Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
genetic disorders
46 views
Skip to first unread message
Dale
Nov 17, 2012, 3:14:34 PM11/17/12
to
why do humans seem to have more genetic disorders than other species?
why do humans spend more time adapting to the environment as opposed to
accepting it?
why does it seem like humans are the odd species out on the planet?
perhaps humans were genetic experiments by the more advanced race that
built the pyramids, etc.
I think this advanced race lives on the dark side of the moon, and moon
landing photos were fake.
--
Dale
why do humans spend more time adapting to the environment as opposed to
accepting it?
why does it seem like humans are the odd species out on the planet?
perhaps humans were genetic experiments by the more advanced race that
built the pyramids, etc.
I think this advanced race lives on the dark side of the moon, and moon
landing photos were fake.
--
Dale
Boikat
Nov 17, 2012, 3:30:08 PM11/17/12
to
On Nov 17, 2:17 pm, Dale <inva...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> why do humans seem to have more genetic disorders than other species?
You mean you are incapable of thinking about that question and come to
> why do humans seem to have more genetic disorders than other species?
your own reasonable conclusion? It "seems" that way because medical
science is focused on human conditions. That's practically a "no
brainer".
>
> why do humans spend more time adapting to the environment as opposed to
> accepting it?
>
> why does it seem like humans are the odd species out on the planet?
>
> perhaps humans were genetic experiments by the more advanced race that
> built the pyramids, etc.
>
> I think this advanced race lives on the dark side of the moon, and moon
> landing photos were fake.
Boikat
*Hemidactylus*
Nov 17, 2012, 3:36:56 PM11/17/12
to
On 11/17/2012 03:14 PM, Dale wrote:
> why do humans seem to have more genetic disorders than other species?
The Florida panther would disagree. They are inbred cougars. There are
> why do humans seem to have more genetic disorders than other species?
dog breeds were certain problems are genetic.
> why do humans spend more time adapting to the environment as opposed to
> accepting it?
> why does it seem like humans are the odd species out on the planet?
> perhaps humans were genetic experiments by the more advanced race that
> built the pyramids, etc.
> I think this advanced race lives on the dark side of the moon, and moon
> landing photos were fake.
Ron O
Nov 17, 2012, 3:49:59 PM11/17/12
to
On Nov 17, 2:17 pm, Dale <inva...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
more genetic disorders than other species. This is for the practical
reason that we have the 1000 human genome project identifying the
genetic variation in humans, but we do not have the 1000 chimp genome
project, dog or cat etc. The human work tells us that there is a
boatload of detrimental genetic variation segregating in the human
population. Each human is homozygous for around 10 gene knockouts
(totally missing 10 gene functions) that others in the population
still have functioning copies of. We are all still alive because the
loss of these genes is obviously not fatal, but we had them for some
reason and they are conserved in other species for some reason. Some
can be explained such as the loss of some sensory genes for smell. So
what if you can't smell some chemical if you buy your food from the
grocery store and don't have to worry about eating something that you
shouldn't?
There is a chance that humans do have more detrimental variation than
in most other species, but it would be due to the rapid expansion of
our population within the last few thousand years. Selection has
decreased in intensity and more people are surviving and producing
progeny. Hybridization also increases diversity because inbreeding is
decreased and recessive detrimentals are not expressed and so
accumulate in the population. In the US we are becoming a melting pot
of humans and recessive lethals are likely increasing in frequency
with the decrease in inbreeding. Inbreeding is when you inherit
alleles identical by descent from a common ancestor. I am Japanese
and my wife is German-Irish. There is a lot less chance that the
alleles inherited by my children are identical by descent, so less
chance that recessive detrimentals inherited from my ancestors could
become homozygous by descent and expressed. They did inherit half my
recessive detrimental load, but are less affected by it because my
wife did not have the identical detrimentals. So where there would
have been a good chance to weed out some of the detrimentals if I had
married a cousin (dead fetuses or children with genetic defects and
fewer healthy children) and so more of my detrimental load was
transferred to the next generation.
