Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 63 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 916,357 Year: 3,614/9,624 Month: 485/974 Week: 98/276 Day: 26/23 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Oh Good - Bart is back
wj
Inactive Member


Message 10 of 51 (31090)
02-02-2003 10:40 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by derwood
02-02-2003 2:28 PM


Page, why are you in denial that the TOE has been disproved and the GUToB reigns supreme? Don't you keep up with the latest scientific publications?
If evolutionism was true, why would evolutionists put Tob and Cap on top of each other, as if they were related? The mpg explains all. etc. etc.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by derwood, posted 02-02-2003 2:28 PM derwood has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by derwood, posted 02-03-2003 8:56 AM wj has not replied

  
wj
Inactive Member


Message 14 of 51 (32191)
02-14-2003 12:27 AM
Reply to: Message 4 by peter borger
02-01-2003 1:50 AM


quote:
However, since we are all Panomo's let's have a look at your brilliant analysis concerning your utmost evidence of common descent:
http://www2.norwich.edu/spage/alignmentgam.htm
I have a couple of remarks and questions about your analysis:
Let start here:
1) Did you notice the sudden transition between Tob and Cap. Could you please indicate what it means according to you?
Now I think it's PB's turn to offer an alternative explanation based on his gutob.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by peter borger, posted 02-01-2003 1:50 AM peter borger has not replied

  
wj
Inactive Member


Message 26 of 51 (32706)
02-19-2003 9:24 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by peter borger
02-01-2003 1:50 AM


Borger says in message #4
quote:
However, since we are all Panomo's let's have a look at your brilliant analysis concerning your utmost evidence of common descent:
http://www2.norwich.edu/spage/alignmentgam.htm
I have a couple of remarks and questions about your analysis:
Let start here:
1) Did you notice the sudden transition between Tob and Cap. Could you please indicate what it means according to you?
SLPx provided his answer at message #9.
Borger, are you going to provide your alternative meaning for the "sudden transition"? Are you going to move on and provide question 2?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by peter borger, posted 02-01-2003 1:50 AM peter borger has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by peter borger, posted 02-25-2003 11:46 PM wj has replied

  
wj
Inactive Member


Message 28 of 51 (33200)
02-25-2003 11:59 PM
Reply to: Message 27 by peter borger
02-25-2003 11:46 PM


quote:
PB: I am still waiting for Page. He is going to provide the full terms for all abbreviations and a phylo-tree. [Still waiting Page]

You do not appear to have requested these data on this thread. And you did not seem to need such before posting message #4. Why would you even require a phylo-tree if you believe that they are based on faulty Darwinian evolutionary theory?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by peter borger, posted 02-25-2003 11:46 PM peter borger has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by derwood, posted 02-26-2003 9:54 AM wj has not replied

  
wj
Inactive Member


Message 31 of 51 (33311)
02-26-2003 9:03 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by peter borger
02-26-2003 8:36 PM


Re: Oh, bother
PB, as you have not previously asked for the data on this thread, despite the fact that you felt informed enough to start discussion on the Tob and Cap discontinuity, I suggest you ask for the codes and phylogenic tree nicely.
Your threat to deem this as a defeat for SLPx is laughable. It is clear that you started the discussion ignorant of basic information and then cry foul because someone else will not do your homework for you.
In the meantime, since you initiated the discussion, where is your explanation for the Tob / Cap discontinuity?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by peter borger, posted 02-26-2003 8:36 PM peter borger has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by peter borger, posted 02-26-2003 11:56 PM wj has replied

  
wj
Inactive Member


Message 33 of 51 (33326)
02-27-2003 12:58 AM
Reply to: Message 32 by peter borger
02-26-2003 11:56 PM


Re: Oh, bother
So, old world primates and new world primates are distinct multipurpose genomes?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by peter borger, posted 02-26-2003 11:56 PM peter borger has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by wj, posted 03-02-2003 6:37 AM wj has not replied

  
wj
Inactive Member


Message 42 of 51 (33500)
03-02-2003 6:37 AM
Reply to: Message 33 by wj
02-27-2003 12:58 AM


Re: Oh, bother
So, old world primates and new world primates are distinct multipurpose genomes?
So. is this your position or not?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by wj, posted 02-27-2003 12:58 AM wj has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by peter borger, posted 03-02-2003 10:28 PM wj 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