things are not the order and sequence you thought they were

[Quark E]

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22930817

Resolving conflict in eutherian mammal phylogeny using phylogenomics
and the multispecies coalescent model

The reconstruction of the Tree of Life has relied almost entirely on
concatenation methods, which do not accommodate gene tree
heterogeneity, a property that simulations and theory have identified
as a likely cause of incongruent phylogenies

Several key relationships among eutherian mammals remain controversial
and conflicting among previous studies, including the root of
eutherian tree and the relationships within Euarchontoglires and
Laurasiatheria. Both bayesian and maximum-likelihood analysis of
genome-wide data of 447 nuclear genes from 37 species show that
concatenation methods indeed yield strong incongruence in the
phylogeny of eutherian mammals, as revealed by subsampling analyses of
loci and taxa, which produced strongly conflicting topologies. In
contrast, the coalescent methods, which accommodate gene tree
heterogeneity, yield a phylogeny that is robust to variable gene and
taxon sampling and is congruent with geographic data. The data also
demonstrate that incomplete lineage sorting, a major source of gene
tree heterogeneity, is relevant to deep-level phylogenies, such as
those among eutherian mammals. Our results firmly place the eutherian
root between Atlantogenata and Boreoeutheria and support ungulate
polyphyly and a sister-group relationship between Scandentia and
Primates. This study demonstrates that the incongruence introduced by
concatenation methods is a major cause of long-standing uncertainty in
the phylogeny of eutherian mammals, and the same may apply to other
clades.

[Quark E]

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/?term=22930817%5BPMID%5D&report=imagesdocsum

Trends in bootstrap support for coalescent analyses and incongruence
of concatenation estimates for eutherian phylogeny. (A) Gradual
increase in bootstrap support values with increasing gene numbers
using coalescent methods for three clades: Scandentia�Primates within
Euarchontoglires, Perissodactyla�Carnivora and Cetartiodactyla�
(Perissodactyla, Carnivora) within Laurasiatheria. The gray dashed
line indicates bootstrap support of 90%. (B) Concatenation analyses
yield conflicting phylogenies within Euarchontoglires and
Laurasiatheria for subsampled gene and taxon sets. We constructed
coalescent and concatenation trees for different sets of 25, 50, 100,
200, and 300 genes randomly selected from the 447-gene set, with 10
replicates for each gene set except 447.

[John Harshman]

Interesting paper, but I'm not sure what you think it means.
Atlantogenata (=Afrotheria + Xenarthra) has been a live, if minority,
hypothesis for some time. Or are you most concerned with the point about
lineage sorting?

[John Harshman]

On 2/4/13 12:56 PM, Quark E wrote:

Still interesting, but do you have a point to make here?

[Burkhard]

On Feb 4, 9:04�pm, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> On 2/4/13 12:56 PM, Quark E wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

> > On Feb 4, 12:49 pm, Quark E<quarke...@gmail.com> �wrote:

> >http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/?term=22930817%5BPMID%5D&report=image...

>
> > Trends in bootstrap support for coalescent analyses and incongruence
> > of concatenation estimates for eutherian phylogeny. (A) Gradual
> > increase in bootstrap support values with increasing gene numbers
> > using coalescent methods for three clades: Scandentia�Primates within
> > Euarchontoglires, Perissodactyla�Carnivora and Cetartiodactyla�
> > (Perissodactyla, Carnivora) within Laurasiatheria. The gray dashed
> > line indicates bootstrap support of 90%. (B) Concatenation analyses
> > yield conflicting phylogenies within Euarchontoglires and
> > Laurasiatheria for subsampled gene and taxon sets. We constructed
> > coalescent and concatenation trees for different sets of 25, 50, 100,
> > 200, and 300 genes randomly selected from the 447-gene set, with 10
> > replicates for each gene set except 447.
>
> Still interesting, but do you have a point to make here?

Isn't that our old friend, the one who kept calling you "rollocks" and
was generally...eccentric...? In which case asking for a sense behind
his posts might be moot

[John Harshman]

On 2/4/13 1:30 PM, Burkhard wrote:

I don't know. He had so many names. What's your evidence?

I was actually wondering if this was spintronic returning. But a larger
sample will be necessary.

[Burkhard]

On Feb 4, 9:35�pm, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> On 2/4/13 1:30 PM, Burkhard wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

> > On Feb 4, 9:04 pm, John Harshman<jharsh...@pacbell.net> �wrote:

> >> On 2/4/13 12:56 PM, Quark E wrote:
>

> >>> On Feb 4, 12:49 pm, Quark E<quarke...@gmail.com> � �wrote:

https://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/b21c0839f964bef7?hl=en

same nym, same email

[I am not a chemist]

As usual.
Just keep typing here, moron.

[I am not a chemist]

On Feb 4, 1:04�pm, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> On 2/4/13 12:56 PM, Quark E wrote:
>
>
>

> > On Feb 4, 12:49 pm, Quark E<quarke...@gmail.com> �wrote:

> >http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/?term=22930817%5BPMID%5D&report=image...

>
> > Trends in bootstrap support for coalescent analyses and incongruence
> > of concatenation estimates for eutherian phylogeny. (A) Gradual
> > increase in bootstrap support values with increasing gene numbers
> > using coalescent methods for three clades: Scandentia�Primates within
> > Euarchontoglires, Perissodactyla�Carnivora and Cetartiodactyla�
> > (Perissodactyla, Carnivora) within Laurasiatheria. The gray dashed
> > line indicates bootstrap support of 90%. (B) Concatenation analyses
> > yield conflicting phylogenies within Euarchontoglires and
> > Laurasiatheria for subsampled gene and taxon sets. We constructed
> > coalescent and concatenation trees for different sets of 25, 50, 100,
> > 200, and 300 genes randomly selected from the 447-gene set, with 10
> > replicates for each gene set except 447.
>

> Still interesting, but do you have a point to make here?- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

No, I post things here for no reason, imbecile.
Do you just type the stupidest thing possible that floats through your
numbskull?

