Weirdo's Irony Meter Just had a Blowout.
spintronic
this nested hierarchy.
--------1,1
|
|
-----------1
| |
| |
| --------1,0
|
-------------0
|
| ----0,1,1
| |
| |
|-----------0,1
|
|----0,1,0
After Jabbering about the issue bush, he is
trying to come up with every excuse why it
isn't.
So lets do a test.
Lets replace the 1's & 0's for letters.
We will choose the letters A,G,T & C.& redraw. With the simple rule
the letters follow the above ordering (Left To Right)
--------A,A
|
|
-----------A
| | ----A,G,A
| | |
| --------A,G
| |
| ----A,G,G
|
-------------G
|
| ----T,A,A
| |
| |
|-----------T
| |
| |----T,G,A
|
|-----------C
Etc etc.
What the Retarded *BOOB* doesn't realise
is that *EVERY* possible gene sequence is
contained here, & as is every
*nested hierarchy* he spouts out of his big
fat ass.
Ergo, Any objection he brings to mine, he destroys his own.
Boy what a *TARD* he is.
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank
================================================
Lenny Flank
"There are no loose threads in the web of life"
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
http://www.RedandBlackPublishers.com
spintronic
>
> Forged any emails lately, Spinny . . . ?
>
On topic as usual, hey Loony?
Why don't you go find a thread you can understand.
I'm sure Y.O.O has one where he's boring us all to death
about his escapades on the Apollo 13 mission, or some
other B.S. You should look him up.
Kermit
Dismissing a lifetime of accomplishment speaks volumes about you, as
did your forging posts.
Kermit
Prof Weird
> In a different thread, I showed weirdo
> this nested hierarchy.
>
> --------1,1
> |
> |
> -----------1
> | |
> | |
> | --------1,0
> |
> -------------0
> |
> | ----0,1,1
> | |
> | |
> |-----------0,1
> |
> |----0,1,0
>
> After Jabbering about the issue bush, he is
> trying to come up with every excuse why it
> isn't.
The FACT that it isn't a NESTED hierarchy is the ultimate explanation
- if those numbers are meant to be traits needed to built the tree,
the FACT that '1 in the 2nd position' is NOT nested within one branch
shows your 'tree' is not a nested hierarchy.
> So lets do a test.
>
> Lets replace the 1's & 0's for letters.
>
> We will choose the letters A,G,T & C.& redraw. With the simple rule
> the letters follow the above ordering (Left To Right)
>
> --------A,A
> |
> |
> -----------A
> | | ----A,G,A
> | | |
> | --------A,G
> | |
> | ----A,G,G
> |
> -------------G
> |
> | ----T,A,A
> | |
> | |
> |-----------T
> | |
> | |----T,G,A
> |
> |-----------C
>
> Etc etc.
>
> What the Retarded *BOOB* doesn't realise
> is that *EVERY* possible gene sequence is
> contained here, & as is every
> *nested hierarchy* he spouts out of his big
> fat ass.
Translation : spintwitty was shown to be wrong, and is now in
psychotic damage control mode - figures if he screams loudly enough,
obnoxiously enough, reality will bend to his will.
A nested hierarchy is a diagram of relationships (who is most similar
to whom); your 'tree' is not a nested hierarchy (no matter how much
you sneer, stomp your foot, shake your fist and wet yourself with
impotent rage).
Human gene sequences are FAR more similar to chimp gene sequences than
to anything else, so sane and rational people deduce that humans and
chimps are closely related; you, on the other hand, launch into
festering vomit-fests about how there are no 'real' hierarchies.
In other words - reality does not conform to your simple-minded
understanding, so you decided that REALITY is wrong and you are
right !
For who would know better if phylogenies are real : thousands of
systematists who study the problems and defined the field for a
living ? Or a posturing, arrogant, self-absorbed addle-pated, feeble-
bladdered simpleton like spintwitty ?
If there WERE no true hierarchy, it would be IMPOSSIBLE to detect
horizontal gene transfers.
If there WERE no true hierarchy, one human gene should match best with
squirrel, a different human gene should match best with fish, a
different human gene should match best with cicadas, and so on. THIS
IS NOT WHAT IS SEEN IN REALITY; thus the idea that there is no
hierarchy is false.
> Ergo, Any objection he brings to mine, he destroys his own.
Not really, since anyone with even a modicum of knowledge about
phylogenies and reality can see that you are full of dung.
> Boy what a *TARD* he is.
Sneered spintwitty as he pointed to the face in the mirror.
For your further abusement :
Not all traits are useful for constructing phylogenies - AFGP, for
instance. Going just by 'has antifreeze proteins', Artic cod and the
Antarctic notothenioids would SEEM to be in the same group (despite
being widely divergent otherwise); examination of REALITY shows the
Artic cod's AFGP is DIFFERENT from the notothenioids (an example of
convergence - two different proteins were modified to perform one
function). Both sharks and dolphins have the morphological feature of
'dorsal fin', but are not closely related. You have to actually have
some idea of what you are doing to build a phylogeny - you most
certainly do not.
The FACT that a fruit fly cDNA sequence was NOT in the sea urchin
genome is enough for sane and rational people to accept the idea that
it was a contaminant; you, on the other hand, howl about
'conspiracies'.
The FACT that the firefly sequence in the mouse cDNA pool had a
2900/2900 match for a commercially available reporter plasmid is
enough for sane and rational people to accept that it was a
contaminant; you, on the other hand, rage about teleporting
chromosomes.
Kermit
> In a different thread, I showed weirdo
> this nested hierarchy.
>
> --------1,1
> |
> |
> -----------1
> | |
> | |
> | --------1,0
> |
> -------------0
> |
> | ----0,1,1
> | |
> | |
> |-----------0,1
> |
> |----0,1,0
>
> After Jabbering about the issue bush, he is
> trying to come up with every excuse why it
> isn't.
You see his explanations as random because you cannot allow yourself
to understand them.
>
> So lets do a test.
>
> Lets replace the 1's & 0's for letters.
>
> We will choose the letters A,G,T & C.& redraw. With the simple rule
> the letters follow the above ordering (Left To Right)
>
> --------A,A
> |
> |
> -----------A
> | | ----A,G,A
> | | |
> | --------A,G
> | |
> | ----A,G,G
> |
> -------------G
> |
> | ----T,A,A
> | |
> | |
> |-----------T
> | |
> | |----T,G,A
> |
> |-----------C
>
> Etc etc.
>
> What the Retarded *BOOB* doesn't realise
> is that *EVERY* possible gene sequence is
> contained here, & as is every
> *nested hierarchy* he spouts out of his big
> fat ass.
>
And yet, genomes do not show random distribution of the nucleotides.
Millions of base pairs, with the vast majority of randomly possible
combinations non-existent, sequenced genomes can only be related in
one way (with a few of questionable linkages in minor ways).
If you had organisms with the genomes:
-A,A
-A,G
-A,G,G
-T,A,A
-T,G,A
...how many ways could they relate?
And we have over 200,000,000 pairs IIRC.
> Ergo, Any objection he brings to mine, he destroys his own.
I am embarrassed by our kinship :(
>
> Boy what a *TARD* he is.
Why do you give him so much power over you?
Not only are you confused in your thinking, and wrong in your
assertions, and criminal in your posting, but you have surrendered
your attention and emotional needs to a projection you cast upon an
internet posting name. Tsk
Bad logic, bad science, bad manners, and bad juju.
Kermit
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank
(yawn)
Ignoring Shit-tronic's silly rant.
Forge some more emails, Spinny. At least that leads to some
entertainment.
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank
> Why do you give him so much power over you?
>
> Not only are you confused in your thinking, and wrong in your
> assertions, and criminal in your posting, but you have surrendered
> your attention and emotional needs to a projection you cast upon an
> internet posting name. Tsk
Indeed, Shit-tronic is becoming more and more like Uncle Davey every
day.
He's addicted.
What a sad little man . . .
I'd actually feel sorry for Spinny, if he wasn't such a shitty little
prick.
Prof Weird
>
> > In a different thread, I showed weirdo
> > this nested hierarchy.
>
> > --------1,1
> > |
> > |
> > -----------1
> > | |
> > | |
> > | --------1,0
> > |
> > -------------0
> > |
> > | ----0,1,1
> > | |
> > | |
> > |-----------0,1
> > |
> > |----0,1,0
>
> > After Jabbering about the issue bush, he is
> > trying to come up with every excuse why it
> > isn't.
>
> You see his explanations as random because you cannot allow yourself
> to understand them.
That would mean accepting that he was wrong about something.
> > So lets do a test.
>
> > Lets replace the 1's & 0's for letters.
