Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,818 Year: 3,075/9,624 Month: 920/1,588 Week: 103/223 Day: 1/13 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Nucleotide sequence variation in ancient human mtDNA
derwood
Member (Idle past 1876 days)
Posts: 1457
Joined: 12-27-2001


Message 16 of 31 (30322)
01-27-2003 12:46 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by DanskerMan
01-27-2003 11:04 AM


quote:
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.
The point of satire - which a caricature is a kind of - is to have a truth behind it. Just because you are personally offended by the facts does not make them untrue.
You were soundly amd repeatedly utterly refuted on that issue, yet being a creationts, you refused or were unable to see that, and so used that silly 'caricature' (which you insisted was accurate).
By any defintion - excpet, apparently, yours - humans are animals.
By no stretch of logic would it therefore be ratinal to claim - even iun a caricature - that therefore all animals are human. Yet you did just that to try to 'prove some point.'
What point? Who knows...
quote:
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.
No, it is not.
Other than subjective pleas regarding appreciation of music and such, you have yet to offer anything of substance which removes Man from the Aniamla Kingdom.
If you actually have something that is not based on emotional pleading and subjective assertion, I suggest you start a new thread laying it all out.
Until then, I see nothing deceptive of misrepresentative about getting a fun diug now and then using your own "logic" - and yes, despite what you are claiming now, you DID present that as a 'logical' argument.
------------------
"The analysis presented in this study unambiguously shows that chimpanzees are our closest relatives to the exclusion of other primates. This is an important point that cannot be discounted. Further, the functional genetic differences that are represented by nonsynonymous sites also show this relationship. The notion that the great apes form a functional and evolutionary grade is not supported by our analysis. Rather, humans and chimpanzees are a functional evolutionary clade."
Page Not Found | University of Chicago

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by DanskerMan, posted 01-27-2003 11:04 AM DanskerMan has not replied

  
peter borger
Member (Idle past 7666 days)
Posts: 965
From: australia
Joined: 07-05-2002


Message 17 of 31 (30373)
01-27-2003 8:11 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by derwood
01-26-2003 2:39 AM


