Re: Evidence persuades many to reject the molecules to man version of
Sapient Fridge
writes
>
>
>>> http://groups.google.co.uk/group/alt.bible/msg/6b8b694145fbca0d?hl=en
>
>>> Now if there was a flaw in the logic then do please let me know.
>
>> first;
>>> We know that someone with 45 chromosomes (one pair of 14 and 21 fused)
>>> can lead a normal life and have apparently normal children with either
>>> completely normal chromosomes or the children can be carriers of the
>>> fused chromosomes.
>> <..>
>> and then;
>>> Now imagine that there are two families, with one parent in each family
>>> having 45 chromosomes. These parents have *lots* of children, some of
>>> whom have problems but more importantly they have many children who are
>>> carriers of the fused chromosome.
>
>
>> don't forget that they have children who have 46
>> who will be producing a large number of 46 chromosome
>> children and no potential for other problems,
>> and that this population will be a source of
>> filtering -out- the fused chromosomal population.
>
>> these generations won't know who has 45 and
>> who has 46 and will intermingle randomly
>
>> and the 46 chromosome population will filter out
>> the 45 chromosome population just as if they were
>> still within the overall human population.
>
>> a clear 'flaw' in your argument.
>
>> you neglect to mention this and in so doing, tacitly
>> suggest that only fused will be the predominate population.
>
>
>two 46/45 couples
>
>which both potentially produce 46 45 and 47
Wrong.
In the scenario we are talking a chromosome count of 47 cannot be
generated (a fused 14 and 21 chromosome).
But since Robertsonian translocation is a *reduction* of chromosome
number and can't give rise to 47 chromosomes there is no point looking
at the rest of your calculations.
Let's do the calculation properly. Our scenario is two couples, one of
each has a fused chromosome 14+21. So the parent generation is:
50% of 45 chromosomes
50% of 46 chromosomes
At the first generation we have 3 possibilities: 44, 45 and 46:
6.25% of 44 chromosomes
37.50% of 45 chromosomes
56.25% of 46 chromosomes
Further generations have the *same* percentages, and it will be very
sensitive to small effects such as advantages or disadvantages in genes
contained in the fused and unfused chromosomes. Social taboos which
encourage or discourage certain pairings will also do the trick.
Here is a little experiment for you, try modelling this on a computer
and see what effect a 1% chance of an extra child per mating for a fused
chromosome gives to the above balance.
That could easily happen if the fused chromosome gained an advantage by
either linking existing advantageous mutations or simply gaining a new
one. It does have to be more advantageous than the disadvantageous
effect of occasional Downs children though, until a stable 44 population
is reached.
>two 45 carriers cannot produce any 'pure' 45s
>
>there is no such possibility.
Actually 50% of their children will also be 45's if you work it out
properly.
--
sapient_...@spamsights.org ICQ #17887309 * Save the net *
Grok: http://spam.abuse.net http://www.cauce.org * nuke a spammer *
Find: http://www.samspade.org http://www.netdemon.net * today *
Kill: http://spamsights.org http://spews.org http://spamhaus.org
Timothy Sutter
> 50% of 45 chromosomes
> 50% of 46 chromosomes
whose gametes do -not- produce -any-
potential for 44 chromosomed offspring.
you have one 45 and one 46 as a couple
and another couple of one 45 and one 46.
in the 'parent' population,
you have zero potential for a 44 offspring
> At the first generation we have 3 possibilities: 44, 45 and 46:
> 6.25% of 44 chromosomes
> 37.50% of 45 chromosomes
> 56.25% of 46 chromosomes
this is false,
in the first generation,
you get no 44s.
as you say;
# We know that someone with 45 chromosomes (one pair of 14 and 21 fused)
# can lead a normal life and have apparently normal children with either
# completely normal chromosomes or the children can be carriers of the
# fused chromosomes.
if both 45s in the parent population are male
or, if both 45s in the 'parent' generation are female
you get no potential for 45/45 births.
if one female is 45 and one male is 45,
that leaves one male 46 and one female 46.
45/46 births are 45 and 46, and -not- 44.
no dice.
there are no 44s in the first generation of births
from this hypothetical unprobablistic derivation.
chromosome count remains fixed at 46.
Timothy Sutter
>> which both potentially produce 46 45 and 47
> In the scenario we are talking a chromosome count of 47 cannot be
> generated (a fused 14 and 21 chromosome).
from your 'scenario'
#For some reason both families end up isolated on an island (plane
crash)
#with no other population to interbreed with. The Downs kids all die
but
#the rest of the kids grow up and start mating, but now the number of
#carriers in this F1 population is roughly the same as the numbers of
#normal children because they *all* had a parent with a fused
chromosome.
i'm probably going to split soon myself,
this is trolling and nothing more.
enjoy your parlor games.
it's not happening.
Timothy Sutter
> Let's do the calculation properly. Our scenario is two couples, one of
> each has a fused chromosome 14+21. So the parent generation is:
> 50% of 45 chromosomes
> 50% of 46 chromosomes
seeing as how the initial problem is being modified
i still call this a parlor game and
not any sort of real scenario,
and maintain that we're not seeing
any real scenario like this happen;
essentially, there are 4 people.
and gender assigments were not sepcified,
so, we could have 2 male 45s or two female 45s.
for simplicity;
a 46 can be labeled as AA
a 45 can be labeled as AB
[fixed width font]
A A
----------------
| | |
A | AA | AA |
| | |
---------------
| | |
B | AB | AB |
| | |
----------------
you are assuming now, that these
couples are -not- monogamous,
[fixed width font for all squares]
1 male 45 and 1 female 45
A B
----------------
| | |
A | AA | AB |
| | |
---------------
| | |
B | AB | BB |
| | |
----------------
25% 46 50% 45 and 25% 44
1 male 45 and 1 female 46
A B
----------------
| | |
A | AA | AB |
| | |
---------------
| | |
A | AA | AB |
| | |
----------------
50% 46 50% 45
1 male 46 and 1 female 45
A B
----------------
| | |
A | AA | AB |
| | |
---------------
| | |
A | AA | AB |
| | |
----------------
50% 46 50% 45
i male 46 and 1 female 46
A A
----------------
| | |
A | AA | AA |
| | |
---------------
| | |
A | AA | AA |
| | |
----------------
100% 46
now pooling all four theortical possibilities;
0.25/46 + .0625 46 0.125 45 and 0.0625 44 + 0.250 46 + 0.250 45
0.5625 46 + 0.375 45 + 0.0625 44
if you assume monagamy,
1 male 46 and 1 female 45
A B
----------------
| | |
A | AA | AB |
| | |
---------------
| | |
B | AB | BB |
| | |
----------------
50% 46 50% 45
1 male 45 and 1 female 46
A B
----------------
| | |
A | AA | AB |
| | |
---------------
| | |
A | AA | AB |
| | |
----------------
50% 46 50% 45
you basically get 50% 46 and 50% 45 and no 44.
or, if you have two female 45s or two male 45s,
you get basically 50% 45 and 50% 46,
and the parlor game has no real resolution
because these cases were not specified.
there are other cases to be made,
but i'll neglect them for now.
assuming this;
0.5625 46 + 0.375 45 + 0.0625 44
-but- punnet square analyses ar etheoretical
and may not reflect and -actual- birthrate.
and so, we could see far more reduced numbers
of 44s inasmuch as the chnaces of birth
complications and infertility play
an increased role.
meaning, you can -calculate- a percetage
of blue eyed brown haired children based
on a punnet anaysis and still get -no-
blue eyed children ad all brown eyed children.
buty you want to be extended all sorts of
liberties in what may or may not happen
so that you can maximize the potential
for you pet answer.
maybe...
in the so-called first generation of children,
now, you don't have an even 50%
split among potential parents,
so now,
the above starting percentages.
so, you can't go directly to a punnet analysis.
-lot- of children from 4 people
10000 first generation offspring
5625 46 AA
3750 45 AB
625 44 BB
and now these all randomly mate.
maybe,
there is a far greater potential
for 46/46 couplings to occur
that 44/44 couplings.
you can't just assume that
44s will mate with 44s at all,
or that any 44s were even brought
to term and survived to adulthood.
so many assumptions that must be extended.
you have to want to insist that the
44s all knew who they were,
all the while assuming that the 46s didn't
know, and just kill them all off as they
appeared because there were so many more
of them and saw them as alien and
to be destroyed.
which may be the more probable outcome.
if you want to play that game,
if the 46s all look a particular way,
and they start seeing a few
children that look strange,
they may just kill'em all in the crib.
so, -that's- possible as well.
sideways remark,
back to a normal population, and you
get none of this in the first place.
so, you really want to suggest that "adam and eve"
were heterozygous and carried the trait from the onset.
i don't believe this inasmuch as adam
and eve were practically clones.
anyway, one 45/46 couple
-potentially-
anyway, i still don't see a populationof 44s amassing.
sounds like wishful thinking.
etc...
Sapient Fridge
<use_repl...@spamsights.org> writes
>Let's do the calculation properly. Our scenario is two couples, one of
>each has a fused chromosome 14+21. So the parent generation is:
>
>50% of 45 chromosomes
>50% of 46 chromosomes
Slight oops, I worked out the figures for interbreeding within the whole
population given random interbreeding . That's slightly wrong since we
paired each carrier with a non-carrier, so the first generation can't
have any 44s.
The first generation has same proportion of carriers to non-carriers as
the parents:
50% of 45 chromosomes
50% of 46 chromosomes
Then at the *second* generation we get our stable population ratio:
> 6.25% of 44 chromosomes
>37.50% of 45 chromosomes
>56.25% of 46 chromosomes
--
Sapient Fridge
writes
>> the parent generation is:
>
>> 50% of 45 chromosomes
>> 50% of 46 chromosomes
>
>whose gametes do -not- produce -any-
>potential for 44 chromosomed offspring.
>
>you have one 45 and one 46 as a couple
>
>and another couple of one 45 and one 46.
>
>in the 'parent' population,
>
>you have zero potential for a 44 offspring
>
>
>> At the first generation we have 3 possibilities: 44, 45 and 46:
>
>> 6.25% of 44 chromosomes
>> 37.50% of 45 chromosomes
>> 56.25% of 46 chromosomes
>
>this is false,
>
>in the first generation,
>
>you get no 44s.
I was taking interbreeding between the 4 adults in the first generation
(so the 45 could interbreed with the 45) , but that wasn't strictly
speaking the scenario, so fair point. When working out population
statistics you normally assume a large population of first generation
randomly interbreeding, not two couples who don't mix.
If you take the scenario where the original couples *don't* interbreed
then you are right, the first generation can't have any 44's . Don't get
too excited though, all it does is shift the pattern by one generation.
It should have read:
The first generation has same proportion of carriers to non-carriers as
the parents:
50% of 45 chromosomes
50% of 46 chromosomes
Then at the *second* generation we get our stable population ratio:
6.25% of 44 chromosomes
37.50% of 45 chromosomes
56.25% of 46 chromosomes
Timothy Sutter
> Timothy Sutter writes
>>> the parent generation is:
>>> 50% of 45 chromosomes
>>> 50% of 46 chromosomes
>> whose gametes do -not- produce -any-
>> potential for 44 chromosomed offspring.
>> you have one 45 and one 46 as a couple
>> and another couple of one 45 and one 46.
>> in the 'parent' population,
>> you have zero potential for a 44 offspring
>>> At the first generation we have 3 possibilities: 44, 45 and 46:
>>> 6.25% of 44 chromosomes
>>> 37.50% of 45 chromosomes
>>> 56.25% of 46 chromosomes
>> this is false,
>> in the first generation,
>> you get no 44s.
Sapient Fridge wrote:
> I was taking interbreeding between the 4 adults in the first generation
> (so the 45 could interbreed with the 45) , but that wasn't strictly
> speaking the scenario, so fair point. When working out population
> statistics you normally assume a large population of first generation
> randomly interbreeding, not two couples who don't mix.
>
> If you take the scenario where the original couples *don't* interbreed
> then you are right, the first generation can't have any 44's . Don't get
> too excited though, all it does is shift the pattern by one generation.
>
> It should have read:
>
> The first generation has same proportion of carriers to non-carriers as
> the parents:
>
> 50% of 45 chromosomes
> 50% of 46 chromosomes
>
> Then at the *second* generation we get our stable population ratio:
>
> 6.25% of 44 chromosomes
> 37.50% of 45 chromosomes
> 56.25% of 46 chromosomes
if this was backgammon, i might get excited,
but it isn't backgammon,
and it takes about 5 generations to
filter out any potential for 44s
even starting from a population bottleneck,
-assuming- that no other factors
filter such a possibility out entirely.
do you have any demographic records which
show of a single 44 chromosomed human being?
this would be a fair demand.
show me a 44 chromosomed human being.
do you have any actual data for a
45/45 pairing which results in a 44 offspring?
Timothy Sutter
> Timothy Sutter writes
>>> and, there is no -stable- 44 population,
>> a random possibility for two 45/46
>> couples to begin a 'new' population,
>> granted, as a hypothetical possibility.
>> even though such an exclusive gathering
>> is already unprobablistically derived.
Sapient Fridge wrote:
> You are trying to say that genetic bottlenecks don't happen now?
no,
it's the coincidence of the first parental generation
that is already statistically constrained.
the two carriers would probably have
to be related before the bottleneck occurs.
your initial parental generation may be siblings.
and this may tend to increase the
potential for other genetic problems occuring.
Sapient Fridge wrote:
> Odd that you were trying to use it as the explanation for your vitamin C
> destroying virus then isn't it?
it's not the bottleneck, it's the indidence of
two carriers at random from the larger population, blind,
as the starting point of the first generation.
you don't get strangers as the 'carriers',
you get siblings as the 'carriers'.
if you'd like to suggest that this
presents no problems at all,
you can, but, it's still another
constricting disclaimer.
Sapient Fridge wrote:
> Most mutations will have happened in a single individual then spread
> through the population if it gives an advantage, or just by random
> drift. No matter how unlikely you think it is, that's what happens.
alright, so, you've got a single carrier,
who has several children, two of whom
are carriers,
and these two children form the
basis pair of carriers.
two of the first set of parents are siblings.
and so, all of the first generation
of offspring are first cousins.
this doesn't change the incidence of '45' carriers,
but it -may- introduce -other- genetic difficulties.
it's just that the initial parental pairings
seem to have to be already closely related
and not, two unrelated carrier groups.
>> now, this second generation breeds,
>> and 46/46 make 46s
>> 46/45 make 45 46 and 47
Sapient Fridge wrote:
> Stop right there. 47 isn't a possibility in our scenario.
sure seems like you get 'Downs' children in the first generation.
you claim they all die off, but they can still have ofspring,
only no 47s would be possible in a second generation.
where are all the Down's children going?
][if two copies of this post appear,
the servers are being strange.]]
Timothy Sutter
Sapient Fridge wrote:
> Sapient Fridge writes
>> Let's do the calculation properly. Our scenario is two couples, one
>> of each has a fused chromosome 14+21. So the parent generation is:
>>
>> 50% of 45 chromosomes
>> 50% of 46 chromosomes
>
> Slight oops, I worked out the figures for interbreeding within the whole
> population given random interbreeding . That's slightly wrong since we
> paired each carrier with a non-carrier, so the first generation can't
> have any 44s.
>
> The first generation has same proportion of carriers to non-carriers as
> the parents:
>
> 50% of 45 chromosomes
> 50% of 46 chromosomes
>
> Then at the *second* generation we get our stable population ratio:
>
>> 6.25% of 44 chromosomes
>> 37.50% of 45 chromosomes
>> 56.25% of 46 chromosomes
because it's just a parlor game,
it doesn't matter if you if you jump right
to 'f2' statistics, but you didn't say
that in your first statement.
i already factored out the assumption of monogamy.
now i'm factoring in that the two 'carriers' are siblings
and so, this 'bottleneck' develops
within a single genetic lineage.
meaning, that it seems as if all of the
first generation of offspring are first cousins.
so, you have to place another disclaimer in there
that would suggest that these sort of close familial
pairings aren't leading to other genetic difficulties.
Timothy Sutter
> a20...@lycos.com says...
>>> Timothy Sutter wrote: says...
>>>> no, i'm suggesting that the hand of man has tampered
>>>> with these species and it is possible that the original state
>>>> of these creatures was different from what it appears to be now.
>> Gregory A Greenman wrote:
>>> Isn't that what I just said?
>> do you understand the 'concept' of man's interference?
> No, I guess not.
well, i'll try again;
stick with dogs, it may be easier
for you to comprehend.
ok, so, in this "thought experiment"
well suggest that there is some dog species,
_Species A_
and that it was a protypical dog species
manufactured in a magnificent laboratory.
now, species A was manufactured with a whole
suite of genetic traits that encapsulated
a wide variety of potential adaptivities
within a single breeding pair.
just a very large variety of outward expressions
of traits were all piled up in this original
dog breed.
they didn't -all- express in the original
but they were all there.
nice doggies.
and man is lurking about in the shadows...
and man is tending towards
seeing the world this way;
"good is what's good for me, and bad
is what's not good for me, and, whatever
i gotta do to get what's good for me,
i'll do, even if it means doing stuff
to some of the other people and animals
around me, that i would object to
terribly if it was don't to me"
and man has become embittered
for some strange reason because he
finds that he must look over his
shoulder very often because someone
whom he hit over the head and stole
tennis shoes from has a friend that
wants to take his life away because
those shoes meant so much.
a sense of forboding...
now, skipping ahead...
man comes to realize that these outward potentials
in certain animals like dogs can be manipulated in
various ways cuz he ain't all that dumb and can
figure some things out even if he's turning a bit
mean in his mind cuz he's suffering from some
restless nights and upset stomach.
ok, so, he starts manipulating his dog's birth
rates in such a manner so as to get particlar
traits that he sees sometimes to be more magnified,
and so, -he- starts -selecting- for traits he
wants to see and takes a -very- heavy hand cuz
he ain't all that bright and hip to all of
the consequences of his handiwork.
and part of this heavy had is that when he
sees traits that he -doesn't- want, he
just immediately kills the dogs
that have them.
but in so doing, he starts reducing the overall
gene pool from the wealth of information that
Species A possessed to much lesser genetic wealth.
in other words, he starts ripping
whole pages out of Species A's genome.
maybe even a few whole chapters.
don't worry, he gets hit with some payback...
anyway, he's been doing this sort of
manipulation with many species of animals,
not, -"natural" selection-
but, -man's- selection.
interlude as intermission and popcorn...
that manin the 19th and twentieth centuries
pop up and look around at the world
and suppose that they are seeing a pristine
laboratoiry that is a formulation of x number
of years of -natural- selection,
he errs miserably in that he fails to take
into account the damages that even -his-
own generations are doing and have done
to the flora and fauna.
just storming into places and decimating
entire species lines to put figures on
walls and make pianos out of elephants tusks
and place fur coats on their lady friend's backsides.
little realizing that sthis sort
of behavior is not entirely
new to the world or peculiar to them, but that
we do see it and have seenit and know that
such effects are not easily dismissed as
unimportant to the overall balance of
the system as it was laid out.
still, before you think -natural selection-
you just really should try and think
for just a moment about -man's- selstion
because -man's selection has been quite
detrimental and harmful over the millenia.
is -that- any clearer?
so, anyway,
were lions and tigers once a single species?
it's quite possible.
see below for more of response.
and, for the sake of teh other person who
wants to point out "domestification" of animals,
first, add that bit in too as contributory
to overall human interventions,
all the while, realizing that some
peoples' "domectic" life
was really rather feral and warlike and not
just a kitchen with a sove and brownies for desert.
etc...