>
> > We will choose the letters A,G,T & C.& redraw. With the simple rule
> > the letters follow the above ordering (Left To Right)
>
> > --------A,A
> > |
> > |
> > -----------A
> > | | ----A,G,A
> > | | |
> > | --------A,G
> > | |
> > | ----A,G,G
> > |
> > -------------G
> > |
> > | ----T,A,A
> > | |
> > | |
> > |-----------T
> > | |
> > | |----T,G,A
> > |
> > |-----------C
>
> > Etc etc.
>
> > What the Retarded *BOOB* doesn't realise
> > is that *EVERY* possible gene sequence is
> > contained here, & as is every
> > *nested hierarchy* he spouts out of his big
> > fat ass.
> And yet, genomes do not show random distribution of the nucleotides.
> Millions of base pairs, with the vast majority of randomly possible
> combinations non-existent, sequenced genomes can only be related in
> one way (with a few of questionable linkages in minor ways).
His 'argument' makes as much sense as claiming "since all human beings
are human, it is IMPOSSIBLE to tell if your brother is more closely
related to you than any other randomly selected person."
> If you had organisms with the genomes:
> -A,A
> -A,G
> -A,G,G
> -T,A,A
> -T,G,A
>
> ...how many ways could they relate?
>
> And we have over 200,000,000 pairs IIRC.
You're expecting him to KNOW something ? And ANSWER ?! Such optimism
is rare nowadays.
>
> > Ergo, Any objection he brings to mine, he destroys his own.
>
> I am embarrassed by our kinship :(
> > Boy what a *TARD* he is.
>
> Why do you give him so much power over you?
>
> Not only are you confused in your thinking, and wrong in your
> assertions, and criminal in your posting, but you have surrendered
> your attention and emotional needs to a projection you cast upon an
> internet posting name. Tsk
>
> Bad logic, bad science, bad manners, and bad juju.
Two thumbs up !
> Kermit- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
J.J. O'Shea
(in article
<6a244120-9ce6-49ac...@f33g2000vbm.googlegroups.com>):
> Translation : spintwitty was shown to be wrong, and is now in
> psychotic damage control mode - figures if he screams loudly enough,
> obnoxiously enough, reality will bend to his will.
This is not new. He's done it time and time again before, and he will
continue to do it for a long time to come. He is, after all, a creationist
cretin and a particularly dim example of the breed.
--
email to oshea dot j dot j at gmail dot com.
J.J. O'Shea
(in article
<b1d6e09f-9e6b-4249...@e21g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>):
[idiocy, snipped]
Still posting from Holland, I see, spinny. Things too warm for you at
blueyonder and the St Helens council?
Erwin Moller
> On Mon, 29 Jun 2009 11:07:33 -0400, spintronic wrote
> (in article
> <b1d6e09f-9e6b-4249...@e21g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>):
>
> [idiocy, snipped]
>
> Still posting from Holland, I see, spinny. Things too warm for you at
> blueyonder and the St Helens council?
>
I surely don't hope he is giving my country a bad name with his
delusions, lies, and emailforging.
Regards,
Erwin Moller
--
"There are two ways of constructing a software design: One way is to
make it so simple that there are obviously no deficiencies, and the
other way is to make it so complicated that there are no obvious
deficiencies. The first method is far more difficult."
-- C.A.R. Hoare
[M]adman
Well in YOO's case you would need about 7 life times to do everything he
claims to have done.
Taking up for him speaks volumes about you
spintronic
> Translation :
Weirdo knows squat, about what he is on about.
> A nested hierarchy is a diagram of relationships (who is most similar
> to whom); your 'tree' is not a nested hierarchy (no matter how much
> you sneer, stomp your foot, shake your fist and wet yourself with
> impotent rage).
You are stupid and you don't even know why.
In the second tree above. (A,G,T,C) every gene that you could ever
possibly list is contained within one of the infinite branches within
the infinite tree.
Every nested hierarchy that you offer up, is also contained in the
above infinite tree of (A,G,T,C).
And as for you'r incorrect *assumption* that I am saying "there are no
valid hierarchies", it is like I say, an "incorrect *assumption" on
your part.
Now *IF* you can have a nested hierarchy, of 4 letters. Like the one I
have discribed above, then you can also have a nested hierarchy of 1's
& 0's.
As for your *RIDICULOUS* claim that a '1' in place '2' on one branch
cannot be repeated on another branch.
Then by extension of your *RIDICULOUS* logic, you are saying that a
letter 'T' in on position '2' on one branch, *CANNOT* be repeated on
another branch. And you again *INVALIDATE* your own tree.
> Human gene sequences are FAR more similar to chimp gene sequences
Yes, so what?
spintronic
> On Mon, 29 Jun 2009 11:07:33 -0400, spintronic wrote
> (in article
>
> [idiocy, snipped]
>
> Still posting from Holland,
No, still in the goverment offices.
> I see, spinny. Things too warm for you at
> blueyonder and the St Helens council?
Nice here in kendal.
Prof Weird
Standard spintwittian delusion : snip things that explain WHY he is
wrong, then bellow that he be right.
> > A nested hierarchy is a diagram of relationships (who is most similar
> > to whom); your 'tree' is not a nested hierarchy (no matter how much
> > you sneer, stomp your foot, shake your fist and wet yourself with
> > impotent rage).
>
> You are stupid and you don't even know why.
Screamed spintwitty at the face in the mirror (who only nodded in
agreement).
> In the second tree above. (A,G,T,C) every gene that you could ever
> possibly list is contained within one of the infinite branches within
> the infinite tree.
Too bad that tree is USELESS for showing relationships between
organisms - which is what a phylogeny is SUPPOSED TO DO.
You've just posted a Pitman pitfall - your 'tree' is every CONCEIVABLE
sequence, but phylogenetic trees are generated from sequences that
exist in actual organisms that shows relationships between the
sequences (trees are done by comparing ONE gene with the same gene in
different critters - like cytochrome c. This generates the tree; by
your 'tree', every sequence is seperate and unrelated to all others.)
By your 'logic', the fact that all humans are human beings means you
can't tell if your brother is more closely related to you than any
other randomly selected person on the planet.
And, no matter how hard you flatulate, howl, scream, whine, or wet
yourself with rage, human gene sequences are far more similar to chimp
sequences than to anything else; thus, sane and rational people deduce
that humans and chimps are more closely related to each other than
anything else.
You, of course, scribble silly trees then expect everyone to believe
your gibberings are valid.
> Every nested hierarchy that you offer up, is also contained in the
> above infinite tree of (A,G,T,C).
Nope - your 'tree' is just a compilation of every conceivable sequence
- it does NOT show relationships between any gene sequences (every
sequence is a seperate twig on seperate branches, with no indication
of what is more closely related to what other sequences).
Your tree is not infinite, simpleton : there are 4^N terminal
branches. So, for a gene of 1000 bases, there are 4^1000 (or 10^602)
seperate twigs.
And it does NOT generate every possible nested hierarchy; it does not
even generate a nested hierarchy using genes from different organisms
(like a REAL NESTED HIERARCHY and phylogeny are SUPPOSED to do).
> And as for you'r incorrect *assumption* that I am saying "there are no
> valid hierarchies", it is like I say, an "incorrect *assumption" on
> your part.
>
> Now *IF* you can have a nested hierarchy, of 4 letters. Like the one I
> have discribed above, then you can also have a nested hierarchy of 1's
> & 0's.
Too bad you don't have a nested hierarchy in either case; you have
trees.
> As for your *RIDICULOUS* claim that a '1' in place '2' on one branch
> cannot be repeated on another branch.
>
> Then by extension of your *RIDICULOUS* logic, you are saying that a
> letter 'T' in on position '2' on one branch, *CANNOT* be repeated on
> another branch. And you again *INVALIDATE* your own tree.
Nope - just demonstrates that what your vomited up WASN'T a nested
hierarchy (no matter how pathologically scream that it is). Your
'tree' is (much like you) irrelevant and useless.
> > Human gene sequences are FAR more similar to chimp gene sequences
>
> Yes, so what?
It demonstrates that humans are more closely related to chimps than to
anything else.
In other words, it DEMONSTRATES THAT SPINTWITTY IS WRONG ONCE MORE.
Rich Mathers
Yes I hear the Kendal House of Corrections is a safe place.
J.J. O'Shea
(in article
<4a1f8cbf-c8d6-48ab...@g1g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>):
> On Jun 29, 9:42 pm, "J.J. O'Shea" <try.not...@but.see.sig> wrote:
>> On Mon, 29 Jun 2009 11:07:33 -0400, spintronic wrote
>> (in article
>> <b1d6e09f-9e6b-4249-ba74-4d6cd53c4...@e21g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>):
>>
>> [idiocy, snipped]
>>
>> Still posting from Holland,
>
> No, still in the goverment offices.
I see that _this_ post is coming from 212.219.207.40, which is assigned to
Lancaster University's Computing Centre.