That is just the way genetics works, and what we can expect to be
happening in a rapidly expanding population with decreased inbreeding.
Ron Okimoto
jillery
Nov 17, 2012, 4:04:53 PM11/17/12
to
On Sat, 17 Nov 2012 15:14:34 -0500, Dale <inv...@invalid.invalid>
wrote:
Have you ever seen a grown man naked?
wrote:
eridanus
Nov 17, 2012, 4:05:41 PM11/17/12
to
El s�bado, 17 de noviembre de 2012 20:17:18 UTC, Dale escribi�:
So you are a follower of Von Deniken. Humans are a cross between monkeys
and extraterrestrials. That's it. Lord's word.
Eridanus
and extraterrestrials. That's it. Lord's word.
Eridanus
*Hemidactylus*
Nov 17, 2012, 4:13:33 PM11/17/12
to
eridanus
Nov 17, 2012, 4:19:07 PM11/17/12
to
El sábado, 17 de noviembre de 2012 20:52:18 UTC, Ron O escribió:
dear Ron. Under a strict evolution philosophy, our advanced technology
had permitted the survival of some genetic defects. It is were not by our
advanced technology and great surpluses of food, many people with genetic
disorders would had not survived. On the other hand, we tend to avoid
that some of those cases could breed. But inbreeding was a problem among
monarchs of Europe. Perhaps among the Kings of ancient Egypt. And in small
isolated populations.
Eridanus
had permitted the survival of some genetic defects. It is were not by our
advanced technology and great surpluses of food, many people with genetic
disorders would had not survived. On the other hand, we tend to avoid
that some of those cases could breed. But inbreeding was a problem among
monarchs of Europe. Perhaps among the Kings of ancient Egypt. And in small
isolated populations.
Eridanus
Ron O
Nov 17, 2012, 4:38:40 PM11/17/12
to
On Nov 17, 3:22 pm, eridanus <leopoldo.perd...@gmail.com> wrote:
> El s bado, 17 de noviembre de 2012 20:52:18 UTC, Ron O escribi :
Inbreeding was more general than that among humans. Humans have a low
genetic load compared to a lot of other species. Human geneticists
think that one reason why it is so low is that humans bred in small
family groups until recent history. The current inbreeding taboos may
not be that old. They were likely instituted as clans began to
realize who had the healthiest children once they came into contact in
larger social groups. The genetic load of humans is estimated to be
only 2.5 (2.5 lethal equivalents in everyone's genome. You should be
dead 2.5 times over if you were homozygous for the hundreds of
detrimental genes in your genome). Barnyard chickens have a genetic
load of around 6.0 (twice that of humans) and there is a species of
wood rat that has been evaluated that is an obligate outcrosser (they
can sense relatives and will not mate with them) that have a genetic
load of 15. The more inbreeding in your history the lower your
genetic load is expected to be under selection. As you note selection
intensity on humans has decreased in the last couple of centuries, and
we will see where that gets us.
Ron Okimoto
> El s bado, 17 de noviembre de 2012 20:52:18 UTC, Ron O escribi :
genetic load compared to a lot of other species. Human geneticists
think that one reason why it is so low is that humans bred in small
family groups until recent history. The current inbreeding taboos may
not be that old. They were likely instituted as clans began to
realize who had the healthiest children once they came into contact in
larger social groups. The genetic load of humans is estimated to be
only 2.5 (2.5 lethal equivalents in everyone's genome. You should be
dead 2.5 times over if you were homozygous for the hundreds of
detrimental genes in your genome). Barnyard chickens have a genetic
load of around 6.0 (twice that of humans) and there is a species of
wood rat that has been evaluated that is an obligate outcrosser (they
can sense relatives and will not mate with them) that have a genetic
load of 15. The more inbreeding in your history the lower your
genetic load is expected to be under selection. As you note selection
intensity on humans has decreased in the last couple of centuries, and
we will see where that gets us.
