- Mar 16, 2004
- 22,030
- 7,265
- 62
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Calvinist
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Democrat
I was just pointing out that what your doing is fallacious and all you have.
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
I was just pointing out that what your doing is fallacious and all you have.Is pointing out that creationist arguments don't evolve really a 'negative' claim? It's just stating the obvious.
I was just pointing out that what your doing is fallacious and all you have.
I can't believe you don't know anything about comparative genetics or the fossil evidence after all these years.
That's called an ad hominem fallacy, it's like a mutation in your logic.
The real question is how many times you will try to get me to chase these baseless, irrelevant arguments in circles. I don't know how many we have in common but the ERV class I is the largest most abundant ERVs in the Chimpanzee genome and we don't have any.
The only observed effects of changes in this gene in humans is disease and disorder:{snip}
That's because it's lineage specific Mark, do you even comprehend what that means?
Thanks for demonstrating my point. There was nothing in your copy and paste that mentioned the SRGAP2C allele.
Sure, no problem, I have it scripted;I'm sure that's what you want to believe.
Meanwhile, I'll be waiting for the next time you mention Piltdown man.
Now your pedantic oneliners have been reduced to a smilee. My work here is done.
Oh putting it in red letters makes it so much more dramatic, thanks for that
As usual, its down to the pedantic one liners. You are if nothing else, consistent.
I'm sure that's what you want to believe.
Meanwhile, I'll be waiting for the next time you mention Piltdown man.
Did it help you comprehend that they are lineage specific? Or are you unclear what that means?
And the inevitable sellout to whole sale ad hominem rhetoric1. Another irony free insult from Mark (shocking).
It always kind of fascinated me that no matter how wrong or weak the argument, you guys always feel superior. Correcting things not in error.2. Pedantic doesn't mean what you seem to think it means (shocking).
That's yet another one of your irrelevant points intended to run everything in circles.3. You still haven't addressed the fact that it's SRGAP2C specifically that is responsible for the increase in dendrite connections in the Homo brain (shocking).
Well now that's interesting, maybe you would like to take the subject up formally. With the demise of Piltdown there arose the Homo habilis stone age ape man myth. You don't get to decide what I bring up because it was a transitional line of reasoning. You want to take it to a formal debate present your proposal and drop me a PM. Other then that, snip at me from a more secure position.Mark and I had a formal debate over whether Creationists should even bring up Piltdown. If only I knew then what I know now (about his MO).
Forma Debate - Piltdown Man Should Not Be Cited By Creationists
The spots aren't that tiny; they're ~160,000 bp in size. Yes, we would only expect independent insertions in the same region very rarely -- if insertion probability is uniform across the genome. Since retroviruses and transposons both tend to have substantial biases in what parts of the genome they insert into
No, they're not very target-specific. If they were, we would find insertions in random species in the tree in identical locations. We don't.if so their insertions are very target- specific.
No, not even close. You're assuming the insertions would have to take place sequentially, i.e. that one has to be fixed before the next one can start. That's wrong. We could carry thousands of unfixed insertions in the population, just as we carry millions of other genetic variants in the population.another point is the unique ervs. if human have about 100 unique non functional ervs, and a fixation time for a neutral mutation is about 1 my in a small population, then it will take about 100my to get 100 unique ervs.
Mangabeys are indeed higher primates, and as far as retroviral infection goes we're all on an equal playing field.Steve seriously, I'm sure this all makes perfect sense to you on some level but higher primates are not mangabeys.
I don't know what you're talking about here. The bulk of the ERV insertions occurred long before the human/chimpanzee split.This isn't an occasional germline invasion, the Chimpanzee germline would have had to be inundated with them. We are talking about nothing less them a million base pairs since the split. They are rare at the very least and becoming permanently fixed has to be orders of magnitude more unlikely, then add to the fact they have a tendency to remain active.
No, it really isn't. As I told you before, every time you write this it's wrong. It's wrong when you quote it from the paper and it's wrong when you paraphrase it.With more than 100 members, CERV 1/PTERV1 is one of the most abundant families of endogenous retroviruses in the chimpanzee genome.
No, they're not very target-specific. If they were, we would find insertions in random species in the tree in identical locations. We don't.
Let's cut to the chase: why do insertions at identical locations follow the phylogenetic tree, while those not at identical locations don't follow the tree?
Piltdown man was suspected to be a hoax fossil the moment it was "discovered", due to it deviating so much from other hominid fossils that had already been discovered. It was later confirmed a hoax via chemical tests, but even prior to that, wasn't taken seriously. If the scientific community was fine with accepting hoax fossils, why accept Homo habilis fossils (which you are claiming are fake) and reject Piltdown man (a fake revealed as such by the scientific community)?Well now that's interesting, maybe you would like to take the subject up formally. With the demise of Piltdown there arose the Homo habilis stone age ape man myth.
There are currently 5 different fossil collections for Homo habilis (the number denotes the number of individual bodies they come from). Each was discovered by a different group of people, and they don't all have the same bones (for example, the first fossil discovered was a lower jaw and a multitude of fragments of a left hand, and one discovered later had large portions of the skull). These people couldn't have worked together, years apart, to ensure that this line of "fakes" matched up with each other.You don't get to decide what I bring up because it was a transitional line of reasoning. You want to take it to a formal debate present your proposal and drop me a PM. Other then that, snip at me from a more secure position.
Fraudulent fossils are quite common, but it's impossible to make fakes that register as the correct age and composition. Since huge discoveries, such as hominid fossils, are analyzed heavily, they always go through tests that would reveal frauds. Piltdown man may be a famous fraud, but it's not the last time a person has tried to fake a hominid fossil.I think a Piltdown like fraud will occur now or in the future. (Post #4)
-_- says the man that thinks it is so easy to fake a fossil and have it pass chemical tests. Look, I even found a guide to telling the difference between fake Moroccan trilobite fossils and real onesThere is a new fraud that was crafted to replace the Piltdown fraud. Homo habilis, and that is why Piltdown is relevant.
Mangabeys are indeed higher primates, and as far as retroviral infection goes we're all on an equal playing field.
I don't know what you're talking about here. The bulk of the ERV insertions occurred long before the human/chimpanzee split.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?