> "Are you suggesting that either they [lions/tigers and
> donkeys/horses] were once truly different species, but man has
> somehow changed that? Or, that once they were the same species but
> man has changed them into truly different species?"
> If you are not suggesting that, then what difference does any
> tampering by man make wrt the question?
-if- it can be established that lions
and tigers were once a single species,
and that now, we cannot -conclusively- establish
a unique and unambiguous species boundary,
it -could- be due to the hand of -man-
and -not- according to "natural selection"
the assumption of "natural selection" as precipitating
such a perceptual 'divergence' is premature and
therefore, unwarranted.
and so, -if- you can understand the concept of man's
interventionary tampering in the affairs of animals,
you should also be able to comprehend that any
contemporary 21st century wranglings over the
signs of ambiguous species delineations must
be seen through such a potential as causative.
is -that- any clearer?
> Now, here are the four questions, you ~still~ have not answered:
> 1. Are horses and donkeys truly different species?
they -may- have been at one time,
but that such possible steps towards a "divergence"
may have more to do with man's known tamperings
than with any sort of "natural selection" process.
is -that- any clearer?
> 2. How about lions and tigers?
see above
> 3. Under a creation model, if donkeys/horses and lions/tigers are
> truly different species, why can they produce offspring at all
> 4. If they are not truly different species, then why are the
> offspring so often sterile?
can you answer these for yourself
given even a slight conceptual understanding
of the hand of man as effective in these
animal's trait structures?
in that, under a so-called creation model,
we are -not- now looking at the prototypical original species
but a far removed sub-category of
that/those initial species forms.
just consider some of the hindu/indian
considerations of even the "ages of man"
thee would speak of a "golden age" of -man-
that is far removed from this 21st century
-man- with all of his very -brittle- genetics.
the golden age man, by some accounts,
would simply destroy so-called "modern man"
as far as outright awesomeness of
function and aptitude were concerned.
but you may be stuck in yur little
world where 21st centure man, to you,
is the measure of all things,
and, be so very far removed from the truth
if you only knew...
and when i say "brittle genetics"
i'm -telling- you that -losses-
in genetic materials over time
have resulted in a much more easily fractured man,
as opposed to teh tremendous genetic wealth that
was once in the human genome but is now missing
due to precipitous declines in populations on
a regular basis followed by some increases
in populations -after- such outright -losses-
of genetic materials.
and the same can be said for many animals.
the genetic structure is much more -brittle-
now than it was several millenia ago.
do you see at all what is being driven at here?
your model tends to look -backwards- to a lot of people.
any perceived "growth spurt" you may
be seeing in the last several centuries
is far and away -dwarfed- by many kneecappings
the species have undergone in times past.
so, you may be seeing tendencies
towards a "local maximum"
but that this "local maximum"
is well below any true maxima.
so, it just -looks- like an incline, "locally" in time,
but on teh over all,
this incline is well below any initial state.
etc.etc.etc.
maybe you saw an answer to your queries there.
maybe you didn't.
but i did.
Sapient Fridge
writes
>
And your reasoning behind that is....?
>even starting from a population bottleneck,
>
>-assuming- that no other factors
>filter such a possibility out entirely.
Have you tried actually modelling it, or did you just extrapolate from
the fact that the 46'ers went from 50% to 56.25% in one generation?
It doesn't work the way you think it does. I'll give you a clue, think
about how many fused chromosome are each of the above populations.
>do you have any demographic records which
>show of a single 44 chromosomed human being?
>
>this would be a fair demand.
>
>show me a 44 chromosomed human being.
What do you think a 44 chromosome human would show that existing 45
chromosome people don't already show? The 45'er already refute your
assertion that the chromosome count is "hard and fast".
>do you have any actual data for a
>45/45 pairing which results in a 44 offspring?
Give me a good reason why you think it couldn't.
How many chromosomes do you have? Maybe you are the example that you
are looking for!
Timothy Sutter
> Timothy Sutter wrote:
>> show me a 44 chromosomed human being.
> What do you think a 44 chromosome human would show that existing 45
> chromosome people don't already show? The 45'er already refute your
> assertion that the chromosome count is "hard and fast".
no, the human chromosome number is 46 and is not being altered,
as individual anomalies are filtered from the population.
>> do you have any actual data for a
>> 45/45 pairing which results in a 44 offspring?
> Give me a good reason why you think it couldn't.
from other post;
> http://www.springerlink.com/content/q1gq171730455v85/
one problem is, this "fetus" was not brought to term,
i.e. not born, and this doesn't bode well for it being
able to have been born.
which is a strike against that.
from abstract;
==
Summary We report the unique finding of a human fetus with 44
chromosomes with homozygous 14;21 translocations. This fetus appeared
phenotypically normal but the long-term neurodevelopmental outcome had
this pregnancy continued could not be predicted.
==
see, the "fetus" was not brought to term.
now, in the article itself,
they "speculate" that one 14:21
was inherited from the father,
and the other arose "de novo", and was suspected
to have been caused by the mother's chemotherapy
which she had received for lupus.
and a previous sibling was born with
psychomotor retardation and was 45XX.
this one instance, which may have arisen
due to artificial circumstances involving
chemotherapy which resulted in a
terminated pregnancy,
tends to speak against such a
possibility ever being brought
to term.
and so, one may suggest that
such an occurence is
negated.
can't happen.
from abstract;
==
It is interesting that although 14;21 translocations
are among the commonest structural chromosome
rearrangements in man, there are no previous
reports in newborn surveys of a child with
44 chromosomes resulting from the mating of
two identical Robertsonian translocation
carrier parents.
==
there's no instance of this happening before,
and they say as much in the article,
that it is unique.
and the investigators suspect that it
happened this time because of the
chemotherapy that the mother
had received.
the thing is, that this
'artificially' instigated specimen
was not brought to term.
the prospect truly looks dismal.
it doesn't happen.
Sapient Fridge
writes:
<snip>
>10000 first generation offspring
>
>
>5625 46 AA
>
>3750 45 AB
>
>625 44 BB
Yep, same numbers as mine. Those are now the stable frequency unless
something changes it i.e. something advantageous or disadvantageous.
>and now these all randomly mate.
>
>maybe,
>
>there is a far greater potential
>for 46/46 couplings to occur
>
>that 44/44 couplings.
>
>you can't just assume that
>44s will mate with 44s at all,
>
>or that any 44s were even brought
>to term and survived to adulthood.
>
>so many assumptions that must be extended.
>
>you have to want to insist that the
>44s all knew who they were,
Nope, but they might look a bit different or be generated more often
e.g. if the chief of a tribe happened to be a 44, and had more children
because he was the chief then that would skew the frequency. Lots of
things can skew it, either direction.
>all the while assuming that the 46s didn't
>know, and just kill them all off as they
>appeared because there were so many more
>of them and saw them as alien and
>to be destroyed.
>
>which may be the more probable outcome.
>
>if you want to play that game,
>
>if the 46s all look a particular way,
>
>and they start seeing a few
>children that look strange,
>
>they may just kill'em all in the crib.
>
>so, -that's- possible as well.
Yep, absolutely. All kinds of things are possible, some are more
likely than others.
I will completely 100% agree with you that it is not likely though. I
never said it was. The point of the thought experiment was to show it
wasn't impossible (as you appeared to be stating).
Now, have a good look at the human gene number 2 and compare it to the
equivalent pair of great ape chromosomes.
http://www.gate.net/~rwms/hum_ape_chrom.html
Now what do you think might have happened to cause that, bearing in mind
our current discussion?
Sapient Fridge
writes
Sheesh, it's a thought experiment showing how a 44 chromosome population
could arise. It's meant to demonstrate the idea and doesn't have to
cover every bloody detail.
There is actually a lot of evidence that the non-African human
population came from a group of about 700 humans, so instead of two
couples let's have an Airbus A380 containing 852 nuns going to a
conference and one lucky bloke (who happens to be a fused chromosome
carrier.)
Happy now?
Sapient Fridge
writes
>
>>> which both potentially produce 46 45 and 47
>
>> In the scenario we are talking a chromosome count of 47 cannot be
>> generated (a fused 14 and 21 chromosome).
>
>
>from your 'scenario'
>
>#For some reason both families end up isolated on an island (plane
>crash)
>#with no other population to interbreed with. The Downs kids all die
>but
>#the rest of the kids grow up and start mating, but now the number of
>#carriers in this F1 population is roughly the same as the numbers of
>#normal children because they *all* had a parent with a fused
>chromosome.
I don't see the relevance. Nothing there suggests that a 47 chromosome
person could be generated from the scenario. Unless of course you think
Down's children always have 47 chromosome? If so then you need to do
some more reading.
So is my request to show how 47 chromosomes can come about going to be
another thing that you can't/won't answer?
>i'm probably going to split soon myself,
>
>this is trolling and nothing more.
I know you are trolling but it's an interesting path to follow, even if
your "hard and fast" chromosome number statement has already gone down
in flames.
>enjoy your parlor games.
>
>it's not happening.
>
>
>
>
--
Timothy Sutter
it isn't arising, and in fact, the only case of a 44 fetus
is theorized to have been brought about by complications
due to chemotherapy in the mother.
> There is actually a lot of evidence that the non-African human
> population came from a group of about 700 humans, so instead of two
> couples let's have an Airbus A380 containing 852 nuns going to a
> conference and one lucky bloke (who happens to be a fused chromosome
> carrier.)
and this leaves us with a potential for
all so-called, first generation progeny to have a single father,
and so, all of the so-called second generation are cousins.
whichcould lead to still more difficulties.
Timothy Sutter
> In message <48E814...@lycos.com>, Timothy Sutter <a20...@lycos.com>
> writes:
>
> <snip>
>
>> 10000 first generation offspring
>>
>>
>> 5625 46 AA
>>
>> 3750 45 AB
>>
>> 625 44 BB
> Yep, same numbers as mine. Those are now the stable frequency unless
> something changes it i.e. something advantageous or disadvantageous.
and teh fact that no living 44s have ever been
found in the population seems to suggest that "625"
is purely theoretical and not taking into account
other gene regulation factors.
but, all this punnet square routine
fails to consider a necessary element,
and that element is that this trait may
not be controlled on/by a single locus
and so, the analysis of 'it' as if 'it'
were so controlled may be altogether, not
only premature but, irrelevant,
and by this i mean,
that this trait structure may
be contolled by several loci
each contributing to the expression
of this singularly placed signature expression.
and so, the expression of such a trait may
be exclusively prevented from -ever-
actually happening.
'hidden' control traits are known to be operational
which do nothing -but- shut on and off -other- traits.
and if it truly is a series of toggles which
all must be switched up for this trait to express,
and even a single toggle is expressly being
-ordered- -by- control to -never- allow such
a switching, then, you simply -never- see it.
and as of right now, we aren't seeing it.
these are factual possibilities
with which you must contend.
we ain't peas, but something
altogether more complex.
try -5- loci of control.
see the sort of 'hairy' matrix you'll
have to develop in order to calculate
the infinitessimally minute fractional
possibility of a 44 ever being expressed.
how these 5 loci of control may themselves
be arrayed as to "zygosity" is itself a
'hairy' problem.
bt among all the other liberties of
peculiartity of circumstance you
wish to be granteed,
you must demand that it is a single locus of control
and for such a very important trait expression,
such simple control features may not be that simple.
of course, you canshrug it all off as overly
complicated so as to be insoluable and
that ain't "science"
but ...
it may be possible to know for sure,
but these very 'convenient' allowances
of liberality ain't getting you nearer
to that truth.
yes, there are trait structures that
are controlled by more than one locus.
i little 4 by 4 punnet square isn't
even close to seeing the wider picture.
you may be looking at a 25 by 25 of
individual 4 by 4s for just this
one expression.
you're looking at gene expression in a human being,
not a pea.
shrug
yes, control mechansism are in place
even for events such a 'accidental' breakage.
these events may be terminated
in a very orderly fashion.
yeah, matrix inversion on a computer
may take a few mintes withpure numbers,
but when the matrix elements
themself have variables attached,
you'll be sitting there with a very
blunt pencil in your little paws.
>> and now these all randomly mate.
>> maybe,
>> there is a far greater potential
>> for 46/46 couplings to occur
>> that 44/44 couplings.
>> you can't just assume that
>> 44s will mate with 44s at all,
>> or that any 44s were even brought
>> to term and survived to adulthood.
>> so many assumptions that must be extended.
>> you have to want to insist that the
>> 44s all knew who they were,
> Nope, but they might look a bit different or be generated more often
> e.g. if the chief of a tribe happened to be a 44, and had more children
> because he was the chief then that would skew the frequency. Lots of
> things can skew it, either direction.
what can really skew it is that no
living 44s have ever been documented.
and this withmating between known 45s.
the one time we see an abortive fetus that is 44,
teh investigators suggest that the
chemotherapy in the mother caused it.
>> all the while assuming that the 46s didn't
>> know, and just kill them all off as they
>> appeared because there were so many more
>> of them and saw them as alien and
>> to be destroyed.
>> which may be the more probable outcome.
>> if you want to play that game,
>> if the 46s all look a particular way,
>> and they start seeing a few
>> children that look strange,
>> they may just kill'em all in the crib.
>> so, -that's- possible as well.
> Yep, absolutely. All kinds of things are possible, some are more
> likely than others.
> I will completely 100% agree with you that it is not likely though. I
> never said it was. The point of the thought experiment was to show it
> wasn't impossible (as you appeared to be stating).
it may be impossible because you are not considering
other factors which would seem to be supressing 44s
right now, for real.
> Now, have a good look at the human gene number 2 and compare it to the
> equivalent pair of great ape chromosomes.
> http://www.gate.net/~rwms/hum_ape_chrom.html
> Now what do you think might have happened to cause that,
> bearing in mind our current discussion?
robertson translocations occur
in so-called "acrocentric" pairs,
and not generally on the same,
homologous, chromosome,
in fact, such potentials, are
considerable more rare, very rare, even.
and one case where it may have
been noted resulted in sterile
offspring.
in fact we see recurrent abortions
in cases of 21/21 robertsonisms.
http://www.kfshrc.edu.sa/annals/154/94146/94146.pdf
maybe you might like to show me
a 2/2 homologous translocation.
Timothy Sutter
> writes:
> Yep, same numbers as mine. Those are now the stable frequency unless
> something changes it i.e. something advantageous or disadvantageous.
and teh fact that no living 44s have ever been
but ...
not a pea.
shrug
>> and now these all randomly mate.
>> maybe,
>> there is a far greater potential
>> for 46/46 couplings to occur
>> that 44/44 couplings.
>> you can't just assume that
>> 44s will mate with 44s at all,
>> or that any 44s were even brought
>> to term and survived to adulthood.
>> so many assumptions that must be extended.
>> you have to want to insist that the
>> 44s all knew who they were,
> Nope, but they might look a bit different or be generated more often
> e.g. if the chief of a tribe happened to be a 44, and had more children
> because he was the chief then that would skew the frequency. Lots of
> things can skew it, either direction.
what can really skew it is that no
living 44s have ever been documented.
and this withmating between known 45s.
the one time we see an abortive fetus that is 44,
teh investigators suggest that the
chemotherapy in the mother caused it.
>> all the while assuming that the 46s didn't
>> know, and just kill them all off as they
>> appeared because there were so many more
>> of them and saw them as alien and
>> to be destroyed.
>> which may be the more probable outcome.
>> if you want to play that game,
>> if the 46s all look a particular way,
>> and they start seeing a few
>> children that look strange,
>> they may just kill'em all in the crib.
>> so, -that's- possible as well.
> Yep, absolutely. All kinds of things are possible, some are more
> likely than others.
> I will completely 100% agree with you that it is not likely though. I
> never said it was. The point of the thought experiment was to show it
> wasn't impossible (as you appeared to be stating).
it may be impossible because you are not considering
other factors which would seem to be supressing 44s
right now, for real.
> Now, have a good look at the human gene number 2 and compare it to the
> equivalent pair of great ape chromosomes.
> http://www.gate.net/~rwms/hum_ape_chrom.html
> Now what do you think might have happened to cause that,
> bearing in mind our current discussion?
robertson translocations occur
in so-called "acrocentric" pairs,
and not generally on the same,
homologous, chromosome,
in fact, such potentials, are
considerable more rare, very rare, even.
and one case where it may have
been noted resulted in sterile
offspring, and
Timothy Sutter
Sapient Fridge wrote:
> In message <48E80F...@lycos.com>, Timothy Sutter <a20...@lycos.com>
> writes
>>
>>>> which both potentially produce 46 45 and 47
>>
>>> In the scenario we are talking a chromosome count of 47 cannot be
>>> generated (a fused 14 and 21 chromosome).
>>
>>
>> from your 'scenario'
>>
>> #For some reason both families end up isolated on an island (plane
>> crash)
>> #with no other population to interbreed with. The Downs kids all die
>> but
>> #the rest of the kids grow up and start mating, but now the number of
>> #carriers in this F1 population is roughly the same as the numbers of
>> #normal children because they *all* had a parent with a fused
>> chromosome.
> I don't see the relevance. Nothing there suggests that a 47 chromosome
> person could be generated from the scenario. Unless of course you think
> Down's children always have 47 chromosome? If so then you need to do
> some more reading.
these concerns are irrelevant,
and have all been cleared up in your
restatement of the problem which had
many clear flaws.
Timothy Sutter
richardal...@googlemail.com wrote:
> On Oct 6, 1:23 pm, Timothy Sutter <a202...@lycos.com> wrote:
>> richardalanforr...@googlemail.com wrote:
>>> On Oct 6, 10:25 am, Timothy Sutter <a202...@lycos.com> wrote:
>>>> richardalanforr...@googlemail.com wrote:
>>>>> On Oct 5, 9:54 pm, Timothy Sutter <a202...@lycos.com> wrote:
>>>>>> richardalanforr...@googlemail.com wrote:
>>>>>>> On Oct 3, 9:15 pm, Timothy Sutter <a202...@lycos.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> richardalanforr...@googlemail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Timothy Sutter wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> richardalanforr...@googlemail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> Timothy Sutter wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> a wholly irelevant concern
>>>>>>>>>>> To you perhaps, but I suggest that the views of the people who study a
>>>>>>>>>>> subject are relevant to that subject.
>>>>>>>>>> it's not relevant to the ambiguous nature
>>>>>>>>>> of some of this 'species' assignment problem.
>>>>>>>>>> if "biologists" prefer this sort of ambiguity,
>>>>>>>>>> it could be that they are trying to be intentionally
>>>>>>>>>> obscure for some reason, and that isn't helpful.