Ron Okimoto
eridanus
Nov 17, 2012, 5:18:40 PM11/17/12
to
El sábado, 17 de noviembre de 2012 21:42:18 UTC, Ron O escribió:
> On Nov 17, 3:22�pm, eridanus <leopoldo.perd...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > El s bado, 17 de noviembre de 2012 20:52:18 UTC, Ron O �escribi :
>
>
> > dear Ron. �Under a strict evolution philosophy, our advanced technology
> > had permitted the survival of some genetic defects. �It is were not by our
> > that some of those cases could breed. �But inbreeding was a problem among
But as I do not understand the rational behind the technical jargon I must
shut up. Perhaps there is a good reason behind this allusive piece of
jargon.
You mentioned domestic animals, even indirect domestic animals, like rats.
Domestic animals are very selected by men. And even humans can be considered
a special case of domestic animals. We have selected ourselves with frequent
wars looking for some special features to be tamed and domesticated.
Then, intuitively this concept has an aroma of something "not natural". We
have been "selecting" humans genes in an artificial manner. Higher class
people, were selecting people to become domesticated breeds.
This concept is intuitive, and as I am not an expert in genetics I have not
idea how this can be proven or disproven.
Eridanus
> On Nov 17, 3:22�pm, eridanus <leopoldo.perd...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > El s bado, 17 de noviembre de 2012 20:52:18 UTC, Ron O �escribi :
>
>
> > dear Ron. �Under a strict evolution philosophy, our advanced technology
> > had permitted the survival of some genetic defects. �It is were not by our
> > advanced technology and great surpluses of food, many people with genetic
> > disorders would had not survived. �On the other hand, we tend to avoid
> > that some of those cases could breed. �But inbreeding was a problem among
> > monarchs of Europe. Perhaps among the Kings of ancient Egypt. And in small
> > isolated populations.
>
> > Eridanus
>
>
>
> Inbreeding was more general than that among humans. Humans have a low
> genetic load compared to a lot of other species. Human geneticists
> think that one reason why it is so low is that humans bred in small
> family groups until recent history. The current inbreeding taboos may
> not be that old. They were likely instituted as clans began to
> realize who had the healthiest children once they came into contact in
> larger social groups. The genetic load of humans is estimated to be
> only 2.5 (2.5 lethal equivalents in everyone's genome. You should be
> dead 2.5 times over if you were homozygous for the hundreds of
> detrimental genes in your genome). Barnyard chickens have a genetic
> load of around 6.0 (twice that of humans) and there is a species of
> wood rat that has been evaluated that is an obligate outcrosser (they
> can sense relatives and will not mate with them) that have a genetic
> load of 15. The more inbreeding in your history the lower your
> genetic load is expected to be under selection. As you note selection
> intensity on humans has decreased in the last couple of centuries, and
> we will see where that gets us.
>
> Ron Okimoto
You gave me a technical reply that looks counterintuitive at first glance.
> > isolated populations.
>
> > Eridanus
>
>
>
> Inbreeding was more general than that among humans. Humans have a low
> genetic load compared to a lot of other species. Human geneticists
> think that one reason why it is so low is that humans bred in small
> family groups until recent history. The current inbreeding taboos may
> not be that old. They were likely instituted as clans began to
> realize who had the healthiest children once they came into contact in
> larger social groups. The genetic load of humans is estimated to be
> only 2.5 (2.5 lethal equivalents in everyone's genome. You should be
> dead 2.5 times over if you were homozygous for the hundreds of
> detrimental genes in your genome). Barnyard chickens have a genetic
> load of around 6.0 (twice that of humans) and there is a species of
> wood rat that has been evaluated that is an obligate outcrosser (they
> can sense relatives and will not mate with them) that have a genetic
> load of 15. The more inbreeding in your history the lower your
> genetic load is expected to be under selection. As you note selection
> intensity on humans has decreased in the last couple of centuries, and
> we will see where that gets us.
>
> Ron Okimoto
But as I do not understand the rational behind the technical jargon I must
shut up. Perhaps there is a good reason behind this allusive piece of
jargon.
You mentioned domestic animals, even indirect domestic animals, like rats.
