Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 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:   Potential falsifications of the theory of evolution
Wounded King
Member
Posts: 4149
From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 121 of 968 (589604)
11-03-2010 1:59 PM
Reply to: Message 120 by Coyote
11-03-2010 1:19 PM


Re: Genetic entropy by any other name.
I don't know if Sanford coined the term 'genetic entropy' but Walter ReMine has been grinding the same axe in terms of Haldane's dilemma and genetic degradation from created baramins for at least the last 20 years.
Interestingly Remine is also an author on the Mendel's accountant paper.
TTFN,
WK

This message is a reply to:
 Message 120 by Coyote, posted 11-03-2010 1:19 PM Coyote has not replied

AlphaOmegakid
Member (Idle past 2876 days)
Posts: 564
From: The city of God
Joined: 06-25-2008


Message 122 of 968 (589605)
11-03-2010 2:00 PM
Reply to: Message 115 by Taq
11-03-2010 11:52 AM


If there is selective pressure against these mutations then they would not become fixed in the population to begin with. If they are not deleterious enough to lower the fitness of the organism so as to bypass natural selection then they will not cause the species to go extinct.
Perhaps the analogy to use here is the "straw that broke the camel's back". Each piece of straw is very light, but the camel can only carry so much. That last piece of straw that overloads the camel is the threshold, the mutation that will be strongly selected against.
Ahhhh. You have provided a good example. Can I use it?. Let's say the straws are the mutation rate, and each of the straws weighs very little. Gen 1 has no straws. Gen 2, each camel in the population gets 100 straws. (100 mutations per generation) That's no problem for all the camels. Gen 100 all the camels are still standing fine with 100000 staws each. At Gen 200 some of the weak camels start dropping because of the weight of the straws, and they are selected against. Only the strongest camels survive (now remember, the strongest camels are still carrying their straws). At Gen 5000 there is no camel that can withstand the load. The population goes extinct.
You see, the problem is that the strongest camels surviving each generation are still carrying and passing on their load of mutations. Individually, none of these straws are a problem. But eventually, they do add up.
They are seen by NS in homozygotes. This is why there is a strong correlation between the frequency of the sickle cell allele and geographic areas with endemic malaria. If what you claimed is true then the frequency of the sickle cell allele should be the same in Europeans as it is in Africans. It isn't.
I think you are assuming that I am arguing against NS. I am not. NS works very well. It just is limited in what it can do in a population. Sickle cell example is a good example of NS. It happens. Agreed.
Now evos theorize that we all came out of Africa. But we don't all look like Africans, do we? We have mutated. They have mutated. The majority of indiginous African people have mutations for kinky hair, larger lips, and flatter noses. (this is not racist, it is a fact). There appears to be no selection against these traits. There appears to be no selection for these traits either. But those traits have spread through the population. So either they drifted or were selected. There are two ways mutations can spread through a population. One is drift, the other is selection.
Now please understand, that I realize a bottleneck can cause the traits to spread. However, that is random and not NS, so it is drift.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 115 by Taq, posted 11-03-2010 11:52 AM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 124 by Taq, posted 11-03-2010 2:21 PM AlphaOmegakid has not replied
 Message 128 by frako, posted 11-03-2010 3:05 PM AlphaOmegakid has not replied

AlphaOmegakid
Member (Idle past 2876 days)
Posts: 564
From: The city of God
Joined: 06-25-2008


Message 123 of 968 (589607)
11-03-2010 2:19 PM
Reply to: Message 120 by Coyote
11-03-2010 1:19 PM


Re: Genetic entropy and other nonsense
I suspect that Sanford became a young earth creationist before he came up with the nonsense of genetic entropy.
I suspect Darwin became an old earther before he came up with the nonsense of OOS.
His ideas seem to stem from the religious myth of a fall, and he has invented genetic entropy to explain it.
Darwin's ideas seem to stem from the religious myth of Lyell's uniformitarianism, and he invented evolution to explain OOS.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 120 by Coyote, posted 11-03-2010 1:19 PM Coyote has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 125 by Taq, posted 11-03-2010 2:24 PM AlphaOmegakid has not replied
 Message 126 by Coyote, posted 11-03-2010 2:30 PM AlphaOmegakid has not replied

