Something that you inherited from your ancestors

[RonO]

http://advances.sciencemag.org/content/4/5/eaar6478.full

We have the remnants of genes inherited from our arthropod eating
ancestors. Eutherian mammals have a common ancestor that had 5 of the
genes that could digest chitin (arthropod exoskeletons). That ancestor
was likely an insectavore that was running around the feet of the dinos.
So all plancental mammals excluding montremes (egg laying mammals) and
marsupials had the same common ancestor that had these 5 genes.

Our primate ancestors were still insectavores as the primate lineage
evolved, but we started changing our diet so that by the time of the
common ancestor we share with monkeys evolved we were mostly fruitivores
and vegans, but humans evolved into the omnivores that we are today and
a lot of humans eat arthropods (crabs, shrimp, insects). So it is a
good thing that we still retain some of the old chitinase genes that we
inherited from that common ancestor of all eutherian mammals.

The fact is that we have lost some of these genes, but we still retain
their remains in our genomes even though the genes are defective. The
paper linked to above can trace our evolution by the genes that we have
lost over time, but we still have defective copies.

Since agriculture was invented humans have been selected to increase our
amylase genes (digest starch) by gene duplication and the humans that
have relied on agriculture for the last few thousand years have more
amylase genes than those humans like the San that did not take up
agriculture.

This just means that as our diets changed the number of genes that we
needed to digest our food changed. We may be increasing the amylase
genes, but most of us aren't selecting for increasing the chitinase
genes any longer.

Ron Okimoto

[drlmc...@gmail.com]

tell me why the major morphological came from junk DNA and what the direct lineal ancestor to cro magnon is?

[RonO]

You will have to repeat that in some type of coherent fashion. You
might want to try to make one point at a time if you have a point.

Ron Okimoto

[StanFast]

It is coherent despite the fact this tablet device substituted morphological for morphologies. Try again and this time address the questions instead of wrongfully sidestepping them

[solar penguin]

On Wednesday, 23 May 2018 02:40:02 UTC+1, Ron O wrote:

> So it is a > good thing that we still retain some of the old
> chitinase genes that we inherited from that common ancestor of
> all eutherian mammals.
>

Not _that_ good if it's to blame for me chewing my fingernails!

[erik simpson]

I'm not sure chitinase would work on fingernails, you might need keratinase for
that. If we inherited our chitinase genes from long-gone insectivores, where
would we find ancestors who subsisted on fingernail clippings?

[erik simpson]

The coherence of your question is only marginally improved by including
"morphologies". Which "major morphologies" are you asking about, and what do
YOU mean by "junk DNA"?

[solar penguin]

Well, if you insist on ruining a good joke with Gradgrindish facts...

[*Hemidactylus*]

Thanks Ron. I will add this to the existence of remnant yolking genes in
humans to the “What was God thinking?” list.

[jillery]

Would you prefer chewing your fingers?

--
I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.

Evelyn Beatrice Hall
Attributed to Voltaire

[StanFast]

i wasn't asking, I was telling, and it certainly wasn't you.
For someone who claims to be informed and know the lingo it was completely and totally coherent.

and what do
> YOU mean by "junk DNA"?

go to school.

[jillery]

So are you not interested in any answers to your questions, still
preserved in the quoted text above?

>and what do
>> YOU mean by "junk DNA"?
>
>go to school.

Is there a "The World According to Stanfast" school you know about?

[StanFast]

I certainly would be, but Ron o does not have them.

[jillery]

On Sat, 26 May 2018 05:31:44 -0700 (PDT), StanFast

Whether he does or not, why do you seek answers only from Ron O?

>> >and what do
>> >> YOU mean by "junk DNA"?
>> >
>> >go to school.
>>
>>
>> Is there a "The World According to Stanfast" school you know about?

Apparently "The World According to Stanfast" school didn't have the
answers you seek. Perhaps you could broaden your horizons?

[Ron O]

I am not side stepping the issues. You have to tell me what you are trying to say. Really, what is your point? Does it relate to the thread topic? You do understand that the thread topic is about genes that you once had, but that have been lost during the evolution of our lineage, but remnants of these genes still exist in our genome, right?