Dear Dr Page,
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.
Page: You start off with a lie. This shold be good.
PB: Obviously you don’t know what a lie is. With your definition of a lie, you keep ‘lying’ to me that you will never again respond to me.
Page: 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:
PB: I already responded top that but you choose to ignore it. Here, specially, for you again: The sequences in ancient subspecies contain more information regarding mutations that your simplistic comparison of chimp and human mtDNA. It gives us information about the rate and the position where they are introduced: in the ancient subpopulations we are able to exactly follow mutations and mutation rates over a more accurate time scale. That the data don't fit with your evolutionary view is tale telling: evolutionism's conclusions based on comparison BETWEEN species are wrong.
Now we know that all info for variation is already preexistent in the genome we know that Darwin made an unwarranted extrapolation with respect to microbe to man evolution. If you take the contemporary observation on variation preexisting in the genomes as the mechanism that drives evolution from microbe to man (as Darwin did), than you talk about a mechanistically determined evolution, in other words creation.
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: No, I am just trying to follow your.. "logic"...
PB: No, even a child can see that you are nitpicking.
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.
Page: 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.
PB: No Page, you don’t use the same logics. If you had used my logics than you had compared the SAME regions in human, ancient human, chimp, Neanderthaler and bobobo. Now, all you did was comparing apples and oranges, assuming that they are equal. They are not equal Page, and that is what you demonstrate below.
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.
Page: You really are beligerant and acting quite bizarre.
PB: Why do you think I am belligerent? Because you are such a nice and charming guy? Or because I am dumb and dumber, a moron, schizoid, a fool, etcetera, etcetera. I am gonna show the board that evolutionism is false, and that you —-as a PhD-ed evolutionist-- are not able to defend it.
Page: 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?
PB: Because these sequences give us much more information.
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.
Page: 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.
PB: ‘Back-mutations’ is nothing but a meaningless evo-word. If they exist at all, they seem to be introduced over and over on the same spot, and that makes me remind of something: NRM.
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)
Page: I don't know what "maths" are.
PB: Yes, that’s obvious (open goal, Page).
Page: 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?
PB: Let me once more reiterate:
The sequences in ancient subspecies contain more information regarding mutations that your simplistic comparison of chimp and human mtDNA. It gives us information about the rate and the position where they are introduced: in the ancient subpopulations we are able to exactly follow mutations and mutation rates over a more accurate time scale. That the data don't fit with your evolutionary view is tale telling: evolutionism's conclusions based on comparison BETWEEN species are wrong.
Page: Someone else, Peter I think, mentioned that you seem to have this tunnel vision when discussing things. How right he is.
PB: My tunnel vision? You mean your preconceived ‘NDT is all there is’, and ‘evolution did it’.
quote:
Page: Gee — what could be going on?
Localized fluctuations in mutation rate maybe?
PB: NRM?
Page: So it is NRM that causes the hypervariability in the HVRs? Intriguing... Funny - I have seen nothing about that in the literature...
PB: No? Better do a more extensive search. Besides, ‘localized fluctuations’ is another meaningless word. What do you think is the mechanism behind such fluctuations? No Mechanism involved, I gues? Well, Page even a hotspot has an underlying mechanism. Nothing on this earth just simply happens. Ever heard of laws of nature?
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.
Page: 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.
PB: It is very clear that you compared the two unequal stretches of DNA because they are of the same length. Next you demonstrated mathematically that they were not equal. It demonstrates the evolutionary method of analysis to be invalid.
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.
Page: My, you sure can extrapolate things that ARE NOT THERE.
PB: That is allowed in evo-biology, isn’t it? So, what is your objection? You even compare thing that are not even equivalent. I’d call that POOR science.
Page: 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.
PB: I already noticed that you are VERY, VERY, VERY good in finding straw men. Maybe you could point out, where I used creatons in our discussions.
Page: 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.
PB: I do not even see a argument here to respond to. Your replies are getting weaker and weaker.
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.
Page: How else am I to test your methods? Are you trying to pull a switcheroo now?
PB: By looking at SUBspecies and by comparing EQUIVALENT regions of course. How many times do I have to spell this out?
Page: Yet another demonstration of your ignorance - the "assumption" of human - ape shared ancestry is warranted by many lines of evidence.
PB: There is NOT such evidence. There is inferrence from soem data, that can easily be interpreted differently.
Page: Your true colors are getting brighter and brighter.
PB: Red, white and blue?
Page: Whats next? Are you going to explain to us all that only 16,000 Kinds were on the ark?
PB: Ark? Where do you get the ark from? Our discussion was on the ancient mtDNAs. What kind of debating tactic is this? Distraction? Off on a tangent?
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.
Page: You are an incompetent zealot, frankly.
PB: I can add another word to Page’s coarse language dictionary: incompetent zealot. Well Page, your level is declining, going downhill by the second. Your credibility what was left of it has gone.
Page: You have decided to totally IGNORE my solid refutation of your quackery - AGAIN.
PB: No, Page I’ve just demonstrated that molecular evolutionary biology is founded upon POOR SCIENCE. You wanna keep it like that, I know, and that’s why outsiders are not ALLOWED to say something about evolutionism.
Page: 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?
PB: As mentioned before but you chose to ignore:
The sequences in ancient subspecies contain more information regarding mutations that your simplistic comparison of chimp and human mtDNA. It gives us information about the rate and the position where they are introduced: in the ancient subpopulations we are able to exactly follow mutations and mutation rates over a more accurate time scale. That the data don't fit with your evolutionary view is tale telling: evolutionism's conclusions based on comparison BETWEEN species are wrong.
Page: 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.
PB: No, Page, you demonstrated that the methods you apply are NOT valid. You are free to ignore that.
Page: You are a crank and a charaltan, I have little doubt of that.
PB: Although you are not able to spell charlatan correctly, I will add it to your coarse language dictionary.
quote:
PB: For the rest your analysis is based upon assumption I do not agree with, since they are not present in my paradigm.
Page: Then how was it that you did your analysis in the first place?
PB: I demonstrated the analysis in ancient human mtDNA. It is an INTRAspecies comparison and completely valid, since it accurately demonstraes what is going on WITHIN species. It tells me that your extrapolations are NOT valid.
Page: Creationists always like to pullout that gem when their back is against the wall. I'm eagerly awaiting the bible verses...
PB: Back against the wall? Get real, Page; everyone on the board can see from your intonation that you are the one that is cornered.
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 therefore cannot simply be put on a pile.
Page: 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?
PB: I simply quoted you. You think DNA is about length; otherwise you wouldn’t have performed this analysis in public. Once more for you: DNA is coded (functional) information. If you are going to compare DNA and make proper conclusions you better analyze equal regions.
Page: 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?
PB: If you don’t know the function of a region and you wanna make an analysis better be sure that you compare the same regions. Otherwise you will introduce unknown artifacts. Taking that upfront in account is called: Science.
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....
PN: Thanks, at last a friendly word
Page: 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.
PB: I meant, the usual non-scientific comparison of unequal things.
Page: Predictable and pathetic.
PB: If it were so predictable why did you show this analysis the way you did? I could point out all your tricks in public.
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.
Page: 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.
PB: Than, for the umpteenth time you ‘lie’. And if anybody can do a scientific discussion it’s me, NOT you. As proven on this board (even in this letter).
Page: This really took the cake. You display in this thread nearly every underhanded, sleazy, cretin trick (with the exception of out of context quoting!).
PB: Point them out. I will respond scientifically, as usual.
Page: What a waste of sperm.
PB: You’re to kind by wishing me dead. (Is this really you Page?)
Best wishes,
Peter