>>>>>>>>> No, the reason why they say that there are no hard and fast boundaries
>>>>>>>>> between species is because that is what the evidence shows.
>>>>>>>>> If you have a different interpretation
>>>>>>>>> for the evidence feel free to offer it.
>>>>>>>> it's already been offered with concerns to ducks.
>>>>>>> You mean the "they're still ducks" "argument?
>>>>>> no, i mean that ducks have been
>>>>>> categorized into numerous 'pseudo-species'
>>>>>> which evidently turn out not to be
>>>>>> true species at all.
>>>>> Well, according to the biologist who study ducks they are "true
>>>>> species" (whatever the hell that means).
>>>> that can produce offspring with other "species"
>>> Yes. It's not uncommon. It's called "hybridisation".
>> it can also be called;
>> "same species being called different species"
> No, that's not what hybridisation means.
that's not what yo mean by it,
but that's the entailment of the situation.
Timothy Sutter
this boils down to something
of this sort,
it seems to look like man can
take certain trait structures
out of teh natural mileu,
and -enforce- isolations in such a manner
that it the end product -appears- like
the work of a "tinkering god"
and so, if one suggests that a "tinkering god"
does in fact fit the "evidence" and this is
not refused,
then, one may recursively suggest that this
"tinkering" was done in the -mind- of the
"tinkering God,"
-before- this "tinkering God" ever set out
the actual beasts in the material framework,
and so, our "tinkering God"
starts with a template structure
for this image called "man"
and "menatlly, assembles and reassembles
the -theoretical- "man" in such ways as
to result in a whole host of structures,
which seem to bear some similarity
with this theoretical "man"
and all of these permutations are
going in in the Mind of teh "Tinkering God"
and subsequently -appear- in the "finished product"
but, -not-, i might add, that we are looking now,
at unadulterated exemplars and specimen of
these -original- templates, and so,
some of -our- permutations may be
based on incomplete information.
richardal...@googlemail.com
The entertainment comes from watching you make a complete and utter
fool of yourself because you quite evidently are pontificating on a
subject about which you know bugger all.
RF
richardal...@googlemail.com
Has it ever occurred to you to write in English?
RF
Sapient Fridge
You forgot to give the reason why you stated that 47 chromosomes are
possible from the scenario.
Ah, I see. You realise you made a mistake, but can't admit it?
Sapient Fridge
So? The fact that one has been shown to exist and was "phenotypically
normal" blows your argument that it was impossible of the water.
Don't forget that I wasn't arguing that it was likely, only that it was
possible.
>> There is actually a lot of evidence that the non-African human
>> population came from a group of about 700 humans, so instead of two
>> couples let's have an Airbus A380 containing 852 nuns going to a
>> conference and one lucky bloke (who happens to be a fused chromosome
>> carrier.)
>
>and this leaves us with a potential for
>
>all so-called, first generation progeny to have a single father,
>
>and so, all of the so-called second generation are cousins.
>
>whichcould lead to still more difficulties.
Sorry, I should have put warning signs around my trap.
Why do you think it's called a gene pool? Because it eventually all
mixes. From 853 people you have 1705 examples for all chromosomes,
except the Y gene (only one of them).
The only thing the Y chromosome appears to control is maleness and hairy
ears, and as far as I know that has never been considered a congenital
defect.
Timothy Sutter
so, it isn't a natural occurence, that's what
the investigators are suggesting and they
mention the very uniqueness of it -as- the
reason why they suggest the chemotherapy
as the cause.
they wouldn't even bother to mention the mother's
chemotherapy for lupus if it wasn't of prime
importance in explaining the anomaly.
if you'd bother to read the article,
the investigators suspect that it was
the chemotherapy that the mother had
recieved which caused the anomaly
to arise "de novo".
they clearly cite that no other specimen,
much less a -live birth- has ever been recorded.
my theory is that the chemotherapy disabled part
of the regulatory apparatus which specificaly
prevents such an anomaly from happening.
> Don't forget that I wasn't arguing that it
> was likely, only that it was possible.
and the article does more to show that such
a prospect is -not- possible aside from the
interjection of a chemical agents that
specifically targets dna.
>>> There is actually a lot of evidence that the non-African human
>>> population came from a group of about 700 humans, so instead of two
>>> couples let's have an Airbus A380 containing 852 nuns going to a
>>> conference and one lucky bloke (who happens to be a fused chromosome
>>> carrier.)
>> and this leaves us with a potential for
>> all so-called, first generation progeny to have a single father,
>> and so, all of the so-called second generation are cousins.
>> which could lead to still more difficulties.
> Sorry, I should have put warning signs around my trap.
and 851 of the nuns were over 50 and past
the age of childbearing and had zero interest
in starting a family with this man on the airplane,
and 1 was considering it, but she had already
taken vows which precluded such a thing and
the nuns went into a powwow
and decided to allow for a single child to be born
so they could have someone to pass on their
various doctines to, but the novice then decided
that she'd prefer to stand in her vows and not
have a child with this man.
and they spent the day making furniture out
of coconut shells and some of it can be found
in fine furniture stores and nobody ever did
find out what became of them.
and no 44 chromosome children were ever produced
in the larger population and the human species
remined identically inkind as it was from the
onset except inasmuch as the bloodlines had
thinned out and tehy all prayed to Jesus for
salvation and Jesus blesssed them with a
crown of life after they got whacked
in the head with a crown of thorns and they
all lived happly ever after.
the end.
Timothy Sutter
richardal...@googlemail.com wrote:
> Has it ever occurred to you to write in English?
the communication level here is obviously at a nadir.
Timothy Sutter
this wholly irrelevant remark does not
detract, in any manner, from my statement.
Timothy Sutter
> Timothy Sutter writes
>> Sapient Fridge wrote:
>>> Timothy Sutter writes
>>>>>> which both potentially produce 46 45 and 47
>>>>> In the scenario we are talking a chromosome count of 47 cannot be
>>>>> generated (a fused 14 and 21 chromosome).
>>>> from your 'scenario'
>>>> #For some reason both families end up isolated on an island (plane
>>>> crash)
>>>> #with no other population to interbreed with. The Downs kids all die
>>>> but
>>>> #the rest of the kids grow up and start mating, but now the number of
>>>> #carriers in this F1 population is roughly the same as the numbers of
>>>> #normal children because they *all* had a parent with a fused
>>>> chromosome.
>>> I don't see the relevance. Nothing there suggests that a 47 chromosome
>>> person could be generated from the scenario. Unless of course you think
>>> Down's children always have 47 chromosome? If so then you need to do
>>> some more reading.
>> these concerns are irrelevant,
>> and have all been cleared up in your
>> restatement of the problem which had
>> many clear flaws.
> You forgot to give the reason why you stated
> that 47 chromosomes are possible from the scenario.
down's syndrome is usually associated with trisomy 21
and a de facto 47th chromosome.
if yu have a different sort of down's syndrome,
it may be another point you omitted from your statement.
such as it is, it isn't very important
to the overall outcome, so, i didn't
pursue it further.
> Ah, I see. You realise you made a mistake, but can't admit it?
no, i wouldn't say that.
just looking at all the possible options
i wouldn't say that i have some inability to admit mistakes,
after all, i'm a christian.
Timothy Sutter
see, God is already perfectly
reflected in God's own Word.
God is Breathing, eternally, God.
when the breathing Spirit moves forward
in some utterance, this Word brings
the Spirit in to a 'new place'
a 'new place' that comes in to being
simultaneously with the utterance.
before this beginning, God knows God
as the private inspiration of God.
before this beginning, Love is a
private matter known only in God.
one can suggest that The Word which is
always present in Spirit and with Spirit
summarily formulates an encapsulation
of God's own Spirit, and,
as God speaks
this unseen Word, that which was not seen,
becomes seen, and God is beginning to show
that which God has always known.
in this beginning, of material and
non-material structures, is seen the
evidence of the unseen Word
and, as
the unseen Word is made manifest,
so also, the Spirit is realized
in this 'new place'
strange is the singular declaration
made by God and conceived in
the human Mary,
is
different from the multiple
declarations made by God which
resulted in the material universe.
which is to say: the material universe
is brought forth in discrete stages,
whereas
Jesus,
that ultimate manifestation of The Word,
came about in one complete declaration.
one minor detail;
there is first, a declaration which
results in the conception in Mary,
and later, two declarations
of support for the human
being so formed,
which is to say, the thunder
from the blue which states;
"this is My Son in whom
i am well pleased"
and then;
"this is My Son, listen to Him"
and then, Jesus is -declared-
"first born from the dead"
but each time here,
it's stamping the same
general remark upon
the human race.
a remark of God's own completeness and
Holiness upon a material creation that
was made to stand apart from God, suffered
paling anguish in comparison to God, and
is redeemed to a station of Unity in God.
if we say that each declaration made by God
carries an exacting image of God's own presence,
then, the multiple declarations made in bringing
forth the material universe, each resemble
particular manifestations of Theistic attribution,
whereas, that singular declaration which
conceives Christ, is the Spirit made Word
made material.
God has taken hold of this 'new place' and
the multiple manifestations all reside as One.
The Word made manifest is God,
but, a summed duplication of God is not God,
this drama serves first to demonstrate
with crystal clarity that God is God
and there can be no other God.
while God knew that God's own Spirit
would be presented with undeniable
clarity in God's own Word,
God can also be aware that any summation
of all Theistic attribution would remain
short of the Fullness of Deity in Love,
but, any lack of recognition of God's
Ultimate Preeminence in All
found in any summed
duplication of God's attributes must
be met with the strictest Judgement
until such time as God's own Mercy
is to be correspondingly bestowed.
to be 'not God' is not a crime.
to be 'not God' and not comprehend,
must be treated as a crime.
such chastizement is unutterably profound
subsequently, the removal of all blot is
Joy unspeakable and full of Glory.
God acts according to God's own Will
founded in that Love which human beings
aspire to comprehend.
God spins out a governing authority
as independant Beings.
before we examine the purpose to which
these independant Beings were spun out,
we would consider that in spinning out
these structural elements as independant
characteristics, these elements first take
on the attribute of 'not God' inasmuch as
they become as creations, and therefore,
God must redeem these structural elements,
themselves, in to full unity with God.
what could be considered strange, is that
any of these God breathed characteristics
could turn around, and view God as subject
to -it's- authority.
so, now, looking at this view, we can
easily see a potential for God's own
creation to turn on God and convince
itself that God belongs in
-its- dominion.
the Creator being ruled by a creation.
such authority as God already possesses
in God's own Perfect Will in Love.
God acts according to God's
own Will founded in Love.
such a turnaround could found a Selfish
elevation which would nullify ·that·
creation's claim to Love, the defining
characteristic of God.
should such a turnaround occur, its reckoning
as a potential hazzard would already have been
recognized, but still, it will remain as a
controversy in any creation that would desire
to subjugate that perfect Will of God.
in so doing,
·that· creation stymies its own freedom.
in so doing,
·that· creation distorts it's
view of Self to deny that
perfect Will of God.
in so doing,
·that· creation captures itself in a snare.
to aspire to God by denying that to which it aspires
it must deny it's own God breathed characteristics
and distort it's own view of it's own authority.
meanwhile, God is still God and Is Love
but, ·that· unruly ruler has fallen headlong
in to a morass of irrational justifications.
whereas, ideally it would have it's
independant will in submission to
the unity of God's perfect
Will in Love,
it now has two ·competing· wills
it has birthed an indecisive
competition with it·self which
it also translates into an
adversarial position against
God, its Creator.
Self destruction is immenent
freeze it there for a while...
> God acts according to God's own Will
> founded in that Love which human beings
> aspire to comprehend.
we could call this True autonomy.
behaving independantly according to personal will,
coupled with designs only to carry those admirable,
harmless and benevolent actions borne out of Love.
as God grants autonomy to its creations, we would
not consider it harmless and benevolent to allow
any creation to fixate on its own attributes
to the point of self destructive idolatry.
and so, should such a situation arise, during the
subsequent course of extracting such a creation
from it's self induced strugglings, if God appears
to 'smite' that creation with harsh criticisms,
we may still conclude that these criticisms are
borne out of an admirable Love.
even if that criticism involves removal
of autonomy and exacting demonstrations
of shortfall.
so, we should conclude that God's meting
out Justice is itself borne out of Love
and alone accomplishes the most Merciful ends.
it is not that God's work is purposefully 'booby-trapped'
but it is as if, in spinning out autonomous figures,
God stands at the door when those autonomous figures
seek an immediate return to the domain of God,
and now, God at the door represents a stumbling stone.
there is no way around God at the door,
because God is the door, and the desire
towards True autonomy is all pervasive.
there is this fine line tripwire which
is simply inherent in the situation.
in God as perfect Unity in Love the good
of the neighbor is exactly the good of God,
but, as God spins out these autonomous figures,
these new creatures must confront the motivating
forces towards True autonomy coupled with the
overriding necessity to cede 'all others' their
own personal autonomy.
and so, when these newly spun autonomous figures
are able to see their own good in and as the good
of all others, they succeed, but as any see their
own personal good as of primary and even sole
importance, they fall short.
and i mean, fall headlong over the stumbling stone.
and so, what may seem to us as
unbearably harsh chastizements,
is simply God falling with the stumbler,
and being there to lift 'it' back up
in newness of Life.
God never pushed it down, it fell.
and God alone can make it rise again.
richardal...@googlemail.com
The simple fact is that your statement is wrong.
Why not learn something about the species concept in biology rather
than pontificating on a subject about which you evidently know buffer
all?
It seems that creationists are threatened by the idea of education.
RF
richardal...@googlemail.com
> > Has it ever occurred to you to write in English?
>
> the communication level here is obviously at a nadir.
Quite, and it is you who seem to have problems with communication. I
suggest that your inability to write clear, coherent English is a
manifestation of the lack of clarity and confusion of your thoughts.
RF
Timothy Sutter
>>>>>>>>> Well, according to the biologist who study ducks they are "true
>>>>>>>>> species" (whatever the hell that means).
>>>>>>>> that can produce offspring with other "species"
>>>>>>> Yes. It's not uncommon. It's called "hybridisation".
>>>>>> it can also be called;
>>>>>> "same species being called different species"
>>>>> No, that's not what hybridisation means.
>>>> that's not what yo mean by it,
>>>> but that's the entailment of the situation.
>>> The entertainment comes from watching you make a complete and utter
>>> fool of yourself because you quite evidently are pontificating on a
>>> subject about which you know bugger all.
>> this wholly irrelevant remark does not
>> detract, in any manner, from my statement.
> The simple fact is that your statement is wrong.
your categorisation of organisms is ambiguous.
you've drawn lines which appear fuzzy to you.
there are lines which are -not- fuzzy.
-your- ambiguity leads you to draw a
false conclusion that all lines
are fuzzy.
they are not
Timothy Sutter
>>>> and subsequently -appear- in the "finished product"
>>>> but, -not-, i might add, that we are looking now,
>>>> at unadulterated exemplars and specimen of
>>>> these -original- templates, and so,
>>>> some of -our- permutations may be
>>>> based on incomplete information.
>> richardalanforr...@googlemail.com wrote:
>>> Has it ever occurred to you to write in English?
> Timothy Sutter wrote:
>> the communication level here is obviously at a nadir.
richardal...@googlemail.com wrote:
> Quite, and it is you who seem to have problems with communication. I
> suggest that your inability to write clear, coherent English is a
> manifestation of the lack of clarity and confusion of your thoughts.
if you are having trouble understanding me, ask a question.
if you simply can't understand me, then, for you
to say, "you're wrong" is sort of like flailing
at a windmill or something of that nature.
there's you, with your little stick in your hand
flailing it madly at the breeze, and seeing nothing.
not as entertaining for me as you may like to suggest.
Timothy Sutter
richardal...@googlemail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Well, according to the biologist who study ducks they are "true
>>>>>>>>> species" (whatever the hell that means).
>>>>>>>> that can produce offspring with other "species"
>>>>>>> Yes. It's not uncommon. It's called "hybridisation".
>>>>>> it can also be called;
>>>>>> "same species being called different species"
>>>>> No, that's not what hybridisation means.
>>>> that's not what yo mean by it,
>>>> but that's the entailment of the situation.
>>> The entertainment comes from watching you make a complete and utter
>>> fool of yourself because you quite evidently are pontificating on a
>>> subject about which you know bugger all.
>> this wholly irrelevant remark does not
>> detract, in any manner, from my statement.
> The simple fact is that your statement is wrong.
your categorisation of organisms is ambiguous.
richardal...@googlemail.com
> > Quite, and it is you who seem to have problems with communication. I
> > suggest that your inability to write clear, coherent English is a
> > manifestation of the lack of clarity and confusion of your thoughts.
>
> if you are having trouble understanding me, ask a question.
>
> if you simply can't understand me, then, for you
> to say, "you're wrong" is sort of like flailing
> at a windmill or something of that nature.
>
> there's you, with your little stick in your hand
> flailing it madly at the breeze, and seeing nothing.
>
> not as entertaining for me as you may like to suggest.
I suggest that the confused and semicoherent nature of some of your
posts is a manifestation of your confused and semicoherent thoughts on
the subject of the species concept in biology.
You seem to be suggesting that the reason why we do *not* see clear-
cut boundaries to species is that we lack complete information.
However, history shows that the more information we gather, the less
clear-cut species boundaries become.
To repeat a question which you seem unwilling to answer: what do you
know that biologists - you know, the poor buggers who devote their
working lives to *studying* living organisms - don't?
RF
richardal...@googlemail.com
> richardalanforr...@googlemail.com wrote:
> > On Oct 7, 10:24 am, Timothy Sutter wrote:
> >> richardalanforr...@googlemail.com wrote:
> >>> On Oct 6, 4:41 pm, Timothy Sutter wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> Well, according to the biologist who study ducks they are "true
> >>>>>>>>> species" (whatever the hell that means).
> >>>>>>>> that can produce offspring with other "species"
> >>>>>>> Yes. It's not uncommon. It's called "hybridisation".
> >>>>>> it can also be called;
> >>>>>> "same species being called different species"
> >>>>> No, that's not what hybridisation means.
> >>>> that's not what yo mean by it,
> >>>> but that's the entailment of the situation.
> >>> The entertainment comes from watching you make a complete and utter
> >>> fool of yourself because you quite evidently are pontificating on a
> >>> subject about which you know bugger all.
> >> this wholly irrelevant remark does not
> >> detract, in any manner, from my statement.
> > The simple fact is that your statement is wrong.
>
> your categorisation of organisms is ambiguous.
>
> you've drawn lines which appear fuzzy to you.
>
> there are lines which are -not- fuzzy.
And which lines are those?
The biologists who actually *study* living organisms conclude from the
evidence that there are no hard and fast boundaries to species.
What do you know that all those biologists don't?
>
> -your- ambiguity leads you to draw a
> false conclusion that all lines
> are fuzzy.
>
> they are not
And apparently we should simply take your word for this.
Why?
