abrupt change?
Great Dayne
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punctuated_equilibrium#Supplemental_modes_of_rapid_evolution
Recent work in developmental biology has identified dynamical and
physical mechanisms of tissue morphogenesis that may underlie abrupt
morphological transitions during evolution. Consequently,
consideration of mechanisms of phylogenetic change that are actually
(not just apparently) non-gradual is increasingly common in the field
of evolutionary developmental biology, particularly in studies of the
origin of morphological novelty. A description of such mechanisms can
be found in the multi-authored volume Origination of Organismal Form
(MIT Press; 2003).
Bob Casanova
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Great Dayne
<ihaveth...@aol.com>:
Your point? If any?
--
Bob C.
"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
- McNameless
Dana Tweedy
You realize of course that 'abrupt" in the context of the fossil record
means "over many thousands of years", do you not?
DJT
John Harshman
Not in the present case. They're talking about macromutations here. I'm
suspicious that any of these are actually important in evolution, but be
happy that he's actually found a quote that supports his title.
Tapestry
> Dana Tweedy wrote:
> > Great Dayne wrote:
>
> >> Recent work in developmental biology has identified dynamical and
> >> physical mechanisms of tissue morphogenesis that may underlie abrupt
> >> morphological transitions during evolution. Consequently,
> >> consideration of mechanisms of phylogenetic change that are actually
> >> (not just apparently) non-gradual is increasingly common in the field
> >> of evolutionary developmental biology, particularly in studies of the
> >> origin of morphological novelty. A description of such mechanisms can
> >> be found in the multi-authored volume Origination of Organismal Form
> >> (MIT Press; 2003).
>
> > You realize of course that 'abrupt" in the context of the fossil record
> > means "over many thousands of years", do you not?
>
> Not in the present case. They're talking about macromutations here. I'm
> suspicious that any of these are actually important in evolution, but be
> happy that he's actually found a quote that supports his title.
So your small incremental changes over time, that you can measure in
DNA like
clockwork, has been debunked.
TOTAL VICTORY.
Dana Tweedy
I don't think John has ever claimed that.
>
> TOTAL VICTORY.
Is that a euphonoism for "I lost again"?
DJT
Picasso Renoir Hilton
He doesn't espouse darwinism?
John Harshman
Well, no, actually. First, we do know that those small incremental
changes do happen, and can indeed be measured in DNA like clockwork,
though the clock runs at different rates in different organisms and
sequences, which makes it less useful than you might suppose. The size
of a mutation is also not strongly correlated with the size of its
effect. Second, I'm not sure, as I mentioned, that any of these
macromutational mechanisms are actually important in the history of
life. Third, if they are, they arise in single individuals and would
have to spread through the population under selection, just like any
small innovation would. However, the point remains (which is sort of
your point) that we wouldn't expect morphological intermediates in the
fossil record, only, at most, a mixed population some of which had one
state and some the other. And we might not even be able to recognize
those as a single population.
How does this, even if true, render evolution invalid?
Dana Tweedy
Not that I know. John is a evolutionary biologist. "Darwinism" is a
specific term relating to the mechanism of evolution. Most of Darwin's work
has been superceded by new information.
I don't think John ever claimed that one can measure changes in DNA "like
clockwork". Genetic dating is a rough estimate at best.
DJT
Rolf
Not quite, you are making the error of equating morphological change with
genetic (DNA) change.
Great Dayne
So now you want to abandon genetic dating ....
Great Dayne
Macro changes that take place rapidly, in other words not small
incremental changes.
All I have to show is that what we observe doesn't match darwinian
thought.
Now how did rapid genetic changes take place to account for this
science?
Great Dayne
Hint: the dna contains the code to make the organism, unless now you
want
to abandon that.
Reddfrogg
Did I say I wanted to 'abandon' genetic dating? I was saying that
genetic dating is a rough estimate, not a precise clock.
DJT
Reddfrogg
Speaking for myself, not John, "macro" changes can take place rapidly,
ie, over many thousands of years in geologic time by small incremental
changes.
> All I have to show is that what we observe doesn't match darwinian
> thought.
Well, first you need to show you understand what "darwinian thought"
is.
> Now how did rapid genetic changes take place to account for this
> science?
By the standard mechanism of mutation and selection over generations.
Under normal conditions, the rate of evolutionary change may be slow,
but under some conditions, evolutionary change can happen fairly
quickly.
DJT
Ouroboros Rex
Are you denying the difference between genetic and morphological change?
John Harshman
That's all too incoherent for me to be sure of a proper reply. If you
have to show that what we observe doesn't match darwinian thought, when
do you intend to begin? Now if there were rapid genetic changes that
account for morphological novelty, I suppose the place to look for
information would be the book you just cited. I'll just guess that your
source is talking about developmental changes due to mutations in
transcription factor binding sites in upstream promoters. Though there
is in fact no reason such changes couldn't be gradual, i.e. as a result
of multiple successive mutations rather than just one.
John Harshman
portion of the genome in most organisms, you can have mostly clocklike
genome evolution without having any morphological evolution at all.