Domestic animals are very selected by men. And even humans can be considered
a special case of domestic animals. We have selected ourselves with frequent
wars looking for some special features to be tamed and domesticated.
Then, intuitively this concept has an aroma of something "not natural". We
have been "selecting" humans genes in an artificial manner. Higher class
people, were selecting people to become domesticated breeds.
This concept is intuitive, and as I am not an expert in genetics I have not
idea how this can be proven or disproven.
Eridanus
Ron O
Nov 17, 2012, 6:17:23 PM11/17/12
to
On Nov 17, 4:22 pm, eridanus <leopoldo.perd...@gmail.com> wrote:
> El s bado, 17 de noviembre de 2012 21:42:18 UTC, Ron O escribi :
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Nov 17, 3:22 pm, eridanus <leopoldo.perd...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > El s bado, 17 de noviembre de 2012 20:52:18 UTC, Ron O escribi :
>
> > > dear Ron. Under a strict evolution philosophy, our advanced technology
> > > had permitted the survival of some genetic defects. It is were not by our
> > > that some of those cases could breed. But inbreeding was a problem among
Humans and other vertebrates are considered to be diploids (we have
two copies of all the genes except those on the sex chromosomes).
Some vertebrates are recent tetraploids and the extra copies of the
genes have not sorted themselves out. Tetraploids have 4 copies of
all the genes. The common ancestor of all extant vertebrates was a
tetraploid. This species doubled their genome size probably over half
a billion years ago. This event happened so long ago that humans are
effective diploids. A lot of the duplicated genes have been lost over
time. Some of the duplicated genes still do about the same thing, but
others have evolved to have other functions.
All this means is that humans usually have two copies of each gene,
one on each of the pairs of homologous chromosomes. In many cases you
only need one functioning copy to live, so you can have a bad mutation
in one copy of a gene and still have a good copy to do what it should
do. This means that for a bad mutation to have an effect you have to
inherit two bad copies, one from your mother and one from your
father. Since mutations happen in individuals you have a higher
chance of inheriting the same bad mutation from some common ancestor
if both breeding individuals are closely related to that common
individual. The only means for natural selection to remove the bad
alleles is by mating related individuals that have the same bad
mutation. For recessive lethals say that you mate two carriers and
they have 8 progeny. By chance two of the progeny inherit two copies
of the bad allele from both parents and they die. They leave behind
two sibs that have no copies of the bad allele and 4 sibs that have 1
copy of the bad allele. 4 bad alleles have been removed from the
population by selection. If these two carriers mate with unrelated
individuals that have no bad alleles there is no selection and no bad
alleles are removed from the population because none die due to having
two copies. With an equivalent genetic contribution to the next
generation 8 carriers are produced instead of just 4 carriers produced
when the two related individuals had mated with each other.
Mating two carriers Aa X Aa where (a) is the recessive lethal produces
three genotypes in the ratio of 1 AA (fully normal), 2 Aa (carriers),
and 1 aa (dead or to die before breeding). If you mate a carrier Aa
to a normal AA all progeny are AA normal or Aa carriers and there is
no selection against the bad allele and it can increases in the
population (is not removed by selection). All this means is that if
you don't do some inbreeding a bad allele can reach significant
frequency in the population and not be selected against. This
increases the genetic load of the population over time. So some
inbreeding is useful to a population for keeping the genetic load low,
but on an individual basis it is bad for the parents of the affected
offspring. The math tells us that the inbred matings decrease the
frequency of bad mutations in the population.
This is why the wood rat that never mates with close relatives can
maintain a genetic load of 15 while other species that tolerate some
inbreeding maintain a much lower genetic load.
Ron Okimoto
> El s bado, 17 de noviembre de 2012 21:42:18 UTC, Ron O escribi :
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Nov 17, 3:22 pm, eridanus <leopoldo.perd...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > El s bado, 17 de noviembre de 2012 20:52:18 UTC, Ron O escribi :
>
> > > dear Ron. Under a strict evolution philosophy, our advanced technology
> > > had permitted the survival of some genetic defects. It is were not by our
> > > advanced technology and great surpluses of food, many people with genetic
> > > disorders would had not survived. On the other hand, we tend to avoid
> > > that some of those cases could breed. But inbreeding was a problem among
two copies of all the genes except those on the sex chromosomes).