RF
Timothy Sutter
> You seem to be suggesting that the reason why we do *not* see clear-
> cut boundaries to species is that we lack complete information.
no, i'm saying that some of your own boundaries
that you place on organisms are arbitrary in
the first place, and based on how pretty
their uniforms are, but that when teams
don't all where the same uniform, you become addled
and start saying that-they- are not playing
by -your- rules, maybe there are no rules,
and so, maybe there are no teams,
but's you'll keep -your- scorecard at
your side any way just to keep tabs on
things the way you like, and when
your scorecard lets you down,
you keep is as a souvenier
of how addled the -world- is.
> To repeat a question which you seem unwilling to answer: what do you
> know that biologists - you know, the poor buggers who devote their
> working lives to *studying* living organisms - don't?
it's easy for me to see that when -your- scorecard
misrepresents reality, that it's -your- scorecard
which is faulty and -not- reality.
-your- scorecard needs revision
-reality- does not need -your- revision.
a none too subtle difference
and one you should chalk up to
the "ongoing scientific endeavor."
Timothy Sutter
have you ever heard that an "expert" is a person
who knows all there is to know abut absolutely
nothing at all?
and this is atributed to the tendedncy towards "specialization"
and so, you look just a little bit too close at
a particular fish that seems to want to elude your grasp,
and never quite take the time to step back a bit and see
how they do seem to do more than just swim together.
etc.
>> -your- ambiguity leads you to draw a
>> false conclusion that all lines
>> are fuzzy.
>> they are not
> And apparently we should simply take your word for this.
you -should- be able to take your own word for it,
but, you seem to have developed a presumption
of disarray where none is present, and
this is clouding your perspective.
Timothy Sutter
just don't forget, when you do your little computer
generated geneologies from dna footprints,
of several species,
it spits back several species and not
just one big indistingishable blob.
that speaks plenty for certain
lines being unbroken.
Sapient Fridge
<ff6e1609-ada9-4f9a...@q35g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
Timothy Sutter <a20...@lycos.com> writes
It was fully covered in the paper I pointed you at and which you read:
http://www.spamsights.org/college/Robertsonian.doc
>such as it is, it isn't very important
>to the overall outcome, so, i didn't
>pursue it further.
Actually it was important because we were talking about chromosome
numbers and you came up with counts which weren't possible in our
scenario.
>
>> Ah, I see. You realise you made a mistake, but can't admit it?
>
>no, i wouldn't say that.
>
>just looking at all the possible options
>
>i wouldn't say that i have some inability to admit mistakes,
>
>after all, i'm a christian.
>
>
--
Sapient Fridge
<da803763-8dc0-4a57...@l64g2000hse.googlegroups.com>,
Timothy Sutter <a20...@lycos.com> writes
<snip>
>>> it isn't arising, and in fact, the only case of a 44 fetus
>>> is theorized to have been brought about by complications
>>> due to chemotherapy in the mother.
>
>> So? The fact that one has been shown to exist and was "phenotypically
>> normal" blows your argument that it was impossible of the water.
>
>
>so, it isn't a natural occurence, that's what
>the investigators are suggesting and they
>mention the very uniqueness of it -as- the
>reason why they suggest the chemotherapy
>as the cause.
>
>they wouldn't even bother to mention the mother's
>chemotherapy for lupus if it wasn't of prime
>importance in explaining the anomaly.
>
>if you'd bother to read the article,
>
>the investigators suspect that it was
>the chemotherapy that the mother had
>recieved which caused the anomaly
>to arise "de novo".
>
>they clearly cite that no other specimen,
>much less a -live birth- has ever been recorded.
>
>my theory is that the chemotherapy disabled part
>of the regulatory apparatus which specificaly
>prevents such an anomaly from happening.
No chemotherapy is needed to produce Robersonian translocations. They
happen completely naturally. In this case it may have been caused by
the chemicals but the end result is the same.
>> Don't forget that I wasn't arguing that it
>> was likely, only that it was possible.
>
>and the article does more to show that such
>a prospect is -not- possible aside from the
>interjection of a chemical agents that
>specifically targets dna.
A human being with 44 chromosomes and which was ""phenotypically normal"
was developing. Alas it didn't reach full term (for whatever reason)
but that fact that it got as far as it did shows that it is possible and
that all your claims that it isn't possible for one to be formed are
refuted.
Given that fused 14,21 chromosomes have all the genetic material from
both chromosomes and can recombine with their homologues without
problem, what mechanism do you think would stop *2* fused chromosomes
from working?
>>>> There is actually a lot of evidence that the non-African human
>>>> population came from a group of about 700 humans, so instead of two
>>>> couples let's have an Airbus A380 containing 852 nuns going to a
>>>> conference and one lucky bloke (who happens to be a fused chromosome
>>>> carrier.)
>
>>> and this leaves us with a potential for
>>> all so-called, first generation progeny to have a single father,
>>> and so, all of the so-called second generation are cousins.
>>> which could lead to still more difficulties.
>
>> Sorry, I should have put warning signs around my trap.
>
>and 851 of the nuns were over 50 and past
>the age of childbearing and had zero interest
>in starting a family with this man on the airplane,
I see you have given up trying to discuss this sensibly. Ah well never
mind, it was clear that you had made up your mind regardless of where
the evidence went.
At least you now know a bit more about genetics than you did before.
richardal...@googlemail.com
So species is an arbitrary concept?
Some biologists would agree with you, though others wouldn't. After
all, in evolutionary terms all species grade into each other and are
connected by an unbroken evolutionary lineage. That's why "species" is
a tricky term to define, and why there are books devoted to the
subject of species concepts in biology.
> and based on how pretty
> their uniforms are,
What on earth have uniforms to do with it?
> but that when teams
> don't all where the same uniform, you become addled
> and start saying that-they- are not playing
> by -your- rules, maybe there are no rules,
If we are talking about science, there are certain rules, such as
building theories on evidence, and not invoking supernatural
intervention to explain gaps in our knowledge. If you want to claim
scientific support for your assertions you need to play by those
rules. If you're not claiming scientific support, that's your business
but I fail to see why you think anyone should take any notice of your
ignorant posturing.
>
> and so, maybe there are no teams,
>
> but's you'll keep -your- scorecard at
> your side any way just to keep tabs on
> things the way you like, and when
> your scorecard lets you down,
>
> you keep is as a souvenier
>
> of how addled the -world- is.
>
> > To repeat a question which you seem unwilling to answer: what do you
> > know that biologists - you know, the poor buggers who devote their
> > working lives to *studying* living organisms - don't?
>
> it's easy for me to see that when -your- scorecard
> misrepresents reality, that it's -your- scorecard
> which is faulty and -not- reality.
So are you saying that in reality there are clear-cut divisions
between species?
If so, on what evidence are you basing that assertion?
The people who study living organisms will tell you that there are no
such clear-cut divisions, and offer numerous examples to demonstrate
the point. Ring species are one such example. There are numerous
others.
Why on earth should anyone accept your unadorned assertion over the
reasoned argument of the people who have actually studied the subject?
>
> -your- scorecard needs revision
>
> -reality- does not need -your- revision.
>
> a none too subtle difference
>
> and one you should chalk up to
> the "ongoing scientific endeavor."
You seem to be flailing around in a mess of incoherence.
RF
chris thompson
Analogies are great- in lit classes.
You can even use analogies in science...once you establish your
position with evidence, preferably of the numeric sort.
Until then, using analogies serves to obfuscate, not explicate.
Chris
richardal...@googlemail.com
Em...your point?
Analyses of that kind are carried out to untangle the evolutionary
relationships of species. It is in the nature of such programmes that
they produce an output in the form of a tree.
We can carry out other kinds of analysis on the distribution of genes
in populations which will group sub-sets of populations as distinct
clusters. Some of those distinct clusters may be considered as
separate species by some concepts of species. In the early stages of
cladogenesis reticulation of lineages is common - there is evidence
that some reticulation occurred in the split between Homo and Pan.
Just think, if you took the time to educate yourself in the subject
you would save my having to explain it to you.
RF
Timothy Sutter
great fine, species as a term can be arbitrary.
> After
> all, in evolutionary terms all species grade into each other and are
> connected by an unbroken evolutionary lineage. That's why "species" is
> a tricky term to define, and why there are books devoted to the
> subject of species concepts in biology.
show me the organism that is both vertebrate and non-vertebrate.
>> and so, maybe there are no teams,
>>
>> but's you'll keep -your- scorecard at
>> your side any way just to keep tabs on
>> things the way you like, and when
>> your scorecard lets you down,
>>
>> you keep is as a souvenier
>>
>> of how addled the -world- is.
>>
>>> To repeat a question which you seem unwilling to answer: what do you
>>> know that biologists - you know, the poor buggers who devote their
>>> working lives to *studying* living organisms - don't?
>> it's easy for me to see that when -your- scorecard
>> misrepresents reality, that it's -your- scorecard
>> which is faulty and -not- reality.
> So are you saying that in reality there are clear-cut divisions
> between species?
> If so, on what evidence are you basing that assertion?
what i am saying is that there are clear
cut distinctions among "category X"
your problem is in mistaking "category X"
for 'species' sometimes and sometimes
not for 'species'.
aside from this, it's just quibbling
over "species" -as- an ill defined
concept in itself.
Timothy Sutter
> Em...your point?
i have an assignment for you,
gather up all the dna footprint analyses
from all the duck species that are
delineated in your handbook,
and reconstruct a duck family tree.
i have a prediction about the outcome,
go do it, and i'll tell you how
your work relates to my predictions.
and dont' worry,
i'm writing that prediction down on a sheet
of paper and having it sealed in a mayonaise
jar which will be placed in a locked box
under Funk and Wagnal's porch.
that's my point.
Timothy Sutter
> Em...your point?
i have an assignment for you,
Timothy Sutter
the paper doesn't say that the robertsonian
not was caused by the chemotherapy,
>>> Don't forget that I wasn't arguing that it
>>> was likely, only that it was possible.
>> and the article does more to show that such
>> a prospect is -not- possible aside from the
>> interjection of a chemical agents that
>> specifically targets dna.
> A human being with 44 chromosomes and which was ""phenotypically normal"
> was developing. Alas it didn't reach full term (for whatever reason)
> but that fact that it got as far as it did shows that it is possible and
> that all your claims that it isn't possible for one to be formed are
> refuted.
no, because it was not a live birth and
no live birth has ever happened and this
fetus's appearance was attributed to
the chemotherapy.
> Given that fused 14,21 chromosomes have all the genetic material from
> both chromosomes and can recombine with their homologues without
> problem, what mechanism do you think would stop *2* fused chromosomes
> from working?
this is immaterial inasmcuch as no live
births are recorded for a 44 chromosomed
human being
and that this fetus which was forming
was said to be attributable to the chemotherapy
which -may- have disabled a normal regulatory
response which would tend to nullify all
44 chromosomed human beings from being conceived.
the fact that no 44 live births
have ever been recorded
-suggests- that there are -other- genetic
regulatory factors which prevent it,
and that -in this case- is was the
chemotherapeutic agents which
-disabled- this regulatory
network protocol.
>>>>> There is actually a lot of evidence that the non-African human
>>>>> population came from a group of about 700 humans, so instead of two
>>>>> couples let's have an Airbus A380 containing 852 nuns going to a
>>>>> conference and one lucky bloke (who happens to be a fused chromosome
>>>>> carrier.)
>>
>>>> and this leaves us with a potential for
>>>> all so-called, first generation progeny to have a single father,
>>>> and so, all of the so-called second generation are cousins.
>>>> which could lead to still more difficulties.
>>
>>> Sorry, I should have put warning signs around my trap.
>>
>> and 851 of the nuns were over 50 and past
>> the age of childbearing and had zero interest
>> in starting a family with this man on the airplane,
>
> I see you have given up trying to discuss this sensibly. Ah well never
> mind, it was clear that you had made up your mind regardless of where
> the evidence went.
you said nuns, i didn't say nuns,
and nuns don't usually carry children.
Timothy Sutter
your little paper was not part of your little 'experiment'
teh down's kids all died.
that was the only part of the
problem where they come up.
aside from that, it has no relevance.
>> such as it is, it isn't very important
>> to the overall outcome, so, i didn't
>> pursue it further.
> Actually it was important because we were talking about chromosome
> numbers and you came up with counts which weren't possible in our scenario.
it had no effect on the overall outcome
as in your problem, you suggested that
they all died anyway.
Timothy Sutter
>>>>>>> Timothy Sutter wrote:
trouble is, "species" as a term in itself,
seems to be "obfuscatory" inasmuch as it
is ill defined and carries baggage that
gets lost before making it to the
claims department.
Timothy Sutter
> On Oct 7, 12:37 pm, Timothy Sutter <a202...@lycos.com> wrote:
>> richardalanforr...@googlemail.com wrote:
>>> On Oct 7, 10:56 am, Timothy Sutter <a202...@lycos.com> wrote:
>>>> richardalanforr...@googlemail.com wrote:
> So if you think that might be suffering from cancer you may as well go
> to a hairdresser rather than someone who has studied the subject?
it's not clear that a hairdresser has not studied the subject,
nor practiced medicine, as such is a distinct possibility.
>> and this is atributed to the tendedncy towards "specialization"
> Species concepts in biology are not specialisation. They have a very
> broad application in different fields of biology. Knowing about them
> is part of the basic education of any biologist.
all this is is terminological quibbling.
it's clear that scholarly developed
'species' lines can be anmbiguous.
it is not so clear that other categorizations
of organisms are also crossed.
to jump from ambiguous species denominations,
to, a clear case of common descent is a leap
is based primarily on conjecture and
speculation and not on evidence.
Timothy Sutter
richardal...@googlemail.com wrote:
great fine, species as a term can be arbitrary.
> After
> all, in evolutionary terms all species grade into each other and are
> connected by an unbroken evolutionary lineage. That's why "species" is
> a tricky term to define, and why there are books devoted to the
> subject of species concepts in biology.
show me the organism that is both vertebrate and non-vertebrate.
>> and so, maybe there are no teams,
>>
>> but's you'll keep -your- scorecard at
>> your side any way just to keep tabs on
>> things the way you like, and when
>> your scorecard lets you down,
>>
>> you keep is as a souvenier
>>
>> of how addled the -world- is.
>>
>>> To repeat a question which you seem unwilling to answer: what do you
>>> know that biologists - you know, the poor buggers who devote their
>>> working lives to *studying* living organisms - don't?
>> it's easy for me to see that when -your- scorecard
>> misrepresents reality, that it's -your- scorecard
>> which is faulty and -not- reality.
> So are you saying that in reality there are clear-cut divisions
> between species?
> If so, on what evidence are you basing that assertion?
what i am saying is that there are clear
Timothy Sutter
> Timothy Sutter wrote:
>> richardalanforr...@googlemail.com wrote:
>>> Timothy Sutter wrote:
>>>>>>> Timothy Sutter wrote:
richardal...@googlemail.com
Well bully for you.
Do your own freakin' research.
It would help if you started by educating yourself in basic biology,
including the various different species concepts used by biologists
and the evidence on which they are based.
>
> gather up all the dna footprint analyses
> from all the duck species that are
> delineated in your handbook,
>
> and reconstruct a duck family tree.
>
> i have a prediction about the outcome,
>
> go do it, and i'll tell you how
> your work relates to my predictions.
>
> and dont' worry,
>
> i'm writing that prediction down on a sheet
> of paper and having it sealed in a mayonaise
> jar which will be placed in a locked box
> under Funk and Wagnal's porch.
>
> that's my point.
Do you honestly think anyone gives a toss?
RF
richardal...@googlemail.com
What on earth has this to do with the species concept in biology?
Look up Protochordates.
>
>
>
> >> and so, maybe there are no teams,
>
> >> but's you'll keep -your- scorecard at
> >> your side any way just to keep tabs on
> >> things the way you like, and when
> >> your scorecard lets you down,
>
> >> you keep is as a souvenier
>
> >> of how addled the -world- is.
>
> >>> To repeat a question which you seem unwilling to answer: what do you
> >>> know that biologists - you know, the poor buggers who devote their
> >>> working lives to *studying* living organisms - don't?
> >> it's easy for me to see that when -your- scorecard
> >> misrepresents reality, that it's -your- scorecard
> >> which is faulty and -not- reality.
> > So are you saying that in reality there are clear-cut divisions
> > between species?
> > If so, on what evidence are you basing that assertion?
>
> what i am saying is that there are clear
> cut distinctions among "category X"
I asked you for the evidence on which you are basing assertion, not
simply the repetition of an unfounded assertion.
>
> your problem is in mistaking "category X"
> for 'species' sometimes and sometimes
> not for 'species'.
As you have not been able to offer any evidence whatsoever to support
your assertion it's your problem, not mine.
Why on earth do you think your unfounded assertions carry any weight?
> aside from this, it's just quibbling
> over "species" -as- an ill defined
> concept in itself.
The concept of species is not ill-defined.
Setting the boundaries of species is problematic because of the nature
of species.
RF
richardal...@googlemail.com
If you think that this is the case, I can repeat my suggestion that
you educate yourself in the various different species concepts used by
biologists.
Why do you think that making a display of your ignorance on the
subject adds weight to your argument?
Timothy Sutter
> > On Oct 7, 3:41 pm, Timothy Sutter <a202...@lycos.com> wrote:
>> >> richardalanforr...@googlemail.com wrote:
>>> >>> On Oct 7, 12:17 pm, Timothy Sutter <a202...@lycos.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> >>>>>>> -your- ambiguity leads you to draw a
>>>>>>> >>>>>>> false conclusion that all lines
>>>>>>> >>>>>>> are fuzzy.
>>>>>>> >>>>>>> they are not
>>>>>> >>>>>> And apparently we should simply take your word for this.
>>>> >>>> just don't forget, when you do your little computer
>>>> >>>> generated geneologies from dna footprints,
>>>> >>>> of several species,
>>>> >>>> it spits back several species and not
>>>> >>>> just one big indistingishable blob.
>>>> >>>> that speaks plenty for certain
>>>> >>>> lines being unbroken.
>>> >>> Em...your point?
>> >> i have an assignment for you,
> > Well bully for you.
> > Do your own freakin' research.
insufficient response
Timothy Sutter
Timothy Sutter
you left your bags at window 11.
Timothy Sutter
> On Oct 7, 3:39 pm, Timothy Sutter <a202...@lycos.com> wrote:
>> richardalanforr...@googlemail.com wrote:
>>> On Oct 7, 12:02 pm, Timothy Sutter wrote:
>>>> richardalanforr...@googlemail.com wrote:
richardal...@googlemail.com wrote:
>>> So species is an arbitrary concept?
>>> Some biologists would agree with you,
>>> though others wouldn't.
richardal...@googlemail.com wrote:
> The concept of species is not ill-defined.
contradiction
==
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/arbitrary
4. capricious; unreasonable; unsupported:
5. Mathematics. undetermined; not assigned
a specific value: an arbitrary constant.
1. Determined by chance, whim, or impulse,
and not by necessity, reason, or principle:
an arbitrary choice.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/defined
3. to fix or lay down definitely; specify distinctly:
4. to determine or fix the boundaries or extent of:
===
species is well defined as somewhat arbitrary.
