More problems

[I am not a chemist]

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2774700/

BMC Evol Biol. 2009; 9: 259.
Published online 2009 October 27. doi: 10.1186/1471-2148-9-259PMCID:
PMC2774700Estimating the phylogeny and divergence times of primates
using a supermatrix approach


To estimate the structure and tempo of primate evolutionary history,
we employed Bayesian phylogenetic methods to analyze data
supermatrices comprising 7 mitochondrial genes (6,138 nucleotides)
from 219 species across 67 genera and 3 nuclear genes (2,157
nucleotides) from 26 genera

Within Primates, the relationships within and between various families
and genera continue to cause debate, despite the numerous molecular
estimates of the phylogeny that have been presented over the past 10
to 15 years

One of the foremost debates in primate systematics has long concerned
the position of tarsiers. Traditionally viewed as being more closely
associated with lemurs and lorises, tarsiers were placed within a
suborder Prosimii, under the gradistic view of primate taxonomy [8].
Modern taxonomic schemes generally recognize their closer affiliation
with monkeys and apes, grouping them with Haplorrhini [9]. The
majority of molecular evidence supports the latter grouping [4,10-13],
although a large number of molecular studies still provide support for
the Prosimii concept [14-18]. The question is succinctly reviewed by
Yoder [19] and is further examined by Eizirik et al. [18]. There is
now general agreement on the higher-level relationships within the two
suborders [20], with Strepsirrhini comprising Lorisiformes (galagos
and lorises) and the sister-pairing of the monophyletic Lemuriformes
(lemurs) and Chiromyiformes (the aye-aye), and with Haplorrhini
consisting of Platyrrhini (New World monkeys) and Catarrhini (apes and
Old World monkeys). Within these groups, however, there are numerous
disagreements over interfamilial relationships. Molecular evidence has
sometimes favored Cheirogaleidae as sister group to Lemuridae,
although current evidence suggests that the four lemuriform families
(Lemuridae, Cheirogaleidae, Lepilemuridae and Indriidae) represent a
four-way split, which may be real or may simply reflect a lack of
resolution [4,21,22]. Within Haplorrhini, controversial taxonomic
issues remain. The paraphyly of an all-encompassing Cebidae with
respect to the tamarins and marmosets is widely recognized now
[9,23,24], but the branching order of the major lineages is still
questionable. Among the Old World monkeys, particularly within
Colobinae, intergeneric relationships are still unclear.

The timescale of primate evolution has also been the subject of
numerous molecular analyses over the past few decades
[4,11,18,20,21,23-32]. Typically, divergence time estimates made using
molecular phylogenetic approaches have supported a much more
protracted timeframe for primate evolution than that suggested by the
fossil record [27,33]. Inferring the age of the most recent common
ancestor of all primates using molecular data has been of particular
interest, owing to the poor understanding of early primate fossils and
the contested affinity of Plesiadapiformes. The oldest unambiguous
primate fossil is dated at 55 million years [34,35], whereas molecular
estimates often place the common primate ancestor in excess of 80
million years ago (MYA) [4,18].

[I am not a chemist]

While there may be consensus regarding relationships across the main
primate clades, there is continued disagreement at the species, genus
and even family levels. One of the primary challenges in primate
molecular phylogenetics remains the issue that different markers
support conflicting trees

[Richard Norman]

On Mon, 4 Feb 2013 16:24:41 -0800 (PST), I am not a chemist
<t2jud...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Feb 4, 4:19�pm, I am not a chemist <t2judgm...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2774700/
>>
>> BMC Evol Biol. 2009; 9: 259.
>> Published online 2009 October 27. doi: �10.1186/1471-2148-9-259PMCID:
>> PMC2774700Estimating the phylogeny and divergence times of primates
>> using a supermatrix approach

>While there may be consensus regarding relationships across the main
>primate clades, there is continued disagreement at the species, genus
>and even family levels. One of the primary challenges in primate
>molecular phylogenetics remains the issue that different markers
>support conflicting trees

Perhaps you missed the statement that says "Although considerable gaps
remain in our knowledge of the primate phylogeny, increased data
sampling, particularly from nuclear loci, will be able to provide
further resolution."

We don't know everything in every detail yet.

[I am not a chemist]

On Feb 4, 4:38�pm, Richard Norman <r_s_nor...@comcast.net> wrote:
> On Mon, 4 Feb 2013 16:24:41 -0800 (PST), I am not a chemist
>

Yet enough to know it did not occur the way you say it did.

[I am not a chemist]

On Feb 4, 4:19�pm, I am not a chemist <t2judgm...@gmail.com> wrote:

> http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2774700/
>
> BMC Evol Biol. 2009; 9: 259.
> Published online 2009 October 27. doi: �10.1186/1471-2148-9-259PMCID:
> PMC2774700Estimating the phylogeny and divergence times of primates
> using a supermatrix approach
>

don't snip out the parts I quoted.

[Richard Norman]

What is it that I say except that we don't know everything in every
detail yet?

[I am not a chemist]

On Feb 4, 5:01�pm, Richard Norman <r_s_nor...@comcast.net> wrote:
> On Mon, 4 Feb 2013 16:54:04 -0800 (PST), I am not a chemist
>
>
>
>
>

> <t2judgm...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >On Feb 4, 4:38�pm, Richard Norman <r_s_nor...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >> On Mon, 4 Feb 2013 16:24:41 -0800 (PST), I am not a chemist
>
> >> <t2judgm...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >On Feb 4, 4:19�pm, I am not a chemist <t2judgm...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >>http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2774700/
>
> >> >> BMC Evol Biol. 2009; 9: 259.
> >> >> Published online 2009 October 27. doi: �10.1186/1471-2148-9-259PMCID:
> >> >> PMC2774700Estimating the phylogeny and divergence times of primates
> >> >> using a supermatrix approach
> >> >While there may be consensus regarding relationships across the main
> >> >primate clades, there is continued disagreement at the species, genus
> >> >and even family levels. One of the primary challenges in primate
> >> >molecular phylogenetics remains the issue that different markers
> >> >support conflicting trees
>
> >> Perhaps you missed the statement that says "Although considerable gaps
> >> remain in our knowledge of the primate phylogeny, increased data
> >> sampling, particularly from nuclear loci, will be able to provide
> >> further resolution."
>
> >> We don't know everything in every detail yet.
>
> >Yet enough to know it did not occur the way you say it did.
>
> What is it that I say except that we don't know everything in every

> detail yet?- Hide quoted text -


You claim evolution occurred a certain way.
Yet when we examine the genetic evidence, it did not occur that way at
all.

[John Harshman]

And I'm guessing that the paper he quotes may make some mention of
lineage sorting, which he should read up on.