Some vertebrates are recent tetraploids and the extra copies of the
genes have not sorted themselves out. Tetraploids have 4 copies of
all the genes. The common ancestor of all extant vertebrates was a
tetraploid. This species doubled their genome size probably over half
a billion years ago. This event happened so long ago that humans are
effective diploids. A lot of the duplicated genes have been lost over
time. Some of the duplicated genes still do about the same thing, but
others have evolved to have other functions.
All this means is that humans usually have two copies of each gene,
one on each of the pairs of homologous chromosomes. In many cases you
only need one functioning copy to live, so you can have a bad mutation
in one copy of a gene and still have a good copy to do what it should
do. This means that for a bad mutation to have an effect you have to
inherit two bad copies, one from your mother and one from your
father. Since mutations happen in individuals you have a higher
chance of inheriting the same bad mutation from some common ancestor
if both breeding individuals are closely related to that common
individual. The only means for natural selection to remove the bad
alleles is by mating related individuals that have the same bad
mutation. For recessive lethals say that you mate two carriers and
they have 8 progeny. By chance two of the progeny inherit two copies
of the bad allele from both parents and they die. They leave behind
two sibs that have no copies of the bad allele and 4 sibs that have 1
copy of the bad allele. 4 bad alleles have been removed from the
population by selection. If these two carriers mate with unrelated
individuals that have no bad alleles there is no selection and no bad
alleles are removed from the population because none die due to having
two copies. With an equivalent genetic contribution to the next
generation 8 carriers are produced instead of just 4 carriers produced
when the two related individuals had mated with each other.
Mating two carriers Aa X Aa where (a) is the recessive lethal produces
three genotypes in the ratio of 1 AA (fully normal), 2 Aa (carriers),
and 1 aa (dead or to die before breeding). If you mate a carrier Aa
to a normal AA all progeny are AA normal or Aa carriers and there is
no selection against the bad allele and it can increases in the
population (is not removed by selection). All this means is that if
you don't do some inbreeding a bad allele can reach significant
frequency in the population and not be selected against. This
increases the genetic load of the population over time. So some
inbreeding is useful to a population for keeping the genetic load low,
but on an individual basis it is bad for the parents of the affected
offspring. The math tells us that the inbred matings decrease the
frequency of bad mutations in the population.
This is why the wood rat that never mates with close relatives can
maintain a genetic load of 15 while other species that tolerate some
inbreeding maintain a much lower genetic load.
Ron Okimoto
John Harshman
Nov 17, 2012, 6:33:53 PM11/17/12
to
into a few short sentences, I'd give it at least a 7. Maybe 8.
jillery
Nov 17, 2012, 8:56:11 PM11/17/12
to
effects of being mooned by Russel Crowe.
*Hemidactylus*
Nov 17, 2012, 9:14:14 PM11/17/12
to
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pink_Floyd:_Live_at_Pompeii
jillery
Nov 18, 2012, 1:38:47 AM11/18/12
to
On Sat, 17 Nov 2012 21:14:14 -0500, *Hemidactylus*
I found their guitar licks too dissonant. I preferred Emerson,Lake,
and Palmer, Moody Blues, and Walter Carlos. I have a thing for the
classics, but I am a minority.
and Palmer, Moody Blues, and Walter Carlos. I have a thing for the
classics, but I am a minority.
Glenn
Nov 18, 2012, 1:57:54 AM11/18/12
to
"jillery" <69jp...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:mlfga8p27eo3g6pto...@4ax.com...
eridanus
Nov 18, 2012, 6:14:15 AM11/18/12
to
El sábado, 17 de noviembre de 2012 23:22:17 UTC, Ron O escribió:
> On Nov 17, 4:22�pm, eridanus <leopoldo.perd...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > El s bado, 17 de noviembre de 2012 21:42:18 UTC, Ron O �escribi :
I knew superficially this theme. But this is was not what I was
talking of. I was talking about the frequent wars occurred in the
last 5 or 6 thousand years. A minority of warriors had conquered
a land and its people and had exterminated more or less any rebels
or hunter gatherers with less powerful war technology or culture.
