On 8 Dec, 11:57, John Harshman <jharshman.diespam...@pacbell.net>
> seanpitnos...@naturalselection.0catch.com wrote:Ah, so your definition of "relationship" is different than your
> > On Dec 8, 9:50 am, John Harshman <jharshman.diespam...@pacbell.net>
> > wrote:
> >>> You seem to be arguing that humans vs. chimps are obviously less
> > Wasn't it you who wrote:
> > "Some closely related species can't produce viable offspring.
> > Upon what do you base your measure of species "relationship"
> By "closeness of relationship", I mean the literal sense of recency of
> None of this has to do with being "less speciated", whatever you mean by
definition of "species"? After all, I could produce a number and
pattern of gross difference between two human genomes that would make
them appear to be less "related", according to your measure, than
humans and chimps while still having them look and function the same
way as modern humans - to include producing viable and fertile
offspring. Yet, according to you, they would be less "related" than
humans and chimps? - because of your estimates of MRCA? That's it?
It might help if you would clarify that this is what you mean when you
By your definition of these terms, this is not necessarily the case -
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.