Taq
Member
Posts: 9972
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.5


Message 124 of 968 (589609)
11-03-2010 2:21 PM
Reply to: Message 122 by AlphaOmegakid
11-03-2010 2:00 PM


Ahhhh. You have provided a good example. Can I use it?. Let's say the straws are the mutation rate, and each of the straws weighs very little. Gen 1 has no straws. Gen 2, each camel in the population gets 100 straws. (100 mutations per generation) That's no problem for all the camels. Gen 100 all the camels are still standing fine with 100000 staws each. At Gen 200 some of the weak camels start dropping because of the weight of the straws, and they are selected against.
Therefore, at Gen 200 no more deleterious mutations are passed on to the next generation because those born with a deleterious mutation are selected against.
I think you are assuming that I am arguing against NS.
You are arguing that NS does not see recessive deleterious alleles. NS does see these alleles, in homozygotes.
Sickle cell example is a good example of NS. It happens. Agreed.
It is a falsification of your claims. If NS can not see deleterious recessive mutations as you claim then the frequency of the hemoglobin S allele should be the same in European and African populations. This is the prediction that your hypothesis makes. It is falsified by reality. Hemoglobin S correlates strongly with African populations due to endemic malaria.
Therefore, deleterious mutations are selected against and removed from the population before they reach fixation.
Now evos theorize that we all came out of Africa. But we don't all look like Africans, do we? We have mutated. They have mutated. The majority of indiginous African people have mutations for kinky hair, larger lips, and flatter noses. (this is not racist, it is a fact). There appears to be no selection against these traits. There appears to be no selection for these traits either. But those traits have spread through the population. So either they drifted or were selected. There are two ways mutations can spread through a population. One is drift, the other is selection.
Are any of these traits deleterious or causing genetic entropy? If not, then what is your point?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 122 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 11-03-2010 2:00 PM AlphaOmegakid has not replied

Taq
Member
Posts: 9972
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.5


Message 125 of 968 (589610)
11-03-2010 2:24 PM
Reply to: Message 123 by AlphaOmegakid
11-03-2010 2:19 PM


Re: Genetic entropy and other nonsense
I suspect Darwin became an old earther before he came up with the nonsense of OOS.
Despite your opinion of Origin of Species, almost all naturalists of Darwin's time accepted the findings of Lyell and others as to the ancient age of the Earth. The ancient age of the Earth was only denied by a minority of Darwin's peers.
Darwin's ideas seem to stem from the religious myth of Lyell's uniformitarianism, and he invented evolution to explain OOS.
How is Lyell's work religious and how did Darwin's ideas stem from it?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 123 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 11-03-2010 2:19 PM AlphaOmegakid has not replied

Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 126 of 968 (589612)
11-03-2010 2:30 PM
Reply to: Message 123 by AlphaOmegakid
11-03-2010 2:19 PM


Re: Genetic entropy and other nonsense
I suspect that Sanford became a young earth creationist before he came up with the nonsense of genetic entropy.
I suspect Darwin became an old earther before he came up with the nonsense of OOS.
His ideas seem to stem from the religious myth of a fall, and he has invented genetic entropy to explain it.
Darwin's ideas seem to stem from the religious myth of Lyell's uniformitarianism, and he invented evolution to explain OOS.
Please stick to the subject. As a reminder, I was responding to the notion that Sanford's genetic entropy idea has the potential to falsify the theory of evolution.
I showed why that idea doesn't work: it relies on the religious belief in a young earth. It does not work if life has been kicking around for a couple of billion years, which is what the evidence suggests.
Care to address the topic?