[I am not a chemist]

> his posts might be moot- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

Let's lay the foundation to restrict my free speech rights by claiming
he is some other poster that harshman needs to switch nyms to his
moderator role - despite being a government agent - to ban me!

[I am not a chemist]

On Feb 4, 1:35�pm, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> On 2/4/13 1:30 PM, Burkhard wrote:
>
>
>

> > On Feb 4, 9:04 pm, John Harshman<jharsh...@pacbell.net> �wrote:

> >> On 2/4/13 12:56 PM, Quark E wrote:
>

> >>> On Feb 4, 12:49 pm, Quark E<quarke...@gmail.com> � �wrote:

Act like you completely ignorant of your surveillance on me as a cop
and act like you are building a case to ban me.

[I am not a chemist]

I have 2 emails and post with both like dana tweedy

>
>
>
> > I was actually wondering if this was spintronic returning. But a larger

> > sample will be necessary.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

[I am not a chemist]

> lineage sorting?- Hide quoted text -


Man you are totally braindead.

Important part for the idiot who can't focus on relevance:

" support ungulate
polyphyly and a sister-group relationship between Scandentia and
Primates."

That is different that what others say.

Now come back when you develop a brain for actually intelligent
discussion.

[John Harshman]

On 2/4/13 1:41 PM, Burkhard wrote:

> On Feb 4, 9:35 pm, John Harshman<jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>> On 2/4/13 1:30 PM, Burkhard wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Feb 4, 9:04 pm, John Harshman<jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>>>> On 2/4/13 12:56 PM, Quark E wrote:
>>

Oh. Well, let's hope he's upped his dosage.

[I am not a chemist]

> >>>>> using coalescent methods for three clades: Scandentia�Primates within
> >>>>> Euarchontoglires, Perissodactyla�Carnivora and Cetartiodactyla�

> >>>>> (Perissodactyla, Carnivora) within Laurasiatheria. The gray dashed
> >>>>> line indicates bootstrap support of 90%. (B) Concatenation analyses
> >>>>> yield conflicting phylogenies within Euarchontoglires and
> >>>>> Laurasiatheria for subsampled gene and taxon sets. We constructed
> >>>>> coalescent and concatenation trees for different sets of 25, 50, 100,
> >>>>> 200, and 300 genes randomly selected from the 447-gene set, with 10
> >>>>> replicates for each gene set except 447.
>
> >>>> Still interesting, but do you have a point to make here?
>
> >>> Isn't that our old friend, the one who kept calling you "rollocks" and
> >>> was generally...eccentric...? In which case asking for a sense behind
> >>> his posts might be moot
>
> >> I don't know. He had so many names. What's your evidence?
>
> >https://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/b21c0839f964bef7?hl=en
>
> > same nym, same email
>

> Oh. Well, let's hope he's upped his dosage.- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

Suggest the other person who actually has a brain needs meds.Typical
for your special ed self.

[John Harshman]

On 2/4/13 1:53 PM, I am not a chemist wrote:

> No, I post things here for no reason, imbecile.
> Do you just type the stupidest thing possible that floats through your
> numbskull?

OK, now that we've established that, what *was* the point you wanted to
make?

[I am not a chemist]

> discussion.- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

here is what they claim:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plesiadapiformes

Plesiadapiformes ("near Adapid-like" or "almost Adapiformes") is an
extinct order of mammals. It is either closely related to the primates
or a precursor to them. Many are too derived to be ancestral to
primates, but the earliest Plesiadapiformes have teeth that are
strongly indicative of a common ancestor. Purgatorius is believed to
be close to the last common ancestor of primates and Plesiadapiformes.

[Glenn]

"John Harshman" <jhar...@pacbell.net> wrote in message news:86-dnVaYOtV...@giganews.com...

> >>>>> using coalescent methods for three clades: Scandentia�Primates within
> >>>>> Euarchontoglires, Perissodactyla�Carnivora and Cetartiodactyla�

> >>>>> (Perissodactyla, Carnivora) within Laurasiatheria. The gray dashed
> >>>>> line indicates bootstrap support of 90%. (B) Concatenation analyses
> >>>>> yield conflicting phylogenies within Euarchontoglires and
> >>>>> Laurasiatheria for subsampled gene and taxon sets. We constructed
> >>>>> coalescent and concatenation trees for different sets of 25, 50, 100,
> >>>>> 200, and 300 genes randomly selected from the 447-gene set, with 10
> >>>>> replicates for each gene set except 447.
> >>
> >>>> Still interesting, but do you have a point to make here?
> >>
> >>> Isn't that our old friend, the one who kept calling you "rollocks" and
> >>> was generally...eccentric...? In which case asking for a sense behind
> >>> his posts might be moot
> >>
> >> I don't know. He had so many names. What's your evidence?
> >
> > https://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/b21c0839f964bef7?hl=en
> >
> > same nym, same email
>
> Oh. Well, let's hope he's upped his dosage.
>

LSD?

[John Harshman]

I begin to remember you.