[Quark E]

On Feb 4, 5:38�pm, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> On 2/4/13 4:38 PM, Richard Norman wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Mon, 4 Feb 2013 16:24:41 -0800 (PST), I am not a chemist

> > <t2judgm...@gmail.com> �wrote:

>
> >> On Feb 4, 4:19 pm, I am not a chemist<t2judgm...@gmail.com> �wrote:
> >>>http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2774700/
>
> >>> BMC Evol Biol. 2009; 9: 259.
> >>> Published online 2009 October 27. doi: �10.1186/1471-2148-9-259PMCID:
> >>> PMC2774700Estimating the phylogeny and divergence times of primates
> >>> using a supermatrix approach
>
> >> While there may be consensus regarding relationships across the main
> >> primate clades, there is continued disagreement at the species, genus
> >> and even family levels. One of the primary challenges in primate
> >> molecular phylogenetics remains the issue that different markers
> >> support conflicting trees
>
> > Perhaps you missed the statement that says "Although considerable gaps
> > remain in our knowledge of the primate phylogeny, increased data
> > sampling, particularly from nuclear loci, will be able to provide
> > further resolution."
>
> > We don't know everything in every detail yet.
>
> And I'm guessing that the paper he quotes may make some mention of

> lineage sorting, which he should read up on.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

So your sockpuppet snips out what I posted, inserts something else,
then you reply with drivel and think that took care of everything,
lets just ignore it.

[John Harshman]

On 2/4/13 6:17 PM, Quark E wrote:
> On Feb 4, 5:38 pm, John Harshman<jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>> On 2/4/13 4:38 PM, Richard Norman wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Mon, 4 Feb 2013 16:24:41 -0800 (PST), I am not a chemist
>>> <t2judgm...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> On Feb 4, 4:19 pm, I am not a chemist<t2judgm...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2774700/
>>
>>>>> BMC Evol Biol. 2009; 9: 259.
>>>>> Published online 2009 October 27. doi: 10.1186/1471-2148-9-259PMCID:
>>>>> PMC2774700Estimating the phylogeny and divergence times of primates
>>>>> using a supermatrix approach
>>
>>>> While there may be consensus regarding relationships across the main
>>>> primate clades, there is continued disagreement at the species, genus
>>>> and even family levels. One of the primary challenges in primate
>>>> molecular phylogenetics remains the issue that different markers
>>>> support conflicting trees
>>
>>> Perhaps you missed the statement that says "Although considerable gaps
>>> remain in our knowledge of the primate phylogeny, increased data
>>> sampling, particularly from nuclear loci, will be able to provide
>>> further resolution."
>>
>>> We don't know everything in every detail yet.
>>
>> And I'm guessing that the paper he quotes may make some mention of
>> lineage sorting, which he should read up on.
>

> So your sockpuppet snips out what I posted, inserts something else,
> then you reply with drivel and think that took care of everything,
> lets just ignore it.

Just for convenience, could you provide me with a list of all my sock
puppets?

So far we have rnorman, me, DIG (don't know which of us is the real me
and which is the sock puppet, so I include all of us). Who else?

[Quark E]

> and which is the sock puppet, so I include all of us). Who else?- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

Why if I get one wrong will you insist that I am insane?

[John Harshman]

> Why if I get one wrong will you insist that I am insane?

I freely confess that I will not consider you insane because you got one
(or more) wrong.

[Quark E]

> (or more) wrong.- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

So now robert golaszewski does not consider his puppet harshman here a
puppet.
What a maroon.
Hey bud, your harshman is nothing but a lie too.

[John Harshman]

> So now robert golaszewski does not consider his puppet harshman here a
> puppet.
> What a maroon.
> Hey bud, your harshman is nothing but a lie too.

Sorry, I had forgotten that none of us was the real me. So we have the
beginnings of a complete list of sock puppets:

jharshman
DIG
rnorman

Go on. I repeat that I will not consider you insane for missing a name
or putting in a wrong one.

[Quark E]

> Go on. I repeat that I will not consider you insane for putting in a wrong one.- Hide quoted text -

Keep lying.

[Richard Norman]

Shouldn't one of feel real pleased and the other totally insulted
about this confusion? The problem is I can't figure out which way it
should go.

[Quark E]

> should go.- Hide quoted text -

You are confusing only yourself.

[John Harshman]

> Keep lying.

No, really. I have completely different reasons for considering you insane.

[J. J. Lodder J. J. Lodder]

Dear nutter, you are replying to yourself.

That's a symptom, you know,

Jan

[chris thompson]

Sadly, it seems up to one of you to take over for the Harter
Collective.

Chris

[alextangent]

To me it's obvious; you all use the same font.

Wilkins
Gans
Burkhard

and so on. See pnyikos for details of how it works.

[Paul J Gans]

Don't forget me. I'm supposed to be an evil mastermind and
the most mendacious person on the internet.

I've been working on my evil laugh all week.


--
--- Paul J. Gans

[Burkhard]

On 5 Feb, 14:46, Paul J Gans <gan...@panix.com> wrote:

Do you have a white cat that you can pensively stroke? I heard that's
mandatory.

[jillery]

Fame is fickle. I'm supposed to be one of the three most abusive
posters in T.O.

[Kermit]

Curiously, I have never heard anyone claim that evolutionary theory
stands or falls on the exact placement of tarsiers on the primate
branch of the Tree of Life.

kermit

[Kermit]

I can't help but notice that you are using a different posting name to
accuse someone else of sockpuppetry.

kermit

[Mike Dworetsky]

With or without pool containing hungry sharks?

--
Mike Dworetsky

(Remove pants sp*mbl*ck to reply)

[chris thompson]

[Bob Casanova]

On Tue, 5 Feb 2013 08:40:35 -0800 (PST), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Kermit
<free...@charter.net>:

I noticed that, too, but my IronyMeter survived.
--

Bob C.

"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."

- McNameless

[I am not a chemist]

> No, really. I have completely different reasons for considering you insane.- Hide quoted text -

You mean me knowing this was going to happen 20 years ago?

[Bob Casanova]

On Mon, 4 Feb 2013 18:23:43 -0800 (PST), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Quark E
<quar...@gmail.com>:

>Why if I get one wrong will you insist that I am insane?

Why do you feel the issues are linked? They're not; the
first would be merely an error while the second is an ad hoc
diagnosis based on your posts.

[Paul J Gans]

alextangent <bl...@rivadpm.com> wrote:

>On Feb 5, 3:22?am, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>> On 2/4/13 7:11 PM, Quark E wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>

>> > On Feb 4, 6:40 pm, John Harshman<jharsh...@pacbell.net> ?wrote:

>> >> On 2/4/13 6:23 PM, Quark E wrote:
>>

>> >>> On Feb 4, 6:21 pm, John Harshman<jharsh...@pacbell.net> ? ?wrote:

>> >>>> On 2/4/13 6:17 PM, Quark E wrote:
>>

>> >>>>> On Feb 4, 5:38 pm, John Harshman<jharsh...@pacbell.net> ? ? ?wrote:

>> >>>>>> On 2/4/13 4:38 PM, Richard Norman wrote:
>>
>> >>>>>>> On Mon, 4 Feb 2013 16:24:41 -0800 (PST), I am not a chemist

>> >>>>>>> <t2judgm...@gmail.com> ? ? ? ?wrote:
>>
>> >>>>>>>> On Feb 4, 4:19 pm, I am not a chemist<t2judgm...@gmail.com> ? ? ? ?wrote:

>> >>>>>>>>>http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2774700/
>>
>> >>>>>>>>> BMC Evol Biol. 2009; 9: 259.