IP Information - 212.219.207.40
Host name
wwwcache0.cumbria.cleo.net.uk
Country
United Kingdom
Country Code
GB
Region
Cumbria
City
Whitehaven
Latitude
54.55
Longitude
-3.6
Whois Information
[Querying whois.ripe.net]
[whois.ripe.net]
% This is the RIPE Database query service.
% The objects are in RPSL format.
%
% The RIPE Database is subject to Terms and Conditions.
% See http://www.ripe.net/db/support/db-terms-conditions.pdf
% Note: This output has been filtered.
% To receive output for a database update, use the "-B" flag.
% Information related to '212.219.204.0 - 212.219.207.255'
inetnum: 212.219.204.0 - 212.219.207.255
netname: CLEO
descr: Cumbria and Lancashire Education Online
country: GB
admin-c: DM3307-RIPE
tech-c: RK3197-RIPE
tech-c: CM455-RIPE
status: ASSIGNED PA
mnt-by: JANET-HOSTMASTER
source: RIPE # Filtered
irt: IRT-JANET_CSIRT
address: Lumen House
address: Library Avenue
address: Harwell Science and Innovation Campus
address: DIDCOT, Oxon
address: OX11 0SG UK
phone: +44 1235 822 340
fax-no: +44 1235 822 398
abuse-mailbox: i...@csirt.ja.net
signature: PGPKEY-4EC70D66
encryption: PGPKEY-4EC70D66
admin-c: JCA95-RIPE
tech-c: JCA95-RIPE
auth: PGPKEY-3EA2BD2B
remarks: JANET CSIRT coordinates security in JANET.
remarks: http://www.ja.net/csirt/
remarks: JANET is the UK education and research network.
irt-nfy: ripe-...@csirt.ja.net
mnt-by: JANET_CSIRT
source: RIPE # Filtered
person: Deborah Murrell
address: The CLEO Project Office
address: Bailrigg House
address: Lancaster University Campus
address: Lancaster
address: LA1 4YE
phone: +44 1524 592800
nic-hdl: DM3307-RIPE
mnt-by: LU-MNT
source: RIPE # Filtered
person: Craig MacDonald
address: ISS
address: Computer Centre
address: Lancaster University
address: Bailrigg
address: Lancaster
address: LA1 4YW
address: UK
phone: +44 1524 510112
fax-no: +44 1524 844011
nic-hdl: CM455-RIPE
mnt-by: LU-MNT
source: RIPE # Filtered
person: Richard Kirk
address: Lancaster University Network Services
address: Computer Centre
address: Lancaster University
address: Bailrigg
address: Lancaster
address: LA1 4YW
address: UK
phone: +44 1524 510105
fax-no: +44 1524 844011
nic-hdl: RK3197-RIPE
mnt-by: LU-MNT
source: RIPE # Filtered
% Information related to '212.219.0.0/16AS786'
route: 212.219.0.0/16
descr: JANET
descr: JANET(UK) Network Operations Centre
descr: 100 Gray's Inn Road
descr: London WC1X 8AL
descr: United Kingdom
origin: AS786
mnt-by: JIPS-NOSC
source: RIPE # Filtered
>
>> I see, spinny. Things too warm for you at
>> blueyonder and the St Helens council?
>
> Nice here in kendal.
>
And you're _still_ not posting from either blueyonder or the local council.
J.J. O'Shea
(in article
<498f96c0-bf87-48da...@33g2000vbe.googlegroups.com>):
>
> In other words, it DEMONSTRATES THAT SPINTWITTY IS WRONG ONCE MORE.
That's normal. He always is.
And this time he's using a new proxy to post as he tries desperately to dodge
responsibility for his crimes.
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank
Ignoring the trolling attention-whore, and recommending everyone else
do the same.
Ye Old One
<spint...@hotmail.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>In a different thread, I showed weirdo
>this nested hierarchy.
** SHUNNED for forging, stupidity and trolling. **
--
Bob.
Ye Old One
<spint...@hotmail.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
** SHUNNED for forging, abject stupidity and trolling. **
--
Bob.
Ye Old One
enriched this group when s/he wrote:
Rubbish.
>
>Taking up for him speaks volumes about you
--
Bob.
Prof Weird
to have trouble recognizing one ) :
Rules :
A '0' means 'critter does not have diagnostic trait', a '1' means
'critter does have trait'.
Out : 0,0,0,0,0,0
Shk : 1,0,0,0,0,0
Fsh : 1,1,0,0,0,0
Amp : 1,1,1,0,0,0
Pri : 1,1,1,1,1,0
RnR : 1,1,1,1,1,0
CnR : 1,1,1,1,0,1
BnD : 1,1,1,1,0,1
Traits are : 'vertebrae', 'bony skeleton', 'four limbs', 'amniotic
egg', 'hair', and '2 post-orbital fenestrae'
Please find an example of a creature that does not have an amniotic
egg AND has hair.
Or a creature with 2 post-orbital fenestrae that is not also a
tetrapod.
Which would be REQUIRED for your silly-arsed 'morphological traits are
subjective' blitherings to be valid.
How many trees can be built with this data - the correct answer is :
1.
Data from here :
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/phylogenetics_01
Ye Old One
** SHUNNED for forging, stupidity and trolling. **
--
Bob.
Ye Old One
<spint...@hotmail.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>On Jun 29, 5:07 pm, Prof Weird <pol...@msx.dept-med.pitt.edu> wrote:
>> On Jun 29, 11:07 am, spintronic <spintro...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
[snip his usual brand of stupidity.]
spintronic
> On Jun 30, 9:56 am, spintronic <spintro...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > > --------A,A
> > > > |
> > > > |
> > > > -----------A
> > > > | | ----A,G,A
> > > > | | |
> > > > | --------A,G
> > > > | |
> > > > | ----A,G,G
> > > > |
> > > > -------------G
> > > > |
> > > > | ----T,A,A
> > > > | |
> > > > | |
> > > > |-----------T
> > > > | |
> > > > | |----T,G,A
> > > > |
> > > > |-----------C
>
> > > > Etc etc.
> > In the second tree above. (A,G,T,C) every gene that you could ever
> > possibly list is contained within one of the infinite branches within
> > the infinite tree.
>
> Too bad that tree is USELESS for showing relationships between
> organisms - which is what a phylogeny is SUPPOSED TO DO.
That *DOESN'T* matter. The hierarchy Above is *NESTED*.
> your 'tree' is every CONCEIVABLE sequence, but phylogenetic
> trees are generated from sequences that
> exist in actual organisms that shows relationships between the
> sequences
I never said it was a phylogenetic tree'.
I said your 'nested hierarchies' are contained within mine.
> > Every nested hierarchy that you offer up, is also contained in the
> > above infinite tree of (A,G,T,C).
>
> Nope
Nope? Are you stupid? How many examples & sequences do you want
me to ram down your throat before the penny drops in your tiny brain?
You know as well as I do that any set of sequences you offer up, *IS*
contained within the above tree.
> - your 'tree' is just a compilation of every conceivable sequence
Wow, that was a quick change of mind.
> - it does NOT show relationships between any gene sequences
Of course it does you *MORON*.
A,T,C,C is more closely related to A,T,C,G than T,T,T,T.
> (every sequence is a seperate twig on seperate branches, with no indication
> of what is more closely related to what other sequences).
Are you stupid? (Don't answer. I already know that one).
Since any phylogenetic hierarchy that you offer up is contained in
mine.
And is *IDENTICAL* in sequence form & structure, only a *MORON*
would say what you just said. (Oh that's right, you are a *MORON*)
spintronic
> On Jun 30, 9:56 am, spintronic <spintro...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Oh Dear.
Another lesson in weirdo contradictions 101.
> your 'tree' is every CONCEIVABLE sequence,
> Nope - your 'tree' is just a compilation of every conceivable sequence
> Your tree is not infinite, simpleton : there are 4^N terminal
> branches. So, for a gene of 1000 bases, there are 4^1000 (or 10^602)
> seperate twigs.
> And it does NOT generate every possible nested hierarchy;
You *MORON* of course it does.
> it does not even generate a nested hierarchy using genes from different organisms
> (like a REAL NESTED HIERARCHY and phylogeny are SUPPOSED to do).
It is the *ONLY* true nested hierarchy, there is *NO* subjectiveness,
*NO* HGT, *NO* Jumping chromosomes.
& Your Hierarchy *IS* contained within it.
> > And as for you'r incorrect *assumption* that I am saying "there are no
> > valid hierarchies", it is like I say, an "incorrect *assumption" on
> > your part.
>
> > Now *IF* you can have a nested hierarchy, of 4 letters. Like the one I
> > have discribed above, then you can also have a nested hierarchy of 1's
> > & 0's.
>
> Too bad you don't have a nested hierarchy in either case; you have
> trees.
It is *nested* you retarded *MORON*.