[I am not a chemist]

On Feb 4, 2:04�pm, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> On 2/4/13 1:53 PM, I am not a chemist wrote:
>
>
>
>
>

> > On Feb 4, 1:04 pm, John Harshman<jharsh...@pacbell.net> �wrote:

> >> On 2/4/13 12:56 PM, Quark E wrote:
>

> >>> On Feb 4, 12:49 pm, Quark E<quarke...@gmail.com> � �wrote:

> make?- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

Follow my additional posts instead of jumping the gun trying to rush
to make posts because you sit on your puter 24 hours a day.

[I am not a chemist]

> be close to the last common ancestor of primates and Plesiadapiformes.- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treeshrew

The treeshrews (or tree shrews or banxrings[2]) are small mammals
native to the tropical forests of Southeast Asia. They make up the
families Tupaiidae, the treeshrews, and Ptilocercidae, the pen-tailed
treeshrews, and the entire order Scandentia. There are 20 species in 5
genera. Treeshrews have a higher brain to body mass ratio than any
other mammals, including humans

Although called treeshrews, they are not true shrews (although they
were previously classified in the Insectivora

Among orders of mammals, treeshrews are closely related to primates,
and have been used as an alternative to primates in experimental
studies of myopia, psychosocial stress and hepatitis

Treeshrews were moved from Insectivora to the Primates order, because
of certain internal similarities to the latter (for example,
similarities in the brain anatomy, highlighted by Sir Wilfred Le Gros
Clark), and classified as a primitive prosimian. However, recent
molecular phylogenetic studies have strongly suggested that treeshrews
should be given the same rank (order) as the primates

The fossil record of treeshrews is poor

[I am not a chemist]

> I begin to remember you.- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

How could you forget?

[I am not a chemist]

On Feb 4, 2:04�pm, "Glenn" <glennshel...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> "John Harshman" <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote in messagenews:86-dnVaYOtV...@giganews.com...

> LSD?- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

Have never done, but if so, that would be better than harshman's 200+
DXM highs.

[John Harshman]

It is of course different from what some others say. But ungulate
polyphyly has been the standard expectation for quite some time. And
Pegasoferae has likewise been a live hypothesis for several years, and
Scandentia has at times been merged into Primates. All these findings
are interesting but not highly surprising. Their confirmation of
Boreoeutheria is also interesting.

[John Harshman]

> here is what they claim:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plesiadapiformes
>
> Plesiadapiformes ("near Adapid-like" or "almost Adapiformes") is an
> extinct order of mammals. It is either closely related to the primates
> or a precursor to them. Many are too derived to be ancestral to
> primates, but the earliest Plesiadapiformes have teeth that are
> strongly indicative of a common ancestor. Purgatorius is believed to
> be close to the last common ancestor of primates and Plesiadapiformes.

I don't see the relevance here. Could you explain? The paper makes no
comment on the relationships of plesiadapiforms, no could it, since we
have no plesiadapiform sequence.

[John Harshman]

Still looking for a point. Wikipedia, by the way, is being silly in the
penultimate sentence. There is no way for a study to suggest that tree
shrews should have any particular rank, since taxonomic ranks are
arbitrary. What I think you're working up to is the question of whether
tupaias or colugos are closer to primates. Is that it? But no, it can't
be that, because the paper didn't sample colugos at all, and so there is
no possible conflict with previous results. So I'm still wondering what
your point is.

[Quark E]

That is the sister clade claimed before for primates.
I know you have no clue about any of this.

[Quark E]

On Feb 4, 2:25锟絧m, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> On 2/4/13 2:11 PM, I am not a chemist wrote:
>
>
>

> > On Feb 4, 2:04 pm, I am not a chemist<t2judgm...@gmail.com> 锟絯rote:
> >> On Feb 4, 2:02 pm, I am not a chemist<t2judgm...@gmail.com> 锟絯rote:
>
> >>> On Feb 4, 1:03 pm, John Harshman<jharsh...@pacbell.net> 锟絯rote:

> your point is.- Hide quoted text -

*translation*
Harshman had no comprehension but noticed a word *RANK* that may not
have any true meaning so he evaded the whole point.
That is how his brain never learns anything.
By looking for a word and then ignoring everything else.

[Quark E]

On Feb 4, 2:46�pm, Quark E <quarke...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Feb 4, 2:25�pm, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:

> > What I think you're working up to is the question of whether
> > tupaias or colugos are closer to primates. Is that it?

Makes up his own question quite stupidly and then ....

> > But no, it can't
> > be that, because the paper didn't sample colugos at all, and so there is
> > no possible conflict with previous results.

.... Realizes midstream how stupid he was being

> > So I'm still wondering what
> > your point is.- Hide quoted text -

An still shows zero comprehension so far after about 30 posts in the
thread that he even knows what is being discussed.

>
> *translation*
> Harshman had no comprehension but noticed a word *RANK* that may not
> have any true meaning so he evaded the whole point.
> That is how his brain never learns anything.

> By looking for a word and then ignoring everything else.- Hide quoted text -

[John Harshman]

Do you understand that there is no possible contradiction between the
claimed positions of plesiadapiforms and tupaias? The article you began
this thread with makes no claim about plesiadapiforms, and the wikipedia
article makes no claim about tupaias. Any of the three possible
relationships among tupaias, plesiadapiforms, and primates is equally
compatible with all you have done so far. To generalize: a tree makes no
claim about taxa it doesn't contain; an article makes no claim about
taxa it doesn't mention.

[Mitchell Coffey]

OK, this is conclusive: the rollock guy had some issue regarding the
psychoactive cough suppressant, DXM (Dextromethorphan).