>> >>>>>>>>> Published online 2009 October 27. doi: ?10.1186/1471-2148-9-259PMCID:

Yes, but in their cases it is a font of wisdom.

>and so on. See pnyikos for details of how it works.

It's simple. OK tells RQ to go ahead and tell SR to post on
that subject that came up in late 2010.

That proves it.

[Paul J Gans]

Burkhard <b.sc...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>On 5 Feb, 14:46, Paul J Gans <gan...@panix.com> wrote:
>> Richard Norman <r_s_nor...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> >On Mon, 04 Feb 2013 18:21:09 -0800, John Harshman
>> ><jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>> >>On 2/4/13 6:17 PM, Quark E wrote:

>> >>> On Feb 4, 5:38 pm, John Harshman<jharsh...@pacbell.net> ?wrote:

>> >>>> On 2/4/13 4:38 PM, Richard Norman wrote:
>>
>> >>>>> On Mon, 4 Feb 2013 16:24:41 -0800 (PST), I am not a chemist

>> >>>>> <t2judgm...@gmail.com> ? ?wrote:
>>
>> >>>>>> On Feb 4, 4:19 pm, I am not a chemist<t2judgm...@gmail.com> ? ?wrote:

>> >>>>>>>http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2774700/
>>
>> >>>>>>> BMC Evol Biol. 2009; 9: 259.

>> >>>>>>> Published online 2009 October 27. doi: ?10.1186/1471-2148-9-259PMCID:

>> >>>>>>> PMC2774700Estimating the phylogeny and divergence times of primates
>> >>>>>>> using a supermatrix approach
>>
>> >>>>>> While there may be consensus regarding relationships across the main
>> >>>>>> primate clades, there is continued disagreement at the species, genus
>> >>>>>> and even family levels. One of the primary challenges in primate
>> >>>>>> molecular phylogenetics remains the issue that different markers
>> >>>>>> support conflicting trees
>>
>> >>>>> Perhaps you missed the statement that says "Although considerable gaps
>> >>>>> remain in our knowledge of the primate phylogeny, increased data
>> >>>>> sampling, particularly from nuclear loci, will be able to provide
>> >>>>> further resolution."
>>
>> >>>>> We don't know everything in every detail yet.
>>
>> >>>> And I'm guessing that the paper he quotes may make some mention of
>> >>>> lineage sorting, which he should read up on.
>>
>> >>> So your sockpuppet snips out what I posted, inserts something else,
>> >>> then you reply with drivel and think that took care of everything,
>> >>> lets just ignore it.
>>
>> >>Just for convenience, could you provide me with a list of all my sock
>> >>puppets?
>>
>> >>So far we have rnorman, me, DIG (don't know which of us is the real me
>> >>and which is the sock puppet, so I include all of us). Who else?
>> >Shouldn't one of feel real pleased and the other totally insulted
>> >about this confusion? The problem is I can't figure out which way it
>> >should go.
>>

>> Don't forget me. ?I'm supposed to be an evil mastermind and

>> the most mendacious person on the internet.
>>
>> I've been working on my evil laugh all week.
>>
>> --

>> ? ?--- Paul J. Gans

>Do you have a white cat that you can pensively stroke? I heard that's
>mandatory.

No, but I can get one.

[Burkhard]

On 5 Feb, 16:50, "Mike Dworetsky" <platinum...@pants.btinternet.com>
wrote:

With sharks! Sharks with frickin' laser beams attached to their
heads!!

[Paul J Gans]

In fact I do have one close by. It is called, if I remember
correctly, the Atlantic Ocean.

[Friar Broccoli]

On Tue, 5 Feb 2013 18:42:50 +0000 (UTC), Paul J Gans <gan...@panix.com>

.

>>Do you have a white cat that you can pensively stroke? I heard that's
>>mandatory.
>
>No, but I can get one.

I have *two* cats (which my wife sometimes allows me to stroke) - so can
I be included too !??

--
Friar Broccoli (Robert Keith Elias), Quebec Canada
I consider ALL arguments in support of my views

[eridanus]

El martes, 5 de febrero de 2013 16:37:54 UTC, Kermit escribi�:

the chemist is having delusions and visions.
Eridanus

[I am not a chemist]

On Feb 5, 8:37�am, Kermit <freeh...@charter.net> wrote:

> Curiously, I have never heard anyone claim that evolutionary theory
> stands or falls on the exact placement of tarsiers on the primate
> branch of the Tree of Life.

and you still haven't.

[I am not a chemist]

> kermit- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

I already posted in here I am using 2 emails.
sockpuppetry you deny you are doing it, hence it is not sockpuppetry,
as its root is to deceive which is not what I am doing.

[I am not a chemist]

On Feb 5, 9:55�am, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
> On Mon, 4 Feb 2013 18:23:43 -0800 (PST), the following
> appeared in talk.origins, posted by Quark E

> <quarke...@gmail.com>:

If you want to be taken seriously with namecalling, then you have to
have reasons.
Of course yours are mostly derived from what you yourself are doing.

[I am not a chemist]

On Feb 5, 11:18�am, eridanus <leopoldo.perd...@gmail.com> wrote:
> El martes, 5 de febrero de 2013 16:37:54 UTC, Kermit �escribi :

> > Curiously, I have never heard anyone claim that evolutionary theory
>
> > stands or falls on the exact placement of tarsiers on the primate
>
> > branch of the Tree of Life.
>
> > kermit
>
> the chemist is having delusions and visions.

> Eridanus- Hide quoted text -

Hardly since I never claimed that. it appears kermit is the one with
those.

[John S. Wilkins]

Paul J Gans <gan...@panix.com> wrote:

> alextangent <bl...@rivadpm.com> wrote:
> >On Feb 5, 3:22?am, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> >> On 2/4/13 7:11 PM, Quark E wrote:

...

> >> Sorry, I had forgotten that none of us was the real me. So we have the
> >> beginnings of a complete list of sock puppets:
> >>
> >> jharshman
> >> DIG
> >> rnorman
> >>
> >> Go on. I repeat that I will not consider you insane for missing a name
> >> or putting in a wrong one.
>
> >To me it's obvious; you all use the same font.
>
> >Wilkins
> >Gans
> >Burkhard
>
> Yes, but in their cases it is a font of wisdom.