A,C,C,T has only 1 possible position. It is *NESTED* in the branch
A,C,C.
YOU UTTER UTTER UTTER UTTER ******MORON******
> > As for your *RIDICULOUS* claim that a '1' in place '2' on one branch
> > cannot be repeated on another branch.
>
> > Then by extension of your *RIDICULOUS* logic, you are saying that a
> > letter 'T' in on position '2' on one branch, *CANNOT* be repeated on
> > another branch. And you again *INVALIDATE* your own tree.
>
> Nope
YUP.
> just demonstrates that what your vomited up WASN'T a nested
> hierarchy
IDIOT. MORON. RETARD.
> (no matter how pathologically scream that it is).
Ya that made sence.
> Your 'tree' is (much like you) irrelevant and useless.
Non-argument noted BTW.
> > > Human gene sequences are FAR more similar to chimp gene sequences
>
> > Yes, so what?
>
> It demonstrates that humans are more closely related to chimps than to
> anything else.
So?
> In other words, it DEMONSTRATES THAT SPINTWITTY IS WRONG ONCE MORE.
You demonstrate,
1) You are not on topic.
2) You have 0 idea what you are talking about.
3) You have no idea I have never disagreed
4) You have never heard of the "spinthropic principle".
5) You are a UTTER *********MORON**********
J.J. O'Shea
(in article
<bb8b4866-2f89-426c...@i6g2000yqj.googlegroups.com>):
[snipity]
back at the council offices, I see, spinny.
spintronic
> On Wed, 1 Jul 2009 06:24:31 -0400, spintronic wrote
> (in article
>
> [snipity]
>
> back at the council offices, I see, spinny.
>
> --
> email to oshea dot j dot j at gmail dot com.
Your stalking is beginning to rival Y.O.O's stupidity.
spintronic
> On Wed, 1 Jul 2009 06:24:31 -0400, spintronic wrote
> (in article
> <bb8b4866-2f89-426c...@i6g2000yqj.googlegroups.com>):
>
> [snipity]
>
> back at the council offices, I see, spinny.
I'm a busy man.
But according to your little rant earlier, it should be impossible for
me to "cross the pond" and post from holland.
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank
spintronic
Oh look! The 3rd amigo.
And now 3 Loons turn up to stalk me in 1 thread.
Shame none of them comprehend the subject matter.
Oh my, I am popular today.
Prof Weird
> On 30 June, 15:24, Prof Weird <pol...@msx.dept-med.pitt.edu> wrote:
>
> > On Jun 30, 9:56 am, spintronic <spintro...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > --------A,A
> > > > > |
> > > > > |
> > > > > -----------A
> > > > > | | ----A,G,A
> > > > > | | |
> > > > > | --------A,G
> > > > > | |
> > > > > | ----A,G,G
> > > > > |
> > > > > -------------G
> > > > > |
> > > > > | ----T,A,A
> > > > > | |
> > > > > | |
> > > > > |-----------T
> > > > > | |
> > > > > | |----T,G,A
> > > > > |
> > > > > |-----------C
>
> > > > > Etc etc.
> > > In the second tree above. (A,G,T,C) every gene that you could ever
> > > possibly list is contained within one of the infinite branches within
> > > the infinite tree.
>
> > Too bad that tree is USELESS for showing relationships between
> > organisms - which is what a phylogeny is SUPPOSED TO DO.
>
> That *DOESN'T* matter. The hierarchy Above is *NESTED*.
Not really - there are different numbers of traits along the branches
- some have just 1 base, some have three.
> > your 'tree' is every CONCEIVABLE sequence, but phylogenetic
> > trees are generated from sequences that
> > exist in actual organisms that shows relationships between the
> > sequences
>
> I never said it was a phylogenetic tree'.
Then why did you bring it up (other than your pathological need to
look arrogant and stupid) ?
> I said your 'nested hierarchies' are contained within mine.
Not really, given it would be near impossible to sort out the actual
sequences from your infinite mess.
>
> > > Every nested hierarchy that you offer up, is also contained in the
> > > above infinite tree of (A,G,T,C).
>
> > Nope
>
> Nope? Are you stupid? How many examples & sequences do you want
> me to ram down your throat before the penny drops in your tiny brain?
There is NO WAY humans would sort closer to fish or mice than chimps
GIVEN THE ACTUAL SEQUENCES PRESENT IN THOSE ORGANISMS.
Once again simpleton : a nested hierarchy shows RELATIONSHIPS between
ACTUALLY EXISTING CRITTERS; your 'tree' is a hallucination which
fixates on every conceivable sequence while ignoring actual sequence
relationships.
Examination of REALITY shows there is one solidly supported nested
hierarchy for living things - get over yourself.
What is your 'point', simpleton - do you 'think' that if a blithering
simpleton like you can draw a tree, that somehow invalidates the
observed nested hierarchy in nature (and somehow supporting your
delusion that chromosomes teleport about metazoan genomes willy-
nilly) ?
> You know as well as I do that any set of sequences you offer up, *IS*
> contained within the above tree.
And your 'tree' is useless because over
99.999999999999999999999999999999999999999999% of it is hypothetical.
> > - your 'tree' is just a compilation of every conceivable sequence
>
> Wow, that was a quick change of mind.
Hallucinating again spintwitty ? When did I CLAIM your tree was NOT a
compilation of every conceivable sequence ?
> > - it does NOT show relationships between any gene sequences
>
> Of course it does you *MORON*.
>
> A,T,C,C is more closely related to A,T,C,G than T,T,T,T.
Now do that for ACTUAL sequences in ACTUAL organisms you get an ACTUAL
nested hierarchy.
> > (every sequence is a seperate twig on seperate branches, with no indication
> > of what is more closely related to what other sequences).
>
> Are you stupid? (Don't answer. I already know that one).
Sneered spintwitty at the face in the mirror.
> Since any phylogenetic hierarchy that you offer up is contained in
> mine.
Too bad REALITY is concerned with the ACTUAL phylogenetic hierarchy
seen in ACTUAL organisms and not your festering hallucinations.
Once again, buffoon : there is no way ACTUAL human sequences would be
closer to fish or cicada or slime mold sequences than to chimp
sequences.
Over
99.9999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999%
of the hierarchies found in your 'tree' exist only in your
imagination.
> And is *IDENTICAL* in sequence form & structure, only a *MORON*
> would say what you just said. (Oh that's right, you are a *MORON*)- Hide quoted text -
Q : How does one know when spintwitty is losing an argument ?
A : He splits up his responses up into several posts, and starts
acting more obnoxious and arrogant than usual.
Prof Weird
> On 30 June, 15:24, Prof Weird <pol...@msx.dept-med.pitt.edu> wrote:
>
> > On Jun 30, 9:56 am, spintronic <spintro...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> Oh Dear.
>
> Another lesson in weirdo contradictions 101.
Translation : spintwitty will now try to make reality conform to his
delusions by screaming at it.
>
> > your 'tree' is every CONCEIVABLE sequence,
> > Nope - your 'tree' is just a compilation of every conceivable sequence
> > Your tree is not infinite, simpleton : there are 4^N terminal
> > branches. So, for a gene of 1000 bases, there are 4^1000 (or 10^602)
> > seperate twigs.
> > And it does NOT generate every possible nested hierarchy;
>
> You *MORON* of course it does.
Care to prove that ? Show WHERE a human sequence in your tree sorts
closer to fish sequences than to chimp sequences.
Oh, right - YOU CAN'T DO THAT because
99.999999999999999999999999999999999% of your 'tree' is hypothetical.
> > it does not even generate a nested hierarchy using genes from different organisms
> > (like a REAL NESTED HIERARCHY and phylogeny are SUPPOSED to do).
>
> It is the *ONLY* true nested hierarchy, there is *NO* subjectiveness,
> *NO* HGT, *NO* Jumping chromosomes.
So you just disproved what you've been screaming about the last few
months ?
Your 'tree' is over
99.9999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999% irrelevant,
given the FACT that phylogenies are generated from ACTUAL sequences
that ACTUALLY exist in actual critters.
> & Your Hierarchy *IS* contained within it.
Good luck finding it in the
99.9999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999%
irrelevant sequences.
> > > And as for you'r incorrect *assumption* that I am saying "there are no
> > > valid hierarchies", it is like I say, an "incorrect *assumption" on
> > > your part.
>
> > > Now *IF* you can have a nested hierarchy, of 4 letters. Like the one I
> > > have discribed above, then you can also have a nested hierarchy of 1's
> > > & 0's.
>
> > Too bad you don't have a nested hierarchy in either case; you have
> > trees.
>
> It is *nested* you retarded *MORON*.
>
> A,C,C,T has only 1 possible position. It is *NESTED* in the branch
> A,C,C.
>
> YOU UTTER UTTER UTTER UTTER ******MORON******
Screamed spintwitty at the face in the mirror (who could only nod in
agreement).