Mitchell Coffey

[John Harshman]

I've been convinced for a while now. He thinks I and DIG are the same
person. He thinks I'm trying to put him in jail. He's also both
incoherent and abusive, but that could be lots of people.

[I am not a chemist]

Who said anything about that?
You still fail to comprehend what this is about.
How long will it take him?
125 posts in the thread?
I will just tell him again:

Primates Treeshrews.
2 simple words might sink in.

[I am not a chemist]

Which you are.

[John Harshman]

But it's always been thought that primates are closely related to tree
shrews. The only questions have been whether colugos or plesiadapiforms
are closer. Nothing you've cited here even addresses that question.

[Mark Isaak]

On 2/4/13 1:54 PM, I am not a chemist wrote:
> On Feb 4, 1:30 pm, Burkhard <b.scha...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:

>> On Feb 4, 9:04 pm, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On 2/4/13 12:56 PM, Quark E wrote:
>>

>>>> On Feb 4, 12:49 pm, Quark E<quarke...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22930817
>>
>>>>> Resolving conflict in eutherian mammal phylogeny using phylogenomics
>>>>> and the multispecies coalescent model

>>>>> [...]

>>
>>>> http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/?term=22930817%5BPMID%5D&report=image...
>>
>>>> Trends in bootstrap support for coalescent analyses and incongruence
>>>> of concatenation estimates for eutherian phylogeny. (A) Gradual
>>>> increase in bootstrap support values with increasing gene numbers

>>>> using coalescent methods for three clades: Scandentia�Primates within
>>>> Euarchontoglires, Perissodactyla�Carnivora and Cetartiodactyla�

>>>> (Perissodactyla, Carnivora) within Laurasiatheria. The gray dashed
>>>> line indicates bootstrap support of 90%. (B) Concatenation analyses
>>>> yield conflicting phylogenies within Euarchontoglires and
>>>> Laurasiatheria for subsampled gene and taxon sets. We constructed
>>>> coalescent and concatenation trees for different sets of 25, 50, 100,
>>>> 200, and 300 genes randomly selected from the 447-gene set, with 10
>>>> replicates for each gene set except 447.
>>
>>> Still interesting, but do you have a point to make here?
>>
>> Isn't that our old friend, the one who kept calling you "rollocks" and
>> was generally...eccentric...? In which case asking for a sense behind
>> his posts might be moot
>

> Let's lay the foundation to restrict my free speech rights by claiming
> he is some other poster that harshman needs to switch nyms to his
> moderator role - despite being a government agent - to ban me!

I get the impression you want to be banned. Playing a martyr is so much
easier than supporting your points.

--
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

[Michael Siemon]

In article
<db557885-398a-4218...@h11g2000vbf.googlegroups.com>,
I am not a chemist <t2jud...@gmail.com> wrote:
...

> > >> Have never done, but if so, that would be better than harshman's 200+
> > >> DXM highs.
> >
> > > OK, this is conclusive: the rollock guy had some issue regarding the
> > > psychoactive cough suppressant, �DXM (Dextromethorphan).
> >
> > I've been convinced for a while now. He thinks I and DIG are the same
> > person.
>
> Which you are.

Um, no. YOU are a dingbat.

[Kermit]

You have of course established the impossibility of having an
intelligent discussion with you.

Kermit

[Kermit]

On 4 Feb, 13:55, I am not a chemist <t2judgm...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Feb 4, 1:35�pm, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 2/4/13 1:30 PM, Burkhard wrote:
>
> > > On Feb 4, 9:04 pm, John Harshman<jharsh...@pacbell.net> �wrote:

> > >> On 2/4/13 12:56 PM, Quark E wrote:
>

> > >>> On Feb 4, 12:49 pm, Quark E<quarke...@gmail.com> � �wrote:

> > >>>http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/?term=22930817%5BPMID%5D&report=image...
>
> > >>> Trends in bootstrap support for coalescent analyses and incongruence
> > >>> of concatenation estimates for eutherian phylogeny. (A) Gradual
> > >>> increase in bootstrap support values with increasing gene numbers
> > >>> using coalescent methods for three clades: Scandentia�Primates within
> > >>> Euarchontoglires, Perissodactyla�Carnivora and Cetartiodactyla�
> > >>> (Perissodactyla, Carnivora) within Laurasiatheria. The gray dashed
> > >>> line indicates bootstrap support of 90%. (B) Concatenation analyses
> > >>> yield conflicting phylogenies within Euarchontoglires and
> > >>> Laurasiatheria for subsampled gene and taxon sets. We constructed
> > >>> coalescent and concatenation trees for different sets of 25, 50, 100,
> > >>> 200, and 300 genes randomly selected from the 447-gene set, with 10
> > >>> replicates for each gene set except 447.
>
> > >> Still interesting, but do you have a point to make here?
>
> > > Isn't that our old friend, the one who kept calling you "rollocks" and
> > > was generally...eccentric...? In which case asking for a sense behind
> > > his posts might be moot
>

> > I don't know. He had so many names. What's your evidence?
>

> Act like you completely ignorant of your surveillance on me as a cop

Little acting is required, since he is not a cop.

> and act like you are building a case to ban me.

IDG bans, not Harshman, and he generally gives warning if a poster is
breaking one of the few rules.

kermit

[I am not a chemist]

Where are tree shrews located?

[I am not a chemist]

On Feb 5, 8:52�am, Kermit <freeh...@charter.net> wrote:

> IDG bans, not Harshman,

harshman = dig

IDIOT!