As opposed to a baptismal font?

>
> >and so on. See pnyikos for details of how it works.
>
> It's simple. OK tells RQ to go ahead and tell SR to post on
> that subject that came up in late 2010.
>
> That proves it.


--

John S. Wilkins, Associate, Philosophy, University of Sydney
Honorary Fellow, University of Melbourne
- http://evolvingthoughts.net

[Quark E]

On Feb 4, 5:38�pm, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:

> And I'm guessing that the paper he quotes may make some mention of

> lineage sorting, which he should read up on.- Hide quoted text -

http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0039089

Alternatively, several models can estimate the correct species tree if
incongruence is due to incomplete lineage sorting alone

A considerable proportion of the present Mediterranean plant diversity
may be the result of hybridization episodes, which per se represent a
challenge for phylogenetic reconstruction. Besides this, species
complexes that underwent rapid speciation also represent a major
challenge for molecular systematics

In the Mediterranean region, rapid plant speciation has been recently
detected

but remarkable disagreement in the infrageneric classification
suggests complex evolutionary processes

The high chance for hybridization in Linaria may affect phylogenetic
reconstruction in this genus. Nonetheless, incomplete lineage sorting
cannot be discarded as a cause of phylogenetic incongruence. Both
processes can be difficult to distinguish, but may also occur
simultaneously

[Quark E]

On Feb 5, 12:27�pm, j...@wilkins.id.au (John S. Wilkins) wrote:

> John S. Wilkins,

So wilkins think no sockpuppetry occurs on usenet ever.
Thanks for your educated two cents.

Now go back to teaching your classes.

[John S. Wilkins]

Paul J Gans <gan...@panix.com> wrote:

I've heard you laugh. It's terrifying. I'm calling you Dr Horrible from
now on.

[Glenn]

"Quark E" wrote:
>
So you admit to the disgusting habit of packing your feces up your nose.

[John Harshman]

Well, that's a new one, but I'll add it to the list.

[John Harshman]

That would seem to be a new paper, not related to the one we started
with. The propensity for plants to produce hybrid species certainly has
a potential to confuse, but if you get enough genes it's fairly easy to
disentangle from lineage sorting. Nor do primates have any hybrid
speciation that anyone knows of.

[jillery]

The !chemist has a point. The Jester also uses another nic
semi-occasionally, and so there is precedent. Apparently these two
have a lot in common.

[William Hughes]

On Feb 5, 8:22�pm, I am not a chemist <t2judgm...@gmail.com> wrote:

> If you want to be taken seriously with namecalling, then you have to
> have reasons.

Um, if you are namecalling then you probably don't care
if you are taken seriously.

I'm maturer than you are, I'm maturer than you are

[Quark E]

> Well, that's a new one, but I'll add it to the list.- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

Why do you doubt me?

[Glenn]

"jillery" <69jp...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:5mv2h8dre47n9584m...@4ax.com...

Quark may have two emails "here", but his ip address spews thousands
of usenet messages a month, from at least a half dozen nyms, and
having multiple email addresses is no excuse.

[Quark E]

On Feb 5, 1:34�pm, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> On 2/5/13 12:30 PM, Quark E wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Feb 4, 5:38 pm, John Harshman<jharsh...@pacbell.net> �wrote:
>
> >> And I'm guessing that the paper he quotes may make some mention of
> >> lineage sorting, which he should read up on.- Hide quoted text -
>
> >http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0039089
>
> > Alternatively, several models can estimate the correct species tree if
> > incongruence is due to incomplete lineage sorting alone
>
> > A considerable proportion of the present Mediterranean plant diversity
> > may be the result of hybridization episodes, which per se represent a
> > challenge for phylogenetic reconstruction. Besides this, species
> > complexes that underwent rapid speciation also represent a major
> > challenge for molecular systematics
>
> > In the Mediterranean region, rapid plant speciation has been recently
> > detected
>
> > � but remarkable disagreement in the infrageneric classification
> > suggests complex evolutionary processes
>
> > The high chance for hybridization in Linaria may affect phylogenetic
> > reconstruction in this genus. Nonetheless, incomplete lineage sorting
> > cannot be discarded as a cause of phylogenetic incongruence. Both
> > processes can be difficult to distinguish, but may also occur
> > simultaneously
>
> That would seem to be a new paper, not related to the one we started
> with.

You suggested I read up on lineage sorting, so I did.
Are you stupid?

[Quark E]

On Feb 5, 1:51�pm, William Hughes <wpihug...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Feb 5, 8:22 pm, I am not a chemist <t2judgm...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > If you want to be taken seriously with namecalling, then you have to
> > have reasons.
>
> Um, if you are namecalling then you probably don't care
> if you are taken seriously.

Then they should not do it.

[Quark E]

On Feb 5, 2:06�pm, "Glenn" <glennshel...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> "jillery" <69jpi...@gmail.com> wrote in messagenews:5mv2h8dre47n9584m...@4ax.com...

Which is the only issue.

[John Harshman]

Why should I believe you? That's a better question.

[Glenn]

"Quark E" <quar...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:d10734ab-55ef-4ee1...@j9g2000vbz.googlegroups.com...

That has to be at the top of the list of the funniest things I have heard anyone say on talk.origins.

[John Harshman]

Not to my knowledge. OK, you read up. But why did you post a fragment
from that paper?

[Glenn]

"Quark E" <quar...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:461c8bb5-eed2-443b...@h9g2000vbk.googlegroups.com...

I agree, your other nyms haven't been used here. Using two emails is nymshifting, not an excuse for nymshifting.

[I am not a chemist]

> from that paper?- Hide quoted text -

Seemed interesting.

[I am not a chemist]

On Feb 5, 2:27�pm, "Glenn" <glennshel...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> "Quark E" <quarke...@gmail.com> wrote in messagenews:461c8bb5-eed2-443b...@h9g2000vbk.googlegroups.com...

> I agree, your other nyms haven't been used here. Using two emails is nymshifting, not an excuse for nymshifting.- Hide quoted text -

You mean people would not like to killfile me twice?
That is all you have to do.
Takes 2 seconds.

[John S. Wilkins]

Maybe not hybrid speciation, but lots of hybridisation. Papio and Macaca
have lots. I was invited to speak at a primatology conference a few
years back on species concepts, and I was the last speaker. Day 1,
people kept saying "My group is aberrant, and has a lot of introgressive
hyrbidisation". Day 2, speaker after speaker said "My group also has
introgression." Day 3, they just said "Yeah, mine too".

I wondered to what extent species were in fact the result of a mix of
introgression followed by allopatry. Nobody said anything about it.

[I am not a chemist]

> > Why, do you doubt me?

>
> Why should I believe you?