Tapestry
So your genetic dating doesn't match.
Tapestry
No shit.
Tapestry
So according to slinky dating, it occurs instantly ...
Tapestry
>
> - Show quoted text -
So in slinky time, many changes took place instantly.
Mitchell Coffey
Slinky time is relative. It depends whether it's on the up or down
escalator.
Mitchell Coffey
DJT
What is "slinky dating"?
DJT
DJT
Doesn't match what?
DJT
John Harshman
wouldn't invalidate a molecular clock.
John Harshman
If you will tell me what "slinky time" means, I'll try to answer.
Klaus Hellnick
Something that can result in much ripped out pubic hair.
Great Dayne
Which would take changes in the dna to make it happen.
> that
> wouldn't invalidate a molecular clock.
Of course it would.
Dana Tweedy
>> And that means even if there were an abrupt change in morphology,
>
> Which would take changes in the dna to make it happen.
>
>> that
>> wouldn't invalidate a molecular clock.
>
> Of course it would.
Why do you imagine that?
DJT
Ernest Major
<28568553-2299-40ee...@m7g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, DJT
<mouse...@earthlink.net> writes
>> So according to slinky dating, it occurs instantly ...
>
>What is "slinky dating"?
Based on what someone else quoted him as saying, I infer that this is
the dating you get when you linearly compress 4.5 billion years of
geological history into 6,000 years. By that dating he's about 15
minutes old.
--
alias Ernest Major
Great Dayne
Let me answer for those too slow and dimwitted to comprehend such as
yourself.
Your molecular dating relies on constant rate of change.
Now all changes to dna are not morphological, but if there is
morphological change, it takes place also in dna.
If there was abrupt morphological change, your molecular dating is
wrong.
Now your "biologist" "friend" can't be much of a biologist, not to
know this. He also agreed with me already that what I posted matched
the subject title. Now a thesaurus would render abrupt as rapid or
sudden.
Clouseau is the stupidest biologist I have ever met.
Dan Listermann
"Great Dayne" <ihaveth...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:7a40c8f8-beee-4c3b...@w19g2000yqk.googlegroups.com...
On Oct 28, 11:12 am, "Dana Tweedy" <reddfr...@bresnan.net> wrote:
> Great Dayne wrote:
> > On Oct 27, 1:54 pm, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
> snip
>
> >> And that means even if there were an abrupt change in morphology,
>
> > Which would take changes in the dna to make it happen.
>
> >> that
> >> wouldn't invalidate a molecular clock.
>
> > Of course it would.
>
> Why do you imagine that?
"Let me answer for those too slow and dimwitted to comprehend such as
yourself.
Your molecular dating relies on constant rate of change.
Now all changes to dna are not morphological, but if there is
morphological change, it takes place also in dna.
If there was abrupt morphological change, your molecular dating is
wrong."
Radiometric dating has nothing to do with DNA changes.
.
Ernest Major
<d...@listermann.com> writes
with molecular dating either. The flaw in the quoted material is instead
the false assumption that the magnitudes of morphological change and
genetic change are tightly correlated - you can have a small genetic
change that has a large phenotypic effect, and a large amount of genetic
change (typically the accumulation of small changes) with very little
phenotypic effect.
--
alias Ernest Major
Dan Listermann
"Ernest Major" <{$to$}@meden.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:KI12pUGY...@meden.invalid...
off radiometric dating.
.
Great Dayne
> I somehow got the idea that he was saying that changes in DNA would throw
> off radiometric dating.
That's because you are an idiot.
Dana Tweedy
> On Oct 28, 11:12 am, "Dana Tweedy" <reddfr...@bresnan.net> wrote:
>> Great Dayne wrote:
>>> On Oct 27, 1:54 pm, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>>
>> snip
>>
>>>> And that means even if there were an abrupt change in morphology,
>>
>>> Which would take changes in the dna to make it happen.
>>
>>>> that
>>>> wouldn't invalidate a molecular clock.
>>
>>> Of course it would.
>>
>> Why do you imagine that?
>
> Let me answer for those too slow and dimwitted to comprehend such as
> yourself.
> Your molecular dating relies on constant rate of change.
Again, molecular dating is not a precise measurement.
> Now all changes to dna are not morphological, but if there is
> morphological change, it takes place also in dna.
Which really doesn't matter to the rate of change.
> If there was abrupt morphological change, your molecular dating is
> wrong.
Why? A small change in the DNA can have large effects in morphology.
> Now your "biologist" "friend" can't be much of a biologist, not to
> know this.
John understands it better than you do, obviously.
> He also agreed with me already that what I posted matched
> the subject title.
Did he? Where did he do that, or is another one of your delusions?
> Now a thesaurus would render abrupt as rapid or
> sudden.
So? Again, a small change in the DNA can cause a large morphological
change. It wouldn't affect the moleuclar change rate.
> Clouseau is the stupidest biologist I have ever met.
Perhaps, but Dr. Harshman is not "Clouseau".