[John S. Wilkins]

So the younger guy I had dinner with in Toronto is the same as the older
guy I had pizza with in San Francisco? My eyes need to be checked.
--
John S. Wilkins, Associate, Philosophy, University of Sydney
Honorary Fellow, University of Melbourne
- http://evolvingthoughts.net

[Quark E]

On Feb 5, 12:39�pm, j...@wilkins.id.au (John S. Wilkins) wrote:

> I am not a chemist <t2judgm...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Feb 5, 8:52 am, Kermit <freeh...@charter.net> wrote:
>
> > > IDG bans, not Harshman,
>
> > harshman = dig
>
> > IDIOT!
>
> So the younger guy I had dinner with in Toronto is the same as the older
> guy I had pizza with in San Francisco? My eyes need to be checked.

IDIOT, how many years ago was that?

[chris thompson]

If you could have put him in jail- if there was any reasonable excuse-
I hope you would have done it already.

Damn you for following the US Constitution!

Chris

[John Harshman]

Do you mean geographically or phylogenetically? If geographically, then
Southeast Asia. If phylogenetically, then fairly close to primates. They
may or may not be closer than colugos, though current evidence suggests
not. They may or may not be closer than the extinct plesiadapiforms,
though again current evidence suggests not. Nothing you have cited so
far is capable of shedding any light on that question, for the reasons I
have explained.

[chris thompson]

On Feb 4, 4:55�pm, I am not a chemist <t2judgm...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Feb 4, 1:35�pm, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 2/4/13 1:30 PM, Burkhard wrote:
>

> > > On Feb 4, 9:04 pm, John Harshman<jharsh...@pacbell.net> �wrote:

> > >> On 2/4/13 12:56 PM, Quark E wrote:
>

> > >>> On Feb 4, 12:49 pm, Quark E<quarke...@gmail.com> � �wrote:

> > >>>http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/?term=22930817%5BPMID%5D&report=image...
>
> > >>> Trends in bootstrap support for coalescent analyses and incongruence
> > >>> of concatenation estimates for eutherian phylogeny. (A) Gradual
> > >>> increase in bootstrap support values with increasing gene numbers

> > >>> using coalescent methods for three clades: Scandentia�Primates within
> > >>> Euarchontoglires, Perissodactyla�Carnivora and Cetartiodactyla�

> > >>> (Perissodactyla, Carnivora) within Laurasiatheria. The gray dashed
> > >>> line indicates bootstrap support of 90%. (B) Concatenation analyses
> > >>> yield conflicting phylogenies within Euarchontoglires and
> > >>> Laurasiatheria for subsampled gene and taxon sets. We constructed
> > >>> coalescent and concatenation trees for different sets of 25, 50, 100,
> > >>> 200, and 300 genes randomly selected from the 447-gene set, with 10
> > >>> replicates for each gene set except 447.
>
> > >> Still interesting, but do you have a point to make here?
>
> > > Isn't that our old friend, the one who kept calling you "rollocks" and
> > > was generally...eccentric...? In which case asking for a sense behind
> > > his posts might be moot
>
> > I don't know. He had so many names. What's your evidence?
>

> Act like you completely ignorant of your surveillance on me as a cop

> and act like you are building a case to ban me.

You are building your own case to be banned.

Chris

PS: You seem to have problems. Seek help. It can work.

[Kermit]

It was probably just the time difference between the longitudes.

kermit

[jillery]

On Wed, 6 Feb 2013 07:39:03 +1100, jo...@wilkins.id.au (John S.
Wilkins) wrote:

>I am not a chemist <t2jud...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Feb 5, 8:52 am, Kermit <freeh...@charter.net> wrote:
>>
>> > IDG bans, not Harshman,
>>
>> harshman = dig
>>
>> IDIOT!
>
>So the younger guy I had dinner with in Toronto is the same as the older
>guy I had pizza with in San Francisco? My eyes need to be checked.

But that's exactly what you would write if you were another sock
puppet. You probably didn't realize you were eating by yourself.

Irrationality is so much fun!

[John Harshman]

On 2/5/13 12:39 PM, John S. Wilkins wrote:
> I am not a chemist<t2jud...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Feb 5, 8:52 am, Kermit<freeh...@charter.net> wrote:
>>
>>> IDG bans, not Harshman,
>>
>> harshman = dig
>>
>> IDIOT!
>
> So the younger guy I had dinner with in Toronto is the same as the older
> guy I had pizza with in San Francisco? My eyes need to be checked.

Not just pizza. Indian pizza. OK, now I'm hungry.

[Glenn]

"Kermit" <free...@charter.net> wrote in message news:04a83c63-183d-4f8e...@e18g2000vbv.googlegroups.com...

Reminds me of an old joke about Pancho Villa's skull,
that two museums claim to have, one from when he
died and the other from when he was younger.

[John S. Wilkins]

2001 in Toronto, and 2008 in SF. Idiot (since we're calling each other
schoolyard names). There was way more than 7 years difference in age
(sorry, John).

[I am not a chemist]

On Feb 5, 2:22 pm, j...@wilkins.id.au (John S. Wilkins) wrote:

> Quark E <quarke...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Feb 5, 12:39 pm, j...@wilkins.id.au (John S. Wilkins) wrote:
> > > I am not a chemist <t2judgm...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Feb 5, 8:52 am, Kermit <freeh...@charter.net> wrote:
>
> > > > > IDG bans, not Harshman,
>
> > > > harshman = dig
>
> > > > IDIOT!
>
> > > So the younger guy I had dinner with in Toronto is the same as the older
> > > guy I had pizza with in San Francisco? My eyes need to be checked.
>
> > IDIOT, how many years ago was that?
>
> 2001 in Toronto, and 2008 in SF. Idiot (since we're calling each other
> schoolyard names).