My responses will be spotty since I am away from home, and do not have access to eternal september

Ron Okimoto

[Bob Casanova]

On Fri, 25 May 2018 14:01:04 -0700 (PDT), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by StanFast
<drlmc...@gmail.com>:

Actually, you were *asserting*, and questioning based on the
assertion. And then asking for an unknown *direct* ancestor.
Homo erectus was in the direct line, for both Homo sapiens
sapiens and Homo sapiens neanderthalensis (unless the
designations have changed yet again), but IIRC there are
"archaic Homo sapiens" in there somewhere.

>, and it certainly wasn't you.
>For someone who claims to be informed and know the lingo it was completely and totally coherent.
>
>and what do
>> YOU mean by "junk DNA"?
>
>go to school.

What school teaches your personal opinions? That *is* what
was requested, y'know; the capitalized "YOU" should have
given it away.
--

Bob C.

"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"

- Isaac Asimov

[StanFast]

The immediate linea l ancestor, jackass

[jillery]

On Sat, 26 May 2018 15:53:55 -0700 (PDT), StanFast
<drlmc...@gmail.com> wrote:


>The immediate lineal ancestor, jackass


I'm certain most humans don't have jackasses as ancestors, but you
might be an exception.

[StanFast]

On Saturday, May 26, 2018 at 11:05:02 PM UTC-6, jillery wrote:
> On Sat, 26 May 2018 15:53:55 -0700 (PDT), StanFast
> <drlmc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> >The immediate lineal ancestor, jackass
>
>
> I'm certain most humans don't have jackasses as ancestors

You can say that convincingly, expert?

[jillery]

On Sun, 27 May 2018 05:22:04 -0500, "Dexter" <n...@home.org> wrote:

>______________________________________________
>
>Certainly a good deal more knowledgeable than you.


He seems to think his ancestors were jackasses. Apparently he has
family issues.

[StanFast]

On Sunday, May 27, 2018 at 5:45:03 AM UTC-6, jillery wrote:
> On Sun, 27 May 2018 05:22:04 -0500, "Dexter" <n...@home.org> wrote:
>
> >StanFast wrote:
> >
> >> On Saturday, May 26, 2018 at 11:05:02 PM UTC-6, jillery
> >> wrote:
> >> > On Sat, 26 May 2018 15:53:55 -0700 (PDT), StanFast
> >> > <drlmc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > > The immediate lineal ancestor, jackass
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > I'm certain most humans don't have jackasses as
> >> > ancestors
> >>
> >> You can say that convincingly, expert?
> >______________________________________________
> >
> >Certainly a good deal more knowledgeable than you.
>
>
> He seems to think his ancestors were jackasses.

So jillery thinks cro magnon were donkeys. Gotcha.

[Wolffan]

On 27 May 2018, jillery wrote
(in article<hc6lgdp9rs9c26pbp...@4ax.com>):

> On Sun, 27 May 2018 05:22:04 -0500, "Dexter"<n...@home.org> wrote:
>
> > StanFast wrote:
> >
> > > On Saturday, May 26, 2018 at 11:05:02 PM UTC-6, jillery
> > > wrote:
> > > > On Sat, 26 May 2018 15:53:55 -0700 (PDT), StanFast
> > > > <drlmc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > The immediate lineal ancestor, jackass
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > I'm certain most humans don't have jackasses as
> > > > ancestors
> > >
> > > You can say that convincingly, expert?
> > ______________________________________________
> >
> > Certainly a good deal more knowledgeable than you.
>
> He seems to think his ancestors were jackasses.

only half of them. the others were jennies.

> Apparently he has
> family issues.

he’s an expert on being a jackass.

[Wolffan]

On 27 May 2018, StanFast wrote
(in article<44fe07b6-4278-4692...@googlegroups.com>):

that’s not what she said. and she may be wrong about your ancestors being
Equus africanus asinus, equines as a group are far too smart to be related to
you. You strike me as being more of a Gallus gallus domesticus, or perhaps a
Columba livia domestica.

[Wolffan]

On 27 May 2018, Dexter wrote
(in article<VdCdnSqInPaoLpfG...@giganews.com>):

> ______________________________________________
>
> Jeezus, you're not even good at *this*. What's the matter?
> Having playground flashbacks?

his mamma dropped him on his head back when he was a wee chick.