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 123 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 11-03-2010 2:19 PM AlphaOmegakid has not replied

dwise1
Member
Posts: 5930
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.8


Message 127 of 968 (589616)
11-03-2010 2:56 PM
Reply to: Message 103 by Wounded King
11-03-2010 6:10 AM


Re: ID science or evangelical proselytising? False Dichotomy?
dwise1 writes:
I found the program on SourceForge, but there is no source code available -- the Windows versions are only executables and even the "Linux source" is nothing but an executable, HTML files, and a JavaScript file. This makes verification of his code impossible.
I don't think that is true, in the linux download there is Fortran and C code that can be compiled in folders within the cgi-bin folder.
Perhaps at one time, but not now. Here are all the files (save one, fmendel.exe, which was also an executable):
quote:
C:Linux Distro>dir mendel_v1.4.7 /s
Volume in drive C has no label.
Volume Serial Number is 8011-5D73
Directory of C:Linux Distro\mendel_v1.4.7
02-Nov-10 13:16 .
02-Nov-10 13:16 ..
02-Nov-10 13:16 cgi-bin
23-Jul-09 11:51 9,662 favicon.ico
02-Nov-10 13:16 html
23-Jul-09 11:51 17 version
2 File(s) 9,679 bytes
Directory of C:Linux Distro\mendel_v1.4.7\cgi-bin
02-Nov-10 13:16 .
02-Nov-10 13:16 ..
23-Jul-09 11:51 679,907 cmendel.exe
1 File(s) 679,907 bytes
Directory of C:Linux Distro\mendel_v1.4.7\html
02-Nov-10 13:16 .
02-Nov-10 13:16 ..
23-Jul-09 11:51 2,423 account.html
02-Nov-10 13:16 images
23-Jul-09 11:51 818 index.html
23-Jul-09 11:51 2,019 intro.html
23-Jul-09 11:51 2,760 other.html
23-Jul-09 11:51 491 tips.html
23-Jul-09 11:51 4,999 tips.js
23-Jul-09 11:51 5,881 toc.html
7 File(s) 19,391 bytes
Directory of C:Linux Distro\mendel_v1.4.7\html\images
02-Nov-10 13:16 .
02-Nov-10 13:16 ..
23-Jul-09 11:51 22,479 logo.png
23-Jul-09 11:51 4,539 mendel.png
2 File(s) 27,018 bytes
Total Files Listed:
12 File(s) 735,995 bytes
11 Dir(s) 2,022,719,488 bytes free
C:Linux Distro>


This message is a reply to:
 Message 103 by Wounded King, posted 11-03-2010 6:10 AM Wounded King has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 130 by Wounded King, posted 11-03-2010 3:20 PM dwise1 has replied

frako
Member (Idle past 305 days)
Posts: 2932
From: slovenija
Joined: 09-04-2010


Message 128 of 968 (589618)
11-03-2010 3:05 PM
Reply to: Message 122 by AlphaOmegakid
11-03-2010 2:00 PM


Ahhhh. You have provided a good example. Can I use it?. Let's say the straws are the mutation rate, and each of the straws weighs very little. Gen 1 has no straws. Gen 2, each camel in the population gets 100 straws. (100 mutations per generation) That's no problem for all the camels. Gen 100 all the camels are still standing fine with 100000 staws each. At Gen 200 some of the weak camels start dropping because of the weight of the straws, and they are selected against. Only the strongest camels survive (now remember, the strongest camels are still carrying their straws). At Gen 5000 there is no camel that can withstand the load. The population goes extinct.
You see, the problem is that the strongest camels surviving each generation are still carrying and passing on their load of mutations. Individually, none of these straws are a problem. But eventually, they do add up.
no the camel whit no straws has a better chance of survival and is selected for cause it dose not haveto spend extra energy carrying the straws

This message is a reply to:
 Message 122 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 11-03-2010 2:00 PM AlphaOmegakid has not replied

JonF
Member (Idle past 168 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 129 of 968 (589619)
11-03-2010 3:06 PM


Of course, Sanford and his defenders are assuming that the "slightly deleteriousness" of mutations is additive.