Th e results of this can be considered a sort of artificial selection.
It is not totally clear to me if the tameness of humans are a genetic
product or a simple psychological effect totally outside our genes.
Or perhaps is something in between. I am not sure. A rebellious
attitude can be deemed genetic.
Eridanus
> On Nov 17, 4:22�pm, eridanus <leopoldo.perd...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > El s bado, 17 de noviembre de 2012 21:42:18 UTC, Ron O �escribi :
talking of. I was talking about the frequent wars occurred in the
last 5 or 6 thousand years. A minority of warriors had conquered
a land and its people and had exterminated more or less any rebels
or hunter gatherers with less powerful war technology or culture.
Th e results of this can be considered a sort of artificial selection.
It is not totally clear to me if the tameness of humans are a genetic
product or a simple psychological effect totally outside our genes.
Or perhaps is something in between. I am not sure. A rebellious
attitude can be deemed genetic.
Eridanus
Ron O
Nov 18, 2012, 7:46:29 AM11/18/12
to
On Nov 18, 5:17 am, eridanus <leopoldo.perd...@gmail.com> wrote:
> El s bado, 17 de noviembre de 2012 23:22:17 UTC, Ron O escribi :
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Nov 17, 4:22 pm, eridanus <leopoldo.perd...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > El s bado, 17 de noviembre de 2012 21:42:18 UTC, Ron O escribi :
Not much selection going on when you are talking about culture,
technology and organized numbers. A lot of genetic variation is lost,
but nearly all of it has nothing to do with why someone gets killed
and who doesn't, and definitely what are detrimental alleles in terms
of fitness or ability to transmit those alleles into future
populations would all be suspect in terms of what you meant as
detrimental. The color of ones skin or the shape of their facial
features have some effect (mostly esthetic), but the real effects are
things like numbers, and organization, and the ability to make
superior weapons instead of trade for them or steal them.
Conquest and inhumanity has just about nothing to do with genetic
disorders.
Ron Okimoto
> El s bado, 17 de noviembre de 2012 23:22:17 UTC, Ron O escribi :
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Nov 17, 4:22 pm, eridanus <leopoldo.perd...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > El s bado, 17 de noviembre de 2012 21:42:18 UTC, Ron O escribi :
technology and organized numbers. A lot of genetic variation is lost,
but nearly all of it has nothing to do with why someone gets killed
and who doesn't, and definitely what are detrimental alleles in terms
of fitness or ability to transmit those alleles into future
populations would all be suspect in terms of what you meant as
detrimental. The color of ones skin or the shape of their facial
features have some effect (mostly esthetic), but the real effects are
things like numbers, and organization, and the ability to make
superior weapons instead of trade for them or steal them.
Conquest and inhumanity has just about nothing to do with genetic
disorders.
Ron Okimoto
Walter Bushell
Nov 18, 2012, 8:36:37 AM11/18/12
to
In article <3uGdncm3DuDr2TXN...@giganews.com>,
*Hemidactylus* <ecph...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pink_Floyd:_Live_at_Pompeii
Somehow Pink Floyd at Pompeii seems very appropriate.
--
This space unintentionally left blank.
*Hemidactylus* <ecph...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pink_Floyd:_Live_at_Pompeii
Somehow Pink Floyd at Pompeii seems very appropriate.
--
This space unintentionally left blank.
jillery
Nov 18, 2012, 12:53:57 PM11/18/12
to
population is more than canceled by the selection for aggression in
the conquering population.
Bob Casanova
Nov 18, 2012, 2:50:56 PM11/18/12
to
On Sat, 17 Nov 2012 15:14:34 -0500, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Dale <inv...@invalid.invalid>:
>why do humans seem to have more genetic disorders than other species?