And your simpering 'tree of every conceivable sequences' is supposed
to prove what ? That even a blithering idiot like yourself can draw
trees ? That if even a blithering idiot like you can draw trees, the
nested hierarchy of life is questionable ?
> > > As for your *RIDICULOUS* claim that a '1' in place '2' on one branch
> > > cannot be repeated on another branch.
>
> > > Then by extension of your *RIDICULOUS* logic, you are saying that a
> > > letter 'T' in on position '2' on one branch, *CANNOT* be repeated on
> > > another branch. And you again *INVALIDATE* your own tree.
>
> > Nope
>
> YUP.
For an ACTUAL nested hierarchy, it should not be necessary to break up
a group.
For example, all creatures with hair have amniotic eggs - now, if FISH
(which don't have amniotic eggs) had hair, that would break the group
up, and show there is something funny going on (either that presence
of hair is not a diagnostic trait, there has been a horizontal
transfer, one deep lineage lost it while another kept it, etc).
> > just demonstrates that what your vomited up WASN'T a nested
> > hierarchy
>
> IDIOT. MORON. RETARD.
Screamed spintwitty at the face in the mirror (who could only nod in
agreement).
> > Your 'tree' is (much like you) irrelevant and useless.
>
> Non-argument noted BTW.
Been looking at your own posts ?
> > > > Human gene sequences are FAR more similar to chimp gene sequences
>
> > > Yes, so what?
>
> > It demonstrates that humans are more closely related to chimps than to
> > anything else.
>
> So?
In other words : EVIDENCE and REALITY mean NOTHING to the all-knowing
and arrogant spintwitty !
For WHO could possibly know more about phylogenies : thousands of
systematists who spent decades defining the field and what does and
does not work ?
Or the bellicose spintwitty ?
> > In other words, it DEMONSTRATES THAT SPINTWITTY IS WRONG ONCE MORE.
>
> You demonstrate,
>
> 1) You are not on topic.
False - you b*tch, bellow and moan that EVERYTHING can be made into a
nested hierarchy, then throw a fit when shown to be wrong.
> 2) You have 0 idea what you are talking about.
More applicable to you than me (ie, standard spintwittian projection).
> 3) You have no idea I have never disagreed
Never disagreed with what ? That you're a posturing buffoon ? A
bellicose idiot ? That your 'trees' are irrelevant ?
> 4) You have never heard of the "spinthropic principle".
What would that be : spintwitty 'knows' more about everything than
anybody, so evidence, logic, reason and reality are irrelevant before
the fetid words of spintwitty ?
> 5) You are a UTTER *********MORON**********
Screamed spintwitty at the face in the mirror.
J.J. O'Shea
(in article
<d9905728-37cd-4a22...@33g2000vbe.googlegroups.com>):
> Q : How does one know when spintwitty is losing an argument ?
> A : He splits up his responses up into several posts, and starts
> acting more obnoxious and arrogant than usual.
Oh, yeah. And it's so much fun to see.
J.J. O'Shea
(in article
<2e7183b6-7b48-4f0a...@18g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>):
> J.J. O'Shea wrote:
>> On Wed, 1 Jul 2009 06:24:31 -0400, spintronic wrote
>> (in article
>> <bb8b4866-2f89-426c...@i6g2000yqj.googlegroups.com>):
>>
>> [snipity]
>>
>> back at the council offices, I see, spinny.
>
> I'm a busy man.
>
I doubt that.
> But according to your little rant earlier, it should be impossible for
> me to "cross the pond" and post from holland.
>
Incorrect. You used a proxy. Anyone can use a proxy... if they have the
proper connection. What's impossible is to use a proxy without either having
permission or illegally hacking in. I could, for example, post via one of the
free newsfeeds such as aioe, and I'd have a NNTP Posting Host IP showing an
IP from their range. If you look at the headers in my posts, you'll see that
my NNTP Posting Host id is set by Newsguy so that it does _not_ report an IP.
I don't know why they do that, but they've done it for years. If you'd used
Newsguy, no-one would have known what your blueyonder (or, for that matter,
you council office) IP was. But everyone could have seen that the posts were
coming from Newsguy. And everyone could see that the _real_ YOO doesn't use
Newsguy. You'd have been exposed anyway...
And one more thing... everyone who posts to t.o posts by way of Darwin, which
runs at the University of Toronto. That's what the X-trace: header shows. The
128.100.83.246 is the IP address of the machine upon which Darwin runs.
J.J. O'Shea
(in article
<ec5f60d3-4099-4d50...@b14g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>):
[snipity]
>
And you're still busy dodging, thou felon.
J.J. O'Shea
(in article
<5f50160e-cc33-47c4...@h8g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>):
Do something about it, laddie. Sue me.
Oh. Yes. To do that, you'd have to actually reveal your real name and
address... so I could sue you. Let's rock.
J.J. O'Shea
(in article
<d683ca81-3ecc-4399...@k20g2000vbp.googlegroups.com>):
>> 5) You are a UTTER *********MORON**********
>
> Screamed spintwitty at the face in the mirror.
He's losing it. And it's sure 'nuff fun watching him crack up.
Ye Old One
<spint...@hotmail.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
Ye Old One
<spint...@hotmail.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>Are you stupid?
** SHUNNED for forging, abject stupidity and trolling. **
--
Bob.
Ye Old One
<spint...@hotmail.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
** SHUNNED for forging, unbridled stupidity and trolling. **
--
Bob.
Ye Old One
<spint...@hotmail.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>I demonstrate,
>
>1) I'm not sure what the topic is.
>2) I have 0 idea what I'm talking about.
>3) I have no idea I have never disagreed
>4) I have never heard of the "spinthropic principle".
>5) I'm an UTTER *********MORON**********
>6) I'm totally illiterate.
** SHUNNED for forging, stupidity and trolling. **
--
Bob.
Ye Old One
<spint...@hotmail.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
** SHUNNED for forging, unmatched stupidity and trolling. **
--
Bob.
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank
Whatever. (yawn)
Forged any more emails lately?
spintronic
> On Jul 1, 6:24 am, spintronic <spintro...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 30 June, 15:24, Prof Weird <pol...@msx.dept-med.pitt.edu> wrote:
>
> > > On Jun 30, 9:56 am, spintronic <spintro...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > --------A,A
> > > > > > |
> > > > > > |
> > > > > > -----------A
> > > > > > | | ----A,G,A
> > > > > > | | |
> > > > > > | --------A,G
> > > > > > | |
> > > > > > | ----A,G,G
> > > > > > |
> > > > > > -------------G
> > > > > > |
> > > > > > | ----T,A,A
> > > > > > | |
> > > > > > | |
> > > > > > |-----------T
> > > > > > | |
> > > > > > | |----T,G,A
> > > > > > |
> > > > > > |-----------C
>
> > > > > > Etc etc.
> > > > In the second tree above. (A,G,T,C) every gene that you could ever
> > > > possibly list is contained within one of the infinite branches within
> > > > the infinite tree.
>
> > > Too bad that tree is USELESS for showing relationships between
> > > organisms - which is what a phylogeny is SUPPOSED TO DO.
>
> > That *DOESN'T* matter. The hierarchy Above is *NESTED*.
>
> Not really -
Yes Really.
> there are different numbers of traits along the branches
> - some have just 1 base, some have three.
So what.
There are millions of nucleotide hierarchies having differing base
numbers.
Your arguments are garbage & non-existent....
> > > your 'tree' is every CONCEIVABLE sequence, but phylogenetic
> > > trees are generated from sequences that
> > > exist in actual organisms that shows relationships between the
> > > sequences
>
> > I never said it was a phylogenetic tree'.
>
> Then why did you bring it up
It's a perfect infinite nested hierarchy, & as such is no different
than the binary nested hierarchy you was shown before, and as such is
a nested hierarchy that has no relation to heredity, and as such
proves beyond doubt that there are such hierarchies. Your just too
retarded to realise.
> > I said your 'nested hierarchies' are contained within mine.
>
> Not really,
Yes really.
> given it would be near impossible to sort out the actual
> sequences from your infinite mess.
No, Not really.
But if that's your only objection, it wasn't a very good one.
> > > > Every nested hierarchy that you offer up, is also contained in the
> > > > above infinite tree of (A,G,T,C).
>
> > > Nope
>
> > Nope? Are you stupid? How many examples & sequences do you want
> > me to ram down your throat before the penny drops in your tiny brain?
>
> There is NO WAY humans would sort closer to fish or mice than chimps
> GIVEN THE ACTUAL SEQUENCES PRESENT IN THOSE ORGANISMS.
Uh? There you go again, completely off topic.
> Once again simpleton : a nested hierarchy shows RELATIONSHIPS between
> ACTUALLY EXISTING CRITTERS;
The letters A,C,G,T "ACTUALLY EXIST". Or didn't you realise.