Timothy Sutter
richardal...@googlemail.com wrote:
> On Oct 7, 3:39 pm, Timothy Sutter <a202...@lycos.com> wrote:
>> richardalanforr...@googlemail.com wrote:
>>> On Oct 7, 12:02 pm, Timothy Sutter wrote:
>>>> richardalanforr...@googlemail.com wrote:
richardal...@googlemail.com wrote:
>>> So species is an arbitrary concept?
>>> Some biologists would agree with you,
>>> though others wouldn't.
richardal...@googlemail.com wrote:
> The concept of species is not ill-defined.
contradiction
johnetho...@yahoo.com
> richardalanforr...@googlemail.com wrote:
> >> richardalanforr...@googlemail.com wrote:
> >>>> richardalanforr...@googlemail.com wrote:
> >>>>>> richardalanforr...@googlemail.com wrote:
> >>>>>>>> richardalanforr...@googlemail.com wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> richardalanforr...@googlemail.com wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>> Timothy Sutter wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>> richardalanforr...@googlemail.com wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> a wholly irelevant concern
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> To you perhaps, but I suggest that the views of the people who study a
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> subject are relevant to that subject.
> >>>>>>>>>>>> it's not relevant to the ambiguous nature
> >>>>>>>>>>>> of some of this 'species' assignment problem.
> >>>>>>>>>>>> if "biologists" prefer this sort of ambiguity,
> >>>>>>>>>>>> it could be that they are trying to be intentionally
> >>>>>>>>>>>> obscure for some reason, and that isn't helpful.
> >>>>>>>>>>> No, the reason why they say that there are no hard and fast boundaries
> >>>>>>>>>>> between species is because that is what the evidence shows.
> >>>>>>>>>>> If you have a different interpretation
> >>>>>>>>>>> for the evidence feel free to offer it.
> >>>>>>>>>> it's already been offered with concerns to ducks.
> >>>>>>>>> You mean the "they're still ducks" "argument?
> >>>>>>>> no, i mean that ducks have been
> >>>>>>>> categorized into numerous 'pseudo-species'
> >>>>>>>> which evidently turn out not to be
> >>>>>>>> true species at all.
> >>>>>>> Well, according to the biologist who study ducks they are "true
> >>>>>>> species" (whatever the hell that means).
> >>>>>> that can produce offspring with other "species"
> >>>>> Yes. It's not uncommon. It's called "hybridisation".
> >>>> it can also be called;
> >>>> "same species being called different species"
> >>> No, that's not what hybridisation means.
> >> that's not what yo mean by it,
> >> but that's the entailment of the situation.
> > The entertainment comes from watching you make a complete and utter
> > fool of yourself because you quite evidently are pontificating on a
> > subject about which you know bugger all.
>
> this wholly irrelevant remark does not
> detract, in any manner, from my statement.
It's a simple, true statement. You don't understand the subject and
refuse to learn. You are a fool who wants to be a fool and is
determined to remain a fool.
Timothy Sutter
you haven't shown that i don't understand the subject.
you haven't shown that you understand the subject.
you've shown nothing at all.
richardal...@googlemail.com
No, *you* have shown that you don't understand the subject.
The evidence is there in your posts.
RF
richardal...@googlemail.com
Do you honestly think I give a flying fart for your opinion?
I know perfectly well what a cladistic analysis of duck DNA will
produce. It will produce a nested hierarchy of the different species
of duck with values of confidence attached to each of the clades. The
reason why I know this is because I use the same or similar software
as the bird specialists who carry out such analyses do on a regular
basis as part of my research, and the reason why it will produce a
tree is because that is what the software is designed to do!
There are also other ways in which we can analyse the dataset based on
morphometrics which do *not* produce a tree, but produce a scatter of
values which can be plotted as a cloud. Such an analysis will show
discrete or overlapping clusters representing the different species of
duck.
What neither of these techniques will show is that we can treat the
population of ducks of several different species as being a single
species for the simple reason that this is not how species are
described by biologists. They are described by reference to a type
specimen or population.
Why not take up my suggestion and educate yourself in the subject
rather than making a fool of yourself by pontificating on a subject
which you know bugger all about?
RF
richardal...@googlemail.com
> richardalanforr...@googlemail.com wrote:
> > On Oct 7, 3:39 pm, Timothy Sutter <a202...@lycos.com> wrote:
> >> richardalanforr...@googlemail.com wrote:
> >>> On Oct 7, 12:02 pm, Timothy Sutter wrote:
> >>>> richardalanforr...@googlemail.com wrote:
> >>> So species is an arbitrary concept?
> >>> Some biologists would agree with you,
> >>> though others wouldn't.
> > The concept of species is not ill-defined.
>
> contradiction
>
>
> 4. capricious; unreasonable; unsupported:
>
> 5. Mathematics. undetermined; not assigned
> a specific value: an arbitrary constant.
>
> 1. Determined by chance, whim, or impulse,
> and not by necessity, reason, or principle:
> an arbitrary choice.
>
> http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/defined
> 3. to fix or lay down definitely; specify distinctly:
> 4. to determine or fix the boundaries or extent of:
> ===
>
> species is well defined as somewhat arbitrary.
I suggest that you educate yourself in the various different species
concepts used by biologists. You will find that they are well-
defined.
If you prefer to remain ignorant, that's your business but as I have
explained, I post here to expose the dogmatic ignorance of
creationists, and your help is greatly appreciated.
RF
Max
Yeah, nice try. But a pattern of nested heirarchies is not what one
would expect from a creator that had the freedom to borrow traits
across any number of lines. Lets look at sea going mammals vs. fish
and confine ourselves to simple, well known differences. Look at the
way they move. Fish move from side to side. Mammals use an up-down
motion. Now let's consider fins. The fins of each are modeled along
similiar lines. In manatees, whales, porpoises and seals the bones in
the forward fins are very similiar and bear resemblence to the
forelimbs of other tetrapods. Why would even a "Tinkering God" be so
limited? Also, why didn't such a being make any cold-blooded mammals
with gills?
Now let's consider the original template you suppose. If he is a
complete creation and all other animals follow, then we have a
problem. The human gut contains a miniature ecosystem all it's own.
This is not merely a bunch of microorganisms hanging a ride. This
community is required for man's survival. Our teeth are designed for
plants that have not yet been made.
Now of course one can adjust this hypothetical "Tinkering God" model
to fit the data. Once can say that he did further tinkering to get all
the pieces working together. I suppose that theoretically that one can
come up with some sort of reason for why this being would follow the
patterns of nested heirarchy. How one can explain the fossil record
while supposing and honest god, I have no idea. But can you see what's
happening? One is creating a Rube Goldberg god that has to dance along
the lines of a multidimensional mancala just to get from point a to
point b. Why not simply accept a god with the foresight to create a
system which will bring forth the desired results?
<snip>
Timothy Sutter
> Timothy Sutter wrote:
>> and so, our "tinkering God"
>> starts with a template structure
>> for this image called "man"
>> and "mentally, assembles and reassembles
>> the -theoretical- "man" in such ways as
>> to result in a whole host of structures,
>> which seem to bear some similarity
>> with this theoretical "man"
Max wrote:
> Yeah, nice try. But a pattern of nested heirarchies is not what one
> would expect from a creator that had the freedom to borrow traits
> across any number of lines.
the potentials for eating and locomotion
and some sort of sensory apparatuses
are the main adjustable traits.
not all that many traits to adjust,
so, it looks confined to you.
Timothy Sutter
>> ==http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/arbitrary
>> 4. capricious; unreasonable; unsupported:
...and vague and ill defined
Timothy Sutter
> Timothy Sutter wrote:
>> and so, our "tinkering God"
>> starts with a template structure
>> for this image called "man"
>> and "mentally, assembles and reassembles
>> the -theoretical- "man" in such ways as
>> to result in a whole host of structures,
>> which seem to bear some similarity
>> with this theoretical "man"
Max wrote:
> Yeah, nice try. But a pattern of nested heirarchies is not what one
> would expect from a creator that had the freedom to borrow traits
> across any number of lines.
the potentials for eating and locomotion
Timothy Sutter
>> ==http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/arbitrary
>> 4. capricious; unreasonable; unsupported:
...and vague and ill defined
Timothy Sutter
> I suggest that others are better placed
> to make that judgement than you are.
> If you prefer to remain ignorant, that's your business but as I have
> explained, I post here to expose the dogmatic ignorance of
> creationists, and your help is greatly appreciated.
it is sort of funny how you'd suggest that
all true knowledge comes from your dictums,
and then make statements about
other people's dogmatism.
seems an inconsistent stance
Free Lunch
<a20...@lycos.com> wrote in talk.origins:
Species don't fit neatly into our definitions of species because species
are a result of evolution.
Timothy Sutter
> Timothy Sutter wrote :
> >>>> The concept of species is not ill-defined.
> >>> contradiction
>
> >>> ==http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/arbitrary
>
> >>> 4. capricious; unreasonable; unsupported:
>
> >>> 5. Mathematics. undetermined; not assigned
> >>> a specific value: an arbitrary constant.
>
> >>> 1. Determined by chance, whim, or impulse,
> >>> and not by necessity, reason, or principle:
> >>> an arbitrary choice.
>
> >>>http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/defined
> >>> 3. to fix or lay down definitely; specify distinctly:
> >>> 4. to determine or fix the boundaries or extent of:
> >>> ===
>
> >>> species is well defined as somewhat arbitrary.
> >>You will find that they are well- defined.
> >...and vague and ill defined
Free Lunch wrote:
> Species don't fit neatly into our definitions of
> species because species are a result of evolution.
this completely contradicts the notion of 'nested hierarchies'
as being a substantive criterion for common descent.
Free Lunch
<a20...@lycos.com> wrote in talk.origins:
>
No, the problem we observe in species is that the speciation is often
incomplete. It reinforces nested hierarchies.
richardal...@googlemail.com
> On Oct 7, 4:10 pm, richardalanforr...@googlemail.com wrote:
>
> > I suggest that others are better placed
> > to make that judgement than you are.
> > If you prefer to remain ignorant, that's your business but as I have
> > explained, I post here to expose the dogmatic ignorance of
> > creationists, and your help is greatly appreciated.
>
> it is sort of funny how you'd suggest that
> all true knowledge comes from your dictums,
I don't.
All I am doing is asking you to educate yourself in a subject about
which you evidently know little.
>
> and then make statements about
> other people's dogmatism.
That's because your position is one of dogmatic ignorance.
You are pointificating on a subject about which it is clear you know
little, and refuse to educate yourself in that subject.
I call that dogmatic ignorance.
What do you call it?
>
> seems an inconsistent stance
It's a perfectly consistent stance.
If you can come up with an *informed* critique of evolutionary theory,
I''ll treat is seriously.
As all you are doing is repeating your illinformed notions of biology,
I won't.
RF
Timothy Sutter
>>> Timothy Sutter wrote :
>>>>>>> The concept of species is not ill-defined.
>>>>>> contradiction
>>>>>> ==http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/arbitrary
>>>>>> 4. capricious; unreasonable; unsupported:
>>>>>> 5. Mathematics. undetermined; not assigned
>>>>>> a specific value: an arbitrary constant.
>>>>>> 1. Determined by chance, whim, or impulse,
>>>>>> and not by necessity, reason, or principle:
>>>>>> an arbitrary choice.
>>>>>> http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/defined
>>>>>> 3. to fix or lay down definitely; specify distinctly:
>>>>>> 4. to determine or fix the boundaries or extent of:
>>>>>> ===
>>>>>> species is well defined as somewhat arbitrary.
>>>>> You will find that they are well- defined.
>>>> ...and vague and ill defined
>> Free Lunch wrote:
>>> Species don't fit neatly into our definitions of
>>> species because species are a result of evolution.
> Timothy Sutter wrote:
>> this completely contradicts the notion of 'nested hierarchies'
>> as being a substantive criterion for common descent.
Free Lunch wrote:
> No, the problem we observe in species is that the speciation is often
> incomplete. It reinforces nested hierarchies.
species means not species
yes means no
system failure
Timothy Sutter
>>>>>>> The concept of species is not ill-defined.
>>>>>> contradiction
>>>>>> ==http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/arbitrary
>>>>>> 4. capricious; unreasonable; unsupported:
>>>>>> 5. Mathematics. undetermined; not assigned
>>>>>> a specific value: an arbitrary constant.
>>>>>> 1. Determined by chance, whim, or impulse,
>>>>>> and not by necessity, reason, or principle:
>>>>>> an arbitrary choice.
>>>>>> http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/defined
>>>>>> 3. to fix or lay down definitely; specify distinctly:
>>>>>> 4. to determine or fix the boundaries or extent of:
>>>>>> ===
>>>>>> species is well defined as somewhat arbitrary.
>>>>> You will find that they are well- defined.
>>>> ...and vague and ill defined
>> Free Lunch wrote:
>>> Species don't fit neatly into our definitions of
>>> species because species are a result of evolution.
> Timothy Sutter wrote:
>> this completely contradicts the notion of 'nested hierarchies'
>> as being a substantive criterion for common descent.
Free Lunch wrote:
> No, the problem we observe in species is that the speciation is often
> incomplete. It reinforces nested hierarchies.
Timothy Sutter
> > > I suggest that others are better placed
> > > to make that judgement than you are.
> > > If you prefer to remain ignorant, that's your business but as I have
> > > explained, I post here to expose the dogmatic ignorance of
> > > creationists, and your help is greatly appreciated.
> Timothy Sutter wrote:
> > it is sort of funny how you'd suggest that
> > all true knowledge comes from your dictums,
richardal...@googlemail.com wrote:
> I don't.
yes you do.
Timothy Sutter
> > > I suggest that others are better placed
> > > to make that judgement than you are.
> > > If you prefer to remain ignorant, that's your business but as I have
> > > explained, I post here to expose the dogmatic ignorance of
> > > creationists, and your help is greatly appreciated.
> Timothy Sutter wrote:
> > it is sort of funny how you'd suggest that
> > all true knowledge comes from your dictums,
richardal...@googlemail.com
> > > richardalanforr...@googlemail.com wrote:
> > > > I suggest that others are better placed
> > > > to make that judgement than you are.
> > > > If you prefer to remain ignorant, that's your business but as I have
> > > > explained, I post here to expose the dogmatic ignorance of
> > > > creationists, and your help is greatly appreciated.
> > Timothy Sutter wrote:
> > > it is sort of funny how you'd suggest that
> > > all true knowledge comes from your dictums,
Without wishing to descend into a petty "yes you did, not I didn't"
argument, this is plainly not true.
I have not suggested anything about "true knowledge".
I have suggested that if you want to make assertions about the nature
of the concept "species" an education in the subject - which you
evidently lack- would give your assertions some weight.
As you prefer to remain ignorant, fine. That's up to you. As I have
explained, I come here to expose the ignorance and dishonesty of
creationists, so if you want to continue to make a spectacle of your
ignorance and dishonesty that's fine with me. It's what I want from
you.
It seems that the idea of educating yourself in the subject you seek
to critique is a threat to your convictions. What do you think that
tells us about the validity of your beliefs?
RF
Timothy Sutter
> > > > > I suggest that others are better placed
> > > > > to make that judgement than you are.
> > > > > If you prefer to remain ignorant, that's your business but as I have
> > > > > explained, I post here to expose the dogmatic ignorance of
> > > > > creationists, and your help is greatly appreciated.
> > > Timothy Sutter wrote:
> > > > it is sort of funny how you'd suggest that
> > > > all true knowledge comes from your dictums,
> > richardalanforr...@googlemail.com wrote:
> > > I don't.
> Timothy Sutter wrote:
> > yes you do.
richardal...@googlemail.com wrote:
> Without wishing to descend into a petty "yes you did,
> not I didn't" argument, this is plainly not true.
> I have not suggested anything about "true knowledge".
what you do say is that species assignments are believed
to be amibiguous by some biologists and maybe not so
ambiguous by other biologists,
and i suggest that species assignments are ambiguous and so,
some biologists must agree with me, and yet you also claim
that all biologists will disagree with me, so you are in
an argument with yourself and want to drag me into that,
and the only statement in support of yourself
that you continuously offer, in a manner which
resembles the workings of a virus, is that
someone knows better than i do, and yet the
very simple fact that some biologists must
agree with me inasmuch as some biologists believe
that species assigments are ambiguos, including you,
suggests that your virus is affecting -you- and not me.
richardal...@googlemail.com
> > > > > richardalanforr...@googlemail.com wrote:
> > > > > > I suggest that others are better placed
> > > > > > to make that judgement than you are.
> > > > > > If you prefer to remain ignorant, that's your business but as I have
> > > > > > explained, I post here to expose the dogmatic ignorance of
> > > > > > creationists, and your help is greatly appreciated.
> > > > Timothy Sutter wrote:
> > > > > it is sort of funny how you'd suggest that
> > > > > all true knowledge comes from your dictums,
> > > richardalanforr...@googlemail.com wrote:
> > > > I don't.
> > Timothy Sutter wrote:
> > > yes you do.
> > Without wishing to descend into a petty "yes you did,
> > not I didn't" argument, this is plainly not true.
> > I have not suggested anything about "true knowledge".
>
> what you do say is that species assignments are believed
> to be amibiguous by some biologists and maybe not so
> ambiguous by other biologists,
I haven't made any such statement.
I said that there are several different species concepts in biology.
These are not amibigous, they are clearly formulate concepts.
I have said that some biologists have argued that "species" is not a
term which has any real biological meaning.
This is a very clear and unambigious statement.
I have also said that the boundaries between species are not clear
cut. This is not because species concepts are ambigious, but because
the dividing line between two species can be arbitrary. A species can
evolve into one or more different species by the accumulation of small
incremental changes. This does not mean that the concept of species
itself is ambigious, any more than the concepts of "adult" and "child"
in humans are ambiguous because there is no hard and fast dividing
line between adult and child.
>
> and i suggest that species assignments are ambiguous and so,
> some biologists must agree with me, and yet you also claim
> that all biologists will disagree with me, so you are in
> an argument with yourself and want to drag me into that,
>
> and the only statement in support of yourself
> that you continuously offer, in a manner which
> resembles the workings of a virus, is that
> someone knows better than i do, and yet the
> very simple fact that some biologists must
> agree with me inasmuch as some biologists believe
> that species assigments are ambiguos, including you,
> suggests that your virus is affecting -you- and not me.
The assertion you are making is that there are hard and fast divisions
between species, and that it is only because of some selective
blindness on the part of the biologists who actually *study* such
concepts that they can't see it.
That assertion is categorically false, as anyone with a modicum of
education in biology can tell you. There is extensive evidence that
species boundaries are *NOT* clear-cut. This is not an appeal to
authority.
Advising someone to educate themselves in a subject about which they
evidently know little is not an appeal to authority.
Challenging someone to produce evidence to support their assertions is
not an appeal to authority.
Suggesting that people who have actually studied a subject might just
possibly know more about it than people who haven't is not an appeal
to authority, it's simply common sense.
So why not educate yourself in the subject rather than carrying on
making a fool of yourself?
As I have said, I don't care if you do. In fact, I welcome it, as I
post here to expose the intellectual dishonesty of creationists.
RF
Timothy Sutter
> > > > > > > I suggest that others are better placed
> > > > > > > to make that judgement than you are.