I have a witness. (pun intended - heh heh)

[Kermit]

On 5 Feb, 11:19, I am not a chemist <t2judgm...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Feb 5, 8:37�am, Kermit <freeh...@charter.net> wrote:
>
> > Curiously, I have never heard anyone claim that evolutionary theory
> > stands or falls on the exact placement of tarsiers on the primate
> > branch of the Tree of Life.
>

> and you still haven't.

As far as I can tell, you haven't described any problem at all.

Could you be specific, and mention one of the problems you imply in
the heading ("More Problems")?

Thanks in advance.

kermit

[Kermit]

On 5 Feb, 11:20, I am not a chemist <t2judgm...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Feb 5, 8:40�am, Kermit <freeh...@charter.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

> > On 4 Feb, 18:17, Quark E <quarke...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Feb 4, 5:38�pm, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
> > > > On 2/4/13 4:38 PM, Richard Norman wrote:
>

> > > > > On Mon, 4 Feb 2013 16:24:41 -0800 (PST), I am not a chemist
> > > > > <t2judgm...@gmail.com> �wrote:
>
> > > > >> On Feb 4, 4:19 pm, I am not a chemist<t2judgm...@gmail.com> �wrote:

> > > > >>>http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2774700/
>
> > > > >>> BMC Evol Biol. 2009; 9: 259.
> > > > >>> Published online 2009 October 27. doi: �10.1186/1471-2148-9-259PMCID:
> > > > >>> PMC2774700Estimating the phylogeny and divergence times of primates
> > > > >>> using a supermatrix approach
>
> > > > >> While there may be consensus regarding relationships across the main
> > > > >> primate clades, there is continued disagreement at the species, genus
> > > > >> and even family levels. One of the primary challenges in primate
> > > > >> molecular phylogenetics remains the issue that different markers
> > > > >> support conflicting trees
>
> > > > > Perhaps you missed the statement that says "Although considerable gaps
> > > > > remain in our knowledge of the primate phylogeny, increased data
> > > > > sampling, particularly from nuclear loci, will be able to provide
> > > > > further resolution."
>
> > > > > We don't know everything in every detail yet.
>
> > > > And I'm guessing that the paper he quotes may make some mention of

> > > > lineage sorting, which he should read up on.- Hide quoted text -

>
> > > > - Show quoted text -
>

> > > So your sockpuppet snips out what I posted, inserts something else,
> > > then you reply with drivel and think that took care of everything,
> > > lets just ignore it.
>

> > I can't help but notice that you are using a different posting name to
> > accuse someone else of sockpuppetry.
>

> > kermit- Hide quoted text -

>
> > - Show quoted text -
>

> I already posted in here I am using 2 emails.
> sockpuppetry you deny you are doing it, hence it is not sockpuppetry,
> as its root is to deceive which is not what I am doing.

Understood, and I agree.

kermit

[I am not a chemist]

On Feb 5, 3:02�pm, Kermit <freeh...@charter.net> wrote:
> On 5 Feb, 11:19, I am not a chemist <t2judgm...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Feb 5, 8:37�am, Kermit <freeh...@charter.net> wrote:
>
> > > Curiously, I have never heard anyone claim that evolutionary theory
> > > stands or falls on the exact placement of tarsiers on the primate
> > > branch of the Tree of Life.
>
> > and you still haven't.
>
> As far as I can tell, you haven't described any problem at all.

Then no reason for you to be posting in the thread.

[John Harshman]

Pun perhaps intended, but not delivered. If there's a pun, I don't get it.

[I am not a chemist]

Hint:

try to keep up, it is in this thread:

http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/66e0be62f0320422?hl=en&dmode=source

"?"

harshman's brain is defective.

[John Harshman]

> Seemed interesting.

You had absolutely no message to communicate?

[I am not a chemist]

> Pun perhaps intended, but not delivered. If there's a pun, I don't get it.- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

chronic brain problems you have.
your julie excuse *gasp* why jove she is a jehovah's.

[Glenn]

"I am not a chemist" <t2jud...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:1b492526-11c2-4d33...@fd20g2000vbb.googlegroups.com...

What I mean is that you are nymshifting for some reason, you have a history of nymshifting, and "using two emails" is not an excuse.

[I am not a chemist]

> You had absolutely no message to communicate?- Hide quoted text -

As I go doing my searching for my points I post interesting things I
find on my way.

You don't like that, then by all means ignore them.

Meanwhile, maybe people out there will read along these papers I post.

maybe some find them interesting out there.

You are not the only person who reads this group.

[I am not a chemist]

On Feb 5, 3:14�pm, "Glenn" <glennshel...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> "I am not a chemist" <t2judgm...@gmail.com> wrote in messagenews:1b492526-11c2-4d33...@fd20g2000vbb.googlegroups.com...

Google limits of posting, and I like to post here twice as much.

[I am not a chemist]

> your julie excuse *gasp* why jove she is a jehovah's.- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/6392a8032784a0dc?hl=en&dmode=source

[John Harshman]

> chronic brain problems you have.
> your julie excuse *gasp* why jove she is a jehovah's.

Still not getting it. Who is my julie and what does she have to do with
this thread?

[John Harshman]

No problem. But when you do have a point, would you be kind enough to
signify it in some way? Explicitly stating it would be the preferred method.

[John Harshman]

You are becoming less comprehensible by the second.

[Glenn]

"I am not a chemist" <t2jud...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:bb237658-cec4-4c40...@j4g2000vby.googlegroups.com...

Is that why you changed nyms on your third post yesterday?

[Mark Isaak]

On 2/5/13 3:12 PM, John Harshman wrote:
> On 2/5/13 2:57 PM, I am not a chemist wrote:

>> [...]

>
> You had absolutely no message to communicate?

The only message he has is, "You're an idiot for not knowing what my
message is."

--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) curioustaxonomy (dot) net
"It is certain, from experience, that the smallest grain of natural
honesty and benevolence has more effect on men's conduct, than the most
pompous views suggested by theological theories and systems." - D. Hume

[Paul J Gans]

John S. Wilkins <jo...@wilkins.id.au> wrote:
>Paul J Gans <gan...@panix.com> wrote:

>> alextangent <bl...@rivadpm.com> wrote:

>> >On Feb 5, 3:22?am, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>> >> On 2/4/13 7:11 PM, Quark E wrote:

>...

>> >> Sorry, I had forgotten that none of us was the real me. So we have the
>> >> beginnings of a complete list of sock puppets:
>> >>
>> >> jharshman
>> >> DIG
>> >> rnorman
>> >>

>> >> Go on. I repeat that I will not consider you insane for missing a name

>> >> or putting in a wrong one.
>>

>> >To me it's obvious; you all use the same font.
>>
>> >Wilkins
>> >Gans
>> >Burkhard
>>
>> Yes, but in their cases it is a font of wisdom.

>As opposed to a baptismal font?

Hard to use. Gets the paper all wet.

>>
>> >and so on. See pnyikos for details of how it works.
>>
>> It's simple. OK tells RQ to go ahead and tell SR to post on
>> that subject that came up in late 2010.
>>
>> That proves it.