As such I can make a tree out of them which happens to be a nested
hierarchy.
Your arguments are becoming more pathetic & less coherent.
> your 'tree' is a hallucination
No look it's actually real. Says so right here!
--------A,A
|
|
-----------A
| | ----A,G,A
| | |
| --------A,G
| |
| ----A,G,G
|
-------------G
|
| ----T,A,A
| |
| |
|-----------T
| |
| |----T,G,A
|
|-----------C
> which fixates on every conceivable sequence while ignoring actual sequence
> relationships.
It absolutely does not ignore sequence relations.
And it's not a fixation, you can't ignore the fact that this tree
encompasses every possible sequence.
As such, any tree you offer up is contained within it.
> Examination of REALITY shows there is one solidly supported nested
> hierarchy for living things - get over yourself.
I never said my tree was living. I said it was a nested hierarchy.
And upto now, you have yet to bring a valid argument against it.
> What is your 'point', simpleton - do you 'think' that if a blithering
> simpleton like you can draw a tree, that somehow invalidates the
> observed nested hierarchy in nature (and somehow supporting your
> delusion that chromosomes teleport about metazoan genomes willy-
> nilly) ?
"Do you think...."????
Do I think what?
You'r supposed to finish a question when you ask one.
And my 'point' in this thread is not to 'invalidate' your nested
hierarchy.
My point is to enlighten your small mind to the fact that there are
nested hierarchies non-relient on heredity.
> > You know as well as I do that any set of sequences you offer up, *IS*
> > contained within the above tree.
>
> And your 'tree' is useless because over
> 99.999999999999999999999999999999999999999999% of it is hypothetical.
I assure you it's real. And how did you arrive at that exacting
calculation BTW?
Or is it more "smoke & mirrors"?
> > > - your 'tree' is just a compilation of every conceivable sequence
>
> > Wow, that was a quick change of mind.
>
> Hallucinating again spintwitty ? When did I CLAIM your tree was NOT a
> compilation of every conceivable sequence ?
When you said it was not infinite.
You should try to concentrate.
> > > - it does NOT show relationships between any gene sequences
>
> > Of course it does you *MORON*.
>
> > A,T,C,C is more closely related to A,T,C,G than T,T,T,T.
>
> Now do that for ACTUAL sequences in ACTUAL organisms you get an ACTUAL
> nested hierarchy.
And?
The problems inherent in your tree are removed in mine.
I can confidently say, mine is the only true non-subjective nested
hierarchy of nucleotide letters.
> > > (every sequence is a seperate twig on seperate branches, with no indication
> > > of what is more closely related to what other sequences).
>
> > Are you stupid? (Don't answer. I already know that one).
>
> Sneered spintwitty at the face in the mirror.
If your face is crushed against a mirror, how am I supposed to know?
> > Since any phylogenetic hierarchy that you offer up is contained in
> > mine.
>
> Too bad REALITY is concerned with the ACTUAL phylogenetic hierarchy
> seen in ACTUAL organisms and not your festering hallucinations.
So. And?
Are these your only objections?
> Once again, buffoon : there is no way ACTUAL human sequences would be
> closer to fish or cicada or slime mold sequences than to chimp
> sequences.
Once again BOON, you are in the wrong thread.
Noone is making that argument in this thread.
> Over
> 99.9999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999%
> of the hierarchies found in your 'tree' exist only in your
> imagination.
1) I can assure you that the tree you are looking at on your screen is
not put there at the power of my imagination.
2) You admit there are hierarchies in my tree.
> > And is *IDENTICAL* in sequence form & structure, only a *MORON*
> > would say what you just said. (Oh that's right, you are a *MORON*)- Hide quoted text -
>
> Q : How does one know when spintwitty is losing an argument ?
A: Someone as yourself would bring a valid objection.
You don't seem to have any here.
spintronic
> On Jul 1, 6:34 am, spintronic <spintro...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > & Your Hierarchy *IS* contained within it.
>
> Good luck finding it in the
> 99.9999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999%
> irrelevant sequences.
Your a fool & an Idiot.
1) You need an infinite amount of "9's" to make the point you are so
desperately trying to make, (out of sheer frustration).
2) Your argument is like saying you can never find "Route 66" because
there are millions of other roads in the world.
spintronic
> On Jul 1, 6:34 am, spintronic <spintro...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On 30 June, 15:24, Prof Weird <pol...@msx.dept-med.pitt.edu> wrote:
>
> > > On Jun 30, 9:56 am, spintronic <spintro...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Oh Dear.
>
> > Another lesson in weirdo contradictions 101.
>
> Translation :
"Weirdo snipped the contradiction to cover his mistaken viewpoint".
> > > your 'tree' is every CONCEIVABLE sequence,
> > > Nope - your 'tree' is just a compilation of every conceivable sequence
> > > Your tree is not infinite, simpleton : there are 4^N terminal
> > > branches. So, for a gene of 1000 bases, there are 4^1000 (or 10^602)
> > > seperate twigs.
> > > And it does NOT generate every possible nested hierarchy;
>
> > You *MORON* of course it does.
>
> Care to prove that ? Show WHERE a human sequence in your tree sorts
> closer to fish sequences than to chimp sequences.
Whoever said a fish sequence on my tree is closer to a fish sequence?
> > It is the *ONLY* true nested hierarchy, there is *NO* subjectiveness,
> > *NO* HGT, *NO* Jumping chromosomes.
>
> So you just disproved what you've been screaming about the last few
> months ?
How do you draw that ridiculous conclusion?
You can't have HGT on my tree, it's static.
> Your 'tree' is over
> 99.9999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999% irrelevant,
Again, could you upload the equation you used to reach the above
number?
Or I suspect you are hitting "9's" in utter frustration, that you cant
bring a valid argument against my tree.
Prof Weird
> On 1 July, 16:57, Prof Weird <pol...@msx.dept-med.pitt.edu> wrote:
>
> > On Jul 1, 6:34 am, spintronic <spintro...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On 30 June, 15:24, Prof Weird <pol...@msx.dept-med.pitt.edu> wrote:
>
> > > > On Jun 30, 9:56 am, spintronic <spintro...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > Oh Dear.
>
> > > Another lesson in weirdo contradictions 101.
>
> > Translation :
>
> "Weirdo snipped the contradiction to cover his mistaken viewpoint".
There was no contradiction; the only mistaken viewpoint is yours
spintwitty.
By your 'tree of Every Conceivable Sequence', the order of branching
depends primarily on NUCLEOTIDE NUMBER - for a particular gene, if
human and chimp genes have a 'G' at base 12, while every other critter
has an 'A', then the tree drawn will have humans and chimps diverging
first.
For a different gene, amphibians may diverge first; for another gene,
birds may have the first divergent nucleotide.
You'll get a tree, but it won't be based on anything useful like
actual history or shared characteristics or relevant traits - it will
be sorted by nucleotide number.
So the earliest branch is based on the IRRELEVANT critieria of which
nucleotide number was changed first.
Nucleotide number is an irrelevant sorting criteria because IN
REALITY, the first nucleotide has the same probability of mutating as
the last. Meaning your tree is IRRELEVANT. A hallucination wrung
from the festering mind of a posturing idiot.
You get even stupider - for N critters in the tree, there are N-1
decision nodes (where groups split)
For 16 critters, 15 decisions need be made to split them up into 16
branches.
If a gene has 600 bases, and the 15 decisions are made by base 100,
THE OTHER 500 BASES ARE IRRELEVANT FOR SORTING BY YOUR TREE. They
could be identical or wildy divergent - but your 'tree' would maintain
the same branching pattern no matter what because you exhausted its
ONLY sorting criterion early.
> > > > your 'tree' is every CONCEIVABLE sequence,
> > > > Nope - your 'tree' is just a compilation of every conceivable sequence
> > > > Your tree is not infinite, simpleton : there are 4^N terminal
> > > > branches. So, for a gene of 1000 bases, there are 4^1000 (or 10^602)
> > > > seperate twigs.
> > > > And it does NOT generate every possible nested hierarchy;
>
> > > You *MORON* of course it does.
>
> > Care to prove that ? Show WHERE a human sequence in your tree sorts
> > closer to fish sequences than to chimp sequences.
>
> Whoever said a fish sequence on my tree is closer to a fish sequence?
In order for your 'tree' to have 'every POSSIBLE NESTED HIERARCHY',
then some of the trees MUST show human sequences being more closely
related to fish sequences than to anything else.
You CLAIM that your 'tree' has 'every possible nested hierarchy'
within it - care to back it up ? Or are you just going to wet
yourself with rage and DEMAND I believe you (like you always do) ?
You don't even understand your own model - now THAT'S some weapon's
grade 'tard !!
But, once again, your 'tree' would sort NOT by genetic history OR
actual similarity OR shared differences - it would sort first by
nucleotide number.