[StanFast]

On Sunday, May 27, 2018 at 7:45:02 AM UTC-6, Wolffan wrote:
> On 27 May 2018, StanFast wrote
> (in article<44fe07b6-4278-4692...@googlegroups.com>):
>
> > On Sunday, May 27, 2018 at 5:45:03 AM UTC-6, jillery wrote:
> > > On Sun, 27 May 2018 05:22:04 -0500, "Dexter" <n...@home.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > > StanFast wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > On Saturday, May 26, 2018 at 11:05:02 PM UTC-6, jillery
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > On Sat, 26 May 2018 15:53:55 -0700 (PDT), StanFast
> > > > > > <drlmc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > The immediate lineal ancestor, jackass
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I'm certain most humans don't have jackasses as
> > > > > > ancestors
> > > > >
> > > > > You can say that convincingly, expert?
> > > > ______________________________________________
> > > >
> > > > Certainly a good deal more knowledgeable than you.
> > >
> > >
> > > He seems to think his ancestors were jackasses.
> >
> > So jillery thinks cro magnon were donkeys. Gotcha.
>
> that’s not what she said.

In context of what was being discussed it certainly is.

[Wolffan]

On 27 May 2018, StanFast wrote

(in article<f77167d4-d43d-47a9...@googlegroups.com>):

You’re a C. l. domestica, alright.

[StanFast]

On Sunday, May 27, 2018 at 8:45:02 AM UTC-6, Wolffan wrote:
> On 27 May 2018, StanFast wrote
> (in article<f77167d4-d43d-47a9...@googlegroups.com>):
>
> > On Sunday, May 27, 2018 at 7:45:02 AM UTC-6, Wolffan wrote:
> > > On 27 May 2018, StanFast wrote
> > > (in article<44fe07b6-4278-4692...@googlegroups.com>):
> > >
> > > > On Sunday, May 27, 2018 at 5:45:03 AM UTC-6, jillery wrote:
> > > > > On Sun, 27 May 2018 05:22:04 -0500, "Dexter" <n...@home.org> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > StanFast wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Saturday, May 26, 2018 at 11:05:02 PM UTC-6, jillery
> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > On Sat, 26 May 2018 15:53:55 -0700 (PDT), StanFast
> > > > > > > > <drlmc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > The immediate lineal ancestor, jackass
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I'm certain most humans don't have jackasses as
> > > > > > > > ancestors
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > You can say that convincingly, expert?
> > > > > > ______________________________________________
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Certainly a good deal more knowledgeable than you.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > He seems to think his ancestors were jackasses.
> > > >
> > > > So jillery thinks cro magnon were donkeys. Gotcha.
> > >
> > > that’s not what she said.
> >
> > In context of what was being discussed it certainly is.
>

> alright.

So you are a toadie

[Reentrant]

On 23/05/2018 02:36, RonO wrote:

>
> Since agriculture was invented humans have been selected to increase our
> amylase genes (digest starch) by gene duplication and the humans that
> have relied on agriculture for the last few thousand years have more
> amylase genes than those humans like the San that did not take up
> agriculture.

Not just humans. The Wikipedia entry for "Saluki" (we have one) says:

"In 2014, a DNA study compared dogs and wolves for AMY2B (alpha amylase
2B), which is a gene and enzyme that assists with the first step in the
digestion of dietary starch and glycogen. An expansion of this gene in
dogs would enable early dogs to exploit a starch-rich diet as they fed
on refuse from agriculture. Data indicated that the wolves and dingo had
just two copies of the gene and the Siberian husky that is associated
with hunter-gatherers had just 3–4 copies, whereas the Saluki, which was
historically bred in the Fertile Crescent where agriculture originated,
has 29 copies"



--
Reentrant

[Wolffan]

On 27 May 2018, StanFast wrote

(in article<21af027a-c8a3-4949...@googlegroups.com>):

your elevator doesn’t go all the way to the top.

[StanFast]

yours goes all the way down

[Wolffan]

On 27 May 2018, StanFast wrote

(in article<799ad10d-91c7-4e77...@googlegroups.com>):

now that was funny. stupid and nonsensical, but funny. I guess that there’s
hope even for the C. l. dom’s of the world...

[Bob Casanova]

On Sat, 26 May 2018 15:53:55 -0700 (PDT), the following

What part of "unknown" is giving you trouble, Sparky? Is
that a problem for you, indicating that you have no idea how
science works?

