Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 58 (9175 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: sirs
Post Volume: Total: 917,652 Year: 4,909/9,624 Month: 257/427 Week: 3/64 Day: 1/2 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   If evolution is true, where did flying creatures come from?
Denisova
Member (Idle past 3305 days)
Posts: 96
From: The Earth Clod....
Joined: 05-10-2015


Message 146 of 225 (757620)
05-11-2015 2:53 PM
Reply to: Message 122 by Faith
05-10-2015 8:17 PM


Re: Evolution of What3ever
I see you have a profound misunderstanding of evolution.
Let's point out to your flaws.
Evolution REQUIRES a reduction in genetic diversity....
Here is how evolution *actually* is conceived: genetic mutations produce genetic change. When this change matches the environmental conditions, they will be reinforced and retained. When they are harmful, they will be weeded out due to their very disadvantageousness: they will bring lower survival and/or reproduction chances. And along with their carrier, they will die out and not be passed to the next generation.
When the genetic variance is piling up, the subpopulations will experience genetic divergence. When this genetic divergence accumulates to the extent the two sub-genomes are genetically not compatible anymore, the subpopulations do not interbreed anymore (or interbreeding will not produce valid offspring) and genetic isolation occurred and by definition speciation took place.
As soon as speciation happened, we will now have 2 species with different and separated genomes. And evidently each genome inevitably will be a *subset* of the original combined genome of the ancestral species.
From this we conclude:
1. there is NO reduction in genetic diversity but DISPERSION. NOTHING of the original genetic diversity is lost, it's just PARCELLED OUT to split genomes
2. EVEN THEN, the reduced genetic diversity in any of the two distinct genomes is not "required" by evolution but a CONSEQUENCE. Consequences cannot be requirement, that would be just plain unsound logic.
I think hereby the whole framework of your posts just collapsed.
Edited by Denisova, : Only some improvements in style.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 122 by Faith, posted 05-10-2015 8:17 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 154 by Faith, posted 05-11-2015 5:14 PM Denisova has replied
 Message 185 by Admin, posted 05-12-2015 6:37 AM Denisova has replied

  
Denisova
Member (Idle past 3305 days)
Posts: 96
From: The Earth Clod....
Joined: 05-10-2015


Message 150 of 225 (757627)
05-11-2015 3:50 PM
Reply to: Message 142 by Faith
05-11-2015 1:21 PM


Re: You do have to follow the argument
Perhaps you haven't followed this argument in a while. There's nothing super about the original genome that I postulate except it's a lot healthier than today's. It had a lot more functioning genes than we have because 95% of them have died since the Flood, perhaps a few before the Flood. It had much more heterozygosity for many more traits, so that a big bottleneck like the Flood didn't reduce it all to fixed loci like today's cheetah and elephant seal, but still had a lot more genetic possibilities that could be played out in microevolution. A perfectly normal genome without all the death in it we see today.
I think you have some severe genetic problems to solve here.
For example, a particular gene locus in the human leukocyte antigen complex has 59 different alleles.
Now let's be merciful to your claim and assume the 3 sons of Noah were adopted. Members of the same family EACH having a different allele of the same gene is impossible due to Mendelian genetics. Because an allele is inherited either from the father or from the mother. ANY of the sons can only have the allele from his father or from his mother. That would reduce the numbers of alleles to max. 10.
But let's assume the 3 sons were adopted and had different alleles. That would yield 16 alleles at most.
Intermezzo: this BTW already is a very unlikely scenario. Think about the odds of 8 people, although no family of each other, ALL having different alleles of the same gene. AND also mind that this must be for ALL alleles over ALL the many different traits observed in human genetic diversity. I don't need to argue, I assume, this to be virtually impossible.
But, gee, I promised mercy so let's go on with 16 alleles.
Now, may I request you to explain where the 59 - 16 = 43 remaining ones came from?
And with the animals on the Ark the problem aggravates. Because according Genesis 7:2-3 Noah was commanded to take of each clean animal 7 and of each unclean animal 2 on the Ark (God only seems to know why Genesis 7:8 though indicates that "pairs" of each animal entered the Ark, hence irrespective of them being clean or unclean - but just let's stick to the 7:2-3 version).
Hence, for the clean animals max. 4 alleles for each gene were available. Yet, like in humans, in many extant animals genes involve many alleles (sometimes dozens).
The problem even worsens when one takes into account the claim of YEC that 2 millennia before the Flood, the whole human population was confined to only 2 individuals, which implies a maximum of 2 alleles per gene.
Creationists often claim that evolution cannot produce any new genetic information but their own claims imply a gigantic and astonishingly rapid emerging of new genetic information. At a rate of punctuated evolution even would cause Gould and Eldredge falling off their chairs due to sheer baffling astonishment.
Edited by Denisova, : Language mistakes corrected.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 142 by Faith, posted 05-11-2015 1:21 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 151 by Faith, posted 05-11-2015 4:02 PM Denisova has replied