It is 2013.
The assumption of moderator by harshman occured AFTER YOUR MEETING
WITH DIG YOU STUPID *BLEEP*

[John Harshman]

Ah, so I'm not DIG. I just play him on the internet. Confusing. Did I
hide the body?

[Glenn]

"John Harshman" <jhar...@pacbell.net> wrote in message news:qMmdnaJjGIM...@giganews.com...

My guess is that "R Norman" did the actual hiding. Wink wink.

[John S. Wilkins]

Time for your meds, I think.

[John S. Wilkins]

I always thought you had the body of a 35 year old.

[I am not a chemist]

On Feb 5, 2:59�pm, j...@wilkins.id.au (John S. Wilkins) wrote:
> I am not a chemist <t2judgm...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Feb 5, 2:22 pm, j...@wilkins.id.au (John S. Wilkins) wrote:
> > > Quark E <quarke...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > On Feb 5, 12:39 pm, j...@wilkins.id.au (John S. Wilkins) wrote:
> > > > > I am not a chemist <t2judgm...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > On Feb 5, 8:52 am, Kermit <freeh...@charter.net> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > IDG bans, not Harshman,
>
> > > > > > harshman = dig
>
> > > > > > IDIOT!
>
> > > > > So the younger guy I had dinner with in Toronto is the same as the older
> > > > > guy I had pizza with in San Francisco? My eyes need to be checked.
>
> > > > IDIOT, how many years ago was that?
>
> > > 2001 in Toronto, and 2008 in SF. Idiot (since we're calling each other
> > > schoolyard names).
>
> > It is 2013.
> > The assumption of moderator by harshman occured AFTER YOUR MEETING
> > WITH DIG YOU STUPID *BLEEP*
>
> Time for your meds, I think.

I need meds because your proffered evidence to counter my claim does
not do that at all.
I think you need meds.

[John Harshman]

On 2/5/13 3:00 PM, John S. Wilkins wrote:
> John Harshman<jhar...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
>> On 2/5/13 2:28 PM, I am not a chemist wrote:
>>>
>>> On Feb 5, 2:22 pm, j...@wilkins.id.au (John S. Wilkins) wrote:
>>>> Quark E<quarke...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Feb 5, 12:39 pm, j...@wilkins.id.au (John S. Wilkins) wrote:
>>>>>> I am not a chemist<t2judgm...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>> On Feb 5, 8:52 am, Kermit<freeh...@charter.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>>> IDG bans, not Harshman,
>>>>
>>>>>>> harshman = dig
>>>>
>>>>>>> IDIOT!
>>>>
>>>>>> So the younger guy I had dinner with in Toronto is the same as the older
>>>>>> guy I had pizza with in San Francisco? My eyes need to be checked.
>>>>
>>>>> IDIOT, how many years ago was that?
>>>>
>>>> 2001 in Toronto, and 2008 in SF. Idiot (since we're calling each other
>>>> schoolyard names).
>>>
>>> It is 2013.
>>> The assumption of moderator by harshman occured AFTER YOUR MEETING
>>> WITH DIG YOU STUPID *BLEEP*
>>>
>> Ah, so I'm not DIG. I just play him on the internet. Confusing. Did I
>> hide the body?
>
> I always thought you had the body of a 35 year old.

No, but I do have the heart of a little boy.

[jillery]

On Wed, 6 Feb 2013 10:00:20 +1100, jo...@wilkins.id.au (John S.
Wilkins) wrote:

>John Harshman <jhar...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
>> On 2/5/13 2:28 PM, I am not a chemist wrote:
>> >
>> > On Feb 5, 2:22 pm, j...@wilkins.id.au (John S. Wilkins) wrote:
>> >> Quark E<quarke...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>> On Feb 5, 12:39 pm, j...@wilkins.id.au (John S. Wilkins) wrote:
>> >>>> I am not a chemist<t2judgm...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>>>> On Feb 5, 8:52 am, Kermit<freeh...@charter.net> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>>>>> IDG bans, not Harshman,
>> >>
>> >>>>> harshman = dig
>> >>
>> >>>>> IDIOT!
>> >>
>> >>>> So the younger guy I had dinner with in Toronto is the same as the older
>> >>>> guy I had pizza with in San Francisco? My eyes need to be checked.
>> >>
>> >>> IDIOT, how many years ago was that?
>> >>
>> >> 2001 in Toronto, and 2008 in SF. Idiot (since we're calling each other
>> >> schoolyard names).
>> >
>> > It is 2013.
>> > The assumption of moderator by harshman occured AFTER YOUR MEETING
>> > WITH DIG YOU STUPID *BLEEP*
>> >
>> Ah, so I'm not DIG. I just play him on the internet. Confusing. Did I
>> hide the body?
>
>I always thought you had the body of a 35 year old.