> > > It is the *ONLY* true nested hierarchy, there is *NO* subjectiveness,
> > > *NO* HGT, *NO* Jumping chromosomes.
>
> > So you just disproved what you've been screaming about the last few
> > months ?
>
> How do you draw that ridiculous conclusion?
You've been bellowing there is no true nested hierarchy because of the
rampant HGT and jumping chromosomes for months now - remember the AFGP
fiasco ?
Your rummaging through GenBank's EST database and finding sequence
similarities that you 'thought' proved your ideas ?
I really can't blame you for 'forgetting' about all that - your
gibbering idiocy was on display in its more pure form !
> You can't have HGT on my tree, it's static.
And utterly useless. And castrates your earlier arguments - since
HGTs HAVE been observed in living things and your 'tree' DOES NOT AND
CANNOT ACCOUNT FOR THEM, no sane or rational person would give your
flatulent whinings about it any credence.
> > Your 'tree' is over
> > 99.9999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999% irrelevant,
>
> Again, could you upload the equation you used to reach the above
> number?
>
> Or I suspect you are hitting "9's" in utter frustration, that you cant
> bring a valid argument against my tree.
Nope - I stated 'OVER 99.99999 ------- 9999% irrelevant'; given the
pure idiocy of your 'argument', and the fact that your 'tree' is
useless for demonstrating actual relationships between the sequences
from living organisms, there is no need for anyone to be too accurate.
How badly your tree performs depends on string length :
the actual formula would be something like P(spintwitty wrong) = 1 -
(4^-L), which approaches 100% as length of nucleotide string L gets
longer.
Once again, simpleton : your 'tree of Every Conceivable Sequence'
sorts only by nucleotide number - an IRRELEVANT criteria for building
a phylogeny (given the FACT that nucleotide #1 has just as much chance
of mutating as nucleotide #N).
It could give a different tree for different genes (since it depends
ONLY on which nucleotide # was changed first), and is useless once its
only sorting criteria is met (if the tree of N critters is sorted out
into N branches by the 200th nucleotide, and the gene was 1000
nucleotides long, the information from all those other bases cannot
change your 'tree').
spintronic
> On Jul 2, 9:54 am, spintronic <spintro...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > > Oh Dear.
>
> > > > Another lesson in weirdo contradictions 101.
>
> > > Translation :
>
> > "Weirdo snipped the contradiction to cover his mistaken viewpoint".
>
> There was no contradiction; the only mistaken viewpoint is yours
> spintwitty.
It's right here you retarded BOON-HEAD!
> your 'tree' is every CONCEIVABLE sequence,
> Your tree is not infinite,
spintronic
> On Jul 2, 9:54 am, spintronic <spintro...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> By your 'tree of Every Conceivable Sequence', the order of branching
> depends primarily on NUCLEOTIDE NUMBER - for a particular gene,
> if human and chimp genes have a 'G' at base 12, while every other critter
> has an 'A', then the tree drawn will have humans and chimps diverging
> first.
What are you gibbering about?
You have no Idea what you are talking about.
When will your TINY little putrid mind get around the fact that this
tree is NOT the phyleogenetic tree of life. I said your tree is found
in mine.
THERE IS A DIFFERENCE YOU STUPID TWIT!!!!!!!!&^$^"£"$¬!"%^!££$!"!!!%
$!"££$!"!"!!!
Put up a tree and lets test your gibbering gibberish.
> For a different gene, amphibians may diverge first; for another gene,
> birds may have the first divergent nucleotide.
It's a tree of Letter's. There are no birds. You twit.
I said your tree can be found in mine.
If you really have a valid point draw a tree with of 4 apes with 15
base sequence's and illustrate your "non-starter".
> You'll get a tree, but it won't be based on anything useful like
> actual history or shared characteristics or relevant traits - it will
> be sorted by nucleotide number.
So what! Who cares. It's still a "NESTED HIERARCHY".
> Nucleotide number is an irrelevant
So?
> Meaning your tree is IRRELEVANT.
It's usefulness is IRRELEVANT.
You find it useless I don't.
It's a NESTED HIERARCHY like it or not.
> For 16 critters, 15 decisions need be made to split them up into 16
> branches.
>
> If a gene has 600 bases, and the 15 decisions are made by base 100,
> THE OTHER 500 BASES ARE IRRELEVANT FOR SORTING BY YOUR TREE. They
> could be identical or wildy divergent - but your 'tree' would maintain
> the same branching pattern no matter what because you exhausted its
> ONLY sorting criterion early.
You STUPID TWIT.
Branches that exaust their *usefulness early *TERMINATE EARLY*!.
There are an plenty of other branches to move onto the next base.
&
Many to ignore inbetween the ones of *YOUR* interest.
> > Whoever said a human sequence on my tree is closer to a fish sequence?
>
> In order for your 'tree' to have 'every POSSIBLE NESTED HIERARCHY',
> then some of the trees MUST show human sequences being more closely
> related to fish sequences than to anything else.
Impossible you STUPID TWIT!
> You CLAIM that your 'tree' has 'every possible nested hierarchy'
> within it - care to back it up ?
Care to provide a simple example for me to BASH YOU AROUND THE HEAD
WITH?
> You don't even understand your own model - now THAT'S some weapon's
> grade 'tard !!
YOU are the RETARD who doesn't understand the model.
YOU COULDN'T EVEN UNDERSTAND THAT THE PRINTER HAD NO KEYCARD IN THE
OTHER THREAD.
NOW THAT'S SOME WEAPONS GRADE TARD.
If brains were made out of dynamite, you wouldn't have enough to light
a cigar.
Ye Old One
<spint...@hotmail.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
** SHUNNED for forging, stupidity and trolling. **
--
Bob.
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank
(yawn)
Forged any emails lately, Spinny . . . ?
gregwrld
Spinny squeals like a pig but doesn't
think half as well.
Keep pokin' him. folks.
gregwrld
J.J. O'Shea
(in article
<fbe50259-36f0-4025...@x5g2000yqk.googlegroups.com>):
When he replies two or three or more times to the same post you know that you
scored on him.
Ye Old One
enriched this group when s/he wrote:
He will squeal, duck, dive, shout, swear, twist and generally ignore
reality.
But you know when you REALLY hurt him (as I did when I embarrassed him
over his TABN debacle) when he starts forging posts. Sad little case
couldn't even do that well :)
--
Bob.
Prof Weird
>
> > On Jul 2, 9:54�am, spintronic <spintro...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > By your 'tree of Every Conceivable Sequence', the order of branching
> > depends primarily on NUCLEOTIDE NUMBER - for a particular gene,
> > if human and chimp genes have a 'G' at base 12, while every other critter
> > has an 'A', then the tree drawn will have humans and chimps diverging
> > first.
>
> What are you gibbering about?
The details of YOUR model, simpleton. Your 'tree of every conceivable
sequence' is supposedly every nucleotide sequence - so I gave you an
example of a nucleotide sequence, and explained why your 'tree' doth
suck : it generates phylogenetic trees based on irrelevant data.
> You have no Idea what you are talking about.
Whined spintwitty at the face in the mirror.
> When will your TINY little putrid mind get around the fact that this
> tree is NOT the phyleogenetic tree of life. I said your tree is found
> in mine.
Soooo - a PHYLOGENETIC TREE is found in something that is NOT a
phylogenetic tree ?!
Examination of REALITY would show that your tree could NOT find the
actual phylogenetic tree of life, since yours depends solely on which
nucleotide # was changed first. What 'tree' yours produces is based
SOLEY on which nucleotide numbers were changed first - can be
completely different for different genes. Or even different EXONS of
the SAME gene.
One problem with your 'tree' of every conceivable sequence is the
inability to determine WHICH of the many trees is the actual one - the
one displayed by actual sequences found in living things.
> THERE IS A DIFFERENCE YOU STUPID TWIT!!!!!!!!&^$^"�"$�!"%^!��$!"!!!%
> $!"��$!"!"!!!
Translation : 'sh*t ! Prof Weird isn't being fooled by my psychotic
bluster ! Must scream and whine and bluster more, and louder !!!'
> Put up a tree and lets test your gibbering gibberish.
You first - it IS your model, so it is up to YOU to demonstrate that
it actually does what you ASSERT it does.
Another fact : since you CLAIMED that 'every possible nested hierarchy
is contained in your tree', that means that there MUST be fish
sequences that are more similar to human sequences than anything else
(otherwise your CLAIM is wrong).
> > For a different gene, amphibians may diverge first; for another gene,
> > birds may have the first divergent nucleotide.
>
> It's a tree of Letter's. There are no birds. You twit.
Yes, you ARE a twit, given I was talking about NUCLEOTIDE SEQUENCES !