Wounded King
Member
Posts: 4149
From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 130 of 968 (589622)
11-03-2010 3:20 PM
Reply to: Message 127 by dwise1
11-03-2010 2:56 PM


Re: ID science or evangelical proselytising? False Dichotomy?
I don't know what to tell you, I downloaded it from Sourceforge this morning and the sources were there.
$ ls cgi-bin/*
cgi-bin/Makefile cgi-bin/monitor.cgi
cgi-bin/cmendel.exe cgi-bin/more.cgi
cgi-bin/config.inc cgi-bin/output.cgi
cgi-bin/delete.cgi cgi-bin/parse.inc
cgi-bin/diff.cgi cgi-bin/plot_modify.cgi
cgi-bin/fmendel.exe cgi-bin/plot_recipes.cgi
cgi-bin/input_file_parser.inc cgi-bin/plots.cgi
cgi-bin/input_file_reader.inc cgi-bin/plots_combine.cgi
cgi-bin/input_file_writer.pl cgi-bin/qdel.cgi
cgi-bin/label_form.cgi cgi-bin/qmpd.cgi
cgi-bin/label_post.pl cgi-bin/qstat.cgi
cgi-bin/list_cases.cgi cgi-bin/qstat_main.cgi
cgi-bin/list_cases_win.cgi cgi-bin/qsub.pl
cgi-bin/list_files.cgi cgi-bin/readme
cgi-bin/memory.inc cgi-bin/rename.cgi
cgi-bin/mendel.in cgi-bin/start.cgi
cgi-bin/mendel.in.yeast cgi-bin/with_selected.cgi
cgi-bin/monitor.ajax
cgi-bin/cmendel:
CVS debug.c init.c mendel.h offspring.c readme
Makefile diagnostics.c mem.c mendel.in ranlib.c selection.c
config.h fileio.c mendel.c mpi.c ranlib.h sort.c
cgi-bin/fmendel:
CVS common.h mendel.in mpi_mendel_seq.f random_pkg.f90
Makefile mendel.f mpi_mendel.f pbs.script sort.f90
TTFN,
WK
P.S. Nerdiest derail evaah!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 127 by dwise1, posted 11-03-2010 2:56 PM dwise1 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 135 by dwise1, posted 11-03-2010 7:32 PM Wounded King has not replied
 Message 178 by dwise1, posted 11-05-2010 10:54 PM Wounded King has not replied

nwr
Member
Posts: 6408
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 131 of 968 (589624)
11-03-2010 3:25 PM
Reply to: Message 109 by AlphaOmegakid
11-03-2010 11:27 AM


Re: Has any evidence been found yet?
I'll start by thanking you for an unusually clear exposition of the ID position that you are promoting. That's a lot better than the muddy thinking that often shows up in posts supporting ID.
AlphaOmegakid writes:
Now natural selection works at the phenotype with individual organisms. As phenotypes gain these slightly deleterious mutations, there is a selective pressure against these mutations, but basically all of the organisms have them, so they cant' be differentiated at the organism level. They are like noise in the population. Therefore, they don't get selected out on average. So the next generation has more mutations which many more are nearly neutral. The worst offenders are selected out, but on average the population carries the mutations. Also don't forget that many mutations are recessive, so they don't show up in the phenotye. The population will also carry the recessive negative alleles, because NS can't see them.
Let me summarize what I see you to be describing as the ID position:
A kind starts out as the result of a design. It starts out matching some sort of ideal conceived by the designer. But, over time, there are deleterious mutations that build up. Thus the kind deteriorates over time.
Here's the summary of how I see it, and I presume this to be close to the evolutionist view:
There is no need for a species to be optimal. Suboptimal is just fine, provided only that it produces enough offspring so that the population remains approximately stable in size. So the accumulation of what you consider to be slightly deleterious mutations is not actually a problem. There is no ideal that the genetics of the species could match. Rather, it's a pragmatic process of doing well enough for the population to persist.
Reality can be a harsh place. A food source can disappear. A new predator can show up. With these changes, your ideal kind might be unable to survive. So it dies out. However, the evolutionists species has picked up all of these slightly deleterious mutations, which we see as genetic variation within the population. Some of these variants, while slightly less capable in the previous environment, may find themselves far better able to cope with the new environment (after the loss of a food source and the appearance of a new predator). So what you see as deleterious mutations, and what I see as genetic variety within the population, can actually serve the species well and help it survive the harsh conditions.
In short:
Designed things deteriorate over time, and are fragile (can fail under conditions different from those for which they were designed.
Evolved things do not deteriorate, but pick up useful variation. They are robust in that they are able to use that variation to adapt to conditions different from those in which they originally evolved.
Those are two vastly different ways of looking at the same kind of evidence. I'll suggest that the evolution way of looking at the evidence better fits what we see.
AlphaOmegakid writes:
Now, natural selection can remove these mutations from the population if the population can afford the cost of section. In organisms with large genomes, low fecundity, and long generation times (most large mammals), they cannot afford the cost of selction without severe inbreeding depression. So the population continues to exist under reduced selective pressures and the mutations just add up over time. The adding up problem is what "genetic entropy" is.
What you see as deleterious mutations that the population needs to remove if it can afford the cost, I instead see as beneficial genetic variation that the population needs to hoard to the extent that it can afford to hoard it. What you see as "genetic entropy" and as a problem, I see as genetic variation and as an asset.