That's what they said to John Gacy

[Walter Bushell]

In article <1kxv7rt.1rsl411cbda4xN%jo...@wilkins.id.au>,

jo...@wilkins.id.au (John S. Wilkins) wrote:

> John Harshman <jhar...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
> > On 2/5/13 2:28 PM, I am not a chemist wrote:
> > >
> > > On Feb 5, 2:22 pm, j...@wilkins.id.au (John S. Wilkins) wrote:
> > >> Quark E<quarke...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >>> On Feb 5, 12:39 pm, j...@wilkins.id.au (John S. Wilkins) wrote:
> > >>>> I am not a chemist<t2judgm...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >>
> > >>>>> On Feb 5, 8:52 am, Kermit<freeh...@charter.net> wrote:
> > >>
> > >>>>>> IDG bans, not Harshman,
> > >>
> > >>>>> harshman = dig
> > >>
> > >>>>> IDIOT!
> > >>
> > >>>> So the younger guy I had dinner with in Toronto is the same as the
> > >>>> older
> > >>>> guy I had pizza with in San Francisco? My eyes need to be checked.
> > >>
> > >>> IDIOT, how many years ago was that?
> > >>
> > >> 2001 in Toronto, and 2008 in SF. Idiot (since we're calling each other
> > >> schoolyard names).
> > >
> > > It is 2013.
> > > The assumption of moderator by harshman occured AFTER YOUR MEETING
> > > WITH DIG YOU STUPID *BLEEP*
> > >
> > Ah, so I'm not DIG. I just play him on the internet. Confusing. Did I
> > hide the body?
>
> I always thought you had the body of a 35 year old.

Entombed in the basement?

--
This space unintentionally left blank.

[Walter Bushell]

In article <4OSdnXT_aIj...@giganews.com>,

John Harshman <jhar...@pacbell.net> wrote:

> Not just pizza. Indian pizza. OK, now I'm hungry.

Indian Indian pizza or AmerIndian pizza?

Ah, pizza with bison mozzarella and bison pepperoni!

[John Harshman]

On 2/5/13 5:33 PM, Walter Bushell wrote:
> In article<4OSdnXT_aIj...@giganews.com>,
> John Harshman<jhar...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
>> Not just pizza. Indian pizza. OK, now I'm hungry.
>
> Indian Indian pizza or AmerIndian pizza?
>
> Ah, pizza with bison mozzarella and bison pepperoni!
>

Ewww. The former. Zante's at 31st & Mission.

[Mark Isaak]

On 2/5/13 9:53 AM, I am not a chemist wrote:
> On Feb 4, 5:24 pm, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>> On 2/4/13 4:04 PM, I am not a chemist wrote:
>>
>>

>> [...]

>>>>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plesiadapiformes
>>
>>>>>>> Plesiadapiformes ("near Adapid-like" or "almost Adapiformes") is an
>>>>>>> extinct order of mammals. It is either closely related to the primates
>>>>>>> or a precursor to them. Many are too derived to be ancestral to
>>>>>>> primates, but the earliest Plesiadapiformes have teeth that are
>>>>>>> strongly indicative of a common ancestor. Purgatorius is believed to
>>>>>>> be close to the last common ancestor of primates and Plesiadapiformes.
>>
>>>>>> I don't see the relevance here.
>>
>>>>> That is the sister clade claimed before for primates.
>>>>> I know you have no clue about any of this.
>>
>>>> Do you understand that there is no possible contradiction between the
>>>> claimed positions of plesiadapiforms and tupaias?
>>
>>> Who said anything about that?
>>> You still fail to comprehend what this is about.
>>> How long will it take him?
>>> 125 posts in the thread?
>>> I will just tell him again:
>>
>>> Primates Treeshrews.
>>> 2 simple words might sink in.
>>
>> But it's always been thought that primates are closely related to tree
>> shrews.
>
> Where are tree shrews located?

In trees, of course.

--
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

[John S. Wilkins]

In Shrewsbury...

[Michael Siemon]

In article <1kxvqzl.1jnlws01rpkq8kN%jo...@wilkins.id.au>,

jo...@wilkins.id.au (John S. Wilkins) wrote:

"High the vanes of Shrewsbury gleam
Islanded in Severn stream" ...

one of Housman's gorier verses...

[Burkhard]

You also find tamed ones in Padua

[Matchstick]

In article <d07e2c25-0e65-4890-8ec5-ab4b708bfc91
@h11g2000vbf.googlegroups.com>, chris.li...@gmail.com says...

> You are building your own case to be banned.

Was Quark E/I am not a chemist actually already banned by DIG a couple
of years ago ?

--
The wages of sin are death... but the hours are good and the perks are
fantastic

[Dana Tweedy]

On 2/5/13 4:13 PM, John Harshman wrote:
snip

>>> Ah, so I'm not DIG. I just play him on the internet. Confusing. Did I
>>> hide the body?
>>
>> I always thought you had the body of a 35 year old.
>
> No, but I do have the heart of a little boy.

In a jar, on the mantle?

DJT
>

[Dana Tweedy]

That's just where they are buried....

DJT

[John Harshman]

Bought it from Robert Bloch.

[I am not a chemist]

What a great scientific answer.
Why did you fail to point out that they are not really shrews?

[I am not a chemist]

Gotcha.

[John S. Wilkins]

Dana Tweedy <reddf...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 2/5/13 10:58 PM, John S. Wilkins wrote:
> > Mark Isaak <eci...@curioustax.onomy.net> wrote:
> >
> >> On 2/5/13 9:53 AM, I am not a chemist wrote:
> >>> On Feb 4, 5:24 pm, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:

...

> >>>> But it's always been thought that primates are closely related to tree
> >>>> shrews.
> >>>
> >>> Where are tree shrews located?
> >>
> >> In trees, of course.
> >
> > In Shrewsbury...
> >
> That's just where they are buried....
>

Eventually.