Focus, simpleton : I stated that 'for a different gene, amphibians may
diverge first, for another gene, birds may have THE FIRST DIVERGENT
NUCLEOTIDE'
> I said your tree can be found in mine.
As well as every conceivable WRONG phylogenetic tree.
And no way to tell which is which, given that your 'tree' sorts ONLY
by nucleotide number, the odds that the actual nested hierarchy
derived from hundreds of genes being found in your 'tree' is too low
to bother to calculate.
> If you really have a valid point draw a tree with of 4 apes with 15
> base sequence's and illustrate your "non-starter".
Screamed spintwitty at the face in the mirror - it is YOUR model,
simpleton; DEMONSTRATE that it actually does what you ASSERT it does,
or admit to being a festering idiot.
> > You'll get a tree, but it won't be based on anything useful like
> > actual history or shared characteristics or relevant traits - it will
> > be sorted by nucleotide number.
>
> So what! Who cares. It's still a "NESTED HIERARCHY".
And completely IRRELEVANT and USELESS, given that your 'tree'
generates every conceivable tree, with no way of determining which is
the correct one that exists in actual organisms.
> > Nucleotide number is an irrelevant
>
> So?
That is the SOLE SORTING CRITERION FOR YOUR TREE, SIMPLETON !
A tree generated by irrelevant criteria is irrelevant and useless.
> >�Meaning your tree is IRRELEVANT. �
>
> It's usefulness is IRRELEVANT.
Then WHY did you bother mentioning it ?
> You find it useless I don't.
Of what possible use could it be (other than to illustrate you are
posturing moron) ?
> It's a NESTED HIERARCHY like it or not.
So ? You seem to have this ridiculous idea that if a blubbering moron
like you can scribble a tree, then the actual nested hierarchy
OBSERVED in living things is somehow invalidated. That it was based
on criteria as useless as your opinions.
> > For 16 critters, 15 decisions need be made to split them up into 16
> > branches.
>
> > If a gene has 600 bases, and the 15 decisions are made by base 100,
> > THE OTHER 500 BASES ARE IRRELEVANT FOR SORTING BY YOUR TREE. �They
> > could be identical or wildy divergent - but your 'tree' would maintain
> > the same branching pattern no matter what because you exhausted its
> > ONLY sorting criterion early.
>
> You STUPID TWIT.
Screamed spintwitty at the face in the mirror.
> Branches that exaust their *usefulness early *TERMINATE EARLY*!.
Nope - an ACTUAL phylogeny has organisms at the tips of all branches -
its just that some branches can be longer than others. Your 'tree'
would peter out early, generating a mess of branching early on,
leading to hideously long branches (with hundreds - IF NOT THOUSANDS -
of bases of information which your model cannot use).
> There are an plenty of other branches to move onto the next base.
>
> &
>
> Many to ignore inbetween the ones of *YOUR* interest.
Wow - you don't even know how your OWN model works !
> > > Whoever said a human sequence on my tree is closer to a fish sequence?
>
> > In order for your 'tree' to have 'every POSSIBLE NESTED HIERARCHY',
> > then some of the trees MUST show human sequences being more closely
> > related to fish sequences than to anything else.
>
> Impossible you STUPID TWIT!
Fact : you CLAIMED that 'every possible nested hierarchy is contained
in your tree'.
Fact : in order for that claim TO BE TRUE, you must DEMONSTRATE that
(using YOUR tree), that there are some fish sequences closer to human
sequences than to anything else, because that is something from
another POSSIBLE nested hierarchy.
Fact : if it is IMPOSSIBLE for a fish sequence to be closer to a human
sequence than anything else, then YOUR claim that your tree contains
'every POSSIBLE NESTED HIERARCHY' must be false.
> > You CLAIM that your 'tree' has 'every possible nested hierarchy'
> > within it - care to back it up ?
>
> Care to provide a simple example for me to BASH YOU AROUND THE HEAD
> WITH?
YOU are the one asserting that your 'tree' has 'every possible nested
hierarchy'; therefore, it is YOUR responsibility to back up your
claim.
'Bash me around the head with' ? Like you did with the AFGP
repeats ? That Drosophila sequence in the sea urchin cDNA ? That
firefly sequence from a mouse cDNA library ? Those sequence
similiarities you found while rummaging around in the EST database ?
Or that 'discussion' you had with John Harshman - you asked for the
complete nucleotide sequences of the ND4 and ND5 genes for all
primates. And when your newsreader couldn't translate it, accused him
of concealing the data. And of 'complexifying the data'.
> > You don't even understand your own model - now THAT'S some weapon's
> > grade 'tard !!
>
> YOU are the RETARD who doesn't understand the model.
Screamed spintwitty at the face in the mirror - who only nodded in
complete agreement.
> YOU COULDN'T EVEN UNDERSTAND THAT THE PRINTER HAD NO KEYCARD IN THE
> OTHER THREAD.
You seem to be hallucinating - what thread are you talking about ?
The one about evolution of IC systems ? I HAVEN'T POSTED ON THAT
THREAD.
And now, a description of spintwitty's 'tree of Every Conceivable
Sequence' :
spintronic
> On Jul 4, 7:28 am, spintronic <spintro...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > What are you gibbering about?
>
> The details of YOUR model, simpleton. Your 'tree of every conceivable
> sequence' is supposedly every nucleotide sequence
So? We knew that at the start of the thread.
Oh wait, I get it, your just catching up.
Quick of the block aren't you?
Good job there weren't any "keys" in my post, eh?
That would have really confused you.
> so I gave you an example of a nucleotide sequence,
No, you didn't. You said this!
> > >if human and chimp genes have a 'G' at base 12, while every other critter
> > > has an 'A', then the tree drawn will have humans and chimps diverging
> > > first.
Which makes no sense, at all.
> it generates phylogenetic trees based on irrelevant data.
So? Who cares?
The tree is a "NESTED HIERARCHY" because of the *sequence data*,
*NOT* because it fits any "phylogeny" you have in *YOUR* mind.
> > You have no Idea what you are talking about.
>
> Whined spintwitty at the face in the mirror.
Well, that convinced me.
In fact: That's the best argument youv'e come up with to date in this
thread.
& is just as *USELESS* as all your other *non-argument distractions*.
> > When will your TINY little putrid mind get around the fact that this
> > tree is NOT the phyleogenetic tree of life. I said your tree is found
> > in mine.
>
> Soooo - a PHYLOGENETIC TREE is found in something that is NOT a
> phylogenetic tree ?!
Wow, he's actually learning.
But I didn't here a "ting sound", so I guess no penny has dropped.
> Examination of REALITY would show that your tree could NOT find the
> actual phylogenetic tree of life,
That's right. It's a non-living 2D tree. It can't find squat.
Now people on the other hand, can find your tree in mine.
I have asked you many times to show a small phylogeny of sequences,
and I will show it is found in my tree.
Unfortunately for you, you seem scared of doing so. (You & I know
why).
> since yours depends solely on which nucleotide # was changed first.
No.
> What 'tree' yours produces is based SOLEY on which nucleotide numbers
> were changed first
No.
> can be completely different for different genes. Or even different EXONS of
> the SAME gene.
You have no Idea what you are talking about.
1) The frame of any sequence can be shifted so as to find a common
start letter. And the tree can be formed from this.
2) Most start codons are universal as is the Shine Dalgarno sequence.
3) The telomere sequence is almost universal, the tree could be
started from here.
4) you have 0 excuse & 0 argument.
> One problem with your 'tree' of every conceivable sequence is the
> inability to determine WHICH of the many trees is the actual one
Stop gibbering.
There are *NOT* many trees.
There is 1 infinite tree.
I have said that *ANY* tree that you provide can be shown to exist
*WITHIN* mine.
We are arguing 2 issues
1) I am arguing that my tree is a "nested hierarchy" *BECAUSE* the
'sets of letters/data' are nested in the branches.
2) I am arguing your tree is found in mine. To invalidate mine, you
invalidate yours.
Since you seem to be concentrating your efforts on 2, I assume you
have 'exausted' all avenues of argument against 1, and my tree is
valid.
Since you *won't* put up a small example to prove your point, I can
assume that you don't really believe 2 is wrong either, and are just
gibbering.
> Translation :
I have yet to find any valid arhument folling your use of this word.
> > Put up a tree and lets test your gibbering gibberish.
>
> You first - it IS your model, so it is up to YOU to demonstrate that
> it actually does what you ASSERT it does.
Sure no prob. It's in my next post.
> Another fact : since you CLAIMED that 'every possible nested hierarchy
> is contained in your tree', that means that there MUST be fish
> sequences that are more similar to human sequences than anything else
> (otherwise your CLAIM is wrong).
Yes, for *some* portions of any genome there may be sequences that do
not fit your tree.
&
No, if your tree is valid, & it's found in mine, the portions examined
are the same.
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank
\blah blah blah (yawn)
Forged any emails lately, Spinny?