>--
>John S. Wilkins, Associate, Philosophy, University of Sydney
>Honorary Fellow, University of Melbourne
>- http://evolvingthoughts.net

--
--- Paul J. Gans

[Paul J Gans]

Friar Broccoli <eli...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Tue, 5 Feb 2013 18:42:50 +0000 (UTC), Paul J Gans <gan...@panix.com>
>wrote:

>>Burkhard <b.sc...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>>>On 5 Feb, 14:46, Paul J Gans <gan...@panix.com> wrote:
>>>> Richard Norman <r_s_nor...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>> >On Mon, 04 Feb 2013 18:21:09 -0800, John Harshman
>>>> ><jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>>>> >>On 2/4/13 6:17 PM, Quark E wrote:
>>>> >>> On Feb 4, 5:38 pm, John Harshman<jharsh...@pacbell.net> ?wrote:

>>>> >>>> On 2/4/13 4:38 PM, Richard Norman wrote:
>>>>

>>>> >>>>> On Mon, 4 Feb 2013 16:24:41 -0800 (PST), I am not a chemist
>>>> >>>>> <t2judgm...@gmail.com> ? ?wrote:
>>>>
>>>> >>>>>> On Feb 4, 4:19 pm, I am not a chemist<t2judgm...@gmail.com> ? ?wrote:

>>>> >>>>>>>http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2774700/
>>>>
>>>> >>>>>>> BMC Evol Biol. 2009; 9: 259.

>>>> >>>>>>> Published online 2009 October 27. doi: ?10.1186/1471-2148-9-259PMCID:

>>>> >>>>>>> PMC2774700Estimating the phylogeny and divergence times of primates
>>>> >>>>>>> using a supermatrix approach
>>>>
>>>> >>>>>> While there may be consensus regarding relationships across the main
>>>> >>>>>> primate clades, there is continued disagreement at the species, genus
>>>> >>>>>> and even family levels. One of the primary challenges in primate
>>>> >>>>>> molecular phylogenetics remains the issue that different markers
>>>> >>>>>> support conflicting trees
>>>>
>>>> >>>>> Perhaps you missed the statement that says "Although considerable gaps
>>>> >>>>> remain in our knowledge of the primate phylogeny, increased data
>>>> >>>>> sampling, particularly from nuclear loci, will be able to provide
>>>> >>>>> further resolution."
>>>>
>>>> >>>>> We don't know everything in every detail yet.
>>>>
>>>> >>>> And I'm guessing that the paper he quotes may make some mention of
>>>> >>>> lineage sorting, which he should read up on.
>>>>

>>>> >>> So your sockpuppet snips out what I posted, inserts something else,
>>>> >>> then you reply with drivel and think that took care of everything,
>>>> >>> lets just ignore it.
>>>>

>>>> >>Just for convenience, could you provide me with a list of all my sock
>>>> >>puppets?
>>>>
>>>> >>So far we have rnorman, me, DIG (don't know which of us is the real me
>>>> >>and which is the sock puppet, so I include all of us). Who else?

>>>> >Shouldn't one of feel real pleased and the other totally insulted
>>>> >about this confusion? The problem is I can't figure out which way it
>>>> >should go.

> .

>>>> Don't forget me. ?I'm supposed to be an evil mastermind and
>>>> the most mendacious person on the internet.
>>>>
>>>> I've been working on my evil laugh all week.

> .

>>>Do you have a white cat that you can pensively stroke? I heard that's
>>>mandatory.
>>
>>No, but I can get one.

>I have *two* cats (which my wife sometimes allows me to stroke) - so can
>I be included too !??

Great! Your code name will be "friar". Nobody will ever link
that to you.

[Paul J Gans]

John S. Wilkins <jo...@wilkins.id.au> wrote:

>Paul J Gans <gan...@panix.com> wrote:

>> Richard Norman <r_s_n...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> >On Mon, 04 Feb 2013 18:21:09 -0800, John Harshman
>> ><jhar...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>>
>> >>On 2/4/13 6:17 PM, Quark E wrote:

>> >>> On Feb 4, 5:38 pm, John Harshman<jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>> >>>> On 2/4/13 4:38 PM, Richard Norman wrote:
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>>> On Mon, 4 Feb 2013 16:24:41 -0800 (PST), I am not a chemist

>> >>>>> <t2judgm...@gmail.com> wrote:

>> >>>>
>> >>>>>> On Feb 4, 4:19 pm, I am not a chemist<t2judgm...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>>>>>> http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2774700/
>> >>>>
>> >>>>>>> BMC Evol Biol. 2009; 9: 259.

>> >>>>>>> Published online 2009 October 27. doi: 10.1186/1471-2148-9-259PMCID:

>> >>>>>>> PMC2774700Estimating the phylogeny and divergence times of primates
>> >>>>>>> using a supermatrix approach
>> >>>>
>> >>>>>> While there may be consensus regarding relationships across the main
>> >>>>>> primate clades, there is continued disagreement at the species, genus
>> >>>>>> and even family levels. One of the primary challenges in primate
>> >>>>>> molecular phylogenetics remains the issue that different markers
>> >>>>>> support conflicting trees
>> >>>>
>> >>>>> Perhaps you missed the statement that says "Although considerable gaps
>> >>>>> remain in our knowledge of the primate phylogeny, increased data
>> >>>>> sampling, particularly from nuclear loci, will be able to provide
>> >>>>> further resolution."
>> >>>>
>> >>>>> We don't know everything in every detail yet.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> And I'm guessing that the paper he quotes may make some mention of
>> >>>> lineage sorting, which he should read up on.
>> >>>
>> >>> So your sockpuppet snips out what I posted, inserts something else,
>> >>> then you reply with drivel and think that took care of everything,
>> >>> lets just ignore it.
>> >>
>> >>Just for convenience, could you provide me with a list of all my sock
>> >>puppets?
>> >>
>> >>So far we have rnorman, me, DIG (don't know which of us is the real me
>> >>and which is the sock puppet, so I include all of us). Who else?
>>
>> >Shouldn't one of feel real pleased and the other totally insulted
>> >about this confusion? The problem is I can't figure out which way it
>> >should go.
>>

>> Don't forget me. I'm supposed to be an evil mastermind and

>> the most mendacious person on the internet.
>>
>> I've been working on my evil laugh all week.

>I've heard you laugh. It's terrifying. I'm calling you Dr Horrible from
>now on.

Oh darn. You gave my code name away. Now the good professor
will be able to perform an exorcism.

[alias Ernest Major]

He may be claiming to be witty.