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by derwood, posted 01-26-2003 2:39 AM derwood has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by derwood, posted 01-28-2003 1:26 PM peter borger has replied

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


Message 18 of 31 (30450)
01-28-2003 1:26 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by peter borger
01-27-2003 8:11 PM


Borger spins his wheels, like a good little creationist.
He offers nothing of substance, nothiung worthy of breaking my vow of tuning him out.
Makes a few utterly asinine extrapolations, though. I was especially tickled by his last bizarre extrapolation - equating a waste of sperm with wishing he were dead.
Only a demented megalomaniac could make so foolish an extension.
I can only stomach so much nonsense, and I am getting nauseous.
Bye bye Borger.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by peter borger, posted 01-27-2003 8:11 PM peter borger has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by Adminnemooseus, posted 01-28-2003 1:33 PM derwood has not replied
 Message 21 by peter borger, posted 01-28-2003 7:07 PM derwood has not replied

  
Adminnemooseus
Administrator
Posts: 3974
Joined: 09-26-2002


Message 19 of 31 (30452)
01-28-2003 1:33 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by derwood
01-28-2003 1:26 PM


OK, I'll lay out the 24 hour suspension for that one. And I may have a strange interpretaiton of what 24 hours is.
Adminnemooseus
------------------
{mnmoose@lakenet.com}

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by derwood, posted 01-28-2003 1:26 PM derwood has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by DanskerMan, posted 01-28-2003 2:09 PM Adminnemooseus has not replied
 Message 25 by Adminnemooseus, posted 01-29-2003 11:51 AM Adminnemooseus has not replied

  
DanskerMan
Inactive Member


Message 20 of 31 (30455)
01-28-2003 2:09 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by Adminnemooseus
01-28-2003 1:33 PM


"OK, I'll lay out the 24 hour suspension for that one. And I may have a strange interpretaiton of what 24 hours is."
Adminnemooseus
----------------------
Does that mean SLPx gets say 2 hrs or does that mean 64 hrs? Why is 24 hrs not 24 hrs?
S.
Note from AM: Maybe 1 hr/day for 24 days? ; But seriously, he will be reinstated about 24 hours after the time of posting rights suspension. - Adminnemooseus
[This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 01-28-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by Adminnemooseus, posted 01-28-2003 1:33 PM Adminnemooseus has not replied

  
peter borger
Member (Idle past 7666 days)
Posts: 965
From: australia
Joined: 07-05-2002