>for both Homo sapiens
>> sapiens and Homo sapiens neanderthalensis (unless the
>> designations have changed yet again), but IIRC there are
>> "archaic Homo sapiens" in there somewhere.
>>
>> >, and it certainly wasn't you.
>> >For someone who claims to be informed and know the lingo it was completely and totally coherent.
>> >
>> >and what do
>> >> YOU mean by "junk DNA"?
>> >
>> >go to school.
>>
>> What school teaches your personal opinions? That *is* what
>> was requested, y'know; the capitalized "YOU" should have
>> given it away.

I guess not; if you missed "unknown" it's a sure bet you
missed "YOU" for the same reason.

[Bob Casanova]

On Sun, 27 May 2018 08:31:33 -0500, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by "Dexter" <n...@home.org>:

>______________________________________________
>
>Jeezus, you're not even good at *this*. What's the matter?
>Having playground flashbacks?

Give him a break; for someone who understands neither "YOU"
nor "unknown" (both elsethread) he does as well as he can.

[Bob Casanova]

On Sun, 27 May 2018 08:07:55 -0700 (PDT), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by StanFast
<drlmc...@gmail.com>:

Been "studying" under TIBAMJTEM?

[erik simpson]

He has a similar sound, but on the other hand, it's not a hard sound to make.

[StanFast]

What are you talking about?

[StanFast]

If you admit it is unknown ...

Next, I am on a mobile device and type quickly without looking, it substituted words at times. If I was on a desktop the you would have been typed, I certainly was thinking it

[erik simpson]

Maybe you should look, so you'd know what you say.

[Wolffan]

On 27 May 2018, StanFast wrote

(in article<d8908d78-e8d5-4d8b...@googlegroups.com>):

step back up the thread. You snipped it. And, yeah, you just proved that your

[jillery]

On Sun, 27 May 2018 06:51:46 -0700 (PDT), StanFast

<drlmc...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Sunday, May 27, 2018 at 7:45:02 AM UTC-6, Wolffan wrote:
>> On 27 May 2018, StanFast wrote
>> (in article<44fe07b6-4278-4692...@googlegroups.com>):
>>
>> > On Sunday, May 27, 2018 at 5:45:03 AM UTC-6, jillery wrote:
>> > > On Sun, 27 May 2018 05:22:04 -0500, "Dexter" <n...@home.org> wrote:
>> > >
>> > > > StanFast wrote:
>> > > >
>> > > > > On Saturday, May 26, 2018 at 11:05:02 PM UTC-6, jillery
>> > > > > wrote:
>> > > > > > On Sat, 26 May 2018 15:53:55 -0700 (PDT), StanFast
>> > > > > > <drlmc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > > The immediate lineal ancestor, jackass
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > I'm certain most humans don't have jackasses as
>> > > > > > ancestors
>> > > > >
>> > > > > You can say that convincingly, expert?
>> > > > ______________________________________________
>> > > >
>> > > > Certainly a good deal more knowledgeable than you.
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > He seems to think his ancestors were jackasses.
>> >
>> > So jillery thinks cro magnon were donkeys. Gotcha.
>>
>> that’s not what she said.
>
>In context of what was being discussed it certainly is.

Actually, your previous comment, still preserved in the quoted text
above, makes a grammatical claim of donkey descent. Your last
sentence immediately above affirms a metaphorical link to
jackassiness.

HTH but I really, really doubt it.

[StanFast]

On Sunday, May 27, 2018 at 10:05:03 PM UTC-6, jillery wrote:
> On Sun, 27 May 2018 06:51:46 -0700 (PDT), StanFast
> <drlmc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >On Sunday, May 27, 2018 at 7:45:02 AM UTC-6, Wolffan wrote:
> >> On 27 May 2018, StanFast wrote
> >> (in article<44fe07b6-4278-4692...@googlegroups.com>):
> >>
> >> > On Sunday, May 27, 2018 at 5:45:03 AM UTC-6, jillery wrote:
> >> > > On Sun, 27 May 2018 05:22:04 -0500, "Dexter" <n...@home.org> wrote:
> >> > >
> >> > > > StanFast wrote:
> >> > > >
> >> > > > > On Saturday, May 26, 2018 at 11:05:02 PM UTC-6, jillery
> >> > > > > wrote:
> >> > > > > > On Sat, 26 May 2018 15:53:55 -0700 (PDT), StanFast
> >> > > > > > <drlmc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > > The immediate lineal ancestor, jackass
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > I'm certain most humans don't have jackasses as
> >> > > > > > ancestors
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > You can say that convincingly, expert?
> >> > > > ______________________________________________
> >> > > >
> >> > > > Certainly a good deal more knowledgeable than you.
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > > He seems to think his ancestors were jackasses.
> >> >
> >> > So jillery thinks cro magnon were donkeys. Gotcha.
> >>
> >> that’s not what she said.
> >
> >In context of what was being discussed it certainly is.
>
>
> Actually