--
alias Ernest Major

[Ron O]

On Feb 6, 4:12�am, alias Ernest Major <{$t...@meden.demon.co.ukl>
wrote:

My guess is that the pun was "I" as in dust mote and beam in, instead
of being witless.;-)

Ron Okimoto

[Klaus Hellnick]

The only question you asked (the only ?) was if Harshman had a problem with
Amy.
He answered it!
Hint:
>>>>> You have a problem with amy posting here?
>>
>>>> No, but that wasn't Amy.

[Bob Casanova]

On Tue, 5 Feb 2013 11:22:28 -0800 (PST), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by I am not a chemist
<t2jud...@gmail.com>:

>On Feb 5, 9:55�am, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
>> On Mon, 4 Feb 2013 18:23:43 -0800 (PST), the following
>> appeared in talk.origins, posted by Quark E
>> <quarke...@gmail.com>:

>> Why do you feel the issues are linked?
>
>If you want to be taken seriously with namecalling, then you have to
>have reasons.

I see no name calling, not even in the part you snipped.

>Of course yours are mostly derived from what you yourself are doing.

So you have no reason for such an assumption? That's what I
thought, but confirmation is nice.
--

Bob C.

"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."

- McNameless

[Bob Casanova]

On Tue, 5 Feb 2013 11:19:43 -0800 (PST), the following

appeared in talk.origins, posted by I am not a chemist
<t2jud...@gmail.com>:

>On Feb 5, 8:37�am, Kermit <freeh...@charter.net> wrote:
>
>> Curiously, I have never heard anyone claim that evolutionary theory
>> stands or falls on the exact placement of tarsiers on the primate
>> branch of the Tree of Life.
>
>and you still haven't.

Perhaps if you would state, clearly and concisely, exactly
what you think the "problems" are, in relation to the text
you quoted in your initial post, you'd limit
misunderstandings and get some actual discussion going.
After all, *you* implied the problems exist in that text by
your choice of subject, and it's up to you to make clear
what you think those problems comprise.

[Prof Weird]

On Wednesday, February 6, 2013 12:29:00 PM UTC-5, Bob Casanova wrote:
> On Tue, 5 Feb 2013 11:19:43 -0800 (PST), the following appeared in talk.origins, posted by I am not a chemist <t2jud...@gmail.com>: >On Feb 5, 8:37�am, Kermit <freeh...@charter.net> wrote: > >> Curiously, I have never heard anyone claim that evolutionary theory >> stands or falls on the exact placement of tarsiers on the primate >> branch of the Tree of Life. > >and you still haven't. Perhaps if you would state, clearly and concisely, exactly what you think the "problems" are, in relation to the text you quoted in your initial post, you'd limit misunderstandings and get some actual discussion going. After all, *you* implied the problems exist in that text by your choice of subject, and it's up to you to make clear what you think those problems comprise. -- Bob C. "Evidence confirming an observation is evidence that the observation is wrong." - McNameless

I suspect he's going for one of the spincronic delusions :

"Scientists have said the nested hierarchy of these species is ((X, Y),Z).
Recent research shows the relationship is (X,(Y, Z)).

This one example from a few very closely related groups shows that the nested hierarchy derived by real-world scientists is completely arbitrary !!

It does NOT support evolution one bit !!

Me am a GENIUS !!1!!1!"

But since the paper is beyond his ability to understand, he assumes no one else can figure it out either.

So he just posted some of it with no further explanation (does he agree or disagree with the results ? He won't say - for that would require understanding the paper to be able to DEFEND his opinions) just to generate doubt and confusion.

I suppose he'll next 'show' that you can create a nested hierarchy with the catalogue numbers of spark plugs.

Or rummage through GenBank and note that since a few sequences have the same 38 base pair sequence, genes can teleport all over the planet willy-nilly.

[I am not a chemist]

On Feb 5, 3:46�pm, "Glenn" <glennshel...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> "I am not a chemist" <t2judgm...@gmail.com> wrote in messagenews:bb237658-cec4-4c40...@j4g2000vby.googlegroups.com...

> Is that why you changed nyms on your third post yesterday?- Hide quoted text -

As you mentioned previously, this is not the only group I post to.

[I am not a chemist]

> >>>> No, but that wasn't Amy.- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

Harshman is crazy?

[I am not a chemist]

On Feb 6, 9:16�am, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
> On Tue, 5 Feb 2013 11:22:28 -0800 (PST), the following
> appeared in talk.origins, posted by I am not a chemist

> <t2judgm...@gmail.com>:

Insinuating someone is crazy is not namecalling?

You are so KRAZZZZYYYY!

>
> >Of course yours are mostly derived from what you yourself are doing.
>
> So you have no reason for such an assumption? That's what I
> thought, but confirmation is nice.
> --
>
> Bob C.
>
> "Evidence confirming an observation is
> evidence that the observation is wrong."
>

> - McNameless- Hide quoted text -

[Bob Casanova]

On Wed, 6 Feb 2013 16:27:06 -0800 (PST), the following

appeared in talk.origins, posted by I am not a chemist

<t2jud...@gmail.com>:

No. Nor did I say, or even insinuate, that you're crazy; I
merely noted that such an assertion would be ad-hoc and
based on your posts, both of which are correct.

And I notice that you failed to address my more-serious
post, in which I suggested a course which would potentially
produce a fruitful discussion. That alone speaks volumes
regarding the inherent honesty and purpose of your initial
post. But in case you missed it, here it is again:

Perhaps if you would state, clearly and concisely, exactly
what you think the "problems" are, in relation to the text
you quoted in your initial post, you'd limit
misunderstandings and get some actual discussion going.
After all, *you* implied the problems exist in that text by
your choice of subject, and it's up to you to make clear
what you think those problems comprise.

[Bob Casanova]

On Wed, 6 Feb 2013 09:55:01 -0800 (PST), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Prof Weird
<pol...@msx.dept-med.pitt.edu>:

>On Wednesday, February 6, 2013 12:29:00 PM UTC-5, Bob Casanova wrote:
>> On Tue, 5 Feb 2013 11:19:43 -0800 (PST), the following appeared in talk.origins, posted by I am not a chemist <t2jud...@gmail.com>: >On Feb 5, 8:37�am, Kermit <freeh...@charter.net> wrote: > >> Curiously, I have never heard anyone claim that evolutionary theory >> stands or falls on the exact placement of tarsiers on the primate >> branch of the Tree of Life. > >and you still haven't. Perhaps if you would state, clearly and concisely, exactly what you think the "problems" are, in relation to the text you quoted in your initial post, you'd limit misunderstandings and get some actual discussion going. After all, *you* implied the problems exist in that text by your choice of subject, and it's up to you to make clear what you think those problems comprise. -- Bob C. "Evidence confirming an observation is evidence that the observation is wrong." - McNameless
>
>I suspect he's going for one of the spincronic delusions :
>
>"Scientists have said the nested hierarchy of these species is ((X, Y),Z).
>Recent research shows the relationship is (X,(Y, Z)).
>
>This one example from a few very closely related groups shows that the nested hierarchy derived by real-world scientists is completely arbitrary !!
>
>It does NOT support evolution one bit !!
>
>Me am a GENIUS !!1!!1!"
>
>But since the paper is beyond his ability to understand, he assumes no one else can figure it out either.
>
>So he just posted some of it with no further explanation (does he agree or disagree with the results ? He won't say - for that would require understanding the paper to be able to DEFEND his opinions) just to generate doubt and confusion.