> > > > > > > If you prefer to remain ignorant, that's your business but as I have
> > > > > > > explained, I post here to expose the dogmatic ignorance of
> > > > > > > creationists, and your help is greatly appreciated.
> > > > > Timothy Sutter wrote:
> > > > > > it is sort of funny how you'd suggest that
> > > > > > all true knowledge comes from your dictums,
> > > > richardalanforr...@googlemail.com wrote:
> > > > > I don't.
> > > Timothy Sutter wrote:
> > > > yes you do.
> > richardalanforr...@googlemail.com wrote:
> > > Without wishing to descend into a petty "yes you did,
> > > not I didn't" argument, this is plainly not true.
> > > I have not suggested anything about "true knowledge".
> Timothy Sutter wrote:
> > what you do say is that species assignments are believed
> > to be amibiguous by some biologists and maybe not so
> > ambiguous by other biologists,
richardal...@googlemail.com wrote:
> I haven't made any such statement.
you do say this;
richardal...@googlemail.com wrote:
>>> So species is an arbitrary concept?
>>> Some biologists would agree with you,
>>> though others wouldn't.
richardal...@googlemail.com wrote:
> I said that there are several different species concepts in biology.
> These are not amibigous, they are clearly formulate concepts.
no, you've said something like this;
richardal...@googlemail.com wrote:
> What neither of these techniques will show is that we can treat the
> population of ducks of several different species as being a single
> species for the simple reason that this is not how species are
> described by biologists. They are described by reference to a type
> specimen or population.
you indicate significant overlapping of plots under
certain unbiased conditions, that could group
species of ducks together but that some biologists
choose not to make such groupings simply because
that isn't the way that they do things.
and this remains ambiguous, by your own statements.
richardal...@googlemail.com wrote:
> I have said that some biologists have argued that "species" is not a
> term which has any real biological meaning.
you may be saying that now, and this may be true,
and i may even agree with you here, but i
have already said such a thing,
and you tell me that i should let
a higher authority tell me such things,
and now, you are setting yourself up as
that higher authority telling me something
that i already knew,
richardal...@googlemail.com wrote:
> This is a very clear and unambigious statement.
yo ucan now say in a very unambiguous manner,
that species assignemtns can be ambiguous.
richardal...@googlemail.com wrote:
> I have also said that the boundaries between species are not clear
> cut. This is not because species concepts are ambigious, but because
> the dividing line between two species can be arbitrary.
your trouble will be in deciphering when
a species assignment is ambiguous and
when it is not ambiguous,
anmd when you stumble across these delineations,
you'll see clear demarcations even after
you wipe away your not so clear assignemnts.
and i'll probably agree with you there.
Timothy Sutter wrote:
> > and i suggest that species assignments are ambiguous and so,
> > some biologists must agree with me, and yet you also claim
> > that all biologists will disagree with me, so you are in
> > an argument with yourself and want to drag me into that,
> > and the only statement in support of yourself
> > that you continuously offer, in a manner which
> > resembles the workings of a virus, is that
> > someone knows better than i do, and yet the
> > very simple fact that some biologists must
> > agree with me inasmuch as some biologists believe
> > that species assigments are ambiguos, including you,
> > suggests that your virus is affecting -you- and not me.
richardal...@googlemail.com wrote:
> The assertion you are making is that there are hard and fast divisions
> between species, and that it is only because of some selective
> blindness on the part of the biologists who actually *study* such
> concepts that they can't see it.
no, you say that species can be clear at times
and ambiguous at others and maybe, that you choose
to assume that all such assignments may be ambiguous
and only that you haven't been able to see close
enough the ambiguity in areas where it
appears to be clearly definite.
richardal...@googlemail.com wrote:
> That assertion is categorically false, as anyone with a modicum of
> education in biology can tell you. There is extensive evidence that
> species boundaries are *NOT* clear-cut. This is not an appeal to
> authority.
and yet, you never claim that ducks and
blue jays are the same species.
you do claim that ducks and other types
of ducks may be so similar as to be
described as the same species,
but you'd never say that ducks
and blue jays are the same species.
ducks and blue jays are clearly
not the same species,
even if, species is
an ambiguous rendering.
chris thompson
> >>>>>>> Timothy Sutter wrote:
> >>> You seem to be suggesting that the reason why we do *not* see clear-
> >>> cut boundaries to species is that we lack complete information.
> >> no, i'm saying that some of your own boundaries
> >> that you place on organisms are arbitrary in
> >> the first place, and based on how pretty
> >> their uniforms are, but that when teams
> >> don't all where the same uniform, you become addled
> >> and start saying that-they- are not playing
> >> by -your- rules, maybe there are no rules,
>
> >> and so, maybe there are no teams,
>
> >> but's you'll keep -your- scorecard at
> >> your side any way just to keep tabs on
> >> things the way you like, and when
> >> your scorecard lets you down,
>
> >> you keep is as a souvenier
>
> >> of how addled the -world- is.
>
> >>> To repeat a question which you seem unwilling to answer: what do you
> >>> know that biologists - you know, the poor buggers who devote their
> >>> working lives to *studying* living organisms - don't?
> >> it's easy for me to see that when -your- scorecard
> >> misrepresents reality, that it's -your- scorecard
> >> which is faulty and -not- reality.
>
> >> -your- scorecard needs revision
> >> -reality- does not need -your- revision.
> >> a none too subtle difference
> >> and one you should chalk up to
> >> the "ongoing scientific endeavor."
> > Analogies are great- in lit classes.
> > You can even use analogies in science...once you establish your
> > position with evidence, preferably of the numeric sort.
> > Until then, using analogies serves to obfuscate, not explicate.
>
> trouble is, "species" as a term in itself,
> seems to be "obfuscatory" inasmuch as it
> is ill defined and carries baggage that
> gets lost before making it to the
> claims department.
How is that different from any other technical term whose definition
is context-dependent?
In any case, how is all this messy hybridization evidence for special
creation? Did God do such a half-assed job that we have white-tailed
deer fucking black-tailed deer, lions fucking tigers, and mallards
fucking anything?
Chris
chris thompson
oh, yes, I forgot to mention...nice analogy.
Chris
Timothy Sutter
it's leading you to make false generalizations.
Timothy Sutter
i travel light
richardal...@googlemail.com
> > > > > > > richardalanforr...@googlemail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > I suggest that others are better placed
> > > > > > > > to make that judgement than you are.
> > > > > > > > If you prefer to remain ignorant, that's your business but as I have
> > > > > > > > explained, I post here to expose the dogmatic ignorance of
> > > > > > > > creationists, and your help is greatly appreciated.
> > > > > > Timothy Sutter wrote:
> > > > > > > it is sort of funny how you'd suggest that
> > > > > > > all true knowledge comes from your dictums,
> > > > > richardalanforr...@googlemail.com wrote:
> > > > > > I don't.
> > > > Timothy Sutter wrote:
> > > > > yes you do.
> > > richardalanforr...@googlemail.com wrote:
> > > > Without wishing to descend into a petty "yes you did,
> > > > not I didn't" argument, this is plainly not true.
> > > > I have not suggested anything about "true knowledge".
> > Timothy Sutter wrote:
> > > what you do say is that species assignments are believed
> > > to be amibiguous by some biologists and maybe not so
> > > ambiguous by other biologists,
> > I haven't made any such statement.
>
> you do say this;
>
> >>> So species is an arbitrary concept?
> >>> Some biologists would agree with you,
> >>> though others wouldn't.
> > I said that there are several different species concepts in biology.
> > These are not amibigous, they are clearly formulate concepts.
>
> no, you've said something like this;
>
> > What neither of these techniques will show is that we can treat the
> > population of ducks of several different species as being a single
> > species for the simple reason that this is not how species are
> > described by biologists. They are described by reference to a type
> > specimen or population.
>
> you indicate significant overlapping of plots under
> certain unbiased conditions, that could group
> species of ducks together but that some biologists
> choose not to make such groupings simply because
> that isn't the way that they do things.
That doesn't mean that the concept of "species" they are using is
ambiguous. It means that it doesn't have clearly definable
boundaries.
>
> and this remains ambiguous, by your own statements.
>
> richardalanforr...@googlemail.com wrote:
> > I have said that some biologists have argued that "species" is not a
> > term which has any real biological meaning.
>
> you may be saying that now, and this may be true,
>
> and i may even agree with you here, but i
> have already said such a thing,
>
> and you tell me that i should let
> a higher authority tell me such things,
>
> and now, you are setting yourself up as
> that higher authority telling me something
> that i already knew,
>
> richardalanforr...@googlemail.com wrote:
> > This is a very clear and unambigious statement.
>
> yo ucan now say in a very unambiguous manner,
> that species assignemtns can be ambiguous.
No, I am saying that species boundaries are not clear-cut.
That does not make species concepts ambiguous.
You seem to have a great deal of difficulty in understanding a concept
which is unambiguous but does not set firm boundaries. I gave you the
example of "child" and "adult" in human development.
>
> richardalanforr...@googlemail.com wrote:
> > I have also said that the boundaries between species are not clear
> > cut. This is not because species concepts are ambigious, but because
> > the dividing line between two species can be arbitrary.
>
> your trouble will be in deciphering when
> a species assignment is ambiguous and
> when it is not ambiguous,
>
> anmd when you stumble across these delineations,
> you'll see clear demarcations even after
> you wipe away your not so clear assignemnts.
>
> and i'll probably agree with you there.
>
>
>
> Timothy Sutter wrote:
> > > and i suggest that species assignments are ambiguous and so,
> > > some biologists must agree with me, and yet you also claim
> > > that all biologists will disagree with me, so you are in
> > > an argument with yourself and want to drag me into that,
> > > and the only statement in support of yourself
> > > that you continuously offer, in a manner which
> > > resembles the workings of a virus, is that
> > > someone knows better than i do, and yet the
> > > very simple fact that some biologists must
> > > agree with me inasmuch as some biologists believe
> > > that species assigments are ambiguos, including you,
> > > suggests that your virus is affecting -you- and not me.
> richardalanforr...@googlemail.com wrote:
> > The assertion you are making is that there are hard and fast divisions
> > between species, and that it is only because of some selective
> > blindness on the part of the biologists who actually *study* such
> > concepts that they can't see it.
>
> no, you say that species can be clear at times
> and ambiguous at others and maybe,
NO, I DON'T.
Let me try again:
There are several different species concepts used by biologists. These
concepts, when used by biologist, are defined clearly and
unambigiously.
When it comes to identifying which species a specimen should be
assigned to, there can be doubt because *all* those concepts of
species have boundaries which because, species are populations of
evolved organisms are blurred.
The species concept is clear.
Assigning individuals to a particular species can be more
problematical.
> that you choose
> to assume that all such assignments may be ambiguous
> and only that you haven't been able to see close
> enough the ambiguity in areas where it
> appears to be clearly definite.
>
> richardalanforr...@googlemail.com wrote:
> > That assertion is categorically false, as anyone with a modicum of
> > education in biology can tell you. There is extensive evidence that
> > species boundaries are *NOT* clear-cut. This is not an appeal to
> > authority.
>
> and yet, you never claim that ducks and
> blue jays are the same species.
So what?
>
> you do claim that ducks and other types
> of ducks may be so similar as to be
> described as the same species,
>
> but you'd never say that ducks
> and blue jays are the same species.
Your point?
>
> ducks and blue jays are clearly
> not the same species,
>
> even if, species is
> an ambiguous rendering.
So are the different species of ducks. They are defined by reference
to a type specimen or population. That is clear and unambiguous.
Which species an individual duck belongs to may be more problematical,
because of the variation within a population, hybridisation, and other
factors.
This is because populations evolve. New species arise.
What we *DON'T* find is clear-cut divisions between species, as you
insist is the case.
RF
Timothy Sutter
richardal...@googlemail.com wrote:
> That doesn't mean that the concept of "species" they are using is
> ambiguous. It means that it doesn't have clearly definable
> boundaries.
"species are not species"
ambiguous
> > and this remains ambiguous, by your own statements.
> >
> > richardalanforr...@googlemail.com wrote:
> > > I have said that some biologists have argued that "species" is not a
> > > term which has any real biological meaning.
> >
> > you may be saying that now, and this may be true,
> >
> > and i may even agree with you here, but i
> > have already said such a thing,
> >
> > and you tell me that i should let
> > a higher authority tell me such things,
> >
> > and now, you are setting yourself up as
> > that higher authority telling me something
> > that i already knew,
> >
> > richardalanforr...@googlemail.com wrote:
> > > This is a very clear and unambigious statement.
> >
> > you can now say in a very unambiguous manner,
> > that species assignemtns can be ambiguous.
richardal...@googlemail.com wrote:
> No, I am saying that species boundaries are not clear-cut.
you don't call ducks and blue jays the same species.
> That does not make species concepts ambiguous.
the species "concept" has no clear definition,
and only subjective renderings
which tend to suit a given focus.
if the emphasis is sameness, you get one rendering,
and if the emphasis is differnces, you get
another rendering.
richardal...@googlemail.com wrote:
> You seem to have a great deal of difficulty in understanding a concept
> which is unambiguous but does not set firm boundaries. I gave you the
> example of "child" and "adult" in human development.
one would hope that there's little chance
of you ever calling a two year old an adult.
and so, "adolescent" is another category which
would be grouped with "child" so as to diminish
any such ambiguity between child and adult.
richardal...@googlemail.com wrote:
> NO, I DON'T.
> Let me try again:
this'll be the first time.
richardal...@googlemail.com wrote:
> There are several different species concepts used by biologists. These
> concepts, when used by biologist, are defined clearly and
> unambigiously.
several different concepts which taken together
form an amiguous set of concepts which may lead
you to make certain false generalizatuions,
based on false inductions from peculiar
to general cases.
richardal...@googlemail.com wrote:
> When it comes to identifying which species a specimen should be
> assigned to, there can be doubt because *all* those concepts of
> species have boundaries which because, species are populations of
> evolved organisms are blurred.
you try to blend in the purely subjective criteria
with a perceived objective criterion or two,
and find you play a juggling game which
needs disclaimers and explanations as
accompaniments in order for any sort
of understanding to come of it.
richardal...@googlemail.com wrote:
> The species concept is clear.
only it has several different renderings
which taken as a whole, tend towards
being ambiguous.
richardal...@googlemail.com wrote:
> Assigning individuals to a particular
> species can be more problematical.
and tending towards beuing totally
subjective and based, at times,
upon pure whimsy.
> > that you choose
> > to assume that all such assignments may be ambiguous
> > and only that you haven't been able to see close
> > enough the ambiguity in areas where it
> > appears to be clearly definite.
> >
> > richardalanforr...@googlemail.com wrote:
> > > That assertion is categorically false, as anyone with a modicum of
> > > education in biology can tell you. There is extensive evidence that
> > > species boundaries are *NOT* clear-cut. This is not an appeal to
> > > authority.
> >
> > and yet, you never claim that ducks and
> > blue jays are the same species.
richardal...@googlemail.com wrote:
> So what?
this is a clear demarcation between species,
where the demarcation between certain
varities of ducks may not be so clear,
and so, in looking at a case like certain ducks,
and seeing some ambiguity, and then looking at
blue jays and seeing a clear demarcation, from ducks
to suggest that the demarcation between ducks
and blue jays is really just as ambiguous as
between ducks and other types of ducks
is pure speculation.
> > you do claim that ducks and other types
> > of ducks may be so similar as to be
> > described as the same species,
> > but you'd never say that ducks
> > and blue jays are the same species.
richardal...@googlemail.com wrote:
> Your point?
that you'd never say that ducks and
blue jays are the same species.
> > ducks and blue jays are clearly
> > not the same species,
> > even if, species is
> > an ambiguous rendering.
richardal...@googlemail.com wrote:
> So are the different species of ducks. They are defined by reference
> to a type specimen or population. That is clear and unambiguous.
and all together subjective, but then, you find
that you get offspring between tow types of ducks
that you would otherwise call different species
and maintain that it was your original assignments
that were correct, and these two types simply
crossed over -your- lines.
richardal...@googlemail.com wrote:
> Which species an individual duck belongs to may be more problematical,
> because of the variation within a population, hybridisation, and other
> factors.
you set up a few lines, see how
they don't work all the time,
and then conclude that all of your lines are equally
subjective and may, tehrefore, be cast aside when
whimsy suits your preferences for detail.
tius is you leading yourself down the primrose path
and when i won't go there with you,
you say i need to bow to the
higher authority.
richardal...@googlemail.com wrote:
> This is because populations evolve. New species arise.
this is because you make up your mind based on a small
segment of specimens and then try and force fit 'new'
finds into the pre-existing categorizations.
richardal...@googlemail.com wrote:
> What we *DON'T* find is clear-cut divisions between species, as you
> insist is the case.
-you- dom't find "clear cut" -definitions- of species
especially inasmuch as you can say that individual
placement within given categories is "problematical"
you look at your categorical system and then
compare it to "reality" and find no clear coherence,
and so, youw ander off into a more pragmatic
approach and this leads you to say that you
-opinion- is the decisive criterion.
richardal...@googlemail.com
> > That doesn't mean that the concept of "species" they are using is
> > ambiguous. It means that it doesn't have clearly definable
> > boundaries.
>
> "species are not species"
>
> ambiguous
>
>
>
> > > and this remains ambiguous, by your own statements.
>
> > > richardalanforr...@googlemail.com wrote:
> > > > I have said that some biologists have argued that "species" is not a
> > > > term which has any real biological meaning.
>
> > > you may be saying that now, and this may be true,
>
> > > and i may even agree with you here, but i
> > > have already said such a thing,
>
> > > and you tell me that i should let
> > > a higher authority tell me such things,
>
> > > and now, you are setting yourself up as
> > > that higher authority telling me something
> > > that i already knew,
>
> > > richardalanforr...@googlemail.com wrote:
> > > > This is a very clear and unambigious statement.
>
> > > you can now say in a very unambiguous manner,
> > > that species assignemtns can be ambiguous.
> > No, I am saying that species boundaries are not clear-cut.
>
> you don't call ducks and blue jays the same species.
Quite so. that's because they are not the same species. Neither are
Mallard Ducks and Ruddy Ducks. When we have groups of species which
have a recent common ancestry species boundaries are less clear-cut
than they are in species with a more distant common ancestry.
>
> > That does not make species concepts ambiguous.
>
> the species "concept" has no clear definition,
There are several different species concepts! Each of those concepts
has a clear definition.
>
> and only subjective renderings
> which tend to suit a given focus.
>
> if the emphasis is sameness, you get one rendering,
> and if the emphasis is differnces, you get
> another rendering.
>
> richardalanforr...@googlemail.com wrote:
> > You seem to have a great deal of difficulty in understanding a concept
> > which is unambiguous but does not set firm boundaries. I gave you the
> > example of "child" and "adult" in human development.
>
> one would hope that there's little chance
> of you ever calling a two year old an adult.
>
> and so, "adolescent" is another category which
> would be grouped with "child" so as to diminish
> any such ambiguity between child and adult.
>
Your point?
> richardalanforr...@googlemail.com wrote:
> > NO, I DON'T.