DJT
Great Dayne
> Great Dayne wrote:
> > On Oct 28, 11:12 am, "Dana Tweedy" <reddfr...@bresnan.net> wrote:
> >> Great Dayne wrote:
> >>> On Oct 27, 1:54 pm, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
> >> snip
>
> >>>> And that means even if there were an abrupt change in morphology,
>
> >>> Which would take changes in the dna to make it happen.
>
> >>>> that
> >>>> wouldn't invalidate a molecular clock.
>
> >>> Of course it would.
>
> >> Why do you imagine that?
>
> > Let me answer for those too slow and dimwitted to comprehend such as
> > yourself.
> > Your molecular dating relies on constant rate of change.
>
> Again, molecular dating is not a precise measurement.
>
> > Now all changes to dna are not morphological, but if there is
> > morphological change, it takes place also in dna.
>
> Which really doesn't matter to the rate of change.
>
> > If there was abrupt morphological change, your molecular dating is
> > wrong.
>
> Why? A small change in the DNA can have large effects in morphology.
Proof.
Dana Tweedy
But at least he doesn't imagine himself to be the president.....
DJT
Dana Tweedy
>>> If there was abrupt morphological change, your molecular dating is
>>> wrong.
>>
>> Why? A small change in the DNA can have large effects in morphology.
>
>
> Proof.
Note the hypocrisy. Where have you ever provided "proof" for your own
assertions? But to answer the question:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homeobox
"Mutations to homeobox genes can produce easily visible phenotypic changes.
Two examples of homeobox mutations in the above-mentioned fruit fly are legs
where the antennae should be (antennapedia), and a second pair of wings.
Duplication of homeobox genes can produce new body segments, and such
duplications are likely to have been important in the evolution of segmented
animals.
Interestingly, there is one insect family, the xyelid sawflies, in which
both the antennae and mouthparts are remarkably leg-like in structure. This
is not uncommon in arthropods as all arthropod appendages are homologous."
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/03/4/pdf/l_034_06.pdf
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8399179
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2674819/
DJT
Dan Listermann
I suppose that is your idea of an intellegent response?
.
John Harshman
Please stop snipping. Though in fact here you haven't quite snipped my
explanation. You have merely ignored it.
Great Dayne
> Great Dayne wrote:
> > On Oct 28, 1:27 pm, "Dana Tweedy" <reddfr...@bresnan.net> wrote:
>
> snip
>
> >>> If there was abrupt morphological change, your molecular dating is
> >>> wrong.
>
> >> Why? A small change in the DNA can have large effects in morphology.
>
> > Proof.
>
> Note the hypocrisy. Where have you ever provided "proof" for your own
> assertions?
All the time.
http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0006452
Here we document rapid morphological changes in rodents in 20 of 28
museum series collected on four continents, including 15 of 23
mainland sites. Approximately 17,000 measurements were taken of 1302
rodents. Trends included both increases and decreases in the 15
morphological traits measured, but slightly more trends were towards
larger size. Generalized linear models indicated that changes in
several of the individual morphological traits were associated with
changes in human population density, current temperature gradients,
and/or trends in temperature and precipitation. When we restricted
these analyses to samples taken in the US (where data on human
population trends were presumed to be more accurate), we found changes
in two additional traits to be positively correlated with changes in
human population density. Principle component analysis revealed
general trends in cranial and external size, but these general trends
were uncorrelated with climate or human population density. Our
results indicate that over the last 100+ years, rapid morphological
change in rodents has occurred quite frequently, and that these
changes have taken place on the mainland as well as on islands. Our
results also suggest that these changes may be driven, at least in
part, by human population growth and climate change.
John Harshman
> On Oct 28, 11:12 am, "Dana Tweedy" <reddfr...@bresnan.net> wrote:
>> Great Dayne wrote:
>>> On Oct 27, 1:54 pm, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>> snip
>>
>>>> And that means even if there were an abrupt change in morphology,
>>> Which would take changes in the dna to make it happen.
>>>> that
>>>> wouldn't invalidate a molecular clock.
>>> Of course it would.
>> Why do you imagine that?
>
> Let me answer for those too slow and dimwitted to comprehend such as
> yourself.
> Your molecular dating relies on constant rate of change.
> Now all changes to dna are not morphological, but if there is
> morphological change, it takes place also in dna.
> If there was abrupt morphological change, your molecular dating is
> wrong.
Sorry, that doesn't follow. If abrupt morphological changes can be
caused by mutations no bigger than those that cause no changes at all
(and they can), then discontinous morphological change is entirely
compatible with a perfect molecular clock.
> Now your "biologist" "friend" can't be much of a biologist, not to
> know this. He also agreed with me already that what I posted matched
> the subject title. Now a thesaurus would render abrupt as rapid or
> sudden.
You seem to have no idea what you have said, or just what I agreed do.
> Clouseau is the stupidest biologist I have ever met.
Clouseau isn't a biologist at all. My understanding is that he's a
French police inspector. And a fictional one, at that.