You need to read all my posts in the thread for the proper context

[jillery]

On Sun, 27 May 2018 21:10:44 -0700 (PDT), StanFast

Since you claim context is important, let's start with the context you
conveniently deleted:

************************

Actually, your previous comment, still preserved in the quoted text
above, makes a grammatical claim of donkey descent. Your last
sentence immediately above affirms a metaphorical link to
jackassiness.

HTH but I really, really doubt it.

*************************

Thanks for proving me right. My impression is you're going to do that
a lot.

[StanFast]

That you haven't learned context appropriately yet?

[StanFast]

https://groups.google.com/forum/?nomobile=true#!original/talk.origins/wINgljsxpoM/yKGh3YVHAAAJ

In this first post by me in the thread
Anyone who knows and understand context, knowing how to properly pay stub to the newsgroup and read Usenet properly without being a brainless troll, is that the immediate linea l ancestor revered to was cr o magnon. If someone uses a comma after mentioning said linea l ancestor, it was most likely an insult directed at the trolling sidesteppers, and does not change the lifeforms that linea l ancestor it refers to by mentioning linea l ancestor.

[StanFast]

stub should be attn. Revered should be refered.

[jillery]

On Mon, 28 May 2018 06:33:34 -0700 (PDT), StanFast

Anyone who knows and understands context would also know that the
question in your cited post had almost nothing to do with anything
RonO posted or with the article he posted about. That, and your
incoherence in general, shows you have little interest in context,
your hubris notwithstanding.

You don't have to work so hard to act like an idiot. By your second
post you convinced me it was no act.

[Bob Casanova]

On Sun, 27 May 2018 09:58:55 -0700 (PDT), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by erik simpson
<eastsi...@gmail.com>:

>He has a similar sound, but on the other hand, it's not a hard sound to make.

Point...

[Bob Casanova]

On Sun, 27 May 2018 10:03:02 -0700 (PDT), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by StanFast
<drlmc...@gmail.com>:

>If you admit it is unknown ...

If I "admit" it's unknown (it's a statement of fact, not an
"admission")...what? Therefore God? Therefore advanced
aliens? Therefore magic? Be specific.

>Next, I am on a mobile device and type quickly without looking, it substituted words at times.

That would seem to be a problem for you. Any desire to fix
that problem of inattention to your own actions?

> If I was on a desktop the you would have been typed, I certainly was thinking it

It wasn't *your* "YOU"; it was Eric's, in the question *to*
you...

"and what do YOU mean by 'junk DNA'?"

....a question still unanswered.

*Do* try to at least pretend to keep up.

[Bob Casanova]

On Mon, 28 May 2018 06:33:34 -0700 (PDT), the following

appeared in talk.origins, posted by StanFast
<drlmc...@gmail.com>:

....says the "brainless troll".

"In this first post by me in the thread" is a dangling
prepositional phrase.

"linea l" should be "lineal". Twice. (And you subsequently
changed it to "direct".)

"cr o magnon" should be "Cro Magnon".

"refered" should be "referred".

Seems perhaps someone else should be acting as "context and
content instructor" here...

[StanFast]

Your theory seems to invent lots of phantoms.
Why don't you rather look solely at the available evidence and use you brain.

[Ron O]

Compared to wolves, domestic dogs have amplified their amylase genes that would allow them to better adapt to the human agricultural diet.

There was a recent paper that found that fossil bones of domestic dogs indicated that they were fed on a diet of maize and likely used as a protein source (the central Americans ate them). This changed when the Americans domesticated the turkey and it became a ready protein source that replaced small dogs.

Ron Okimoto

[Bob Casanova]

On Mon, 28 May 2018 11:47:31 -0700 (PDT), the following

Nice unmarked snippage. As a self-proclaimed Usenet
"expert", don't you know that to be poor netiquette?

That said, I have looked at the available evidence, just as
I've looked at the claims of those who reject evidence which
contradicts their personal beliefs, while presenting no
evidence of their own. And after "using my brain", guess
which one came out ahead?