Cite?
>why do humans spend more time adapting to the environment as opposed to
>accepting it?
Incorrect premise; humans generally adapt the environment to
their needs, they don't adapt *to* it.
>why does it seem like humans are the odd species out on the planet?
How so? They fit into the structure of life here quite
nicely, morphologically and genetically.
>perhaps humans were genetic experiments by the more advanced race that
>built the pyramids, etc.
What advanced race? The construction of the pyramids is
well-documented, and required nothing more than a small
amount of knowledge and large amounts of time and labor.
>I think this advanced race lives on the dark side of the moon, and moon
>landing photos were fake.
Somehow I'm not especially surprised...
--
Bob C.
"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
- McNameless
in talk.origins, posted by Dale <inv...@invalid.invalid>:
>why do humans seem to have more genetic disorders than other species?
>why do humans spend more time adapting to the environment as opposed to
>accepting it?
their needs, they don't adapt *to* it.
>why does it seem like humans are the odd species out on the planet?
nicely, morphologically and genetically.
>perhaps humans were genetic experiments by the more advanced race that
>built the pyramids, etc.
well-documented, and required nothing more than a small
amount of knowledge and large amounts of time and labor.
>I think this advanced race lives on the dark side of the moon, and moon
>landing photos were fake.
--
Bob C.
"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
- McNameless
J.J. O'Shea
Nov 18, 2012, 3:57:42 PM11/18/12
to
On Sat, 17 Nov 2012 15:14:34 -0500, Dale wrote
(in article <645gr8....@news.alt.net>):
> why do humans seem to have more genetic disorders than other species?
There are a rather large number of species which have more 'genetic
disorders', depending on how you define 'genetic disorders', than humans do.
>
> why do humans spend more time adapting to the environment as opposed to
> accepting it?
Because we can.
>
> why does it seem like humans are the odd species out on the planet?
We're mammals, and therefore in a minority right there. Primates are a
minority among mammals. (only _two_ mammary glands? and eyes placed so that
they have very limited vision to the sides? and those funny 'thumb' things?
and those even funnier shoulder joints? Please.)
>
> perhaps humans were genetic experiments by the more advanced race that
> built the pyramids, etc.
Nah, the Goa'uld ain't into genetic engineering. Wild orgies is more their
thing.
>
> I think this advanced race lives on the dark side of the moon,
There ain't no such thing as the 'dark side of the moon', laddie. Both the
visible side, the near side, and the side that's not visible from Earth, the
far side, get exactly the same amount of light: two weeks worth at a time.
And it ain't aliens who live on the Lunar far side, it's the secret Space
Nazis. <http://www.ironsky.net> (See, it's on the Internet, so IT MUST BE
TRUE!!!!!) See further "The Last Battalion", David Drake. (Well, okay, those
Space Nazis also live in Antarctica...)
> and moon
> landing photos were fake.
Oh, they were fake, alright; the real purpose of the Apollo program was to
drop a nuke on the Space Nazi lunar base. Apollo 13 took flak damage when the
Space Nazis saw 'em coming. Why do you think that the Sovs allowed the
Apollo-Soyez missions? Joint ops against the Space Nazis, that's why! And
there's a reason why the US Gov has spent all that money supporting
operations in Antarctica...
<exit, stage right, to the "Horst Wessel">
--
email to oshea dot j dot j at gmail dot com.
(in article <645gr8....@news.alt.net>):
> why do humans seem to have more genetic disorders than other species?
disorders', depending on how you define 'genetic disorders', than humans do.
>
> why do humans spend more time adapting to the environment as opposed to
> accepting it?
>
> why does it seem like humans are the odd species out on the planet?
minority among mammals. (only _two_ mammary glands? and eyes placed so that
they have very limited vision to the sides? and those funny 'thumb' things?
and those even funnier shoulder joints? Please.)
>
> perhaps humans were genetic experiments by the more advanced race that
> built the pyramids, etc.
thing.