  
Denisova
Member (Idle past 3305 days)
Posts: 96
From: The Earth Clod....
Joined: 05-10-2015


Message 157 of 225 (757642)
05-11-2015 5:44 PM
Reply to: Message 151 by Faith
05-11-2015 4:02 PM


Re: You do have to follow the argument
Yes, I have to figure out how the many alleles per gene developed, as I already mentioned upthread. That the original genome had many more genes per trait than it does now seems clear enough, and more genes, period; but many alleles per gene is still a question. The best guess seems to be some kind of mutation but not the destructive stuff that we see going on now.
That the original genome had many more genes per trait isn't quite clear enough. From a genetic point of view for many reasons it is even highly unlikely. I think it is your ASSUMPTION which needs evidence.
When you think you already addressed this issue, I would appreciate when you would point me out to the particular posts because for obvious reason it is impossible to (re)read the whole thread.
As a new debater not having read the complete thread here I need to be careful, though.
I may interpret your contention in two ways:
1. "More genes per trait" as a statistical rate: the number of traits divided by the number of genes, or:
2. "More genes per trait" meaning that for each trait more than 1 gene is working.
Please explain your exact position otherwise I may jump to premature conclusions.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 151 by Faith, posted 05-11-2015 4:02 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 161 by Faith, posted 05-11-2015 6:04 PM Denisova has replied

  
Denisova
Member (Idle past 3305 days)
Posts: 96
From: The Earth Clod....
Joined: 05-10-2015


Message 163 of 225 (757652)
05-11-2015 7:01 PM
Reply to: Message 154 by Faith
05-11-2015 5:14 PM