Jesus was a liberal hippie

This message is a reply to:
 Message 109 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 11-03-2010 11:27 AM AlphaOmegakid has not replied

Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 2697 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 132 of 968 (589625)
11-03-2010 3:28 PM
Reply to: Message 82 by AlphaOmegakid
11-02-2010 9:01 AM


Re: Has any evidence been found yet?
Hi, AlphaOmegakid.
Good to see you back.
AOkid writes:
TOE = The change in gene (allele) frequencies within a population over time. This is a narrow theory, and is often referred to as a "fact".
Neo Darwinian TOE = NDTOE = The neo Darwinian synthesis of TOE. It is a broad theory that uses TOE to postulate the origin of the species through common ancestry. It includes the evolutionary tree/bush, and the evolution of natural history.
I know you've defined your terms for the discussion and want the clarity from doing so, but you've made such a mess of it that I can’t refrain from commenting on it.
Modern evolutionary biology contains a large number of different parts and components, that, for some reason I can’t figure out, creationists and IDists are fond of lumping into amalgamated theories that bear the name of Darwin. Usually, as is the case here, y’all get it completely wrong.
The neo-Darwinian synthesis is the synthesis of Darwin’s descent with modification with Mendel’s genetics that occurred in the 1930’s and 1940’s. It includes Mendelian inheritance, mutations, natural selection, and the fusion of microevolution and macroevolution into the same thing. So, what you labeled ToE above is actually the neo-Darwinian ToE.
On the other hand, universal common descent and the tree of life, while accepted by neo-Darwinists, wasn’t actually a part of the neo-Darwinian synthesis. It isn’t neo-anything it’s one of the oldest evolutionary ideas, predated only by unsuccessful competing ideas, such as the great chain of being and Lamarkism. In fact, the tree of life was one of the primary points of Darwin’s original proposal.
In fact, it’s the new components of ToE that you actually accept, and the old ones that you reject.

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)
Darwin loves you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 11-02-2010 9:01 AM AlphaOmegakid has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 147 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 11-04-2010 8:48 AM Blue Jay has replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 133 of 968 (589628)
11-03-2010 3:39 PM
Reply to: Message 109 by AlphaOmegakid
11-03-2010 11:27 AM