Great Dayne
> Great Dayne wrote:
> > On Oct 28, 11:12 am, "Dana Tweedy" <reddfr...@bresnan.net> wrote:
> >> Great Dayne wrote:
> >>> On Oct 27, 1:54 pm, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> >> snip
>
> >>>> And that means even if there were an abrupt change in morphology,
> >>> Which would take changes in the dna to make it happen.
> >>>> that
> >>>> wouldn't invalidate a molecular clock.
> >>> Of course it would.
> >> Why do you imagine that?
>
> > Let me answer for those too slow and dimwitted to comprehend such as
> > yourself.
> > Your molecular dating relies on constant rate of change.
> > Now all changes to dna are not morphological, but if there is
> > morphological change, it takes place also in dna.
> > If there was abrupt morphological change, your molecular dating is
> > wrong.
>
> Sorry, that doesn't follow. If abrupt morphological changes can be
> caused by mutations no bigger than those that cause no changes at all
> (and they can), then discontinous morphological change is entirely
> compatible with a perfect molecular clock.
Your argument falls flat on its face when morphological changes happen
by large dna changes.
John Harshman
No. In another thread, I pointed out that he had actually posted an
on-topic cut'n'paste, i.e. one that would actually support a claim he
made in the thread title.
John Harshman
insertion or deletion of, say, 100,000 bases is not a significant
proportion of the total genome. And only if there are no other equally
large changes that woul dhave no phenotypic effect. Neither of these is
true: no mutation is large enough to cover much of the total genome,
small genetic changes can have a large effect, and large changes can
have no effect.
Dana Tweedy
Have you noticed that the links you quote from don't support your cliams at
all?
DJT
Great Dayne
Are you claiming a change of 100,000 base pairs ubruptly
is not a large dna change?
> And only if there are no other equally
> large changes that woul dhave no phenotypic effect. Neither of these is
> true: no mutation is large enough to cover much of the total genome,
> small genetic changes can have a large effect, and large changes can
> have no effect.
Are you claiming ALL morphological changes involve small dna changes?
Dana Tweedy
> On Oct 28, 3:24 pm, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>> Great Dayne wrote:
snip
>>> Your argument falls flat on its face when morphological changes
>>> happen by large dna changes.
>>
>> Only if those changes involve a high percentage of the genome. Even
>> an insertion or deletion of, say, 100,000 bases is not a significant
>> proportion of the total genome.
>
> Are you claiming a change of 100,000 base pairs ubruptly
> is not a large dna change?
As John said, it's not a significant portion of the total genome. It's
like 100,000 to Bill Gates, ie. chump change.
>
>> And only if there are no other equally
>> large changes that woul dhave no phenotypic effect. Neither of these
>> is true: no mutation is large enough to cover much of the total
>> genome, small genetic changes can have a large effect, and large
>> changes can have no effect.
>
> Are you claiming ALL morphological changes involve small dna changes?
He's saying that no mutation is going to affect a large amount of the
genome. Also, he's pointing out, like I did earlier, that a small DNA
change can have a large morphological effect, and a large change in the DNA
can sometimes have little or no morphologial effect.
DJT
Great Dayne
> Great Dayne wrote:
> > On Oct 28, 3:24 pm, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> >> Great Dayne wrote:
>
> snip
>
> >>> Your argument falls flat on its face when morphological changes
> >>> happen by large dna changes.
>
> >> Only if those changes involve a high percentage of the genome. Even
> >> an insertion or deletion of, say, 100,000 bases is not a significant
> >> proportion of the total genome.
>
> > Are you claiming a change of 100,000 base pairs ubruptly
> > is not a large dna change?
>
> As John said, it's not a significant portion of the total genome. It's
> like 100,000 to Bill Gates, ie. chump change.
>
That big dummy was making a false comparison. The molecular clock
doesn't rely on the total genone, BUT HOW MANY CHANGES PER YEAR.
So, if there is an organism that averages 20 mutations a year, 20
ticks
per year, and all of a sudden there are 100,000, that throws off your
genetic dating. For instance, if their is something dated to be 20,000
years, in one change here it would be off by 5,000 years.
Now suppose all the changes took place instantly?
So much for your molecular dating.
John Harshman
"Large" is a subjective term. Large compared to what? Large compared to
a single base, yes. Large compared to a diploid genome of 6 billion
bases, not hardly.
>> And only if there are no other equally
>> large changes that woul dhave no phenotypic effect. Neither of these is
>> true: no mutation is large enough to cover much of the total genome,
>> small genetic changes can have a large effect, and large changes can
>> have no effect.
>
> Are you claiming ALL morphological changes involve small dna changes?
No.
John Harshman
> On Oct 29, 10:21 am, "Dana Tweedy" <reddfr...@bresnan.net> wrote:
>> Great Dayne wrote:
>>> On Oct 28, 3:24 pm, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>>>> Great Dayne wrote:
>> snip
>>
>>>>> Your argument falls flat on its face when morphological changes
>>>>> happen by large dna changes.
>>>> Only if those changes involve a high percentage of the genome. Even
>>>> an insertion or deletion of, say, 100,000 bases is not a significant
>>>> proportion of the total genome.