Re: Evolution of What3ever
Could I ask you first of all why "genetic change" is needed when the genome is chock full of genes that can combine in an enormous number of ways to produce an enormous variety of traits?
I don't think I will go to explain the whole of biology and genetics to you. I don't think this suits the purpose of this forum here.
Moreover, this point is irrelevant in the ongoing discussion.
The only relevant point I made here was your ERROR about reduced genetic variance. There is no reduced genetic variance.
Unfortunately, now it seems, you ALSO have no idea about OTHER parts of it as well but as I said we can't summarize 101 of all biology and genetics here. SURE ENOUGH I will come back to these points though.
Because the empirical evidence on all the separate mechanisms of evolution is abundant. I promise you hard times.
So, if you don't mind, for the same reason I skip the next two elaborations as well and I will immediately jump to the relevant part, the reduced variance. First the PRINCIPLES right.
Though you won't get those distinctly different genomes until after there has been a period of inbreeding of the populations in reproductive isolation from each other.
Interbreeding between populations in reproductive isolation is an oxymoron.
True, the population as a whole hasn't lost genetic diversity, only the separate subpopulations. But these are where the development of new traits is occurring, i.e. where evolution is occurring, and where speciation is ultimately expected to occur, and although each subpopulation has LESS genetic diversity somehow evolutionists still expect it to be able to go on evolving.
Glad you recognize that there is no loss in genetic variation but dispersion and parcelling out in two isolated genomes. I should also have said: and every genome is now also specialized.
Because of this specialization, each distinct genome has less genetic variance. And that is no problem NOR A REQUIREMENT for evolution. It is a CONSEQUENCE. And I guarantee you that you will find not a single paper on evolution where this was claimed or even implied. Evolution theory predicts a gain in genetic variance and so it happens. the fact that this variance is parcelled out in different isolated genomes is exactly the central point of evolution: speciation.
Um, let's reconsider this. In order to GET your subpopulation's new traits / phenotypes, in order to get a new subspecies with the potential of speciation and loss of breeding with former populations, you HAD to lose the alleles/ genetic possibilities for the traits left behind in those other populations. You have a new subspecies with a new set of traits, but you ONLY get that by losing the genetic stuff for OTHER sets of traits. You have a GAIN in new traits along with a LOSS of genetic diversity. Your "consequence" of evolution in the loss of genetic diversity is indeed a requirement since you wouldn't get your new traits without it.
The GAIN in genetic variance HAS occurred. See above.
Let's assume the ancestral species lived in lush, wet environments but that the habitat of one of its subpopulations is living in an region where the climate becomes very dry and arid. Basically these animals have 3 "options": 1. adaptation to the new conditions, or: 2. migrate to lush regions so they can resume their old lifestyle, or: 3. get extinct. Actually, all happen and are observed in an abundance on field observations and even experiments.
Now let's assume that migration is not possible (predators there, overcrowding, some geographic barrier etc.) and the species manages to adapt.
So, first the genetic variance in the species' TOTAL genome (including the ones still living in the original lush habitat AND the ones living in the area that is getting more arid) INCREASES, mostly by genetic innovation in the "arid" subpopulation - the ones living in the original, lush area don't need to change (other than through genetic drift) because they don't experience new environmental change.
AFTER this increase, the genomes may split up.
But each subpopulation picks up only a part of this INCREASED genetic variance.
I HARDLY doubt ANY of the two subpopulations having a genome with less genetic variance than the original ancestral genome though. Not in the subpopulation living in the original, lush environment because there was no much need to change. But NEITHER in the "arid" subpopulation because in those animals the traits that relate to living in lush environment will be discarded (genes disabled by mutations or just by plain gene deletions) and new genes will be formed (by gene duplications or altering old ones).
A little calculation already proves this. Let's depict the original. ancestral genome in this, simplified way, where each Xi represents a single, distinct gene:
Ga = X1-X2-X3-X4-X5-X6-X7-X8-X9-X10-X11-X12-X13-X14-X15-X16
After one subpopulation experiencing arid conditions:
G1 = X1-X2-X3-X4-X5-X6-X7-X8-X9-X10-X11-X17-X13-X14-X15-X16
(the subpopulation still living in unchanged, lush conditions, hence, genome only changed a little bit due to genetic drift, represented by the gene X17, retrieved from the original gene X12)
PLUS:
G2 = X1-X2-X3-X4-X5-X17-X7-Z1-X9-Z2-X11-X12-Z3-X14-X15-X16-Z4 (the subpopulation experiencing an more arid environment, adaptation through the new genes Z1, Z2 en Z3, replacing old genes X8, X10 and X13, which are disabled, mutation of old gene X6 into X17 and the new gene Z4 - added without replacement of former genes).
So, as a matter of fact, I should redrawn the picture for G2 as follows:
G2 = X1-X2-X3-X4-X5-X17-X7-(X8)-Z1-X9-Z2-(X10)-X11-X12-Z3-(X13)-X14-X15-X16-Z4
where (X8), (X10) and (X13) represent the disables genes whose sequences still are there but "degraded" to junk DNA (to pseudogenes).
IN OTHER WORDS, in the sub-genomes there is ANY reduction in genetic variance.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 154 by Faith, posted 05-11-2015 5:14 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 165 by Faith, posted 05-11-2015 7:22 PM Denisova has replied
 Message 172 by Faith, posted 05-11-2015 9:53 PM Denisova has replied
 Message 174 by Faith, posted 05-11-2015 11:59 PM Denisova has not replied
 Message 188 by Admin, posted 05-12-2015 7:07 AM Denisova has replied

  
Denisova
Member (Idle past 3305 days)
Posts: 96
From: The Earth Clod....
Joined: 05-10-2015


Message 164 of 225 (757653)
05-11-2015 7:07 PM
Reply to: Message 162 by Faith
05-11-2015 6:09 PM


Re: Evolution of What3ever
It's a position I take for the sake of argument since the source of genetic diversity isn't important for most of this discussion, but of course even destructive mutations do produce new alleles, for all kinds of fascinating genetic diseases, if you want to call that "increasing genetic diversity."
1. the source of the genetic diversification is CRUCIAL for the ongoing debate because it was your contention that genetic mutations cannot account for that.
2. your ASSUMPTION that genetic mutations only result in deteriorations like genetic disease will very soon be made minced meat by me because it is blatant denial of a abundant series of genetic studies.
But, as I said, the principles first so we speak of the SAME evolution theory as it is conceived last 150 years.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 162 by Faith, posted 05-11-2015 6:09 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 169 by Faith, posted 05-11-2015 8:43 PM Denisova has not replied

