Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,901 Year: 4,158/9,624 Month: 1,029/974 Week: 356/286 Day: 12/65 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Genetic evidence of Whale evolution
lbhandli
Inactive Member


Message 1 of 27 (3223)
01-31-2002 4:23 PM


John Paul has claimed only genetic evidence will do for demonstrating whale evolution from hippos. He should do some more reading because the work was published in the Proceeding of the National Academy of Science in August of 1999:
Masato Nikaido, Alejandro P. Rooney, and Norihiro Okada
Phylogenetic relationships among cetartiodactyls based on insertions of short and long interpersed elements: Hippopotamuses are the closest extant relatives of whales
abstract:Insertion analysis of short and long interspersed elements is a powerful method for phylogenetic inference. In a previous study of short interspersed element data, it was found that cetaceans, hippopotamuses, and ruminants form a monophyletic group. To further resolve the relationships among these taxa, we now have isolated and characterized 10 additional loci. A phylogenetic analysis of these data was able to resolve relationships among the major cetartiodactyl groups, thereby shedding light on the origin of whales. The results indicated (i) that cetaceans are deeply nested within Artiodactyla, (ii) that cetaceans and hippopotamuses form a monophyletic group, (iii) that pigs and peccaries form a monophyletic group to the exclusion of hippopotamuses, (iv) that chevrotains diverged first among ruminants, and (v) that camels diverged first among cetartiodactyls. These findings lead us to conclude that cetaceans evolved from an immediate artiodactyl, not mesonychian, ancestor.
Comments? Please be specific if you are going to criticize the analysis.
Cheers,
Larry

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by John Paul, posted 02-04-2002 3:36 PM lbhandli has replied
 Message 8 by mark24, posted 02-04-2002 7:22 PM lbhandli has not replied

  
lbhandli
Inactive Member


Message 5 of 27 (3397)
02-04-2002 5:43 PM
Reply to: Message 2 by John Paul
02-04-2002 3:36 PM


[QUOTE]Originally posted by John Paul:
[B] John Paul:
To be frank, I have read this and similar diatribe. Very unimpressive because it offers nothing for the betterment of mankind. [/QUOTE]
TO be frank, you are lazy. This is the problem. Either you read the article and comment intelligently on the full paper or your whining is nonsense. All of your questions are answered in the paper. Why don't you get a copy?
quote:
Can you take this paper to the lab to verify the the so-called 'tests' are valid?
Where do you think they did the genetic analysis?
quote:
How does this phylogenic analysis of the alleged evolution of cetaceans aid us in the research for a cure for cancer or any disease for that matter?
How is this relevant? Not enough other bluster to whine with?
quote:
Go figure.
Yeah, go figure, you are too lazy to do even minimal work when presented with a scientific paper. Do you have no shame?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by John Paul, posted 02-04-2002 3:36 PM John Paul has not replied

  
lbhandli
Inactive Member


Message 10 of 27 (3411)
02-04-2002 8:25 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by John Paul
02-04-2002 6:51 PM


So what? Even if true it has no bearing on the evidence.
You asked for evidence. You have a cite. Go to the library and do the work and stop whining.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by John Paul, posted 02-04-2002 6:51 PM John Paul has not replied

  
lbhandli
Inactive Member


Message 12 of 27 (3471)
02-05-2002 5:05 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by John Paul
02-05-2002 5:01 PM


You have not addressed the paper yet. When do you intend to?
You asked for genetic evidence. You got it. And now you are not addressing why you believe it is incorrect. Address the evidence in a specific manner.
[This message has been edited by lbhandli, 02-05-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by John Paul, posted 02-05-2002 5:01 PM John Paul has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by lbhandli, posted 02-05-2002 6:12 PM lbhandli has not replied

  
lbhandli
Inactive Member


Message 17 of 27 (3486)
02-05-2002 6:12 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by lbhandli
02-05-2002 5:05 PM


This thread was edited with 4 messages that involved only personal taunting and were substance free. I, umm, meant to keep them around to share individually, but, umm, I'm a bit of an electronic clod at times.
Please continue the thread on topic. Moderation is light, but it was a cascade of irrelevancy.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by lbhandli, posted 02-05-2002 5:05 PM lbhandli 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