[Mitchell Coffey]

On Feb 5, 4:21�pm, chris thompson <chris.linthomp...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Feb 4, 4:55 pm, I am not a chemist <t2judgm...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Feb 4, 1:35 pm, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
> > > On 2/4/13 1:30 PM, Burkhard wrote:
>
> > > > On Feb 4, 9:04 pm, John Harshman<jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> > > >> On 2/4/13 12:56 PM, Quark E wrote:
>
> > > >>> On Feb 4, 12:49 pm, Quark E<quarke...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >>>>http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22930817
>
> > > >>>> Resolving conflict in eutherian mammal phylogeny using phylogenomics
> > > >>>> and the multispecies coalescent model
>
> > > >>>> The reconstruction of the Tree of Life has relied almost entirely on
> > > >>>> concatenation methods, which do not accommodate gene tree
> > > >>>> heterogeneity, a property that simulations and theory have identified
> > > >>>> as a likely cause of incongruent phylogenies
>
> > > >>>> Several key relationships among eutherian mammals remain controversial
> > > >>>> and conflicting among previous studies, including the root of
> > > >>>> eutherian tree and the relationships within Euarchontoglires and
> > > >>>> Laurasiatheria. Both bayesian and maximum-likelihood analysis of
> > > >>>> genome-wide data of 447 nuclear genes from 37 species show that
> > > >>>> concatenation methods indeed yield strong incongruence in the
> > > >>>> phylogeny of eutherian mammals, as revealed by subsampling analyses of
> > > >>>> loci and taxa, which produced strongly conflicting topologies. In
> > > >>>> contrast, the coalescent methods, which accommodate gene tree
> > > >>>> heterogeneity, yield a phylogeny that is robust to variable gene and
> > > >>>> taxon sampling and is congruent with geographic data. The data also
> > > >>>> demonstrate that incomplete lineage sorting, a major source of gene
> > > >>>> tree heterogeneity, is relevant to deep-level phylogenies, such as
> > > >>>> those among eutherian mammals. Our results firmly place the eutherian
> > > >>>> root between Atlantogenata and Boreoeutheria and support ungulate
> > > >>>> polyphyly and a sister-group relationship between Scandentia and
> > > >>>> Primates. This study demonstrates that the incongruence introduced by
> > > >>>> concatenation methods is a major cause of long-standing uncertainty in
> > > >>>> the phylogeny of eutherian mammals, and the same may apply to other
> > > >>>> clades.
>
> > > >>>http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/?term=22930817%5BPMID%5D&report=image...
>
> > > >>> Trends in bootstrap support for coalescent analyses and incongruence
> > > >>> of concatenation estimates for eutherian phylogeny. (A) Gradual
> > > >>> increase in bootstrap support values with increasing gene numbers
> > > >>> using coalescent methods for three clades: Scandentia Primates within
> > > >>> Euarchontoglires, Perissodactyla Carnivora and Cetartiodactyla
> > > >>> (Perissodactyla, Carnivora) within Laurasiatheria. The gray dashed
> > > >>> line indicates bootstrap support of 90%. (B) Concatenation analyses
> > > >>> yield conflicting phylogenies within Euarchontoglires and
> > > >>> Laurasiatheria for subsampled gene and taxon sets. We constructed
> > > >>> coalescent and concatenation trees for different sets of 25, 50, 100,
> > > >>> 200, and 300 genes randomly selected from the 447-gene set, with 10
> > > >>> replicates for each gene set except 447.
>
> > > >> Still interesting, but do you have a point to make here?
>
> > > > Isn't that our old friend, the one who kept calling you "rollocks" and
> > > > was generally...eccentric...? In which case asking for a sense behind
> > > > his posts might be moot
>
> > > I don't know. He had so many names. What's your evidence?
>
> > Act like you completely ignorant of your surveillance on me as a cop
> > and act like you are building a case to ban me.

>
> You are building your own case to be banned.
>

> Chris
>
> PS: You seem to have problems. Seek help. It can work.

Actually, I think he's been banned a long time. I assume all that's
going on is that DIG doesn't know he's back.

Mitchell

[Mitchell Coffey]

You know, there's a certain logic to that.

Mitchell Coffey

[Mitchell Coffey]

OK, how about *I* take the meds? Does that make everyone happy?

Mitchell Coffey

[Karel]

Probably because he did not want to point out the obvious.

Regards, Karel

[I am not a chemist]

Nice try.
Unacceptable answer.
Denied.

[Kermit]

Depends. Are you going to start accusing DIG of being Harshman?

kermit

[Quark E]

> Mitchell Coffey- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Agreed.

[Mark Isaak]

On 2/6/13 11:13 PM, John S. Wilkins wrote:
> Dana Tweedy <reddf...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 2/5/13 10:58 PM, John S. Wilkins wrote:
>>> Mark Isaak <eci...@curioustax.onomy.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 2/5/13 9:53 AM, I am not a chemist wrote:
>>>>> On Feb 4, 5:24 pm, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> ...
>>>>>> But it's always been thought that primates are closely related to tree
>>>>>> shrews.
>>>>>
>>>>> Where are tree shrews located?
>>>>
>>>> In trees, of course.
>>>
>>> In Shrewsbury...
>>>
>> That's just where they are buried....
>>
> Eventually.

It takes some doing to bury a shrew in a tree.

[John S. Wilkins]

If he takes !chemist's meds, he might.

[Dexter]

"Mitchell Coffey" <mitchel...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:972da99f-b6ce-4bd6...@cd3g2000vbb.googlegroups.com...

___________________________________________________

Haven't figured out who this is yet. Can you fill me in?