  
Denisova
Member (Idle past 3305 days)
Posts: 96
From: The Earth Clod....
Joined: 05-10-2015


(1)
Message 166 of 225 (757657)
05-11-2015 7:38 PM
Reply to: Message 161 by Faith
05-11-2015 6:04 PM


Re: Traits governed by more than one gene
Some traits are determined by the combined effect of more than one pair of genes. These are referred to as polygenic, or continuous, traits. An example of this is human stature. The combined size of all of the body parts from head to foot determines the height of an individual. There is an additive effect. The sizes of all of these body parts are, in turn, determined by numerous genes. Human skin, hair, and eye color are also polygenic traits because they are influenced by more than one allele at different loci. The result is the perception of continuous gradation in the expression of these traits.
Yes. this well known 101 genetics indeed.
However, the original questions though were:
1. That the ORIGINAL genome had many more genes per trait isn't quite clear enough. From a genetic point of view for many reasons it is even highly unlikely. I think it is your ASSUMPTION which needs evidence.
When you think you already addressed this issue, I would appreciate when you would point me out to the particular posts because for obvious reason it is impossible to (re)read the whole thread.
As a new debater not having read the complete thread here I need to be careful, though.
I may interpret your contention in two ways:
2. "More genes per trait" as a statistical rate: the number of traits divided by the number of genes, or:
3. "More genes per trait" meaning that for each trait more than 1 gene is working.
None of these are answered by your response above. When you refer to the "original" genome having MORE genes per trait, i assume you mean "then the current genomes of extant humans". In other words, you imply a loss of genes and genetic diversity in the human genome since Adam and Eve.
This is an ASSUMPTION without any evidence.
Without any evidence, you might as well contend the exact opposite.
Now, WHERE can I find the evidence for that?
And you will not find this answer by explaining how skin colour in extant humans (of whom we know the genome) is related to 4 genes.
We do not have the gene sequence of Adam and Eve.
But we DO have the gene sequence of Homo Neanderthalis, Homo Denisovia and Homo Heidelbergensis. And the genome sequence of many specimens of archaic Homo sapiens as well.
Or we may retrieve information from DNA of old human remains and compare them to modern human DNA. Or just look for genetic evidence in the extant human genome by smart comparison.
It's all there.
The only thing I ask is to provide empirical evidence for your claim.
In science we say "A lack of evidence does not need firther evidence".
It speaks for itself.
So do your homework.
SOON I will explain that AS FAR AS loss in the genetic diversity is observed in the human genome, it is very well understood (near extinction events, migration patterns).
But FIRST the evidence for your claim please.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 161 by Faith, posted 05-11-2015 6:04 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 170 by Faith, posted 05-11-2015 9:08 PM Denisova has replied

  
Denisova
Member (Idle past 3305 days)
Posts: 96
From: The Earth Clod....
Joined: 05-10-2015


Message 183 of 225 (757679)
05-12-2015 5:56 AM
Reply to: Message 170 by Faith
05-11-2015 9:08 PM


Re: Traits governed by more than one gene
This post has been moved to the thread " Evolution Requires Reduction in Genetic Diversity".
Edited by Denisova, : Due to being off topic here.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 170 by Faith, posted 05-11-2015 9:08 PM Faith has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 197 by Admin, posted 05-12-2015 8:29 AM Denisova has replied

  
Denisova
Member (Idle past 3305 days)
Posts: 96
From: The Earth Clod....
Joined: 05-10-2015


Message 184 of 225 (757680)
05-12-2015 6:04 AM
Reply to: Message 165 by Faith
05-11-2015 7:22 PM


Re: Evolution of What3ever
You apparently missed the word "INBREEDING" which refers to what was going on in each of the separate populations. You DO know the difference between "inbreeding" and "interbreeding," right?
Sorry, misread it for "interbreeding".
My bad, I apologize.
I am not rude, nowhere in my posts.
Straightforward, yes, sure, but not rude.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 165 by Faith, posted 05-11-2015 7:22 PM Faith has not replied