Message 21 of 31 (30477)
01-28-2003 7:07 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by derwood
01-28-2003 1:26 PM


dear Page,
In response to my excellent scientific rebuttal of his mail Page continues:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Borger spins his wheels, like a good little creationist.
He offers nothing of substance, nothiung worthy of breaking my vow of tuning him out.
Makes a few utterly asinine extrapolations, though. I was especially tickled by his last bizarre extrapolation - equating a waste of sperm with wishing he were dead.
Only a demented megalomaniac could make so foolish an extension.
I can only stomach so much nonsense, and I am getting nauseous.
Bye bye Borger.
Borger says:
I will miss Page. I really loved our little discussion.
Anybody to take it over from Page?
Otherwise, it can be concluded that evolutionary theory can NOT even be defended by PhD-ed evolutionary biologists.
Propagating the theory in its current form is NON-SCIENCE. QED.
best wishes,
Peter

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by derwood, posted 01-28-2003 1:26 PM derwood has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by Peter, posted 01-29-2003 3:32 AM peter borger has replied

  
Peter
Member (Idle past 1479 days)
Posts: 2161
From: Cambridgeshire, UK.
Joined: 02-05-2002


Message 22 of 31 (30521)
01-29-2003 3:32 AM
Reply to: Message 21 by peter borger
01-28-2003 7:07 PM


In your world view do humans and chimps have a common
ancestor?
If there is no common ancestor what was there, and how long ago?
Do you accept speciation as occurring?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by peter borger, posted 01-28-2003 7:07 PM peter borger has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by peter borger, posted 01-29-2003 7:03 AM Peter has replied

  
peter borger
Member (Idle past 7666 days)
Posts: 965
From: australia
Joined: 07-05-2002


Message 23 of 31 (30549)
01-29-2003 7:03 AM
Reply to: Message 22 by Peter
01-29-2003 3:32 AM


Peter,
P: In your world view do humans and chimps have a common
ancestor?
PB: Both human and man have common ancestors. Man has the original human MPG ancestor, chimp have the original chimp MPG ancestor.
P: If there is no common ancestor what was there, and how long ago?
PB: GUToB point 5.
P: Do you accept speciation as occurring?
PB: MPG has plenty of room for subspeciation. For instance, the famous Darwin finches are still able to interbreed and would classically have to be defined as one species (Nature/Science?, last year? I have the reference somewhere. I will look into it). Wallibi's? Probably one diverging MPG. Stone corals? One interchanging MPG. Bacteria? Probably one/few interchanging MPG?
My guess would be that to define borders for MPGs extensive research is required.
Best wishes,
Peter

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by Peter, posted 01-29-2003 3:32 AM Peter has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by Peter, posted 01-29-2003 7:18 AM peter borger has replied
 Message 28 by Andya Primanda, posted 01-30-2003 3:26 AM peter borger has replied

  
Peter
Member (Idle past 1479 days)
Posts: 2161
From: Cambridgeshire, UK.
Joined: 02-05-2002


Message 24 of 31 (30553)
01-29-2003 7:18 AM
Reply to: Message 23 by peter borger
01-29-2003 7:03 AM


What is GUToB point 5?
Are humans and man different?
Would any english speaking individual interpret my question
in anyway other than asking if we and the chimps share a
common ancestor with each other?
Do humans and chimps share a common ancestor with one another
(in your world view)?
[Added by edit]
I tried a google web-search, but the only 36 references I found
relating to your idea are all from this web-site.
[This message has been edited by Peter, 01-29-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by peter borger, posted 01-29-2003 7:03 AM peter borger has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by peter borger, posted 01-29-2003 10:33 PM Peter has replied

  
Adminnemooseus
Administrator
Posts: 3974
Joined: 09-26-2002


Message 25 of 31 (30571)
01-29-2003 11:51 AM
Reply to: Message 19 by Adminnemooseus
01-28-2003 1:33 PM