>
> I think this advanced race lives on the dark side of the moon,
visible side, the near side, and the side that's not visible from Earth, the
far side, get exactly the same amount of light: two weeks worth at a time.
And it ain't aliens who live on the Lunar far side, it's the secret Space
Nazis. <http://www.ironsky.net> (See, it's on the Internet, so IT MUST BE
TRUE!!!!!) See further "The Last Battalion", David Drake. (Well, okay, those
Space Nazis also live in Antarctica...)
> and moon
> landing photos were fake.
drop a nuke on the Space Nazi lunar base. Apollo 13 took flak damage when the
Space Nazis saw 'em coming. Why do you think that the Sovs allowed the
Apollo-Soyez missions? Joint ops against the Space Nazis, that's why! And
there's a reason why the US Gov has spent all that money supporting
operations in Antarctica...
<exit, stage right, to the "Horst Wessel">
--
email to oshea dot j dot j at gmail dot com.
RAM
Nov 18, 2012, 4:13:53 PM11/18/12
to
Paul J Gans
Nov 18, 2012, 4:49:06 PM11/18/12
to
You mean exit, stage right, to the "Horst Wessel" followed
by spoiled fruit and vegetables.
--
--- Paul J. Gans
eridanus
Nov 18, 2012, 5:17:42 PM11/18/12
to
to avoid the the Mossad that is trying to catch him.
Eridanus
John Harshman
Nov 18, 2012, 5:21:26 PM11/18/12
to
or the Piri Reis map.
J.J. O'Shea
Nov 18, 2012, 5:54:13 PM11/18/12
to
On Sun, 18 Nov 2012 16:49:06 -0500, Paul J Gans wrote
(in article <k8bl4i$doh$1...@reader1.panix.com>):
"It's springtime, springtime, springtime for Hitler..."
(in article <k8bl4i$doh$1...@reader1.panix.com>):
Dale
Nov 19, 2012, 11:24:11 PM11/19/12
to
--
Dale
RAM
Nov 20, 2012, 1:01:16 AM11/20/12
to
kooky as you can get.
John has a generous heart.
I see nothing sane about the sentence. It reveals someone who
dramatically distorts reality.
If you are interested in understanding why you do this; then I would
suggest long term counseling until you can explain and empathetically
understand why others see and interpret the world differently.
>
> --
> Dale
Walter Bushell
Nov 20, 2012, 7:40:08 AM11/20/12
to
In article <k8bi4...@news1.newsguy.com>,
eucaryotes.
"J.J. O'Shea" <try.n...@but.see.sig> wrote:
> We're mammals, and therefore in a minority right there. Primates are a
> minority among mammals. (only _two_ mammary glands? and eyes placed so that
> they have very limited vision to the sides? and those funny 'thumb' things?
> and those even funnier shoulder joints? Please.)
Not to mention we are, those oddball exceptions to the norm,
> minority among mammals. (only _two_ mammary glands? and eyes placed so that
> they have very limited vision to the sides? and those funny 'thumb' things?
> and those even funnier shoulder joints? Please.)
eucaryotes.
Walter Bushell
Nov 20, 2012, 10:29:27 AM11/20/12
to
In article
<87777650-21c6-48f3...@v3g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>,
should not eat. Except to prevent immediate starvation, perhaps.
<87777650-21c6-48f3...@v3g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>,
Ron O <roki...@cox.net> wrote:
> So
> what if you can't smell some chemical if you buy your food from the
> grocery store and don't have to worry about eating something that you
> shouldn't?
Most of the allegedly food items in the grocery store are things you
> So
> what if you can't smell some chemical if you buy your food from the
> grocery store and don't have to worry about eating something that you
> shouldn't?
should not eat. Except to prevent immediate starvation, perhaps.
Bob Casanova
Nov 20, 2012, 12:05:37 PM11/20/12
to
On Sun, 18 Nov 2012 12:50:56 -0700, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>:
Dale? No response?
in talk.origins, posted by Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>:
Dale? No response?
Dale
Nov 20, 2012, 6:08:08 PM11/20/12
to
--
Dale
0 new messages