> > Let me try again:
>
> this'll be the first time.
>
> richardalanforr...@googlemail.com wrote:
> > There are several different species concepts used by biologists. These
> > concepts, when used by biologist, are defined clearly and
> > unambigiously.
>
> several different concepts which taken together
> form an amiguous set of concepts which may lead
> you to make certain false generalizatuions,
> based on false inductions from peculiar
> to general cases.
No, several different concepts, none of which is universally
applicable.
>
> richardalanforr...@googlemail.com wrote:
> > When it comes to identifying which species a specimen should be
> > assigned to, there can be doubt because *all* those concepts of
> > species have boundaries which because, species are populations of
> > evolved organisms are blurred.
>
> you try to blend in the purely subjective criteria
> with a perceived objective criterion or two,
I do?
Where?
>
> and find you play a juggling game which
> needs disclaimers and explanations as
> accompaniments in order for any sort
> of understanding to come of it.
>
> richardalanforr...@googlemail.com wrote:
> > The species concept is clear.
>
> only it has several different renderings
> which taken as a whole, tend towards
> being ambiguous.
>
> richardalanforr...@googlemail.com wrote:
> > Assigning individuals to a particular
> > species can be more problematical.
>
> and tending towards beuing totally
> subjective and based, at times,
> upon pure whimsy.
>
So perhaps you can give an instance in which an individual has been
assigned to a species on "pure whimsy".
>
>
> > > that you choose
> > > to assume that all such assignments may be ambiguous
> > > and only that you haven't been able to see close
> > > enough the ambiguity in areas where it
> > > appears to be clearly definite.
>
> > > richardalanforr...@googlemail.com wrote:
> > > > That assertion is categorically false, as anyone with a modicum of
> > > > education in biology can tell you. There is extensive evidence that
> > > > species boundaries are *NOT* clear-cut. This is not an appeal to
> > > > authority.
>
> > > and yet, you never claim that ducks and
> > > blue jays are the same species.
> richardalanforr...@googlemail.com wrote:
> > So what?
>
> this is a clear demarcation between species,
Their common ancestor is rather distant.
>
> where the demarcation between certain
> varities of ducks may not be so clear,
>
Because they share a more recent common ancestry.
> and so, in looking at a case like certain ducks,
> and seeing some ambiguity, and then looking at
> blue jays and seeing a clear demarcation, from ducks
>
> to suggest that the demarcation between ducks
> and blue jays is really just as ambiguous as
> between ducks and other types of ducks
> is pure speculation.
No, it's a conclusion drawn from the evidence. If you have a better
interpretation for the evidence feel free to offer it.
>
> > > you do claim that ducks and other types
> > > of ducks may be so similar as to be
> > > described as the same species,
> > > but you'd never say that ducks
> > > and blue jays are the same species.
> richardalanforr...@googlemail.com wrote:
> > Your point?
>
> that you'd never say that ducks and
> blue jays are the same species.
Quite so. And nobody with any knowledge of biology would say that
Mallard Ducks and Ruddy Ducks are the same species in spite of the
fact that they can hybriodise and produce viable offspring.
>
> > > ducks and blue jays are clearly
> > > not the same species,
> > > even if, species is
> > > an ambiguous rendering.
> richardalanforr...@googlemail.com wrote:
> > So are the different species of ducks. They are defined by reference
> > to a type specimen or population. That is clear and unambiguous.
>
> and all together subjective, but then, you find
> that you get offspring between tow types of ducks
> that you would otherwise call different species
>
> and maintain that it was your original assignments
> that were correct, and these two types simply
> crossed over -your- lines.
I have suggested that you read about the incidence of hybridisation in
natural populations, but evidently you prefer to remain in ignorance.
The ability to produce hybrids merely indicates a recent shared
ancestry. That does not mean that species which can hybridise are the
same species.
>
> richardalanforr...@googlemail.com wrote:
> > Which species an individual duck belongs to may be more problematical,
> > because of the variation within a population, hybridisation, and other
> > factors.
>
> you set up a few lines, see how
> they don't work all the time,
>
> and then conclude that all of your lines are equally
> subjective and may, tehrefore, be cast aside when
> whimsy suits your preferences for detail.
Nonsense.
If you think that this is the case, please cite a few scientific
papers which contain such "whimsy".
>
> tius is you leading yourself down the primrose path
>
> and when i won't go there with you,
> you say i need to bow to the
> higher authority.
>
I've never asked you to bow to higher authority. I've suggested that
you educate yourself in the subject.
> richardalanforr...@googlemail.com wrote:
> > This is because populations evolve. New species arise.
>
> this is because you make up your mind based on a small
> segment of specimens and then try and force fit 'new'
> finds into the pre-existing categorizations.
I do?
Which of my scientific papers have you read?
>
> richardalanforr...@googlemail.com wrote:
> > What we *DON'T* find is clear-cut divisions between species, as you
> > insist is the case.
>
> -you- dom't find "clear cut" -definitions- of species
> especially inasmuch as you can say that individual
> placement within given categories is "problematical"
>
> you look at your categorical system and then
> compare it to "reality" and find no clear coherence,
>
> and so, youw ander off into a more pragmatic
> approach and this leads you to say that you
> -opinion- is the decisive criterion.
I'm not saying that my opinion is the decisive criterion. You are
projecting.
All of which does not change the fact that there are no clear-cut
boundaries between species as you assert. Don't believe me, just learn
something about biology.
RF
Timothy Sutter
> > > > and this remains ambiguous, by your own statements.
> > > > richardalanforr...@googlemail.com wrote:
> > > > > I have said that some biologists have argued that "species" is not a
> > > > > term which has any real biological meaning.
> > > > you may be saying that now, and this may be true,
> > > > and i may even agree with you here, but i
> > > > have already said such a thing,
> > > > and you tell me that i should let
> > > > a higher authority tell me such things,
> > > > and now, you are setting yourself up as
> > > > that higher authority telling me something
> > > > that i already knew,
> > > > richardalanforr...@googlemail.com wrote:
> > > > > This is a very clear and unambigious statement.
> > > > you can now say in a very unambiguous manner,
> > > > that species assignemtns can be ambiguous.
> > richardalanforr...@googlemail.com wrote:
> > > No, I am saying that species boundaries are not clear-cut.
> Timothy Sutter wrote:
> > you don't call ducks and blue jays the same species.
richardal...@googlemail.com wrote:
> Quite so. that's because they are not the same species. Neither are
> Mallard Ducks and Ruddy Ducks. When we have groups of species which
> have a recent common ancestry species boundaries are less clear-cut
> than they are in species with a more distant common ancestry.
and so, you admit that boundaries -are- "clear-cut"
in species with so-called "more distant ancestry,"
but what you are not able to show objectively
or otherwise, is that your opinion about a
"common ancestor" in those "clear-cut" cases
is at all a reality and not merely a
figment of your imagination.
"clear-cut" is probably of the same
species as "hard and fast"
and so, we agree that some species
assignments are "clear-cut" and
"hard and fast"
> > > That does not make species concepts ambiguous.
> Timothy Sutter wrote:
> > the species "concept" has no clear definition,
richardal...@googlemail.com wrote:
> There are several different species concepts! Each of those concepts
> has a clear definition.
and taken in total, they remain blurry and ambiguous.
> > > > no, you say that species can be clear at times
> > > > and ambiguous at others and maybe,
> > richardalanforr...@googlemail.com wrote:
> > > NO, I DON'T.
> > > Let me try again:
> > this'll be the first time.
> > richardalanforr...@googlemail.com wrote:
> > > There are several different species concepts used by biologists. These
> > > concepts, when used by biologist, are defined clearly and
> > > unambigiously.
> > several different concepts which taken together
> > form an amiguous set of concepts which may lead
> > you to make certain false generalizatuions,
> > based on false inductions from peculiar
> > to general cases.
richardal...@googlemail.com wrote:
> No, several different concepts,
> none of which is universally
> applicable.
so, i'm right to suggest that while one concept
may be applicable in a given instance, that this
given instance will not be properly described
by another concept about species and so, taken
together, species assignments, remians ambiguous
and subject to opinion as a finalizing criterion.
which is not to worry, because you do see
that some assignments are "clear cut"
and that's a start.
> > richardalanforr...@googlemail.com wrote:
> > > When it comes to identifying which species a specimen should be
> > > assigned to, there can be doubt because *all* those concepts of
> > > species have boundaries which because, species are populations of
> > > evolved organisms are blurred.
> > you try to blend in the purely subjective criteria
> > with a perceived objective criterion or two,
richardal...@googlemail.com wrote:
> I do?
> Where?
well, when you suggest that some of your criteria
can show certain aspects, but that the collective
opinions of biologists who do certain things in
"certain ways" overrides any such possibilities,
you are blending what may be objective criteria
with the purpely subjective criteria based upon
the opinions of a collection of 'biologists'
and nothing more.
> > and find you play a juggling game which
> > needs disclaimers and explanations as
> > accompaniments in order for any sort
> > of understanding to come of it.
> > richardalanforr...@googlemail.com wrote:
> > > The species concept is clear.
> > only it has several different renderings
> > which taken as a whole, tend towards
> > being ambiguous.
> > richardalanforr...@googlemail.com wrote:
> > > Assigning individuals to a particular
> > > species can be more problematical.
> > and tending towards being totally
> > subjective and based, at times,
> > upon pure whimsy.
richardal...@googlemail.com wrote:
> So perhaps you can give an instance in which an
> individual has been assigned to a species on "pure whimsy".
when you flip a coin so as to place
one specimen into an either or situation,
or choose one definition of species, none
of which are "universally applicable,"
over another in making your assessment.
this borders right up on whimsy,
whether you would not describe
yourself in this manner or not.
> > > > that you choose
> > > > to assume that all such assignments may be ambiguous
> > > > and only that you haven't been able to see close
> > > > enough the ambiguity in areas where it
> > > > appears to be clearly definite.
> > > > richardalanforr...@googlemail.com wrote:
> > > > > That assertion is categorically false, as anyone with a modicum of
> > > > > education in biology can tell you. There is extensive evidence that
> > > > > species boundaries are *NOT* clear-cut. This is not an appeal to
> > > > > authority.
> > > > and yet, you never claim that ducks and
> > > > blue jays are the same species.
> > richardalanforr...@googlemail.com wrote:
> > > So what?
> > this is a clear demarcation between species,
richardal...@googlemail.com wrote:
> Their common ancestor is rather distant.
speculative
> > where the demarcation between certain
> > varities of ducks may not be so clear,
richardal...@googlemail.com wrote:
> Because they share a more recent common ancestry.
come to find out, that they may still be part
of the identical overall large breeding population
and threfore, part of the same species by some
criteria for species.
so, not only do they have a
common ancestor, but they
still breed.
sort of like saying that a schnauzer and a bulldog,
though clearly two different types of dogs, still,
have offspring and are stil categorized as the same
species, even if, some of their appearance and
population dynamics are habits are quite
different and so, if found in the wild,
could be classified as two species.
> > and so, in looking at a case like certain ducks,
> > and seeing some ambiguity, and then looking at
> > blue jays and seeing a clear demarcation, from ducks
> > to suggest that the demarcation between ducks
> > and blue jays is really just as ambiguous as
> > between ducks and other types of ducks
> > is pure speculation.
richardal...@googlemail.com wrote:
> No, it's a conclusion drawn from the evidence. If you have a better
> interpretation for the evidence feel free to offer it.
there is no evidence which ever places
blue jays and ducks in the same
breeding population,
but you contend here that the demarcation
between ducks and blue jays is ambiguous
even though, you never see any sort
of duck/blue jay "hybrid"
so now, the fact that you don't call
ducks and blue jays the same species
has no real merit whatsoever.
you practically suggest that
all birds are the same species,
and you still want to maintain that
'species' is unambiguous as a concept.
> > > > you do claim that ducks and other types
> > > > of ducks may be so similar as to be
> > > > described as the same species,
> > > > but you'd never say that ducks
> > > > and blue jays are the same species.
> > richardalanforr...@googlemail.com wrote:
> > > Your point?
> > that you'd never say that ducks and
> > blue jays are the same species.
richardal...@googlemail.com wrote:
> Quite so. And nobody with any knowledge of biology would say that
> Mallard Ducks and Ruddy Ducks are the same species in spite of the
> fact that they can hybriodise and produce viable offspring.
where the 'knowledge' that one would lack
is how a particular group of observeres sees
fit to categorize species on a given
day of the week.
by some definitions of species,
they are the same species,
and by some other definitions,
they are not.
so, species remains as ambiguous,
> > > > ducks and blue jays are clearly
> > > > not the same species,
> > > > even if, species is
> > > > an ambiguous rendering.
> > richardalanforr...@googlemail.com wrote:
> > > So are the different species of ducks. They are defined by reference
> > > to a type specimen or population. That is clear and unambiguous.
> > and all together subjective, but then, you find
> > that you get offspring between tow types of ducks
> > that you would otherwise call different species
> > and maintain that it was your original assignments
> > that were correct, and these two types simply
> > crossed over -your- lines.
richardal...@googlemail.com wrote:
> I have suggested that you read about the incidence of hybridisation in
> natural populations, but evidently you prefer to remain in ignorance.
> The ability to produce hybrids merely indicates a recent shared
> ancestry. That does not mean that species which can hybridise are the
> same species.
that's like saying that the ability to produce
a boxer dog from a mastiff and a great dane
suggest that mastiffs and great danes are
not the same species, and that they just
sometimes produce offspring.
> > richardalanforr...@googlemail.com wrote:
> > > Which species an individual duck belongs to may be more problematical,
> > > because of the variation within a population, hybridisation, and other
> > > factors.
> > you set up a few lines, see how
> > they don't work all the time,
> > and then conclude that all of your lines are equally
> > subjective and may, therefore, be cast aside when
> > whimsy suits your preferences for detail.
richardal...@googlemail.com wrote:
> Nonsense.
> If you think that this is the case, please cite a few scientific
> papers which contain such "whimsy".
my characterization as "whimsy" need not be found
among articles by people who would tend to maintain
that their opinion is not to be regarded as whimsy,
even though, the ambiguity of the relationships,
tend towards assessments based purely on opinion.
the central dogma of biologists
is that species both exist and do not exist.
> > this is you leading yourself down the primrose path
> > and when i won't go there with you,
> > you say i need to bow to the
> > higher authority.
richardal...@googlemail.com wrote:
> I've never asked you to bow to higher authority. I've suggested that
> you educate yourself in the subject.
it's already obvious that "different" species
of ducks can be classified as both the same
species and not the same species based on
which definition one wants to use on
a given day of the week.
> > richardalanforr...@googlemail.com wrote:
> > > This is because populations evolve. New species arise.
> > this is because you make up your mind based on a small
> > segment of specimens and then try and force fit 'new'
> > finds into the pre-existing categorizations.
richardal...@googlemail.com wrote:
> I do?
> Which of my scientific papers have you read?
this characterizes how the "problmeatic"
nature of "individual assignments of species"
can be attributed to teh pre-existance of
species categories into which, certain
individuals simply do not fit correctly.
if you hold these generalized opinions,
then you are part of the generalized "you"
whether you say as much in a paper or not.
> > richardalanforr...@googlemail.com wrote:
> > > What we *DON'T* find is clear-cut divisions between species, as you
> > > insist is the case.
> > -you- dom't find "clear cut" -definitions- of species
> > especially inasmuch as you can say that individual
> > placement within given categories is "problematical"
> > you look at your categorical system and then
> > compare it to "reality" and find no clear coherence,
> > and so, youw ander off into a more pragmatic
> > approach and this leads you to say that you
> > -opinion- is the decisive criterion.
richardal...@googlemail.com wrote:
> I'm not saying that my opinion is the decisive criterion.
> You are projecting.
in deciding some of the more "problematic" analyses,
-opinion- tends towards the -only- available criterion
left by which to assign species denominations.
which leaves the enterprise of categorization
with abitrary boundaries, and not the
birds themselves.
Bill Hudson
[snipped]
What we have displayed in this series of posts, dear reader, is a
prime example of 'postmodernist deconstruction'. One correspondent is
arguing terms, attempting to 'deconstruct' them and cast as much
confusion as possible by making the essential claim that science
doesn't really *know* anything, that the terms used are arbitrary, and
that the evidence is selectively assigned to certain categories at a
'whim'. This is called 'deconstruction', which means that the
critique applies the concepts of postmodern ideas of criticism, or
theory, to a "text" or "artifact", based on architectural
deconstructivism. A deconstruction is meant to undermine the frame of
reference and assumptions that underpin the text or the artifact.
Formal, academic critiques of postmodernism can be found in the books
_Beyond the Hoax_ (Sokal, 2008) and _Fashionable Nonsense_ (Sokal &
Bricmont, 1998).
The fact that much (most? all?) postmodernism is ultimately
meaningless rhetorical gymnastics was demonstrated in the Sokal
Affair, where Alan Sokal, a physicist, proposed and delivered for
publication an article purportedly about interpreting physics and
mathematics in terms of postmodern theory, which he had deliberately
written in a completely nonsensical fashion, including several in-
jokes mocking postmodernism. It was nevertheless published by _Social
Text_, a "cultural studies" journal active in the field of
postmodernism, as a serious postmodernist work.
Sokal arranged for the simultaneous publication of another article
describing the former as a successful experiment to see whether a
postmodernist journal would publish any nonsensical article with big
words that flattered the editors' political views, triggering an
academic scandal.
Richard Dawkins believes that postmodernists generally are
intellectual charlatans who deliberately obscure weak or nonsensical
ideas with ostentatious and difficult to understand verbiage.
The linguist Noam Chomsky has suggested that postmodernism is
meaningless because it adds nothing to analytical or empirical
knowledge, and that postmodernists can't seem to describe their
theories in ways that are intelligible to others outside their field.
In general, postmodernists argue "We can't *really* know *anything*".
The creationist movement has coopted postmodern deconstructionism
critiques for their own ends, trying to bring down confidence in
science. In particular Phillip Johnson spearheaded the use of these
techniques, and even admitted as much in some of his writings.
So, read on, and enjoy the display of intellectual dishonesty!
Timothy Sutter
<...>
Bill Hudson wrote:
> What we have displayed in this series of posts, dear reader, is a
> prime example of 'postmodernist deconstruction'.
<...>
> In general, postmodernists argue
> "We can't *really* know *anything*".
i wouldn't agree with this at all,
and have never even implied such a thing.
what i have argued can be separated
and abstracted from the terms in
use themselves,
and is -not- reliant upon
a semantic argument.
what i have stated clearly enough is
that some efforts at categorization
of organisms,
leaves a picture that, when applied to specimens
which have been heretofore absent from this picture,
may fail to correspond properly to the realities
to which it is, then, being compared,
and that when this portrtait presents
an incoherent picture of reality,
it is the portrait that is to be faulted
and not reality itself.
i do not claim that reality is
incomprehensible to mankind.
i do not even claim that _GOD_ is
incomprehensible to mankind,
as some do
even an onion can only reveal so much to a person whereupon,
the veiled nature of our examinations fail to express to us
the entirety of "onionness" and so, we are left with
a somewhat fractured portrait.
and yet, we can easily compare
notes on what can be kown of "onionness"
i cannot, however, easily compare notes about
alpha centauri to a person who cannot see
anything at all.
all i can suggest to them is, that,
such a dot in the night sky, does, exist.
et cetera
Sapient Fridge
<da803763-8dc0-4a57...@l64g2000hse.googlegroups.com>,
Timothy Sutter <a20...@lycos.com> writes
>>>> Sheesh, it's a thought experiment showing how a 44 chromosome population
>>>> could arise. It's meant to demonstrate the idea and doesn't have to
>>>> cover every bloody detail.
