggles the mind.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Adminnemooseus:
Getting a little obnoxious here SLPx?

---

No, just pointing out the obvious.

quote:

---

Admin (aka Percy) also gave you a warning yesterday, on another of your messages that was posted about the same time.

​

Now, don't start a forum guidlines debate.

---

Why would I?

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Mammuthus:
[B]

quote:

---

{Entire previous message quoted - Deleted - Adminnemooseus}

---

++++++++++++++++++++ [/quote]And yet the entire quoted message remains.. How odd...

quote:

---

Originally posted by peter borger:
Dr Page is also proof for the MPG. He obviously lost the how-to-be-polite genes.

---

Indeed.Apparently, I also lost the "make up numbers when they don't exist to prop up your favorite fantasy" genes.Must be linkage disequilibrium.