Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Different numbers of chromosomes?
Mammuthus
Member (Idle past 6475 days)
Posts: 3085
From: Munich, Germany
Joined: 08-09-2002


Message 16 of 22 (36177)
04-03-2003 6:22 AM
Reply to: Message 15 by peter borger
04-03-2003 5:58 AM


Re: Borger's brilliant debating
PB: GUToB it's not only the end, it's also the start.
M: It is also to this day, undefined

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by peter borger, posted 04-03-2003 5:58 AM peter borger has not replied

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


Message 17 of 22 (36192)
04-03-2003 8:55 AM
Reply to: Message 7 by peter borger
04-02-2003 5:48 PM


The usual Borger brilliance
Borger:
quote:
That was not the point, Page, and you know it. The point was that the mechanism between fusion and transloctaion are distincly different.
And you evo-guys put them on the same pile.
No, borger, that was not the point AND I know it. Your point - actually, an admitted non-scientist and 'Darwin attacker's' point - was that speciation cannot occur due to differing chromosomal numbers.
Apparently, you failed to read much of the thread you linked to. "Ilion" was roundly and soudly rebutted, but in typical misinformed creationist fashion, he merely would not admit to it. Much the same as you have done during your tenure here.
quote:
Why do I still discuss with you, while you do not even understand molecular biology mechanisms?
Like I said, apparently you did not read the thread you linked to.
Of course, I can provide a link wherein the same creationut - Ilion - proudly referred to the link you posted at the ARN forum. He was slammed there, too. :
And there, too, he wouldn't/couldn't admit it
quote:
You are far out of date. I recommend you to buy yourself a recent biology book! And read it!
Thanks for the recommendation.
Here is mine:
I strongly suggest that you learn how to read for COMPREHENSION rather than quote mining. You made yourself look like a fool with your claims re: "Darwin in the Genome", the alpha actinin genes, etc.
[This message has been edited by SLPx, 04-03-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by peter borger, posted 04-02-2003 5:48 PM peter borger has not replied

  
Dr_Tazimus_maximus
Member (Idle past 3217 days)
Posts: 402
From: Gaithersburg, MD, USA
Joined: 03-19-2002


Message 18 of 22 (36193)
04-03-2003 8:58 AM
Reply to: Message 12 by Mammuthus
04-03-2003 2:34 AM


HEEYYYYYYY
"but then you do medical research so that explains a lot"
I did medical research for 5 years before moving on to process/analytical development. And I actually still did some medicaly directed research on the side up until last year, so I guess that I would have to say that I resemble that remark.
------------------
"Chance favors the prepared mind." L. Pasteur
Taz

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by Mammuthus, posted 04-03-2003 2:34 AM Mammuthus has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by Quetzal, posted 04-03-2003 9:43 AM Dr_Tazimus_maximus has replied

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


Message 19 of 22 (36198)
04-03-2003 9:43 AM
Reply to: Message 18 by Dr_Tazimus_maximus
04-03-2003 8:58 AM


Re: HEEYYYYYYY
Taz:
A certain not to mentioned temporarily suspended hairy proboscidean asked me to tell you:
Oh yeah, since I can't post, please indicate to Taz that I was joking about medical genetics...tell him that I am also doing medical genetics with evolution as a side order and it was supposed to be an inside joke as when I was a Ph.D. student in my department there was a healthy rivalry between the Ph.D. and M.D. researchers.
[This message has been edited by Quetzal, 04-03-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by Dr_Tazimus_maximus, posted 04-03-2003 8:58 AM Dr_Tazimus_maximus has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by Dr_Tazimus_maximus, posted 04-03-2003 9:49 AM Quetzal has not replied

  
Dr_Tazimus_maximus
Member (Idle past 3217 days)
Posts: 402
From: Gaithersburg, MD, USA
Joined: 03-19-2002


Message 20 of 22 (36200)
04-03-2003 9:49 AM
Reply to: Message 19 by Quetzal
04-03-2003 9:43 AM


Re: HEEYYYYYYY
In case meaning of the smiley did not get through, I understood that he was joking That was also the point of resembling that remark.
And I have also worked with a number of "research" MD's. Some were good researchers, many were not.
------------------
"Chance favors the prepared mind." L. Pasteur
Taz
[This message has been edited by Dr_Tazimus_maximus, 04-03-2003]
[This message has been edited by Dr_Tazimus_maximus, 04-03-2003]
[This message has been edited by Dr_Tazimus_maximus, 04-03-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by Quetzal, posted 04-03-2003 9:43 AM Quetzal has not replied

  
judge
Member (Idle past 6443 days)
Posts: 216
From: australia
Joined: 11-11-2002


Message 21 of 22 (36243)
04-04-2003 3:10 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Ryan Bibler
04-01-2003 8:27 PM


Przewalski horse
I saw this posted at the infernal infidels forum (yikes!)
Horses — Breeds of Livestock, Department of Animal Science
I don't understand it, but perhaps we can get a comment from someone "in the know"
This horse apparently has 66 chromosomes and a domestic horse has 64 , but they interbreed to produce offspring with 65 chromosomes (double yikes!)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Ryan Bibler, posted 04-01-2003 8:27 PM Ryan Bibler has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by Quetzal, posted 04-04-2003 4:56 AM judge has not replied

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


Message 22 of 22 (36245)
04-04-2003 4:56 AM
Reply to: Message 21 by judge
04-04-2003 3:10 AM


Re: Przewalski horse
Hi judge,
Although schraf is the horse expert here, I am aware that they have produced fertile hybrids from crosses between 2n=64 domestic horses (Equus caballos) and 2n=66 Przewalski's horse (E. przewalski). The hybrids do show the 2n=65 haplotype. However, this does not contradict the species concept. Remember, post-zygotic barriers that differentiate true "species" may not appear in the first hybrid generation (I posted this in some other thread which I've now lost track of). The fact is that the hybrid line doesn't breed true: the hybrids breed back to 2n=64 the next generation. Apparently, the modern haplotype is dominant.
This makes a bit more sense if the people who study equids are right and Przewalski's represents an ancestral (if not direct ancestor) to caballos. Hope this answers your question.
(edited to add: And besides, the biological species concept has the caveat "in the wild". Since Przewalski's has been extinct in the wild for quite a while, any hybrid produced as part of a captive breeding program with modern horsese doesn't invalidate the concept.)
[This message has been edited by Quetzal, 04-04-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by judge, posted 04-04-2003 3:10 AM judge 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