>
>>> it isn't arising, and in fact, the only case of a 44 fetus
>>> is theorized to have been brought about by complications
>>> due to chemotherapy in the mother.
>
>> So? The fact that one has been shown to exist and was "phenotypically
>> normal" blows your argument that it was impossible of the water.
>
>
>so, it isn't a natural occurence, that's what
>the investigators are suggesting and they
>mention the very uniqueness of it -as- the
>reason why they suggest the chemotherapy
>as the cause.
>
>they wouldn't even bother to mention the mother's
>chemotherapy for lupus if it wasn't of prime
>importance in explaining the anomaly.
>
>if you'd bother to read the article,
>
>the investigators suspect that it was
>the chemotherapy that the mother had
>recieved which caused the anomaly
>to arise "de novo".
>
>they clearly cite that no other specimen,
>much less a -live birth- has ever been recorded.
>
>my theory is that the chemotherapy disabled part
>of the regulatory apparatus which specificaly
>prevents such an anomaly from happening.
This disproves your theory:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2798341
Yep, it's a live 44 chromosome birth (homozygous 14,21 fused
chromosomes) No defects nor any sign of any "regulatory apparatus"
preventing it.
So the your remaining objections to my scenario where a population of 44
chromosome humans could arise are as follows:
1) It's unlikely (agreed)
2) I chose nuns as my female breeding stock
Any comments?
--
sapient_...@spamsights.org ICQ #17887309 * Save the net *
Grok: http://spam.abuse.net http://www.cauce.org * nuke a spammer *
Find: http://www.samspade.org http://www.netdemon.net * today *
Kill: http://spamsights.org http://spews.org http://spamhaus.org
Sapient Fridge
writes
>Sapient Fridge wrote:
>> In message
>> <da803763-8dc0-4a57...@l64g2000hse.googlegroups.com>,
>> Timothy Sutter <a20...@lycos.com> writes
>>
>>
>>>>> it isn't arising, and in fact, the only case of a 44 fetus
>>>>> is theorized to have been brought about by complications
>>>>> due to chemotherapy in the mother.
>>>
>>>> So? The fact that one has been shown to exist and was "phenotypically
>>>> normal" blows your argument that it was impossible of the water.
>>>
>>>
>>> so, it isn't a natural occurence, that's what
>>> the investigators are suggesting and they
>>> mention the very uniqueness of it -as- the
>>> reason why they suggest the chemotherapy
>>> as the cause.
>>>
>>> they wouldn't even bother to mention the mother's
>>> chemotherapy for lupus if it wasn't of prime
>>> importance in explaining the anomaly.
>>>
>>> if you'd bother to read the article,
>>>
>>> the investigators suspect that it was
>>> the chemotherapy that the mother had
>>> recieved which caused the anomaly
>>> to arise "de novo".
>
>>> they clearly cite that no other specimen,
>>> much less a -live birth- has ever been recorded.
>
>>> my theory is that the chemotherapy disabled part
>>> of the regulatory apparatus which specificaly
>>> prevents such an anomaly from happening.
>
>> happen completely naturally. In this case it may have been caused by
>> the chemicals but the end result is the same.
>
>the paper doesn't say that the robertsonian
>not was caused by the chemotherapy,
>
>
>>>> Don't forget that I wasn't arguing that it
>>>> was likely, only that it was possible.
>
>>> and the article does more to show that such
>>> a prospect is -not- possible aside from the
>>> interjection of a chemical agents that
>>> specifically targets dna.
>
>> A human being with 44 chromosomes and which was ""phenotypically normal"
>> was developing. Alas it didn't reach full term (for whatever reason)
>> but that fact that it got as far as it did shows that it is possible and
>> that all your claims that it isn't possible for one to be formed are
>> refuted.
>
>no, because it was not a live birth and
>no live birth has ever happened
Wrong.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2798341
A live, healthy 44 chromosome baby. It's dated 7 years after the first
paper.
It says:
First-trimester prenatal diagnosis of homozygous (14;21) translocation
in a fetus with 44 chromosomes.
"A (14;21) homozygous Robertsonian translocation was detected by
first-trimester prenatal diagnosis. The related parents were
heterozygous for the same translocation. At birth the baby was
physically normal and had a normal psychomotor development. Together
with a few previous observations in living homozygotes for (13;14)
translocations, this case corroborates the idea that these subjects with
44 chromosomes are healthy without dysmorphic features."
richardal...@googlemail.com
> > Timothy Sutter wrote:
> > > > > and this remains ambiguous, by your own statements.
> > > > > richardalanforr...@googlemail.com wrote:
> > > > > > I have said that some biologists have argued that "species" is not a
> > > > > > term which has any real biological meaning.
> > > > > you may be saying that now, and this may be true,
> > > > > and i may even agree with you here, but i
> > > > > have already said such a thing,
> > > > > and you tell me that i should let
> > > > > a higher authority tell me such things,
> > > > > and now, you are setting yourself up as
> > > > > that higher authority telling me something
> > > > > that i already knew,
> > > > > richardalanforr...@googlemail.com wrote:
> > > > > > This is a very clear and unambigious statement.
> > > > > you can now say in a very unambiguous manner,
> > > > > that species assignemtns can be ambiguous.
> > > richardalanforr...@googlemail.com wrote:
> > > > No, I am saying that species boundaries are not clear-cut.
> > Timothy Sutter wrote:
> > > you don't call ducks and blue jays the same species.
> > Quite so. that's because they are not the same species. Neither are
> > Mallard Ducks and Ruddy Ducks. When we have groups of species which
> > have a recent common ancestry species boundaries are less clear-cut
> > than they are in species with a more distant common ancestry.
>
> and so, you admit that boundaries -are- "clear-cut"
> in species with so-called "more distant ancestry,"
Why on earth is it such a great "admission" to state what it obvious
to anyone with any knowledge of biology?
>
> but what you are not able to show objectively
> or otherwise, is that your opinion about a
> "common ancestor" in those "clear-cut" cases
> is at all a reality and not merely a
> figment of your imagination.
>
Well, there's the DNA evidence, the morphological evidence, the
biogeographical evidence and the fossil evidence for starters.
Do you think that they are all a figment of my imagination?
> "clear-cut" is probably of the same
> species as "hard and fast"
>
> and so, we agree that some species
> assignments are "clear-cut" and
> "hard and fast"
You still don't seem to be able to read for comprehension.
"Species assignments" are hard and fast. Species are defined with
reference to a type specimen or population. If you don't know what I
mean by " type specimen or population" I suggest that you find out.
*Individual organisms* may be difficult to assign to a particular
species because the boundaries between closely related species may be
fuzzy. That's because they share a recent common ancestor.
>
> > > > That does not make species concepts ambiguous.
> > Timothy Sutter wrote:
> > > the species "concept" has no clear definition,
> richardalanforr...@googlemail.com wrote:
> > There are several different species concepts! Each of those concepts
> > has a clear definition.
>
> and taken in total, they remain blurry and ambiguous.
>
One does not take species concepts "in total". One uses whichever is
most appropriate to the material under study.
>
>
> > > > > no, you say that species can be clear at times
> > > > > and ambiguous at others and maybe,
> > > richardalanforr...@googlemail.com wrote:
> > > > NO, I DON'T.
> > > > Let me try again:
> > > this'll be the first time.
> > > richardalanforr...@googlemail.com wrote:
> > > > There are several different species concepts used by biologists. These
> > > > concepts, when used by biologist, are defined clearly and
> > > > unambigiously.
> > > several different concepts which taken together
> > > form an amiguous set of concepts which may lead
> > > you to make certain false generalizatuions,
> > > based on false inductions from peculiar
> > > to general cases.
> richardalanforr...@googlemail.com wrote:
> > No, several different concepts,
> > none of which is universally
> > applicable.
>
> so, i'm right to suggest that while one concept
> may be applicable in a given instance, that this
> given instance will not be properly described
> by another concept about species
No.
> and so, taken
> together, species assignments, remians ambiguous
> and subject to opinion as a finalizing criterion.
No. I suggest that you read my posts, and try to understand.
> which is not to worry, because you do see
>
> that some assignments are "clear cut"
>
> and that's a start.
No, it's simply a consequence of the evolutionary history of the
organism.
>
> > > richardalanforr...@googlemail.com wrote:
> > > > When it comes to identifying which species a specimen should be
> > > > assigned to, there can be doubt because *all* those concepts of
> > > > species have boundaries which because, species are populations of
> > > > evolved organisms are blurred.
> > > you try to blend in the purely subjective criteria
> > > with a perceived objective criterion or two,
> richardalanforr...@googlemail.com wrote:
> > I do?
> > Where?
>
> well, when you suggest that some of your criteria
> can show certain aspects, but that the collective
> opinions of biologists who do certain things in
> "certain ways" overrides any such possibilities,
I've never written anything of the sort!
>
> you are blending what may be objective criteria
> with the purpely subjective criteria based upon
> the opinions of a collection of 'biologists'
> and nothing more.
...something you have failed rather spectacularly to demonstrate.
Why not learn something about biology?
>
>
>
> > > and find you play a juggling game which
> > > needs disclaimers and explanations as
> > > accompaniments in order for any sort
> > > of understanding to come of it.
> > > richardalanforr...@googlemail.com wrote:
> > > > The species concept is clear.
> > > only it has several different renderings
> > > which taken as a whole, tend towards
> > > being ambiguous.
> > > richardalanforr...@googlemail.com wrote:
> > > > Assigning individuals to a particular
> > > > species can be more problematical.
> > > and tending towards being totally
> > > subjective and based, at times,
> > > upon pure whimsy.
> richardalanforr...@googlemail.com wrote:
> > So perhaps you can give an instance in which an
> > individual has been assigned to a species on "pure whimsy".
>
> when you flip a coin so as to place
> one specimen into an either or situation,
> or choose one definition of species, none
> of which are "universally applicable,"
> over another in making your assessment.
So I presume you can give an instance in which a taxonomist has
flipped a coin to decide which species a specimen should be assigned
to.
Of course, if you can't you are simply making things up as you go
along, which isn't very honest, is it?
>
> this borders right up on whimsy,
> whether you would not describe
> yourself in this manner or not.
>
>
>
> > > > > that you choose
> > > > > to assume that all such assignments may be ambiguous
> > > > > and only that you haven't been able to see close
> > > > > enough the ambiguity in areas where it
> > > > > appears to be clearly definite.
> > > > > richardalanforr...@googlemail.com wrote:
> > > > > > That assertion is categorically false, as anyone with a modicum of
> > > > > > education in biology can tell you. There is extensive evidence that
> > > > > > species boundaries are *NOT* clear-cut. This is not an appeal to
> > > > > > authority.
> > > > > and yet, you never claim that ducks and
> > > > > blue jays are the same species.
> > > richardalanforr...@googlemail.com wrote:
> > > > So what?
> > > this is a clear demarcation between species,
> richardalanforr...@googlemail.com wrote:
> > Their common ancestor is rather distant.
>
> speculative
>
No, a conclusion drawn from the DNA evidence, the morphological
evidence, the biogeographical evidence and possibly the fossil
evidence (I have no idea of how much fossil evidence for corvids
exists).
> > > where the demarcation between certain
> > > varities of ducks may not be so clear,
> richardalanforr...@googlemail.com wrote:
> > Because they share a more recent common ancestry.
>
> come to find out, that they may still be part
> of the identical overall large breeding population
> and threfore, part of the same species by some
> criteria for species.
>
> so, not only do they have a
> common ancestor, but they
> still breed.
>
Which does not necessarily mean that they are not of different
species.
This is pretty elementary biology, by the way.
Why not educate yourself in the subject?
> sort of like saying that a schnauzer and a bulldog,
> though clearly two different types of dogs, still,
> have offspring and are stil categorized as the same
> species, even if, some of their appearance and
> population dynamics are habits are quite
> different and so, if found in the wild,
> could be classified as two species.
Quite possibly they would. There is some evidence for reproductive
isolation between some breeds of dog, and by some criteria they could
be described as different species. This is because all modern breeds
of dog share a recent common ancestor.
>
> > > and so, in looking at a case like certain ducks,
> > > and seeing some ambiguity, and then looking at
> > > blue jays and seeing a clear demarcation, from ducks
> > > to suggest that the demarcation between ducks
> > > and blue jays is really just as ambiguous as
> > > between ducks and other types of ducks
> > > is pure speculation.
> richardalanforr...@googlemail.com wrote:
> > No, it's a conclusion drawn from the evidence. If you have a better
> > interpretation for the evidence feel free to offer it.
>
> there is no evidence which ever places
> blue jays and ducks in the same
> breeding population,
Quite so.
Your point?
>
> but you contend here that the demarcation
> between ducks and blue jays is ambiguous
I've never made any such contention.
Why do you need to make things up to foster your argument?
> even though, you never see any sort
> of duck/blue jay "hybrid"
>
> so now, the fact that you don't call
> ducks and blue jays the same species
> has no real merit whatsoever.
>
> you practically suggest that
> all birds are the same species,
I have?
Where?
>
> and you still want to maintain that
> 'species' is unambiguous as a concept.
You evidently are incapable of reading for comprehension.
>
> > > > > you do claim that ducks and other types
> > > > > of ducks may be so similar as to be
> > > > > described as the same species,
> > > > > but you'd never say that ducks
> > > > > and blue jays are the same species.
> > > richardalanforr...@googlemail.com wrote:
> > > > Your point?
> > > that you'd never say that ducks and
> > > blue jays are the same species.
> richardalanforr...@googlemail.com wrote:
> > Quite so. And nobody with any knowledge of biology would say that
> > Mallard Ducks and Ruddy Ducks are the same species in spite of the
> > fact that they can hybriodise and produce viable offspring.
>
> where the 'knowledge' that one would lack
> is how a particular group of observeres sees
> fit to categorize species on a given
> day of the week.
>
No, that's not the basis on which biologists describe species.
Why not educate yourself in the subject?
There seems little point in explaining it to you again as you seem
incapable of reading for comprehension.
> by some definitions of species,
> they are the same species,
>
> and by some other definitions,
> they are not.
>
> so, species remains as ambiguous,
>
>
>
> > > > > ducks and blue jays are clearly
> > > > > not the same species,
> > > > > even if, species is
> > > > > an ambiguous rendering.
> > > richardalanforr...@googlemail.com wrote:
> > > > So are the different species of ducks. They are defined by reference
> > > > to a type specimen or population. That is clear and unambiguous.
> > > and all together subjective, but then, you find
> > > that you get offspring between tow types of ducks
> > > that you would otherwise call different species
> > > and maintain that it was your original assignments
> > > that were correct, and these two types simply
> > > crossed over -your- lines.
> richardalanforr...@googlemail.com wrote:
> > I have suggested that you read about the incidence of hybridisation in
> > natural populations, but evidently you prefer to remain in ignorance.
> > The ability to produce hybrids merely indicates a recent shared
> > ancestry. That does not mean that species which can hybridise are the
> > same species.
>
> that's like saying that the ability to produce
> a boxer dog from a mastiff and a great dane
> suggest that mastiffs and great danes are
> not the same species, and that they just
> sometimes produce offspring.
No, it isn't.
Why not educate yourself in biology rather than making things up as
you go along?
I realise the education threatens to undermine your convictions, but
don't you think that shows how unfounded your
RF
convictions are?
>
> > > richardalanforr...@googlemail.com wrote:
> > > > Which species an individual duck belongs to may be more problematical,
> > > > because of the variation within a population, hybridisation, and other
> > > > factors.
> > > you
>
> ...
>
> read more »
Timothy Sutter
> Timothy Sutter writes
> >Sapient Fridge wrote:
> >> Timothy Sutter writes
> >> <snip>
> Wrong.
> http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2798341
great a live birth, that just happens
to be a normal human in nearly every respect,
and is not considered a different species,
but, one you'd like to suggest will
constitute the genesis of a new species.
what you haven't shown is that this
child is, itself, fertile.
it may be sterile.
show me that it is fertile.
feel free to keep me updated on the topic.
as of right now, the 'theory' is
not thoroughly substantiated.
see, the 44 may have a difficult time finding
another 44 given the severe rarity of the situation,
in teh real actual world, and not some hypothetical
island where peole ahve 1000 children.
it's not enough to suggest that 62 out of
a thousand births can be 44s as this sort
of punnet square analysis does not take into
account all of the other delicate features
that may have to coincide to produce even
the one that we see here.
and for your theorized scenario to take
place, we need to find not only one, but
two fertile specimens so as to conclude that
the offspring of two fertile 44s will be a 44,
and, that this itself would constitute the
genesis of a brand new species of human being.
now, having said that, the question
returns to the problem of you showing me
a chimp or gorilla that has evidenced a
=homologous= robertsonian translocation
of chromosome 2.
remembering that such translocations are
generally acrocentric, i.e. from two
-different- chromosomes and that such
translocations on the same chromosome
as much much more rare.
what you should be able to show
me is that chimps and or gorillas
or orangs, [let's just say chimps for ease]
are now exhibitting such homologous chromosome
shifts -on- chromosome 2 and, at least, have
members within the overall population that
carry a 47 chromosome robertsonian
-at- chromosome 2.
so, show me a chimp dna footprint
with an existing 47 chromosome
robertsonian translocation,
and evidence of this on chromosome 2
that would formulate the basis for your proposed
rearrangement to a 46 chromosome chimp
that would then, slowly and gradually rewrite
the rearranged chromosome count to offer up
the exact differences between chimps and
man that are now seen in the
comparitive genomics.
as of now, the comparisons of chromosome 2
along species lines remains circumstantial.
Timothy Sutter
Sapient Fridge wrote:
> This disproves your theory:
not entirely, as your abstract does not
describe the parents aside from having
the similar translocations.
Sapient Fridge wrote:
> http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2798341
> Yep, it's a live 44 chromosome birth (homozygous 14,21 fused
> chromosomes) No defects nor any sign of any "regulatory apparatus"
> preventing it.
> So the your remaining objections to my scenario where a population of 44
> chromosome humans could arise are as follows:
> 1) It's unlikely (agreed)
> 2) I chose nuns as my female breeding stock
> Any comments?
that it -is- unlikely is not enough.
the "thought experiment" is trying to make
real world connections and as such, there
are still problems to consider,
among these;
what you haven't shown is that this
child is, itself, fertile.
it may be sterile.
show me that it is fertile.
feel free to keep me updated on the topic.
as of right now, the 'theory' is
not thoroughly substantiated.
see, the 44 may have a difficult time finding
another 44 given the severe rarity of the situation,
in the real actual world, and not some hypothetical
island where people have 1000 children.