SLPx's posting privileges have been restored.
Adminnemooseus
------------------
{mnmoose@lakenet.com}

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by Adminnemooseus, posted 01-28-2003 1:33 PM Adminnemooseus has not replied

  
peter borger
Member (Idle past 7666 days)
Posts: 965
From: australia
Joined: 07-05-2002


Message 26 of 31 (30615)
01-29-2003 10:33 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by Peter
01-29-2003 7:18 AM


Dear Peter,
Concerning your questions: Go sit in a bus in a metropolitan city and look around you. Human MPG.
Best wishes,
Peter

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by Peter, posted 01-29-2003 7:18 AM Peter has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by Peter, posted 01-30-2003 2:18 AM peter borger has not replied

  
Peter
Member (Idle past 1479 days)
Posts: 2161
From: Cambridgeshire, UK.
Joined: 02-05-2002


Message 27 of 31 (30644)
01-30-2003 2:18 AM
Reply to: Message 26 by peter borger
01-29-2003 10:33 PM


Concerning your reply:: I've done that on many occasions
and have noticed the heritable diversity of humanity.
What has that to do with any of my questions?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by peter borger, posted 01-29-2003 10:33 PM peter borger has not replied

  
Andya Primanda
Inactive Member


Message 28 of 31 (30653)
01-30-2003 3:26 AM
Reply to: Message 23 by peter borger
01-29-2003 7:03 AM


quote:
PB: Both human and man[sic, I assume chimp] have common ancestors. Man has the original human MPG ancestor, chimp have the original chimp MPG ancestor.
quote:
P: Do you accept speciation as occurring?
PB: MPG has plenty of room for subspeciation. For instance, the famous Darwin finches are still able to interbreed and would classically have to be defined as one species (Nature/Science?, last year? I have the reference somewhere. I will look into it). Wallibi's? Probably one diverging MPG. Stone corals? One interchanging MPG. Bacteria? Probably one/few interchanging MPG?
You mean all those diversity of bacteria which made people and fungi seem like closely related (Woese's domains) came from subspeciation?
IMHO, Dr Borger, you should consult your friendly local taxonomist.
Based on your answers for my question about termites, cockroaches and the arthropod archetype which lived in the Cambrian, I assume that in your theory, one primordial MPG=one archetype=one phylum.
Then why are you separating humans from chimps? We're in the same phylum, class, order, and family! Even Linnaeus' latin name for chimps was Homo troglodytes?
Vertebrates are one phylum, among others. And yes, in the early Cambrian there lived one particular vertebrate which resembles Richard Owen's vertebrate archetype; it was Pikaia.
Please. As far as I know, even Michael Behe acknowledges common ancestry.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by peter borger, posted 01-29-2003 7:03 AM peter borger has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by peter borger, posted 01-30-2003 7:37 PM Andya Primanda has replied

  
peter borger
Member (Idle past 7666 days)
Posts: 965
From: australia
Joined: 07-05-2002


Message 29 of 31 (30773)
01-30-2003 7:37 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by Andya Primanda
01-30-2003 3:26 AM


Dear Andya,
AP: Please. As far as I know, even Michael Behe acknowledges common ancestry.
PB: Behe is a catholic, I am not a catholic. As mentioned, even if the pope agrees on evolution, I wouldn't for scientific reasons.
best wishes,
Peter

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by Andya Primanda, posted 01-30-2003 3:26 AM Andya Primanda has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by Andya Primanda, posted 01-31-2003 4:17 AM peter borger has replied

  
Andya Primanda
Inactive Member


Message 30 of 31 (30806)
01-31-2003 4:17 AM
Reply to: Message 29 by peter borger
01-30-2003 7:37 PM


What's Catholicism or your religion or mine got to do with this? Science is indifferent to our religions.
Please answer my question on archetypes.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by peter borger, posted 01-30-2003 7:37 PM peter borger has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by peter borger, posted 01-31-2003 11:04 PM Andya Primanda 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