But just for kicks, let's restore the snippage:

[Begin]

If I "admit" it's unknown (it's a statement of fact, not an
"admission")...what? Therefore God? Therefore advanced
aliens? Therefore magic? Be specific.

>Next, I am on a mobile device and type quickly without looking, it substituted words at times.

That would seem to be a problem for you. Any desire to fix
that problem of inattention to your own actions?

> If I was on a desktop the you would have been typed, I certainly was thinking it

It wasn't *your* "YOU"; it was Eric's, in the question *to*
you...

"and what do YOU mean by 'junk DNA'?"

.....a question still unanswered.

*Do* try to at least pretend to keep up.

[End]

Still awaiting an answer to that question...

[StanFast]

if you don't know what junk DNA is, I suggest you go to school.

[Bob Casanova]

On Tue, 29 May 2018 17:48:25 -0700 (PDT), the following

>if you don't know what junk DNA is, I suggest you go to school.

I know what it is. The question was "what do YOU mean by
'junk DNA'?", not "what is junk DNA?".

See the "YOU" part? What do you imagine that might mean?

And the question is *still* unanswered; one would almost
think you haven't a clue and are just parroting what you
read somewhere (Creationist website?) with little or no
understanding of the meaning.

But keep evading; it just makes you look almost as stupid
and dishonest as The Good DrDr.
--

[StanFast]

the regular usual normal common definition that just about everyone knows what you are referring to, apparently except you

[jillery]

On Wed, 30 May 2018 09:10:36 -0700 (PDT), StanFast

Your imagined appearances notwithstanding, "junk DNA" has multiple
meanings from multiple groups.

So the question is: To which meaning do *you* subscribe? Why are you
afraid to answer such a straightforward and simple question?

>> And the question is *still* unanswered; one would almost
>> think you haven't a clue and are just parroting what you
>> read somewhere (Creationist website?) with little or no
>> understanding of the meaning.
>>
>> But keep evading; it just makes you look almost as stupid
>> and dishonest as The Good DrDr.
>> --
>>
>> Bob C.
>>
>> "The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
>> the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
>> 'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"
>>
>> - Isaac Asimov

[Bob Casanova]

On Wed, 30 May 2018 09:10:36 -0700 (PDT), the following

[Crickets...]

>> >> >Next, I am on a mobile device and type quickly without looking, it substituted words at times.
>> >>
>> >> That would seem to be a problem for you. Any desire to fix
>> >> that problem of inattention to your own actions?

[Crickets...]

>> >> > If I was on a desktop the you would have been typed, I certainly was thinking it
>> >>
>> >> It wasn't *your* "YOU"; it was Eric's, in the question *to*
>> >> you...
>> >>
>> >> "and what do YOU mean by 'junk DNA'?"
>> >>
>> >> .....a question still unanswered.
>> >>
>> >> *Do* try to at least pretend to keep up.
>> >>
>> >> [End]
>> >>
>> >> Still awaiting an answer to that question...
>>
>> >if you don't know what junk DNA is, I suggest you go to school.
>>
>> I know what it is. The question was "what do YOU mean by
>> 'junk DNA'?", not "what is junk DNA?".
>>
>> See the "YOU" part? What do you imagine that might mean?
>
>the regular usual normal common definition that just about everyone knows what you are referring to, apparently except you

As noted, I know what it means. But your repeated refusal to
state what *YOU* think it means, in light of your initial
comment about it...

"tell me why the major morphological came from junk DNA"

....is rather revealing.

>> And the question is *still* unanswered; one would almost
>> think you haven't a clue and are just parroting what you
>> read somewhere (Creationist website?) with little or no
>> understanding of the meaning.
>>
>> But keep evading; it just makes you look almost as stupid
>> and dishonest as The Good DrDr.

And keep evading the questions I asked above, those evasions
add to the image.

[StanFast]

Yet in this thread, you haven't demonstrated knowing what it means at all.
You could go look it up and make sure you know what it means, that way you can type what it means or even copy and paste what it means in here to prove you actually know.

[jillery]

On Thu, 31 May 2018 09:38:14 -0700 (PDT), StanFast
<drlmc...@gmail.com> wrote:

>Yet in this thread, you haven't demonstrated knowing what it means at all.
>You could go look it up and make sure you know what it means, that way you can type what it means or even copy and paste what it means in here to prove you actually know.