I've given him the same suggestion twice now, that he state
clearly what he thinks are the "problems" implied by his
choice of Subject:. Let's see if he's interested in an
actual discussion; my bet would be "no", most likely for the
reasons you noted.

>I suppose he'll next 'show' that you can create a nested hierarchy with the catalogue numbers of spark plugs.
>
>Or rummage through GenBank and note that since a few sequences have the same 38 base pair sequence, genes can teleport all over the planet willy-nilly.

[Quark E]

On Feb 7, 10:11�am, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
> On Wed, 6 Feb 2013 16:27:06 -0800 (PST), the following
> appeared in talk.origins, posted by I am not a chemist

> <t2judgm...@gmail.com>:

Ad hoc is frowned upon is your implication.

Would that be correct, or only ad hoc that you disagree with?

[pnyikos]

On Feb 5, 9:45�am, alextangent <b...@rivadpm.com> wrote:
> On Feb 5, 3:22�am, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 2/4/13 7:11 PM, Quark E wrote:
>
> > > On Feb 4, 6:40 pm, John Harshman<jharsh...@pacbell.net> �wrote:

> > >> I freely confess that I will not consider you insane because you got one
> > >> (or more) wrong.
> > > So now robert golaszewski does not consider his puppet harshman here a
> > > puppet.
> > > What a maroon.
> > > Hey bud, your harshman is nothing but a lie too.
>
> > Sorry, I had forgotten that none of us was the real me. So we have the
> > beginnings of a complete list of sock puppets:
>
> > jharshman
> > DIG
> > rnorman
>

> > Go on. I repeat that I will not consider you insane for missing a name

> > or putting in a wrong one.
>

> To me it's obvious; you all use the same font.
>
> Wilkins
> Gans
> Burkhard
>

> and so on. See pnyikos for details of how it works.

You're clowning around. Those three bear no resemblance to each
other. Nothing like the resemblance between Pat James and J. J.
O'Shea, the only two personae in talk.origins whom I ever really
believed to be the same person.

I amassed some very interesting evidence for this hypothesis. I
presented it on another thread, in direct reply to J. J. O'Shea,
immediately after asking him point-blank, "You're Pat James, aren't
you?"

Not only did he not deny it, he even contributed some bits of evidence
of his own.

Did you ever encounter Pat James? He left talk.origins in 2007, just
when O'Shea was gathering steam under that name, and even that year
(your first, according to the Google profile on you) he did very few
posts.

Peter Nyikos

Peter Nyikos

[pnyikos]

On Feb 5, 9:46�am, Paul J Gans <gan...@panix.com> wrote:
> Richard Norman <r_s_nor...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >On Mon, 04 Feb 2013 18:21:09 -0800, John Harshman

alextangent's little spiel to which I replied just now is typical of
the canards going around about me, and people like Quark E add
tremendous credibility to those canards. People not knowing what I'm
really like may naturally think, on being exposed to this particular
canard, "Ah, so he's one of those Quark E types, eh? what a pity."

> >Shouldn't one of feel real pleased and the other totally insulted
> >about this confusion? The problem is I can't figure out which way it
> >should go.
>
> Don't forget me. �I'm supposed to be an evil mastermind and
> the most mendacious person on the internet.

I'll have to check whether Chris "Spartakus" Lyman is still missing
from Usenet. He outdid even you where cunning dishonesty [would you
equate that with mendacity?] is concerened.

I checked.

Well, he is missing from Usenet as Spartakus since March 28, 2012, and
as Chris Lyman since January 9, 2012.

Anyway, with him gone, you take the laurels as far as my knowledge of
Usenet is concerned. The two of you were in a league all by
yourselves. Nobody I've encounted on Usenet can even come close to
the two of you.

> I've been working on my evil laugh all week.

And well you might, because "Spartakus" was one of the five persons
whom I credit with turning talk.abortion into a hellhole, and if the
number of regulars here drops below a critical mass, you and six other
people I have in mind could do the same for talk.origins.

Peter Nyikos

[pnyikos]

On Feb 5, 3:39�pm, j...@wilkins.id.au (John S. Wilkins) wrote:
> Paul J Gans <gan...@panix.com> wrote:

> > I've been working on my evil laugh all week.
>

> I've heard you laugh. It's terrifying. I'm calling you Dr Horrible from
> now on.

I've always pictured his usual laugh as being pleased and often self-
congratulatory, like,

Ho! ho! ho! boy, did I ever succeed
in yanking Peter's chain again!

Hence one of the three nicknames on which the initials "QJ" are based:

Quivering Jelly

"He had a broad face and a little round belly,
That shook, when he laughed, like a bowlful of jelly."
--from a poem inaccurately titled,
"The Night Before Christmas"

If you are interested, I'll also tell you what the other two are, and
what the ideas behind them are.

Peter Nyikos

[alextangent]

Let me add to the clowning around and mention that I first read the
above as "those three bears".

Of course, on a more serious note (well, as serious as this
conversation permits), I'm not under the delusion that they are the
same person as the Harshman/Norman (Horman? Narshman?) collective.
They all share a common ancestor, but I'm pretty damn sure s/he didn't
have access to the internet, and s/he wasn't a bear either.

> Nothing like the resemblance between Pat James and J. J.
> O'Shea, the only two personae in talk.origins whom I ever really
> believed to be �the same person.
>
> I amassed some very interesting evidence �for this hypothesis. I
> presented it on another thread, in direct reply to J. J. O'Shea,
> immediately after asking him point-blank, "You're Pat James, aren't
> you?"
>
> Not only did he not deny it, he even contributed some bits of evidence
> of his own.
>
> Did you ever encounter Pat James? �He left talk.origins in 2007, just
> when O'Shea was gathering steam under that name, and even that year
> (your first, according to the Google profile on you) he did very few
> posts.
>
> Peter Nyikos
>
> Peter Nyikos

I'm sorry, I have no interest in it. His hypothesised crime (if you
can call it that) of sock puppetry is not the kind of stuff that
floats my boat.

[Don Cates]

[blink]
What is wrong with you?


--
--
Don Cates ("he's a cunning rascal" PN)

[pnyikos]

Nothing that isn't also wrong with jillery incessantly calling me
"Rockhead" with nary a peep of criticism from you or anyone else.

When I brought this matter up to Mitchell Coffey, who has wrongly
called my use of "QJ" etc. dishonest, his reply was "We aren't here to
baby you."

So why are you babying Paul Gans?

Peter Nyikos