  
Denisova
Member (Idle past 3305 days)
Posts: 96
From: The Earth Clod....
Joined: 05-10-2015


Message 191 of 225 (757688)
05-12-2015 7:18 AM
Reply to: Message 172 by Faith
05-11-2015 9:53 PM


Re: Evolution of What3ever
This post has been moved to the thread "Evolution Requires Reduction in Genetic Diversity".
Edited by Denisova, : Corrected editing codes.
Edited by Denisova, : And another one...
Edited by Denisova, : Typo corrected. Pfffff!!!
Edited by Denisova, : For being off topic here.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 172 by Faith, posted 05-11-2015 9:53 PM Faith has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 198 by Admin, posted 05-12-2015 8:49 AM Denisova has replied

  
Denisova
Member (Idle past 3305 days)
Posts: 96
From: The Earth Clod....
Joined: 05-10-2015


Message 194 of 225 (757691)
05-12-2015 8:00 AM
Reply to: Message 188 by Admin
05-12-2015 7:07 AM


Re: Evolution of What3ever
I think you misread Faith's sentence. She said "inbreeding", not "interbreeding".
Point taken!
Indeed a misreading.
Already acknowledged to Faith.
IN OTHER WORDS, in the sub-genomes there is ANY reduction in genetic variance.
Not sure what you mean here. Maybe, "In other words, in the sub-genomes there is *not* ANY reduction in genetic variance." If so then it isn't clear why this must be true. Clearly it is one possible outcome, but if it's actually the only possible outcome then it isn't clear why.
Well.... I happen to write and communicate in 3 languages on a regular basis, sometimes even on the very same day, Dutch, German and English, which happen to be sister-languages as well.
It's often very funny translating a word between sister-languages. You think "English is so similar to Dutch", hence "this must be the proper translation". The most famous was by the Dutch foreign minister, Mr. Joseph Luns, meeting Kennedy. Kennedy asked politely for his hobbies, Luns answering "I fuck horses" - the Dutch "Ik fok" means "I breed" and "Ik fok" is indeed the linguistic cognate for English "I fuck" - only in a slight different meaning. It is also said that Kennedy stood surprised and asked "Pardon?". Luns reposted "Yes, paarden!!" ("paarden" = "horses").
Well, the correct rendition of my sayings would be:
"IN OTHER WORDS, in the sub-genomes there MIGHT BE reduction in genetic variance" (according to and ensuing Faith's argumentation).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 188 by Admin, posted 05-12-2015 7:07 AM Admin has seen this message but not replied

  
Denisova
Member (Idle past 3305 days)
Posts: 96
From: The Earth Clod....
Joined: 05-10-2015


Message 200 of 225 (757700)
05-12-2015 9:54 AM
Reply to: Message 185 by Admin
05-12-2015 6:37 AM


Re: Moderator Clarification
Denisova writes:
As soon as speciation happened, we will now have 2 species with different and separated genomes. And evidently each genome inevitably will be a *subset* of the original combined genome of the ancestral species.
I'd like to make sure that your meaning is clear for everyone. Here you say that the genome of each new species will be a subset of the parent species, but your previous paragraph talks about genetic change (alleles and genes will be both created and lost in each subpopulation), so in the end each subpopulation's genome will actually be both a subset and a superset of the parent species. Is that what you meant?
Thanks for lending me your sharp eyes!
I already tried to clarify this point in my post #163, especially by the example in the second part of it.
The creation or loss of alleles and genes, responsible for the genetic isolation of the subpopulations and therefore the cause of the split or the ancestral genome, happened BEFORE the split.
At the very moment of the split, two specialised species emerged.
"Specialisation" means by definition that NONE of the newly emerged species has "taken away" ALL of the genes and alleles which were present in the combined ancestral genome at the moment of the split.
Species A most likely resembles the initial genetic diversity of the original ancestral species before even any divergence occurred (part from the usual "portion" of genetic drift) - because it continued to live in the old environment and didn't have much or any reason to change. But the genome of species A DIFFERS from the combined ancestral genome at the moment of split. So genome A is a subset of the combined, ancestral genome at the moment of the split.
Species B "takes away" (most of the) the genetic change since the start of the divergence. Because this species consist of the original subpopulation of the ancestral species that actually underwent the environmental changes which gave rise to the genetic change. Species B also has a genome that differs from the combined ancestral genome at the moment of the split. This implies that the genome of species B is a subset of the combined ancestral genome at the moment of split.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 185 by Admin, posted 05-12-2015 6:37 AM Admin has seen this message but not replied