Of course, from context, which according to you is everything posted
to T.O., the relevant issue is whether *you* know what it means. So
based on context, the only one who needs to show they know what it
means is *you*.

Like I said, you don't need to work so hard to act stupid.

[StanFast]

yet another poster who has yet to demonstrate they know what it means either.

[jillery]

On Thu, 31 May 2018 13:38:45 -0700 (PDT), StanFast
<drlmc...@gmail.com> wrote:

>yet another poster who has yet to demonstrate they know what it means either.

As I said, no need to work so hard, you already proved you don't know
what it means either.

[Bob Casanova]

On Thu, 31 May 2018 09:38:14 -0700 (PDT), the following

Not up to me to do so. *You* brought it up; *you* say what
it means to *you*.

>You could go look it up and make sure you know what it means, that way you can type what it means or even copy and paste what it means in here to prove you actually know.

No need; the question is about *your* beliefs, not mine.

>> But your repeated refusal to
>> state what *YOU* think it means, in light of your initial
>> comment about it...

>> "tell me why the major morphological came from junk DNA"

>> ....is rather revealing.

>>>> And the question is *still* unanswered; one would almost
>>>> think you haven't a clue and are just parroting what you
>>>> read somewhere (Creationist website?) with little or no
>>>> understanding of the meaning.
>>
>>>> But keep evading; it just makes you look almost as stupid
>>>> and dishonest as The Good DrDr.

>> And keep evading the questions I asked above, those evasions
>> add to the image.

Still evading, I see...

[StanFast]

i am sure I actually answered this after being pestered about it multiple times. I could get a url to the answer I gave.

> >You could go look it up and make sure you know what it means, that way you can type what it means or even copy and paste what it means in here to prove you actually know.
>
> No need; the question is about *your* beliefs, not mine.
>
> >> But your repeated refusal to
> >> state what *YOU* think it means, in light of your initial
> >> comment about it...
>
> >> "tell me why the major morphological came from junk DNA"
>
> >> ....is rather revealing.
>
> >>>> And the question is *still* unanswered; one would almost
> >>>> think you haven't a clue and are just parroting what you
> >>>> read somewhere (Creationist website?) with little or no
> >>>> understanding of the meaning.
> >>
> >>>> But keep evading; it just makes you look almost as stupid
> >>>> and dishonest as The Good DrDr.
>
> >> And keep evading the questions I asked above, those evasions
> >> add to the image.
>
> Still evading, I see...
> --
>
> Bob C.
>
> "The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
> the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
> 'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"
>
> - Isaac Asimov

i haven't read whatever you are talking about.
Perhaps you can put these vitally important questions you have for me neatly into a new thread for me to look at.

[jillery]

On Fri, 1 Jun 2018 13:09:07 -0700 (PDT), StanFast
<drlmc...@gmail.com> wrote:

>i am sure I actually answered this after being pestered about it multiple times. I could get a url to the answer I gave.

That sound like a great idea. Don't be insulted that I don't wait for
you to do so.

[Bob Casanova]

On Fri, 1 Jun 2018 13:09:07 -0700 (PDT), the following

Then do so. But if your answer was either "go to school" or
"the regular common definition", you should be aware that
neither is an answer to the question "What does it mean to
*YOU*?"

>> >You could go look it up and make sure you know what it means, that way you can type what it means or even copy and paste what it means in here to prove you actually know.
>>
>> No need; the question is about *your* beliefs, not mine.
>>
>> >> But your repeated refusal to
>> >> state what *YOU* think it means, in light of your initial
>> >> comment about it...
>>
>> >> "tell me why the major morphological came from junk DNA"
>>
>> >> ....is rather revealing.
>>
>> >>>> And the question is *still* unanswered; one would almost
>> >>>> think you haven't a clue and are just parroting what you
>> >>>> read somewhere (Creationist website?) with little or no
>> >>>> understanding of the meaning.
>> >>
>> >>>> But keep evading; it just makes you look almost as stupid
>> >>>> and dishonest as The Good DrDr.
>>
>> >> And keep evading the questions I asked above, those evasions
>> >> add to the image.
>>
>> Still evading, I see...

>i haven't read whatever you are talking about.
>Perhaps you can put these vitally important questions you have for me neatly into a new thread for me to look at.

They're right up above there in this thread, as part of the
context (remember that term?), and are marked
"[Crickets...]". Learn to read.