>>> Are you claiming a change of 100,000 base pairs ubruptly
>>> is not a large dna change?
>> As John said, it's not a significant portion of the total genome. It's
>> like 100,000 to Bill Gates, ie. chump change.
>>
>
> That big dummy was making a false comparison. The molecular clock
> doesn't rely on the total genone, BUT HOW MANY CHANGES PER YEAR.
> So, if there is an organism that averages 20 mutations a year, 20
> ticks
> per year, and all of a sudden there are 100,000, that throws off your
> genetic dating. For instance, if their is something dated to be 20,000
> years, in one change here it would be off by 5,000 years.
> Now suppose all the changes took place instantly?
> So much for your molecular dating.
Not true at all. Molecular dating isn't done by counting a 100,000-base
insertion as 100,000 changes.
Great Dayne
Well try to stay on yopic next time, it was about molecular dating
sir.
Make your examples match the topic, idiot!
Great Dayne
The molecular clock
Dana Tweedy
>> "Large" is a subjective term. Large compared to what? Large compared
>> to a single base, yes. Large compared to a diploid genome of 6
>> billion bases, not hardly.
>
> The molecular clock
> doesn't rely on the total genone, BUT HOW MANY CHANGES PER YEAR.
> So, if there is an organism that averages 20 mutations a year, 20
> ticks
> per year, and all of a sudden there are 100,000, that throws off your
> genetic dating. For instance, if their is something dated to be
> 20,000
> years, in one change here it would be off by 5,000 years.
As I pointed out above in my reply to you, a 100,000 base mutation would
count as 1 mutation, not 100,000.
> Now suppose all the changes took place instantly?
Most likely such a change would be fatal to the organism.
DJT
Dana Tweedy
> On Oct 29, 10:21 am, "Dana Tweedy" <reddfr...@bresnan.net> wrote:
>> Great Dayne wrote:
>>> On Oct 28, 3:24 pm, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>>>> Great Dayne wrote:
>>
>> snip
>>
>>>>> Your argument falls flat on its face when morphological changes
>>>>> happen by large dna changes.
>>
>>>> Only if those changes involve a high percentage of the genome. Even
>>>> an insertion or deletion of, say, 100,000 bases is not a
>>>> significant proportion of the total genome.
>>
>>> Are you claiming a change of 100,000 base pairs ubruptly
>>> is not a large dna change?
>>
>> As John said, it's not a significant portion of the total genome.
>> It's like 100,000 to Bill Gates, ie. chump change.
>>
>
> That big dummy was making a false comparison.
How so? It's good to see that you now seem to understand that John and I
are different people.
> The molecular clock
> doesn't rely on the total genone, BUT HOW MANY CHANGES PER YEAR.
Why would one large change be any different from one small change in the
number per year?
> So, if there is an organism that averages 20 mutations a year, 20
> ticks
> per year,
Of course, it's mutations per generation that count, not per individual.
> and all of a sudden there are 100,000, that throws off your
> genetic dating.
The "100,000" unit subsistution is still only one mutation, however.
> For instance, if their is something dated to be 20,000
> years, in one change here it would be off by 5,000 years.
No, because the change is only one mutation, no matter how many base pairs
it involves.
> Now suppose all the changes took place instantly?
> So much for your molecular dating.
Again, it's not "my" moleuclar dating. There's no evidence that all
changes took place instantly.
>
>>
>>
>>>> And only if there are no other equally
>>>> large changes that woul dhave no phenotypic effect. Neither of
>>>> these is true: no mutation is large enough to cover much of the
>>>> total genome, small genetic changes can have a large effect, and
>>>> large changes can have no effect.
>>
>>> Are you claiming ALL morphological changes involve small dna
>>> changes?
>>
>> He's saying that no mutation is going to affect a large amount of the
>> genome. Also, he's pointing out, like I did earlier, that a small DNA
>> change can have a large morphological effect, and a large change in
>> the DNA can sometimes have little or no morphologial effect.
>>
>> DJT
>
> Are you claiming ALL morphological changes involve small dna changes?
I'm saying that apparently John is saying that even a change in 100,000 base
pairs is still a small portion of the genome. It's very unlikely that a
mutation will be a large percentage of the genome, I. personally suspect
myself that any change large enough to be a large percentage of the genome
Dana Tweedy
What John is telling you is that a 100,000 base insertion counts as 1
change, not 100,000.
DJT
Tapestry
> Great Dayne wrote:
> > On Oct 29, 11:13 am, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
> snip
>
> >> "Large" is a subjective term. Large compared to what? Large compared
> >> to a single base, yes. Large compared to a diploid genome of 6
> >> billion bases, not hardly.
>
> > The molecular clock
> > doesn't rely on the total genone, BUT HOW MANY CHANGES PER YEAR.
> > So, if there is an organism that averages 20 mutations a year, 20
> > ticks
> > per year, and all of a sudden there are 100,000, that throws off your
> > genetic dating. For instance, if their is something dated to be
> > 20,000
> > years, in one change here it would be off by 5,000 years.