  
Denisova
Member (Idle past 3305 days)
Posts: 96
From: The Earth Clod....
Joined: 05-10-2015


Message 201 of 225 (757701)
05-12-2015 9:57 AM
Reply to: Message 197 by Admin
05-12-2015 8:29 AM


Re: Traits governed by more than one gene
Just for future reference, that's not an interpretation of "do your homework" that I think most English speakers would agree with. It has a couple possible contexts. There's a positive one, as in "It was apparent in her presentation that she had done her homework." But in the way you used it it means something closer to "You're uninformed" or "You're wrong" or both, and it *is* a put down.
OK, point taken.
As I said, it's often a little bit difficult for me to set the correct tone when translating from Dutch to English. Guess I learned a bit of English here....

This message is a reply to:
 Message 197 by Admin, posted 05-12-2015 8:29 AM Admin has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 207 by NoNukes, posted 05-12-2015 3:13 PM Denisova has not replied

  
Denisova
Member (Idle past 3305 days)
Posts: 96
From: The Earth Clod....
Joined: 05-10-2015


Message 202 of 225 (757703)
05-12-2015 10:06 AM
Reply to: Message 198 by Admin
05-12-2015 8:49 AM


Re: Evolution of What3ever
Concerning a gain in genetic diversity for speciation, characterizations of "requires" and "must" might be a bit too strong. You're describing the typical or common way for speciation to occur, but there's a richness in possibility that this ignores.
One of the difficulties encountered in discussing this topic with Faith in the past is that a reduction in genetic diversity with no associated prior increase *is* a possible path to speciation. Where Faith differs with everyone else is in believing it is the only possible path to speciation.
I fully agree!
But I still was following Faith's argumentations - for sake of not complicating the discussion too much.
I'm afraid that reduction in genetic diversity with no associated prior increase being a possible path to speciation indeed is not serving Faith's claims well!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 198 by Admin, posted 05-12-2015 8:49 AM Admin has seen this message but not replied

  
Denisova
Member (Idle past 3305 days)
Posts: 96
From: The Earth Clod....
Joined: 05-10-2015


Message 203 of 225 (757704)
05-12-2015 10:14 AM
Reply to: Message 199 by Admin
05-12-2015 8:54 AM


Re: Moderator Ruling: Current Discussion is Off Topic
Thanks for the recent discussion, but I'm going to rule it off-topic. Someone should propose a new thread to discuss this over at Proposed New Topics. I think I characterized Faith's position pretty well a couple messages ago:
Faith writes:
Diversity was greatest when life first began, no new and advantageous genetic material has been created since, and each new species has had less genetic variation than any of its ancestor species.
Anyone who would like to discuss the evolution of flight, please carry on.
AbE: A good candidate thread for resuming discussion of Faith's topic is Evolution Requires Reduction in Genetic Diversity. Some discussion has already picked up there.
Indeed I also now notice it's off topic.
Actually, i started this line of debate in the "Evolution Requires Reduction in Genetic Diversity" thread but for some strange reason we end up here. Maybe it was my fault or maybe I followed a lead by Faith.
So I suggest we just continue where it belongs: in the "Evolution Requires Reduction in Genetic Diversity" thread. I don't think we have to start a new thread.
Edited by Admin, : Fix quoted portion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 199 by Admin, posted 05-12-2015 8:54 AM Admin has seen this message but not replied

  
Denisova
Member (Idle past 3305 days)
Posts: 96
From: The Earth Clod....
Joined: 05-10-2015


(2)
Message 209 of 225 (757760)
05-13-2015 4:49 AM
Reply to: Message 208 by Faith
05-12-2015 5:55 PM


I overused my eyes yesterday, have a horrible eyestrain headache and have to be off the internet at least until tomorrow, hope not longer. I'm curious to find out if Denisova ever said anything coherent, and I'll try to deal with the rest of RAZD's post.
Take you time!
Your health is more important than the evcforum!
Edited by Denisova, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 208 by Faith, posted 05-12-2015 5:55 PM Faith 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