Re: Has any evidence been found yet?
AlphaOmegakid writes:
As phenotypes gain these slightly deleterious mutations, there is a selective pressure against these mutations, but basically all of the organisms have them, so they cant' be differentiated at the organism level.
So you believe that a collection of slightly deleterious mutations for which there is negative selection pressure would spread throughout the entire population so that "basically all of the organisms have them"? Really? Just how do you envision this happening?
The reality is that populations of non-trivial size have a great deal of variation, and the extent to which individuals possess these slightly deleterious mutations will vary widely. Natural selection will prevent deleterious combinations of mutations from spreading throughout the population, and it simply will not happen that "basically all of the organisms have them."
There are non-genetic scenarios where this could happen. For example, creatures with little or no fur might have a survival advantage in dry desert climes, but if the climate changed and became very cold then the alleles for little or no fur would suddenly become deleterious, even though "basically all of the organisms have them." But that's a climatic event having nothing to do with mutation and selection.
In organisms with large genomes, low fecundity, and long generation times (most large mammals),...
So you believe that large genomes and large creatures go hand in hand? Really? Did you know the record for genome size goes to an amoeba?
...they cannot afford the cost of selction without severe inbreeding depression.
You believe that selection doesn't operate on large mammals? Really? Did you know that half of all polar bear cubs don't make it to adulthood (this is aside from the additional habitat problems caused by global warming)? Doesn't that sound like selection to you?
So the population continues to exist under reduced selective pressures and the mutations just add up over time.
You believe that populations of large mammals are subjected to reduced selective pressures just because if they weren't they'd go extinct? Really? My, isn't mother nature kind!
You sure believe a lot of weird things. Did you think them all up yourself, or is some website feeding you this nonsense?
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 109 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 11-03-2010 11:27 AM AlphaOmegakid has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 139 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 11-03-2010 8:16 PM Percy has replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 134 of 968 (589638)
11-03-2010 4:09 PM
Reply to: Message 119 by AlphaOmegakid
11-03-2010 1:08 PM


Re: Common Descent explained
Empty claims without evidence may be dismissed with the same.
The evidence are the abundant scientific blunders you make in each post.
Recent genetic studies conclude that all dogs descended from the ranks of wolves. That is clear evidence of a dog grouping or "kind" genetically.
It's evidence of a grouping, but not of a "kind", because the common ancestor of dogs and wolves had itself a common ancestor with the creodonts, and that common ancestor had as an ancestor the common ancestor of all the placental mammals, and so on. This is the conclusion of the evidence from population genetics, and it directly contradicts the notion that dogs do not share a common ancestor with other mammals. The evidence is abundant that they do.
Ummmmm....there is no support in any field of science for anything without the involvement of human intelligence.
I never said that there was not. What I said, if you'll read more closely, is that with the exception of the species that humans have designed there is no evidence of design in nature.
Does any of this make any sense?
Of course it does. Did you, or did you not say:
quote:
Keep in mind there is no genetic evidence from all of those extinct species that leads you to LUCA.
To assert that only extant species are descended from LUCA and, coincidentally, all extinct species are not is not only downright stupid and clearly false, but if it were true that would be a powerful pattern of evidence against the efficacy of divine design.
And to repeat the point that you've completely ignored:
quote:
What is the obstacle to selection occurring even if the population "can't afford it"?
What you're suggesting is that natural selection somehow knows to stop happening on a population that is too small, that natural selection somehow gives them a break. But that doesn't happen. If natural selection poses too high of a "cost" on a population that is too small to bear it the population simply goes extinct. Natural selection doesn't cut anybody any breaks.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 119 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 11-03-2010 1:08 PM AlphaOmegakid has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 150 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 11-05-2010 9:08 AM crashfrog has replied

dwise1
Member
Posts: 5930
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.8


Message 135 of 968 (589675)
11-03-2010 7:32 PM
Reply to: Message 130 by Wounded King
11-03-2010 3:20 PM


Re: Getting Mendel's Accountant Source
I only saw the one Linux tarball there, which I opened and extracted files from with WinZIP. I have Ubuntu installed in a virtual machine on my box at home, so I can try to unroll that tarball in a Linux environment and see if I get any different results.
It's been nearly a decade so I'm a bit rusty. It's a *.tar.gz, so I'm pretty sure that I'm to use gunzip on it, but I can't quite remember the options (just that it was usually four of them). Mind if I ask for advice on that from you?
Edited by dwise1, : subtitle

This message is a reply to:
 Message 130 by Wounded King, posted 11-03-2010 3:20 PM Wounded King has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 136 by Percy, posted 11-03-2010 7:39 PM dwise1 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