>
> As I pointed out above in my reply to you, a 100,000 base mutation would
> count as 1 mutation, not 100,000.
Then the example doesn't match the topic.
Dana Tweedy
The "topic" as I understand it, is mutations per time period. If one
mutation causes 100,000 base pair changes, it's still one mutation.
DJT
Great Dayne
And as you can see, in various insects, the antennae are rather small
given
the overall morphology:
http://naturescrusaders.files.wordpress.com/2009/05/ladybug.jpg
Great Dayne
And rapid ones that would affect the molecular dating. His example
Dana Tweedy
> On Oct 29, 3:38 pm, "Dana Tweedy" <reddfr...@bresnan.net> wrote:
>> Tapestry wrote:
>>> On Oct 29, 1:12 pm, "Dana Tweedy" <reddfr...@bresnan.net> wrote:
>>>> Great Dayne wrote:
>>>>> On Oct 29, 11:13 am, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>>
>>>> snip
>>
>>>>>> "Large" is a subjective term. Large compared to what? Large
>>>>>> compared to a single base, yes. Large compared to a diploid
>>>>>> genome of 6 billion bases, not hardly.
>>
>>>>> The molecular clock
>>>>> doesn't rely on the total genone, BUT HOW MANY CHANGES PER YEAR.
>>>>> So, if there is an organism that averages 20 mutations a year, 20
>>>>> ticks
>>>>> per year, and all of a sudden there are 100,000, that throws off
>>>>> your genetic dating. For instance, if their is something dated to
>>>>> be 20,000
>>>>> years, in one change here it would be off by 5,000 years.
>>
>>>> As I pointed out above in my reply to you, a 100,000 base mutation
>>>> would count as 1 mutation, not 100,000.
>>
>>> Then the example doesn't match the topic.
>>
>> The "topic" as I understand it, is mutations per time period.
>
> And rapid ones that would affect the molecular dating.
You seem to be confusing "rapid" mutations with large mutations.
> His example
> doesn't match the
> topic.
John's example is a large mutation, not a more rapid one.
DJT
Dana Tweedy
So, what does that have to do with the subject at hand?
DJT
Great Dayne
What is funny here is how the nym in my browser of one "dana" shares
a similar passion with another nym in my browser "harshman".
Did you both share a common interest when you were younger
of having a bug collection?
Do you have bug emergencies, where you need to wheel your ambulance
forth to
save insects and take them to the local 24 hour bug hospital?
Great Dayne
You can't seem to grasp that rapid mutations can also be large
mutations.
Dana Tweedy
>>
>>>> The "topic" as I understand it, is mutations per time period.
>>
>>> And rapid ones that would affect the molecular dating.
>>
>> You seem to be confusing "rapid" mutations with large mutations.
>
> You can't seem to grasp that rapid mutations can also be large
> mutations.
But you haven't shown that mutations are more rapid than normal. Do you
have some kind of point to be making?
DJT
Dana Tweedy
>>> http://naturescrusaders.files.wordpress.com/2009/05/ladybug.jpg
>>
>> So, what does that have to do with the subject at hand?
>
> What is funny here is how the nym in my browser of one "dana" shares
> a similar passion with another nym in my browser "harshman".
You are posting in a newsgroup for creation/evolution discussion. Why would
you think it unusual for two persons in that newsgroup to be both interested
in evolution?
> Did you both share a common interest when you were younger
> of having a bug collection?
I never had a bug collection. Insects aren't all that interesting to me.
> Do you have bug emergencies, where you need to wheel your ambulance
> forth to
> save insects and take them to the local 24 hour bug hospital?
No, I just transport humans in the ambulance.
DJT
Tapestry
How many people have to die while you play your trolling games in
here?
What kind of Judge would allow your elementary school level maturity
games to continue day after day?
He is dismissed courtesy of the LORD.
Dana Tweedy
> On Oct 30, 1:03 pm, "Dana Tweedy" <reddfr...@bresnan.net> wrote:
>> Great Dayne wrote:
>>> On Oct 30, 12:32 pm, "Dana Tweedy" <reddfr...@bresnan.net> wrote:
>>
>> snip
>>
>>
>>
>>>>>> The "topic" as I understand it, is mutations per time period.
>>
>>>>> And rapid ones that would affect the molecular dating.
>>
>>>> You seem to be confusing "rapid" mutations with large mutations.
>>
>>> You can't seem to grasp that rapid mutations can also be large
>>> mutations.
>>
>> But you haven't shown that mutations are more rapid than normal. Do
>> you have some kind of point to be making?
>
> How many people have to die while you play your trolling games in
> here?
How does my posting here affect how many people will die? If you can't
address the point, please just say so.
> What kind of Judge would allow your elementary school level maturity
> games to continue day after day?
What judge? I don't require any judge's permission to post, nor does any
judge determine how, when, or what I post. You really need to get some
professional medical help.
>
> He is dismissed courtesy of the LORD.
Who is "dismissed", and why do you think you have any influence with "the
LORD" anyway?
snip irrelevant video link.
DJT
John Harshman
That makes no sense. How many changes in what per year? Ideally, in the
total genome.
> So, if there is an organism that averages 20 mutations a year, 20
> ticks
> per year, and all of a sudden there are 100,000, that throws off your
> genetic dating. For instance, if their is something dated to be
> 20,000
> years, in one change here it would be off by 5,000 years.
You are confused. That 100,000 bases wouldn't be 100,000 changes. It
would be one change. So we go from 20 to 21. Not much of a difference.
(Actually, most molecular clock estimates are based on DNA sequences of
a tiny portion of the genome, just a few hundred or thousand bases long;
even if you counted big indels as multiple changes, they would be rare
enough that they would seldom affect the result.)
> Now suppose all the changes took place instantly?
Sure. Now suppose that 5 equals 32. Suppose that monkeys frequently give
birth to aarvarks. Suppose that the French have developed a flying
sheep. Where's your evolution now?
Great Dayne
> What judge? I don't require any judge's permission to post, nor does any
> judge determine how, when, or what I post. You really need to get some
> professional medical help.
No you need to seek professional help. Let me explain something to
you.
Before the president becomes president, the courts can rule whether he
meets
the qualifications. But once he is president, the courts have no say
about
it whatsoever. That job is given to congress under our constitution. I
have
been president for 10 months, and you are trying to unconstitutionally
do
something about it through the court system. Seek meds, moron!
Dana Tweedy
> On Oct 30, 1:30 pm, "Dana Tweedy" <reddfr...@bresnan.net> wrote:
>
>> What judge? I don't require any judge's permission to post, nor does
>> any judge determine how, when, or what I post. You really need to
>> get some professional medical help.
>
> No you need to seek professional help.
Why?
> Let me explain something to
> you.
> Before the president becomes president, the courts can rule whether he
> meets
> the qualifications.
You aren't the president, however.
>But once he is president, the courts have no say
> about
> it whatsoever.
That's not the issue anyway. You aren't the president, so whatever a judge
says is irrelevant.
>That job is given to congress under our constitution. I
> have
> been president for 10 months, and you are trying to unconstitutionally
> do
> something about it through the court system. Seek meds, moron!
No, you aren't the president. Barak Obama is the president. You are
having delusions, related to some form of mental illness. You need to seek
professional medical help.
DJT
Great Dayne
> Great Dayne wrote:
> > On Oct 30, 1:30 pm, "Dana Tweedy" <reddfr...@bresnan.net> wrote:
>
>
> > Let me explain something to
> > you.
> > Before the president becomes president, the courts can rule whether he
> > meets
> > the qualifications.
>
> > about
> > it whatsoever.
>
> That's not the issue anyway.
Thank you for admitting I am right.
Dana Tweedy
> On Oct 31, 11:21 am, "Dana Tweedy" <reddfr...@bresnan.net> wrote:
>> Great Dayne wrote:
>>> On Oct 30, 1:30 pm, "Dana Tweedy" <reddfr...@bresnan.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Let me explain something to
>>> you.
>>> Before the president becomes president, the courts can rule whether
>>> he meets
>>> the qualifications.
>>
>>> But once he is president, the courts have no say
>>> about
>>> it whatsoever.
>>
>> That's not the issue anyway.
>
> Thank you for admitting I am right.
As long as you admit you aren't the president. I never claimed the courts
had anything to do with the matter.
DJT
Great Dayne
> Great Dayne wrote:
> > On Oct 31, 11:21 am, "Dana Tweedy" <reddfr...@bresnan.net> wrote:
> >> Great Dayne wrote:
> >>> On Oct 30, 1:30 pm, "Dana Tweedy" <reddfr...@bresnan.net> wrote:
>
> >>> Let me explain something to
> >>> you.
> >>> Before the president becomes president, the courts can rule whether
> >>> he meets
> >>> the qualifications.
>
> >>> But once he is president, the courts have no say
> >>> about
> >>> it whatsoever.
>
> >> That's not the issue anyway.
>
> > Thank you for admitting I am right.
>
> As long as you admit you aren't the president.
This reminds me of elementary school level games and maturity.
I am the president.
No you are not.
Yes I am.
No you aren't .
Yes I am the president, infinity.
No you aren't infinity.
I made a wish I was.
I wished over a birthday cake you aren;t.
I put a black cat by you, so you aren't.
I put a ladder by you, so you aren't.
You can't do that.
Yes I can.
Now in reality if some idiot went up to the president
and told him he wasn't the president, the president would
just ignore the stupid dumb fucking retarded immature idiotic asshole.
Reddfrogg
> On Oct 31, 9:11 pm, "Dana Tweedy" <reddfr...@bresnan.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > Great Dayne wrote:
> > > On Oct 31, 11:21 am, "Dana Tweedy" <reddfr...@bresnan.net> wrote:
> > >> Great Dayne wrote:
> > >>> On Oct 30, 1:30 pm, "Dana Tweedy" <reddfr...@bresnan.net> wrote:
>
> > >>> Let me explain something to
> > >>> you.
> > >>> Before the president becomes president, the courts can rule whether
> > >>> he meets
> > >>> the qualifications.
>
> > >>> But once he is president, the courts have no say
> > >>> about
> > >>> it whatsoever.
>
> > >> That's not the issue anyway.
>
> > > Thank you for admitting I am right.
>
> > As long as you admit you aren't the president.
>
> This reminds me of elementary school level games and maturity.
Yes, you do tend to bring it down to that level.
(snipping crazy person's delusional dialog with himself)
>
> Now in reality if some idiot went up to the president
> and told him he wasn't the president, the president would
> just ignore the stupid dumb fucking retarded immature idiotic asshole.
Which should be a good indication that you aren't the president.
DJT
Great Dayne
> On Nov 1, 12:11 pm, Great Dayne <ihavethecode...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Oct 31, 9:11 pm, "Dana Tweedy" <reddfr...@bresnan.net> wrote:
>
> > > Great Dayne wrote:
> > > > On Oct 31, 11:21 am, "Dana Tweedy" <reddfr...@bresnan.net> wrote:
> > > >> Great Dayne wrote:
> > > >>> On Oct 30, 1:30 pm, "Dana Tweedy" <reddfr...@bresnan.net> wrote:
>
> > > >>> Let me explain something to
> > > >>> you.
> > > >>> Before the president becomes president, the courts can rule whether
> > > >>> he meets
> > > >>> the qualifications.
>
> > > >>> But once he is president, the courts have no say
> > > >>> about
> > > >>> it whatsoever.
>
> > > >> That's not the issue anyway.
>
> > > > Thank you for admitting I am right.
>
> > > As long as you admit you aren't the president.
>
> > This reminds me of elementary school level games and maturity.
Didn't indicate snippage.
Point.
> > Now in reality if some idiot went up to the president
> > and told him he wasn't the president, the president would
> > just ignore the stupid dumb fucking retarded immature idiotic asshole.
>
> Which should be a good indication that you aren't the president.
No it is an indication of your immaturity, since when I do ignore it,
you
take that as you having accomplished something.
Reddfrogg
> On Nov 1, 3:10 pm, Reddfrogg <reddfr...@bresnan.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Nov 1, 12:11 pm, Great Dayne <ihavethecode...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Oct 31, 9:11 pm, "Dana Tweedy" <reddfr...@bresnan.net> wrote:
>
> > > > Great Dayne wrote:
> > > > > On Oct 31, 11:21 am, "Dana Tweedy" <reddfr...@bresnan.net> wrote:
> > > > >> Great Dayne wrote:
> > > > >>> On Oct 30, 1:30 pm, "Dana Tweedy" <reddfr...@bresnan.net> wrote:
>
> > > > >>> Let me explain something to
> > > > >>> you.
> > > > >>> Before the president becomes president, the courts can rule whether
> > > > >>> he meets
> > > > >>> the qualifications.
>
> > > > >>> But once he is president, the courts have no say
> > > > >>> about
> > > > >>> it whatsoever.
>
> > > > >> That's not the issue anyway.
>
> > > > > Thank you for admitting I am right.
>
> > > > As long as you admit you aren't the president.
>
> > > This reminds me of elementary school level games and maturity.
>
> Didn't indicate snippage.
You almost never do. Why did you snip away the rest of what I wrote
there?
> Point.
You are making points against yourself?
>
> > > Now in reality if some idiot went up to the president
> > > and told him he wasn't the president, the president would
> > > just ignore the stupid dumb fucking retarded immature idiotic asshole.
>
> > Which should be a good indication that you aren't the president.
>
> No it is an indication of your immaturity,
How is it my "immaturity" to let you know you are delusional?
> since when I do ignore it,
> you
> take that as you having accomplished something.
All I am doing is trying to point out that you are having a delusional
episode. You are not the president, and no matter how churlish, or
petulant you get, you still aren't the president.
DJT
Tapestry
>
> - Show quoted text -
Lock him up.
Last chance.
Reddfrogg
Lock who up?
> Last chance.
Last chance for what? You made statements about "last chance"
several times in the past. What do you think will happen if no one is
"locked up"?
DJT
Tapestry
Reddfrogg
The "Planet of the Apes" was a movie made in 1968. It was remade in
2001. Most critics say the remake was inferior.
It's also the non technical term used to refer to the Miocene
epoch, about 22 to 5 million years ago, when there were many more ape
species than exist today.
Which are you suggesting will happen if someone is not locked up?
DJT
Nashton
> Is that a euphonoism for "I lost again"?
>
> DJT
>
What in heaven's name is a euphonoism you uneducated twit?
Ye Old One
Derived from euphonious, the adjective meaning "sounding pleasant".
Nutjob's "TOTAL VICTORY" was his way of saying, in a way that sounded
as pleasant as possible, "I lost again".
So you uneducated twit, looks like you lost again.
--
Bob.
Everyone is entitled to be stupid but you're abusing the privilege.